Home • Search • Translate
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 June 2 July >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11 - this is spam in its purest form! Just Chilling ( talk) 14:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Park Enclave, Islamabad

Park Enclave, Islamabad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many housing projects, created for sole purpose of advert. Delete per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete clearly an attempt to use WP as a means to advertise, this could have been speedy deleted but at least this way there will be a discussion to refeence to if it ios ever recreated. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Veeam. A couple of people have effectively said " merge and delete", which is not possible due to our content licences. The page history will be preserved and any relevant information can be merged into the Veeam article from it. The article should not be recreated from the redirect without a DRV, if this happens the redirect can be protected. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 10:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

N2WS (Veeam)

N2WS (Veeam) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially attempted to redirect this however it's since been contested. I see no evidence this is notable as a standalone article and am proposing deletion and redirection to Veeam as everything available in the sources here and what I can find are basic acquisition announcements or funding announcements Praxidicae ( talk) 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Some evidence the subject is notable and should not be redirected

Here is some info from the article that establishes this is not a run-of-the-mill acquisition. N2WS is a market disruptor which was acquired, but remains an independent company, and was declared by analysts to be a strategic acquisition for Veeam:

"The acquisition gives N2WS access to Veeam’s 55,000 resellers and 18,000 cloud service providers. According to an IDC Research Impact Analysis the Veeam N2WS acquisition is potentially strategic. IDC says the majority of new application deployments within the next two years will be in the cloud, and so the cloud-related backup will be among the fastest-growing IaaS sectors in coming years."

Establishing notability for the company itself: "N2WS has 1,000 enterprise customers. The technology is used by Coca-Cola, Southwest Airlines, Cisco, Dyson, Time Inc., Harvard University, and Oracle." The product has also won several awards.

All the information is taken from over 20 reputable sources including The Register, SDX Central, IDC, EWeek, SiliconAngle, CRN, etc.

Finally, according to WP:RDELETE, a redirect can be deleted if it "could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" - it is proposed to redirect to [Veeam] but the target article has only 1 line about N2WS. Gilad.maayan ( talk) 20:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gilad.maayan ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply

  • Redirect to Veeam - the information above are passing mentions and act as a coatrack. I do not see there being sufficient material to warrant expanding this to what could already be placed in the main article as a separate section (removing the promo, NPOV format sentences with the merge as well). – The Grid ( talk) 21:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect all the sources treat the acquisition of this single product by Veeam. Also this is almost certainly undeclared paid editing by a digital marketing agency. I shall be checking the other creations by this editor. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • But I declared on my user page before writing the article that I represent N2WS. I disclosed that I have a COI. I did not get paid to specifically write this article, we are doing a wide range of content and marketing activities for this company.
Feel free to check all my contributions to Wikipedia, you will find they are all spotless and of very high quality. You are clearly biased against me or the company I am representing and I intend to report this to higher Wikipedia authorities. Gilad.maayan ( talk) 21:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Gilad.maayan ( talk) 07:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete and eventually merge if there is anything to merge and create a redirect. If we don't delete and leave the history then you can be sure that someone will just copy from the history and replace the redirect and then the circle will start again. Dom from Paris ( talk) 20:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. All of the references are based on company announcements or are primary sources. If there is anything worthwhile in the article it can be merged to Veeam. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 19:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
IDC Published an "Impact Analysis" of this acquisition explaining the strategic importance of N2WS technology. Many other media outlets covered the acquisition in depth. How can you say "not a single reference establishes notability"? Gilad.maayan ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
How can you make that outrageous accusation!!?? Is it because I'm Irish? Could this be yet more anti-Irish attitudes forced on Wikipedia! You clearly hate everything Irish. (edit: for clarity, that last comment is my sarcastic attempt at highlighting the idiotic nature of the comment by Gilad.maayan and that clearly this type of identity-politics-led nonsense is just that). HighKing ++ 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Gilad.maayan: That is an outrageous accusation. Accusing someone of being antisemitic without any proof is the kind of personal attack that could be considered a blockable action. Please read WP:WIAPA and I would advise you to redact or strike your comments. Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

QRG Health City

QRG Health City (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable mid-size hospital, since the article doesn't credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. While searches did turn up about a dozen articles which mention the hospital, none were of the in-depth type needed to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 04:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Ben Phillips (voice actor)

Ben Phillips (voice actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No lead roles in any lead productions. Article is merely a credits dump of minor and supporting roles. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.-- Nahal (T) 11:38, 02 July 2019 (UTC) reply
These are again minor productions that go to direct-to-video / streaming status when it comes to English dubs. If the person was the Japanese voice actor then it would be notable. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't see that as a rule anywhere. Sounds like total nonsense you just made up. These aren't just random people chosen for dubs, these are professional voice actors. And whether something is made for television or internet broadcast is not relevant. Millions of people use Crunchroll to watch anime on. Dream Focus 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Crunchyroll plays English subtitled not dub anime for the titles above mentioned. The dub ones are only on some of the more popular titles, of which the titles pertaining to Ben Phillips are not. Show me again which news articles feature Ben with significant coverage, even critiques on his work in those titles would help. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Mikagura School Suite reads: "The series is licensed in North America by Funimation, who simulcast the subtitled version as it aired and began streaming a broadcast dub version from June 9, 2015.[20][21]" Funimation's website list it as "Available Languages: English and Japanese". Murder Princess is also listed as being available in both languages. Dream Focus 10:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Deferring to experts here. ( non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Pinchas HaKohen Lintup

Pinchas HaKohen Lintup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by an SPA -- created this page in May and had no edits since, except to contest the PROD. Sourcing is flimsy and based on digital, potentially self-published books and offline sources, and also see potential COI from authors cited in text and sources provided. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The man did exist, but the sourcing is very weak. I removed one non-RS blog and am tempted to remove another (The Seforim Blog). Here is a Hebrew-language source that also just mentions him in passing as a contemporary of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. There is no corresponding article about him on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Yoninah ( talk) 08:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Whether as a religious figure or as an author, the claim of notability is strong. Better sourcing is needed, though the systemic bias and lack of sourcing for individuals living in his era make finding English-language sources more challenging. Alansohn ( talk) 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Slightly obscure but illustrious 19th-century WP:AUTHOR and philosopher nonetheless whose teachings are still resonating in study halls far beyond his native Lithuania. If someone will take the time to systematically uncover the bits and pieces about this subject that are scattered about, this article will have a nice future. StonyBrook ( talk) 07:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

T. H. Subash Chandran

T. H. Subash Chandran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN music teacher, fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Unable to find any in-depth sources about this person. Only claim to fame is that he had students who became notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW: Despite a well-argued nomination,

If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process

clearly applies here. (non-admin closure) —— SerialNumber 54129 10:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Dan Burton (actor)

Dan Burton (actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The bit of independent coverage of this actor is this writeup, which is fine as far as it goes; but it seems to be the only such in existence. There's also a nomination for Best Actor in Supporting Role / Musical. Otherwise, it's passing mentions. - Overall I'd assess this as not meeting WP:NARTIST yet, although it may not be far off the mark. (NB, also written by the subject himself - not a big issue in this case as it's not overtly promotional IMO.) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: Ssilver has added a number of further references that certainly show that Burton has repeatedly been singled out for positive commentary (e.g. [1]). While not necessarily making me want to withdraw this (not that I could at this stage, with mixed !votes), it's now even further into the maybe-fine area. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The correct standard for this type of person is WP:ENT, not WP:NARTIST. It is disappointing that you didn't do a Google search before starting an AfD. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is sloppily written, but this actor has had numerous roles in major musicals in the West End and in UK national tours, and favorable coverage in both London and New York papers, including The New York Times and The Telegraph, as well as The Stage, Playbill, The Hollywood Reporter and numerous theatre-specialist websites. He is currently starring in the West End in The Mousetrap and has been cast in a starring role in the upcoming West End run of White Christmas for 2019–2020. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 08:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Konrad de la Fuente

Konrad de la Fuente (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ✉ 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that this list fails our notability guidelines. This close is without prejudice to the creation of a new redirect if thought appropriate. Just Chilling ( talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police

Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough content to merit a standalone list; the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia already mentions equipment used by the department. There isn't anything of value here that isn't already covered sufficiently on that article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Surely that's an argument for "Keep and change to disambiguation page?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Hmmm. I suppose it is, when you put it like that! The trouble is, I find it a little hard to argue strongly for what would become a marginally-useful and rather overly-specific disambiguation page. Might it be a better solution to just redirect this to Metropolitan police? Hugsyrup ( talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
That's a good point, Hugsyrup. We could rename first to Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and then redirect, but I'm indifferent at this point. postdlf ( talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that the SIGCOV requirement of GNG is not met. Just for anyone reading who is trying to learn how to get an article "kept", the lone "keep" !vote here is the wrong way to do it. Be specific. Point to specific reliable sources that meet the requirements of GNG, and why those sources suffice. Stating that "There's Google results" is a very weak argument that will be mostly ignored by AfD closers in most circumstances. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

ResourceSpace

ResourceSpace (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for non-notable software; there are unsourced claims to it being used by major companies, but thousands of non notable products of all sorts have been at one time or another used in some minor way by notable companies--they're the market for everything that's business-related--we're not a directory of enterprise software. Almost all the features are pure routine. There are unsourced claims for being "among the first" for some of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Closed as Speedy Keep as the nominator and only delete !voter have withdrawn/struck their nomination/!vote. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

John Hornor Jacobs

John Hornor Jacobs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Put simply, this author does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While his works appear to be well reviewed, from what I have seen, none of his works appear to have ever actually made it to any bestseller's list. Similarly, only one of his ten published works actually appears to have been nominated for an award, which it did not win. Posing this to AfD since there is a June 2015 tag questioning the notability of this author, so I know I am not alone. Firstclass306 ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete User:Firstclass306 should take a look at WP:AUTHOR, which does not require awards or bestseller status. That said, we do require sources. I took a swing at sourcing this, adding reviews of two of his books. It was all I cold find and it's not enough. That said, if anyone manages to source it, feel free to ping me. I am always willing to revisit when sources are found. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, i see that nominator states that books are well reviewed, and E.M.Gregory above has added some reviews in the article, now if only one of his books had enough reviews (two or more) to meet WP:NBOOK (no a book does not have to be a bestseller as well) than there would be a potential redirect target ..... wait, heres one: The Twelve-Fingered Boy. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW User:Firstclass306, man, you and I both missed a lot of sources. You might want to withdraw this,cause the snow is really piling up and there no way this one's gonna get deleted. Cheers. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I have no idea how to formally withdraw a deletion, so please consider this message to be my withdrawal. To all of you who participated in this discussion, E.M.Gregory, Coolabahapple, I apologize. I noticed there seemed to be a back and forth in the page's history on whether the subject was notable, so I did some basic research and did not really find anything, so I just assumed. I would like to apologize for wasting everyone's time. I would also like to thank all of you for baking me a delicious humble pie. I have learned a valuable lesson today, cheers. Firstclass306 ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG The article should be developed. Lightburst ( talk) 01:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Zulhaj Zubair

Zulhaj Zubair (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an actor whose only film does not released yet. Article has references but they are about "Zilhaj Zubair acting in the film" or "going to act". Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Article says he a regular program presenter at Jamuna Television. But have no significant achievement as presenter. Didn't received any significant award/honor. A promotional article. Fails WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: I also suspect WP:COI involved here. The user who created this worked for Jamuna Television. (from user's profile see his facebook post) -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 17:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Clinical Data, Inc

Clinical Data, Inc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a highly promotional article about a non-notable company. The references currently in the article are non-independent / useless. A websearch doesn't turn up any significant coverage (just some routine press-release-like news articles). The generic nature of the company name, however, makes searching for sources difficult. Peacock ( talk) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Virtually the entire article is about generic problems and solutions of the industry, rather than being about this specific company. bd2412 T 14:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Troyeville#Education. RL0919 ( talk) 04:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Laerskool Johann Rissik

Laerskool Johann Rissik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a primary school has only one reference. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES generally only affords inherent notability to secondary schools and higher. Chetsford ( talk) 15:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Dhruva College of Management

Dhruva College of Management (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of meeting WP:GNG. Article is promotional and entirely self-sourced. Recommend redirection to Education in Hyderabad. Orville talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as an accredited post-graduate institute. It certainly needs cleaning up and sourcing but it is not as irredeemable as the over-tagging would imply. Indian institutions put far less on the Internet than western schools so we should avoid systemic bias by giving time for expansion and for local sources to be found and added. Experience shows that with proper research WP:ORG can be met. Just Chilling ( talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP but some of the issues have already been addressed since nomination. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Clearly there are issues with the article, however, this is a tertiary institution of instruction which we have, through previous consensus, determined are almost always inherently notable subject only to verification it isn't a WP:HOAX. Despite how poorly referenced this article is, I feel safe in saying this isn't a hoax. Chetsford ( talk) 22:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Even if the nomination is inaccurate, editors have presented valid arguments for deletion later. The request to keep the talk page discussion as a record of a page move discussion that also applied to other pages is reasonable so I'll leave it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Gary

List of tallest buildings in Gary (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:LISTN as almost all of these buildings are not notable and none of them are notable for height. Also, relies on a single source which is WP:UGC and therefore not reliable. Rusf10 ( talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. LISTN is about whether the group or set has been the subject or coverage, not whether any or all of the individual members of that group or set are notable. So you have not yet presented a valid deletion argument. postdlf ( talk) 15:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Show me a reliable source that covers the building as a group.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Did you intend to present a claim on that issue? postdlf ( talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I just did.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Look, if you want to nominate something for deletion, it's up to you to plainly state what your argument is, and to make sure your argument is actually valid. Your nomination claimed a guideline was not satisfied "because" of observations that had nothing to do with that guideline, which is what my comment pointed out to you. You're welcome. Now try harder. postdlf ( talk) 21:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup ( talk) 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Nova Twins

Nova Twins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. The article does not have multiple secondary sources and has no demonstration of notability. AmericanAir88( talk) 14:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 19:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Crywank

Crywank (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find significant discussion of this band in multiple reliable sources. Google search brings up fewer than 100 results, mainly entries in social media, music streaming sites, and event announcements. Some blog posts. There is one article in VICE, a short notice about their new video, but I don't think that's sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. ... discospinster talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Minimal, mixed feedback after two relists. RL0919 ( talk) 17:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Joseph DeFelice

Joseph DeFelice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL as a regional deputy secretary of HUD. His other coverage, all but one source is local news, comes from his time as Chair of the Philadelphia GOP, a NN political position. GPL93 ( talk) 19:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Minimal, mixed feedback after two relists. RL0919 ( talk) 17:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

PrisXtra

PrisXtra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small retail chain, 5 stores, no indication of significant impact or coverage, all I see with GTranslate to help are few mentions in passing and rewritten press releases about business as usual. Fails WP:NORG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 17:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Pierre Cassignard

Pierre Cassignard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP PROD removed on the basis of the four sources now in place. However, most of these amount to very basic, passing references that do little but confirm that this individual appeared in some works. My further WP:BEFORE has uncovered a few other sources (including a Figaro one that I suspect others will find) but these are simply announcements of theatre and films in the culture section - they don't cover Cassignard in any depth as an individual. Net result is that there isn't the substantial, independent coverage by reliable sources required for WP:GNG.

Whether he meets WP:NACTOR probably comes down to your interpretation of 'significant roles', 'multiple' and 'notable' but I'd argue that his work does not meet this criteria and that, in any case, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" given the lack of coverage. Hugsyrup ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I removed the BLP PROD, as it simply required reliable sources. Yes, I do believe that he meets WP:NACTOR, on the basis of having had significant roles in multiple notable productions, and having won a Moliere award once and been nominated twice. I am sure there are more sources - I can see snippets of some in Google Books, though not enough of them to cite title of the article, volume, etc, and I do not currently have access to digitised French language newspaper sources for the 1980s - ca 2010. But an actor who has won a significant award and had a career of over 30 years will definitely have coverage, so should not be deleted just because finding it takes effort. As an alternative to deletion, it would have been useful to request help searching for French language sources instead of PRODding and then bringing it to AfD. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lots of passing mentions and non-independent items, but not enough independent, significant coverage to meet WP:BIO standards. RL0919 ( talk) 17:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Loubna Bouarfa

Loubna Bouarfa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete
Source 1 is a Forbes profile listing nothing more than a funding announcement for Bouarfa's company, her degree of education, and how her company can be useful. Not in-depth, nor is there any analysis.
Source 2 is a list of alumni at her university, not really a source at all.
Source 3 links to her research in University, which is not notable press coverage
Source 4 is a scientific paper she co-authored, again no notable press coverage
Source 5 is her own company's website
Source 6 is simply regurgitating Bouarfa's own quotes, there is no significant input on the part of the author
Source 7 is the same Forbes profile listing again
Source 8 is a passing mention about Bouarfa's decision to not have her company in London
Source 9 only lists Bouarfa as one of many members of an AI 'group'
Source 10 doesn't even immediately lead to a page with any reference to Bouarfa, though a bit of digging shows this page is simply an awards list page with no serious mention of any one candidate
Source 11 just leads to the same initial Forbes profile, which is again nothing notable in terms of coverage
No source confers notable, independent coverage. Sliu.3110 ( talk) 13:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article now contains references to multiple awards that could support relevance (being among Top 50 Women in Technology worldwide may qualify):
    • MIT Technology as an Innovator under 35.
    • Forbes Top 50 Women in Technology.
  • So these may indicate noteability. -- hroest 01:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Response In the basic criteria of WP:BIO, it is stated that "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources... independent of the subject." Taking a look at the new sources added (I will look at the ones accessed in July 2019):
new electronics is a very long article, but there is no original analysis by the news source/author. Much of the content is quotes from Bouarfa herself.
contract pharma has a whole article written mostly about AI, and a little bit about Bouarfa's company okra. The extent of coverage of Bouarfa is a profile at the bottom of the page, which merely lists a few accomplishments and provides no insight about Bouarfa.
medical advice network is again sourced directly from Bouarfa, with practically no independent insight/analysis
sifted is also very uninformative about Bouarfa herself and covers much of the same content as we have seen before, which is very basic and essentially "regurgitates" information about her funding, her company, and some awards
business weekly article doesn't speak much about Bouarfa either, and mentions her company more
startup europe awards is written by the team/company itself, so it doesn't qualify for any notability. It can still be used for supporting information, however.
In summation, the sources provided either don't cover her significantly (eg top 50 awards, etc.), are not sufficiently independent (with most of the content being direct quotes of her), or focus on other topics such as her company Okra, with Bouarfa being only mentioned in passing. To address the point of awards, firstly the MIT innovators award is published by MIT Technology Review magazine, which is independent of the university, so it is wholly dishonest to link to MIT alongside the awards page. The award itself could be significant, but is clearly not enough on its own to establish notability. The Forbes awards only very briefly discuss the winners, and it appears to be user submitted content as well. Sliu.3110 ( talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems to be clear consensus that sufficient sources have been found to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup ( talk) 14:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

James Gayle (American football)

James Gayle (American football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as he has neither competed in a professional game nor garnered national, well-known collegiate awards. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Did a thorough search and while there's some coverage, all of it is brief/routine (such as transactional, or him injuring his shoulder). Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 16:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. I'm not sure what kind of "thorough search" SportingFlyer did, but there's tons of significant coverage (i.e., neither "brief" nor WP:ROUTINE) to easily pass the WP:GNG bar. Examples of significant national coverage include: (1) this feature story from the Los Angeles Times in 2013; (2) this two- part feature story from the Daily Press, Aug 2013; (3) this from the Daily Press in Jan 2013; (4) this from the Daily Press in No. 2010; (5) another two- parter from the Daily Press in Feb 2014; (6) this from the Daily Press in May 2014; (7) this and (8) this from The Roanoke Times; (9) this from The Virginian-Pilot; (10) "Gayle's a Bear on Hokies' defense", Charleston (WV) Gazette, 9/20/14 (651 words, available at Newslibrary.com); (11) this from the Richmond Times-Dispatch; (12) this from The News and Advance; and (13) this from ESPN.com. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I saw the ESPN one, that's simple coverage of a player going to the combine. All of his college football stories are from the state he played in, so not national, apart from the LA Times one. I don't know why specifically that was a LA Times article, since it was written by a local Daily Press reporter. Still fails WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH as a locally notable amateur athlete. SportingFlyer T· C 00:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I frankly do not understand your approach here, which appears to be driven by a perennial hostility to articles on college football players. In this case, we have extensive coverage throughout the State of Mississippi Virginia (not just local coverage in Starkville Blacksburg) and on top of that there's significant coverage in major national publications like the Los Angeles Times (other side of the country) and ESPN.com. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • He's a locally notable amateur athlete. I'm not sure what else to tell you, other sports wouldn't keep this article. The LA Times picked up a few Daily Press articles for online content it seems, I'm not exactly sure why. The ESPN article isn't about him as a college athlete, it's about his prospects in the NFL Draft, where he wasn't selected, making it routine draft coverage. I also don't see any articles from Mississippi here? SportingFlyer T· C 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Respectfully disagree. The fact that you are "not exactly sure why" the Los Angeles Times (a national publication) published a feature story on him is irrelevant to the WP:GNG analysis. What is relevant under GNG is that the coverage exists and that it constitutes significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We do not "discount" stories simply because we are "not exactly sure" why editors chose to significantly cover the topic. And BTW, the soccer inclusion standards are quite low in comparison to those for American football. Less then 1% of American football players receive this type of regional and national coverage, as reflected in my "delete" votes on three other pending college football AfDs where such coverage could not be found. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
On closer inspection, both the LA Times and the Daily Press were Tribune papers at the time of publication, and the LA Times article is actually a [15] Daily Press article, the author is a Daily Press writer, which is local to Gayle's school. And association footy notability standards have nothing to do with this – I know American college players get articles written about them, but it would take quite a bit to get an amateur football player over the WP:GNG line, not just local coverage. SportingFlyer T· C 01:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Regardless of where the story originated, the fact that the Los Angeles Times ran it is highly significant in a GNG analysis. It is rare indeed for the LA Times to pick up a story about a college athlete on the other side of the country. And I mentioned the very lax soccer standards only in response to your assertion that "other sports wouldn't keep this article". Cbl62 ( talk) 01:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Kate Bush tribute albums

List of Kate Bush tribute albums (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bare details of three albums, all of which seem to be non-notable in their own right and which have been grouped into one article only on the basis that they are all tributes to Kate Bush. I can see no reason for this article to exist - maybe it could have legs if Kate Bush was particularly noted for the sheer number/range/quality/whatever of albums recorded in tribute to her but she isn't. I see little value in merging or redirecting to her own article, as the title is a very unlikely search term and it would be inappropriate to give space in her article to the fact that a bunch of almost exclusively NN artists have put out covers of her songs.... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Karen Danczuk

Karen Danczuk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A former local councillor who tittilated the tabloids by sharing selfies on line. No personal notability, could all be covered adequately in the article on her former husband from whom any notability is inherited anyway Bledwith ( talk) 12:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator comment There are WP:RS sources in the article which refer to her, but only in the context of her relationship to her former husband and a brief period of tabloid fame. I don't think she is GNG Bledwith ( talk) 13:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
This comment is from the nominator - Bledwith I originally read this as from a different editor, it would be worth you making this really explicit, or merging it with your nomination. Boleyn ( talk) 18:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not qualify for articles just for being borough councillors, or even because their name gets mentioned in coverage of their more notable spouse — but the only sourcing here which is about her, for the purposes of establishing that she might be significantly more notable than most other borough councillors, is just a brief blip of tabloid coverage that just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a subject of enduring public interest. Bearcat ( talk) 13:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She meets WP:BASIC. I'm not sure if other rs were looked for WP:BEFORE, but they are there and I will add some. She is not notable as a local councillor, as an MP's ex-wife, a general celebrity, reality TV contestant or child abuse campaigner, but for all of them combined. There are numerous reliable sources in this - BBC News, the Guardian, Telegraph etc., all the sources I'd go to for rs on living British people have full articles on her. They mention her ex-husband but he isn't the main point of those articles.

She meets BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. WIll she be of enduring public interest, who knows? But she meets our minimum criteria based on the coverage. This also shouldn't be at AFD as there are clear WP:ATDs. Boleyn ( talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Where are these RS articles that have significant coverage of her as the main point? Everything I've seen its in the context of her as Simon Danczuk's wife Bledwith ( talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Just look at the sources in the article - there are lots of reliable sources and the majority have her as the main focus, not her ex-husband. Boleyn ( talk) 16:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Ashish Merkhed

Ashish Merkhed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Maybe WP:TOOSOON at the moment. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Those advocating for keeping the article haven't made their argument effectively. Merge content selectively, as needed to the target page. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Corbin Carroll

Corbin Carroll (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one statement in the article which might be notable, his .540 batting average in high school. The article doesn't even say he signed with MLB, only that he was drafted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Just being a 1st round pick and signing doesnt pass GNG.. baseball draft picks often flame out without making the majors. Spanneraol ( talk) 22:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per everybody except a socker and his socks. Sandstein 07:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Fadetheblackk

Fadetheblackk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rapper with coverage consisting of blog posts, promo sound-bites, and three times the same rehashed press release. His "ranking on the artist music charts" seems to be at - 1349? (but I'm possibly reading that site wrong...). Probably TOOSOON, at this point pretty much an exercise in raking together shreds of notability that don't add up to WP:NARTIST. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
So, let's clarify this - are you the subject's publicist? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
No I am not a publicist nor have any relationship with the artist I do like his music and had an opportunity to see him perform at power105:1, I'm a blogger for the Times Of India and a social media consultant David Arriela( User talk:David Arriela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.239.132.134 ( talk) 16:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
By any chance, do you have any COI? Is this article somehow related to your job as a blogger? Thank you. William2001( talk) 01:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are a lot of sources, but on review, they appear to be the result of a PR blitz. There simply aren't the kind of high-quality, independent, reliable sources offering deep coverage that are required to pass WP:GNG. Hugsyrup ( talk) 12:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Virginia Theological Seminary. And/or to Historical Society of the Episcopal Church, as editorial consensus may determine. Sandstein 09:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

African American Episcopal Historical Collection

African American Episcopal Historical Collection (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NORG as all significant coverage is from the organizations running it. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is headed toward a merge at this point, but two merge targets have been suggested. Relisting to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject wasn't considered notable last time round and the consensus is that he is still not notable. Since this is a recreation I am protecting the page. Just Chilling ( talk) 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Hemachandra Wijeratne

AfDs for this article:
Hemachandra Wijeratne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted (via AfD) and then recreated by a different editor however it still fails to address the previous concerns, namely WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT.

Simply being an consul for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also being the brother of a politician/military officer does not confer notability either ( WP:NOTINHERITED). The references relate to him either just being the Consul-General for Turkey, not details of any achievements he made in this position, the other references relate to him being the brother of Ranjan Wijeratne or are related to him being a schoolboy cricketer. Hardly sufficient to establish notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of WP:SIGCOV about the company itself. RL0919 ( talk) 17:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Prosoft Engineering

Prosoft Engineering (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are mainly primary or promotional, and a lot are the company's own website. My own research finds little but PR, passing mentions of products on software review websites, etc. Thre's a lack of substantial independent coverage of the organisation itself, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Hugsyrup ( talk) 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per NCORP. Non-notable company with no significant coverage, the only time they are covered are passing mentions when their products are reviewed, in non-notable reviews and often only one site. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 11:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep as passes WP:NPOL. Non-admin closure. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Pilot Rohith Reddy

Pilot Rohith Reddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Hugsyrup ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

East Orlando Chamber of Commerce

East Orlando Chamber of Commerce (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG John from Idegon ( talk) 05:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments that this is so poorly sourced as not to warrant a merger are convincing. Sandstein 07:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Peoria

List of tallest buildings in Peoria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:LISTN. Almost none of these buildings are notable. The two that are notable are for historical reasons, not their height. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 10:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
OTOH, there are lots of similar lists for lots of cities that have smaller buildings. See e.g., List of tallest buildings in Gary and Talk:List of tallest buildings in Gary. In that sense, there is just a need to improve the sourcing. Cf. List of tallest buildings in Rockford, Illinois, which implicitly shows sources exist to improve this article in like manner. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I would also note, as I discussed on the talk page of this article, that the list is apparently incomplete. 3 churches and 14 high rise buildings per Emporis. This should be subject to expansion. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  1. St. Mary's Cathedral 230 ft - church 1889

2 Northwoods Community Church 2 church 1997
3 Sacred Heart Catholic Church - church 1906>=<br<

The high rises are: 1 Twin Towers I 3 308 ft 29 high-rise building 1984
2 Twin Towers II 3 308 ft 29 high-rise building 1984
3 Commerce Bank Building 2 256 ft 17 high-rise building 1920
4 Associated Bank Plaza 3 243 ft 20 high-rise building 196
5 Becker Building 4 211 ft 16 high-rise building 1993
6 Hotel Père Marquette 8 187 ft 14 high-rise building 1927
7 Glen Oak Towers 1 168 ft 15 high-rise building 1953
8 Lehmann Building 161 ft 12 high-rise building 1916
9 Chase Bank Building 135 ft 9 high-rise building 1904
10 Caterpillar Administration Building 1 134 ft 8 high-rise building 1967
11 Central Building 1 128 ft 10 high-rise building 1914
12 PNC Bank Building 5 13 high-rise building 1926
13 River Valley Plaza 2 12 high-rise building 1910
14 401 Water Street 1 8 high-rise building 1905

If we are DISCUSSING deleting this article, we should consider WP:NEXIST 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

First of all the existence of articles for other cities means nothing, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second Emporis is not a reliable source, it is WP:UGC-- Rusf10 ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Prve your claim that Emporis is what you claim it is. Djflem ( talk) 22:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Djflem:I started a discussion on this, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Emporis.com. I am certain it is not reliable, but if you think you can prove otherwise go ahead.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Tallest buildings lists should not be made for every small town that happens to have a few buildings that are barely outside the definition of a skyscraper (Emporis sets the bar at 100m, CTBUH at 150m). Not to mention the lack of coverage that can be found from a non-database, non-local newspaper source. Sounder Bruce 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I since the nominator doesn't believe Emporis is invalid, he would agree that this ivote would also be invalid since it bases it argument on it, right?

Djflem ( talk) 22:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Rusf10 WP:NEXIST has nothing to do with the existence of other articles. You mischaracterized what I and that guideline state.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 10:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
user:7&6=thirteen So, what sources have you found (other than Emporis.com)? You cannot just declare there are sources without proof. Furthermore, do the sources meet WP:LISTN discussing the buildings as a group?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Gabriel Abed

Gabriel Abed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can see why a previous editor nominated this for G11: the sources cited in the article are completely unusable, due to either independence concerns or a lack of depth. I was able to find interviews in mainstream Caribbean sources [16], [17], but these are light on independent coverage. There's also tons of sketchy coverage in crypto publications, but none of them appear to be reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as the G11'ing editor. From past AFD experience, consensus seems to be that interviews shouldn't be used to establish notability. Barring that, this guy doesn't pass. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 17:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Toranj Kayvon

Toranj Kayvon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two minor roles in movies does not meet WP:NACTOR. It's just WP:TOOSOON for this actress. Draft article already exists, only option is AFD. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Mail1Click

Mail1Click (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable product (does not meet either WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT), 100 hits on Google outside of Wikipedia mirrors, sources listed appear to be purely promotional articles. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Christopher Ferry

Christopher Ferry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is notable only for one insignificant event, when his sons placed his portrait and phone number on a billboard as a birthday prank. Outside of this event, Ferry is a low-profile individual. —  Newslinger  talk 02:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 05:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the website fails WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources. Just Chilling ( talk) 02:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

FUMBBL

FUMBBL (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. Google search results in just fewer than 100 hits, none of which are significant discussions of the site in reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pokémon#Fan community. Merge selectively avoiding WP:UNDUE. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 06:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Serebii (website)

Serebii (website) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website; it may have been around since 1999, but if the reliable coverage is restricted to one magazine writeup [23], then that's not enough. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_July_1&oldid=1142224661"
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 30 June 2 July >

Purge server cache

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11 - this is spam in its purest form! Just Chilling ( talk) 14:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Park Enclave, Islamabad

Park Enclave, Islamabad (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

One of many housing projects, created for sole purpose of advert. Delete per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:40, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:11, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong Delete clearly an attempt to use WP as a means to advertise, this could have been speedy deleted but at least this way there will be a discussion to refeence to if it ios ever recreated. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 13:13, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 11:12, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Veeam. A couple of people have effectively said " merge and delete", which is not possible due to our content licences. The page history will be preserved and any relevant information can be merged into the Veeam article from it. The article should not be recreated from the redirect without a DRV, if this happens the redirect can be protected. – filelakeshoe ( t / c) 🐱 10:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

N2WS (Veeam)

N2WS (Veeam) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I initially attempted to redirect this however it's since been contested. I see no evidence this is notable as a standalone article and am proposing deletion and redirection to Veeam as everything available in the sources here and what I can find are basic acquisition announcements or funding announcements Praxidicae ( talk) 19:58, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:02, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Some evidence the subject is notable and should not be redirected

Here is some info from the article that establishes this is not a run-of-the-mill acquisition. N2WS is a market disruptor which was acquired, but remains an independent company, and was declared by analysts to be a strategic acquisition for Veeam:

"The acquisition gives N2WS access to Veeam’s 55,000 resellers and 18,000 cloud service providers. According to an IDC Research Impact Analysis the Veeam N2WS acquisition is potentially strategic. IDC says the majority of new application deployments within the next two years will be in the cloud, and so the cloud-related backup will be among the fastest-growing IaaS sectors in coming years."

Establishing notability for the company itself: "N2WS has 1,000 enterprise customers. The technology is used by Coca-Cola, Southwest Airlines, Cisco, Dyson, Time Inc., Harvard University, and Oracle." The product has also won several awards.

All the information is taken from over 20 reputable sources including The Register, SDX Central, IDC, EWeek, SiliconAngle, CRN, etc.

Finally, according to WP:RDELETE, a redirect can be deleted if it "could plausibly be expanded into an article, and the target article contains virtually no information on the subject" - it is proposed to redirect to [Veeam] but the target article has only 1 line about N2WS. Gilad.maayan ( talk) 20:20, 24 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Gilad.maayan ( talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. reply

  • Redirect to Veeam - the information above are passing mentions and act as a coatrack. I do not see there being sufficient material to warrant expanding this to what could already be placed in the main article as a separate section (removing the promo, NPOV format sentences with the merge as well). – The Grid ( talk) 21:22, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:53, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete and Redirect all the sources treat the acquisition of this single product by Veeam. Also this is almost certainly undeclared paid editing by a digital marketing agency. I shall be checking the other creations by this editor. -- Dom from Paris ( talk) 14:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
    • But I declared on my user page before writing the article that I represent N2WS. I disclosed that I have a COI. I did not get paid to specifically write this article, we are doing a wide range of content and marketing activities for this company.
Feel free to check all my contributions to Wikipedia, you will find they are all spotless and of very high quality. You are clearly biased against me or the company I am representing and I intend to report this to higher Wikipedia authorities. Gilad.maayan ( talk) 21:20, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Gilad.maayan ( talk) 07:28, 5 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete and eventually merge if there is anything to merge and create a redirect. If we don't delete and leave the history then you can be sure that someone will just copy from the history and replace the redirect and then the circle will start again. Dom from Paris ( talk) 20:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. All of the references are based on company announcements or are primary sources. If there is anything worthwhile in the article it can be merged to Veeam. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing ++ 19:00, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
IDC Published an "Impact Analysis" of this acquisition explaining the strategic importance of N2WS technology. Many other media outlets covered the acquisition in depth. How can you say "not a single reference establishes notability"? Gilad.maayan ( talk) 21:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
How can you make that outrageous accusation!!?? Is it because I'm Irish? Could this be yet more anti-Irish attitudes forced on Wikipedia! You clearly hate everything Irish. (edit: for clarity, that last comment is my sarcastic attempt at highlighting the idiotic nature of the comment by Gilad.maayan and that clearly this type of identity-politics-led nonsense is just that). HighKing ++ 14:30, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Gilad.maayan: That is an outrageous accusation. Accusing someone of being antisemitic without any proof is the kind of personal attack that could be considered a blockable action. Please read WP:WIAPA and I would advise you to redact or strike your comments. Dom from Paris ( talk) 18:38, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:04, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

QRG Health City

QRG Health City (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non-notable mid-size hospital, since the article doesn't credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject. While searches did turn up about a dozen articles which mention the hospital, none were of the in-depth type needed to show they pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 TT me 21:56, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 23:47, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 23:46, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 04:26, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Ben Phillips (voice actor)

Ben Phillips (voice actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No lead roles in any lead productions. Article is merely a credits dump of minor and supporting roles. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 23:25, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:41, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions.-- Nahal (T) 11:38, 02 July 2019 (UTC) reply
These are again minor productions that go to direct-to-video / streaming status when it comes to English dubs. If the person was the Japanese voice actor then it would be notable. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 13:16, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I don't see that as a rule anywhere. Sounds like total nonsense you just made up. These aren't just random people chosen for dubs, these are professional voice actors. And whether something is made for television or internet broadcast is not relevant. Millions of people use Crunchroll to watch anime on. Dream Focus 14:17, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Crunchyroll plays English subtitled not dub anime for the titles above mentioned. The dub ones are only on some of the more popular titles, of which the titles pertaining to Ben Phillips are not. Show me again which news articles feature Ben with significant coverage, even critiques on his work in those titles would help. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 18:33, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Mikagura School Suite reads: "The series is licensed in North America by Funimation, who simulcast the subtitled version as it aired and began streaming a broadcast dub version from June 9, 2015.[20][21]" Funimation's website list it as "Available Languages: English and Japanese". Murder Princess is also listed as being available in both languages. Dream Focus 10:02, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Deferring to experts here. ( non-admin closure) Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 16:26, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Pinchas HaKohen Lintup

Pinchas HaKohen Lintup (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

DePRODed by an SPA -- created this page in May and had no edits since, except to contest the PROD. Sourcing is flimsy and based on digital, potentially self-published books and offline sources, and also see potential COI from authors cited in text and sources provided. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 23:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lithuania-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:16, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak keep. The man did exist, but the sourcing is very weak. I removed one non-RS blog and am tempted to remove another (The Seforim Blog). Here is a Hebrew-language source that also just mentions him in passing as a contemporary of Rabbi Abraham Isaac Kook. There is no corresponding article about him on the Hebrew Wikipedia. Yoninah ( talk) 08:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Whether as a religious figure or as an author, the claim of notability is strong. Better sourcing is needed, though the systemic bias and lack of sourcing for individuals living in his era make finding English-language sources more challenging. Alansohn ( talk) 13:37, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep Slightly obscure but illustrious 19th-century WP:AUTHOR and philosopher nonetheless whose teachings are still resonating in study halls far beyond his native Lithuania. If someone will take the time to systematically uncover the bits and pieces about this subject that are scattered about, this article will have a nice future. StonyBrook ( talk) 07:05, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:05, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

T. H. Subash Chandran

T. H. Subash Chandran (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:NN music teacher, fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Unable to find any in-depth sources about this person. Only claim to fame is that he had students who became notable, but WP:NOTINHERITED applies. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Toddst1 ( talk) 23:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 06:42, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The result was keep per WP:SNOW: Despite a well-argued nomination,

If an issue does not have a snowball's chance in hell of being accepted by a certain process, there's no need to run it through the entire process

clearly applies here. (non-admin closure) —— SerialNumber 54129 10:56, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Dan Burton (actor)

Dan Burton (actor) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The bit of independent coverage of this actor is this writeup, which is fine as far as it goes; but it seems to be the only such in existence. There's also a nomination for Best Actor in Supporting Role / Musical. Otherwise, it's passing mentions. - Overall I'd assess this as not meeting WP:NARTIST yet, although it may not be far off the mark. (NB, also written by the subject himself - not a big issue in this case as it's not overtly promotional IMO.) Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 22:28, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: Ssilver has added a number of further references that certainly show that Burton has repeatedly been singled out for positive commentary (e.g. [1]). While not necessarily making me want to withdraw this (not that I could at this stage, with mixed !votes), it's now even further into the maybe-fine area. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 01:17, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The correct standard for this type of person is WP:ENT, not WP:NARTIST. It is disappointing that you didn't do a Google search before starting an AfD. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 04:35, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep. The article is sloppily written, but this actor has had numerous roles in major musicals in the West End and in UK national tours, and favorable coverage in both London and New York papers, including The New York Times and The Telegraph, as well as The Stage, Playbill, The Hollywood Reporter and numerous theatre-specialist websites. He is currently starring in the West End in The Mousetrap and has been cast in a starring role in the upcoming West End run of White Christmas for 2019–2020. -- Ssilvers ( talk) 22:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas3 ( talk) 04:10, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down ( talk) 08:52, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Konrad de la Fuente

Konrad de la Fuente (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ✉ 21:03, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:22, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 21:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus that this list fails our notability guidelines. This close is without prejudice to the creation of a new redirect if thought appropriate. Just Chilling ( talk) 01:43, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police

Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not enough content to merit a standalone list; the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia already mentions equipment used by the department. There isn't anything of value here that isn't already covered sufficiently on that article. OhNoitsJamie Talk 20:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 09:32, 6 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Surely that's an argument for "Keep and change to disambiguation page?" Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:37, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Hmmm. I suppose it is, when you put it like that! The trouble is, I find it a little hard to argue strongly for what would become a marginally-useful and rather overly-specific disambiguation page. Might it be a better solution to just redirect this to Metropolitan police? Hugsyrup ( talk) 16:26, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
That's a good point, Hugsyrup. We could rename first to Vehicles of the Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia and then redirect, but I'm indifferent at this point. postdlf ( talk) 16:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is clear that the SIGCOV requirement of GNG is not met. Just for anyone reading who is trying to learn how to get an article "kept", the lone "keep" !vote here is the wrong way to do it. Be specific. Point to specific reliable sources that meet the requirements of GNG, and why those sources suffice. Stating that "There's Google results" is a very weak argument that will be mostly ignored by AfD closers in most circumstances. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 20:16, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

ResourceSpace

ResourceSpace (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article for non-notable software; there are unsourced claims to it being used by major companies, but thousands of non notable products of all sorts have been at one time or another used in some minor way by notable companies--they're the market for everything that's business-related--we're not a directory of enterprise software. Almost all the features are pure routine. There are unsourced claims for being "among the first" for some of them. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. DGG ( talk ) 18:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Closed as Speedy Keep as the nominator and only delete !voter have withdrawn/struck their nomination/!vote. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup ( talk) 16:18, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

John Hornor Jacobs

John Hornor Jacobs (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Put simply, this author does not seem to meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines. While his works appear to be well reviewed, from what I have seen, none of his works appear to have ever actually made it to any bestseller's list. Similarly, only one of his ten published works actually appears to have been nominated for an award, which it did not win. Posing this to AfD since there is a June 2015 tag questioning the notability of this author, so I know I am not alone. Firstclass306 ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Firstclass306 ( talk) 17:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete User:Firstclass306 should take a look at WP:AUTHOR, which does not require awards or bestseller status. That said, we do require sources. I took a swing at sourcing this, adding reviews of two of his books. It was all I cold find and it's not enough. That said, if anyone manages to source it, feel free to ping me. I am always willing to revisit when sources are found. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 01:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment, i see that nominator states that books are well reviewed, and E.M.Gregory above has added some reviews in the article, now if only one of his books had enough reviews (two or more) to meet WP:NBOOK (no a book does not have to be a bestseller as well) than there would be a potential redirect target ..... wait, heres one: The Twelve-Fingered Boy. Coolabahapple ( talk) 17:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • WP:SNOW User:Firstclass306, man, you and I both missed a lot of sources. You might want to withdraw this,cause the snow is really piling up and there no way this one's gonna get deleted. Cheers. E.M.Gregory ( talk) 18:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I have no idea how to formally withdraw a deletion, so please consider this message to be my withdrawal. To all of you who participated in this discussion, E.M.Gregory, Coolabahapple, I apologize. I noticed there seemed to be a back and forth in the page's history on whether the subject was notable, so I did some basic research and did not really find anything, so I just assumed. I would like to apologize for wasting everyone's time. I would also like to thank all of you for baking me a delicious humble pie. I have learned a valuable lesson today, cheers. Firstclass306 ( talk) 18:27, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep The subject passes WP:GNG The article should be developed. Lightburst ( talk) 01:36, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:35, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Zulhaj Zubair

Zulhaj Zubair (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about an actor whose only film does not released yet. Article has references but they are about "Zilhaj Zubair acting in the film" or "going to act". Clearly WP:TOOSOON. Article says he a regular program presenter at Jamuna Television. But have no significant achievement as presenter. Didn't received any significant award/honor. A promotional article. Fails WP:GNG or WP:SIGCOV. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 16:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: I also suspect WP:COI involved here. The user who created this worked for Jamuna Television. (from user's profile see his facebook post) -- আফতাবুজ্জামান ( talk) 17:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Clinical Data, Inc

Clinical Data, Inc (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a highly promotional article about a non-notable company. The references currently in the article are non-independent / useless. A websearch doesn't turn up any significant coverage (just some routine press-release-like news articles). The generic nature of the company name, however, makes searching for sources difficult. Peacock ( talk) 15:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. Virtually the entire article is about generic problems and solutions of the industry, rather than being about this specific company. bd2412 T 14:43, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Troyeville#Education. RL0919 ( talk) 04:23, 9 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Laerskool Johann Rissik

Laerskool Johann Rissik (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article on a primary school has only one reference. A standard BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) fails to find additional references. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES generally only affords inherent notability to secondary schools and higher. Chetsford ( talk) 15:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:13, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. 78.26 ( spin me / revolutions) 18:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Dhruva College of Management

Dhruva College of Management (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indications of meeting WP:GNG. Article is promotional and entirely self-sourced. Recommend redirection to Education in Hyderabad. Orville talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Orville talk 15:12, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - as an accredited post-graduate institute. It certainly needs cleaning up and sourcing but it is not as irredeemable as the over-tagging would imply. Indian institutions put far less on the Internet than western schools so we should avoid systemic bias by giving time for expansion and for local sources to be found and added. Experience shows that with proper research WP:ORG can be met. Just Chilling ( talk) 17:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep - WP:NOTCLEANUP but some of the issues have already been addressed since nomination. ~ Kvng ( talk) 14:27, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Weak Keep Clearly there are issues with the article, however, this is a tertiary institution of instruction which we have, through previous consensus, determined are almost always inherently notable subject only to verification it isn't a WP:HOAX. Despite how poorly referenced this article is, I feel safe in saying this isn't a hoax. Chetsford ( talk) 22:50, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Even if the nomination is inaccurate, editors have presented valid arguments for deletion later. The request to keep the talk page discussion as a record of a page move discussion that also applied to other pages is reasonable so I'll leave it. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 17:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Gary

List of tallest buildings in Gary (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:LISTN as almost all of these buildings are not notable and none of them are notable for height. Also, relies on a single source which is WP:UGC and therefore not reliable. Rusf10 ( talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 14:58, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment. LISTN is about whether the group or set has been the subject or coverage, not whether any or all of the individual members of that group or set are notable. So you have not yet presented a valid deletion argument. postdlf ( talk) 15:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Show me a reliable source that covers the building as a group.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 16:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Did you intend to present a claim on that issue? postdlf ( talk) 16:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I just did.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 20:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Look, if you want to nominate something for deletion, it's up to you to plainly state what your argument is, and to make sure your argument is actually valid. Your nomination claimed a guideline was not satisfied "because" of observations that had nothing to do with that guideline, which is what my comment pointed out to you. You're welcome. Now try harder. postdlf ( talk) 21:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup ( talk) 15:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Nova Twins

Nova Twins (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:BAND. The article does not have multiple secondary sources and has no demonstration of notability. AmericanAir88( talk) 14:38, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 19:04, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Crywank

Crywank (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I am unable to find significant discussion of this band in multiple reliable sources. Google search brings up fewer than 100 results, mainly entries in social media, music streaming sites, and event announcements. Some blog posts. There is one article in VICE, a short notice about their new video, but I don't think that's sufficient to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. ... discospinster talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 14:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Minimal, mixed feedback after two relists. RL0919 ( talk) 17:42, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Joseph DeFelice

Joseph DeFelice (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL as a regional deputy secretary of HUD. His other coverage, all but one source is local news, comes from his time as Chair of the Philadelphia GOP, a NN political position. GPL93 ( talk) 19:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 20:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 10:46, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:10, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Minimal, mixed feedback after two relists. RL0919 ( talk) 17:43, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

PrisXtra

PrisXtra (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Small retail chain, 5 stores, no indication of significant impact or coverage, all I see with GTranslate to help are few mentions in passing and rewritten press releases about business as usual. Fails WP:NORG. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:35, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator ( talk) 10:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:16, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 14:02, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 17:32, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Pierre Cassignard

Pierre Cassignard (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

BLP PROD removed on the basis of the four sources now in place. However, most of these amount to very basic, passing references that do little but confirm that this individual appeared in some works. My further WP:BEFORE has uncovered a few other sources (including a Figaro one that I suspect others will find) but these are simply announcements of theatre and films in the culture section - they don't cover Cassignard in any depth as an individual. Net result is that there isn't the substantial, independent coverage by reliable sources required for WP:GNG.

Whether he meets WP:NACTOR probably comes down to your interpretation of 'significant roles', 'multiple' and 'notable' but I'd argue that his work does not meet this criteria and that, in any case, "meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included" given the lack of coverage. Hugsyrup ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 13:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep I removed the BLP PROD, as it simply required reliable sources. Yes, I do believe that he meets WP:NACTOR, on the basis of having had significant roles in multiple notable productions, and having won a Moliere award once and been nominated twice. I am sure there are more sources - I can see snippets of some in Google Books, though not enough of them to cite title of the article, volume, etc, and I do not currently have access to digitised French language newspaper sources for the 1980s - ca 2010. But an actor who has won a significant award and had a career of over 30 years will definitely have coverage, so should not be deleted just because finding it takes effort. As an alternative to deletion, it would have been useful to request help searching for French language sources instead of PRODding and then bringing it to AfD. RebeccaGreen ( talk) 14:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 18:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Lots of passing mentions and non-independent items, but not enough independent, significant coverage to meet WP:BIO standards. RL0919 ( talk) 17:39, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Loubna Bouarfa

Loubna Bouarfa (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • Delete
Source 1 is a Forbes profile listing nothing more than a funding announcement for Bouarfa's company, her degree of education, and how her company can be useful. Not in-depth, nor is there any analysis.
Source 2 is a list of alumni at her university, not really a source at all.
Source 3 links to her research in University, which is not notable press coverage
Source 4 is a scientific paper she co-authored, again no notable press coverage
Source 5 is her own company's website
Source 6 is simply regurgitating Bouarfa's own quotes, there is no significant input on the part of the author
Source 7 is the same Forbes profile listing again
Source 8 is a passing mention about Bouarfa's decision to not have her company in London
Source 9 only lists Bouarfa as one of many members of an AI 'group'
Source 10 doesn't even immediately lead to a page with any reference to Bouarfa, though a bit of digging shows this page is simply an awards list page with no serious mention of any one candidate
Source 11 just leads to the same initial Forbes profile, which is again nothing notable in terms of coverage
No source confers notable, independent coverage. Sliu.3110 ( talk) 13:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 15:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment The article now contains references to multiple awards that could support relevance (being among Top 50 Women in Technology worldwide may qualify):
    • MIT Technology as an Innovator under 35.
    • Forbes Top 50 Women in Technology.
  • So these may indicate noteability. -- hroest 01:31, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Response In the basic criteria of WP:BIO, it is stated that "people are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources... independent of the subject." Taking a look at the new sources added (I will look at the ones accessed in July 2019):
new electronics is a very long article, but there is no original analysis by the news source/author. Much of the content is quotes from Bouarfa herself.
contract pharma has a whole article written mostly about AI, and a little bit about Bouarfa's company okra. The extent of coverage of Bouarfa is a profile at the bottom of the page, which merely lists a few accomplishments and provides no insight about Bouarfa.
medical advice network is again sourced directly from Bouarfa, with practically no independent insight/analysis
sifted is also very uninformative about Bouarfa herself and covers much of the same content as we have seen before, which is very basic and essentially "regurgitates" information about her funding, her company, and some awards
business weekly article doesn't speak much about Bouarfa either, and mentions her company more
startup europe awards is written by the team/company itself, so it doesn't qualify for any notability. It can still be used for supporting information, however.
In summation, the sources provided either don't cover her significantly (eg top 50 awards, etc.), are not sufficiently independent (with most of the content being direct quotes of her), or focus on other topics such as her company Okra, with Bouarfa being only mentioned in passing. To address the point of awards, firstly the MIT innovators award is published by MIT Technology Review magazine, which is independent of the university, so it is wholly dishonest to link to MIT alongside the awards page. The award itself could be significant, but is clearly not enough on its own to establish notability. The Forbes awards only very briefly discuss the winners, and it appears to be user submitted content as well. Sliu.3110 ( talk) 10:16, 4 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. There seems to be clear consensus that sufficient sources have been found to meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. (non-admin closure) Hugsyrup ( talk) 14:00, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

James Gayle (American football)

James Gayle (American football) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as he has neither competed in a professional game nor garnered national, well-known collegiate awards. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 12:52, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Did a thorough search and while there's some coverage, all of it is brief/routine (such as transactional, or him injuring his shoulder). Fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T· C 16:45, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Strong keep. I'm not sure what kind of "thorough search" SportingFlyer did, but there's tons of significant coverage (i.e., neither "brief" nor WP:ROUTINE) to easily pass the WP:GNG bar. Examples of significant national coverage include: (1) this feature story from the Los Angeles Times in 2013; (2) this two- part feature story from the Daily Press, Aug 2013; (3) this from the Daily Press in Jan 2013; (4) this from the Daily Press in No. 2010; (5) another two- parter from the Daily Press in Feb 2014; (6) this from the Daily Press in May 2014; (7) this and (8) this from The Roanoke Times; (9) this from The Virginian-Pilot; (10) "Gayle's a Bear on Hokies' defense", Charleston (WV) Gazette, 9/20/14 (651 words, available at Newslibrary.com); (11) this from the Richmond Times-Dispatch; (12) this from The News and Advance; and (13) this from ESPN.com. Cbl62 ( talk) 00:13, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I saw the ESPN one, that's simple coverage of a player going to the combine. All of his college football stories are from the state he played in, so not national, apart from the LA Times one. I don't know why specifically that was a LA Times article, since it was written by a local Daily Press reporter. Still fails WP:GRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH as a locally notable amateur athlete. SportingFlyer T· C 00:32, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I frankly do not understand your approach here, which appears to be driven by a perennial hostility to articles on college football players. In this case, we have extensive coverage throughout the State of Mississippi Virginia (not just local coverage in Starkville Blacksburg) and on top of that there's significant coverage in major national publications like the Los Angeles Times (other side of the country) and ESPN.com. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:11, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • He's a locally notable amateur athlete. I'm not sure what else to tell you, other sports wouldn't keep this article. The LA Times picked up a few Daily Press articles for online content it seems, I'm not exactly sure why. The ESPN article isn't about him as a college athlete, it's about his prospects in the NFL Draft, where he wasn't selected, making it routine draft coverage. I also don't see any articles from Mississippi here? SportingFlyer T· C 01:21, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Respectfully disagree. The fact that you are "not exactly sure why" the Los Angeles Times (a national publication) published a feature story on him is irrelevant to the WP:GNG analysis. What is relevant under GNG is that the coverage exists and that it constitutes significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. We do not "discount" stories simply because we are "not exactly sure" why editors chose to significantly cover the topic. And BTW, the soccer inclusion standards are quite low in comparison to those for American football. Less then 1% of American football players receive this type of regional and national coverage, as reflected in my "delete" votes on three other pending college football AfDs where such coverage could not be found. Cbl62 ( talk) 01:36, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
On closer inspection, both the LA Times and the Daily Press were Tribune papers at the time of publication, and the LA Times article is actually a [15] Daily Press article, the author is a Daily Press writer, which is local to Gayle's school. And association footy notability standards have nothing to do with this – I know American college players get articles written about them, but it would take quite a bit to get an amateur football player over the WP:GNG line, not just local coverage. SportingFlyer T· C 01:43, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Regardless of where the story originated, the fact that the Los Angeles Times ran it is highly significant in a GNG analysis. It is rare indeed for the LA Times to pick up a story about a college athlete on the other side of the country. And I mentioned the very lax soccer standards only in response to your assertion that "other sports wouldn't keep this article". Cbl62 ( talk) 01:50, 2 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:29, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

List of Kate Bush tribute albums

List of Kate Bush tribute albums (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Bare details of three albums, all of which seem to be non-notable in their own right and which have been grouped into one article only on the basis that they are all tributes to Kate Bush. I can see no reason for this article to exist - maybe it could have legs if Kate Bush was particularly noted for the sheer number/range/quality/whatever of albums recorded in tribute to her but she isn't. I see little value in merging or redirecting to her own article, as the title is a very unlikely search term and it would be inappropriate to give space in her article to the fact that a bunch of almost exclusively NN artists have put out covers of her songs.... -- ChrisTheDude ( talk) 12:39, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz ( talk) 12:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 13:09, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 17:28, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Karen Danczuk

Karen Danczuk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A former local councillor who tittilated the tabloids by sharing selfies on line. No personal notability, could all be covered adequately in the article on her former husband from whom any notability is inherited anyway Bledwith ( talk) 12:50, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 13:11, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Nominator comment There are WP:RS sources in the article which refer to her, but only in the context of her relationship to her former husband and a brief period of tabloid fame. I don't think she is GNG Bledwith ( talk) 13:05, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
This comment is from the nominator - Bledwith I originally read this as from a different editor, it would be worth you making this really explicit, or merging it with your nomination. Boleyn ( talk) 18:00, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete. People do not qualify for articles just for being borough councillors, or even because their name gets mentioned in coverage of their more notable spouse — but the only sourcing here which is about her, for the purposes of establishing that she might be significantly more notable than most other borough councillors, is just a brief blip of tabloid coverage that just makes her a WP:BLP1E rather than a subject of enduring public interest. Bearcat ( talk) 13:49, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Keep She meets WP:BASIC. I'm not sure if other rs were looked for WP:BEFORE, but they are there and I will add some. She is not notable as a local councillor, as an MP's ex-wife, a general celebrity, reality TV contestant or child abuse campaigner, but for all of them combined. There are numerous reliable sources in this - BBC News, the Guardian, Telegraph etc., all the sources I'd go to for rs on living British people have full articles on her. They mention her ex-husband but he isn't the main point of those articles.

She meets BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published[4] secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. WIll she be of enduring public interest, who knows? But she meets our minimum criteria based on the coverage. This also shouldn't be at AFD as there are clear WP:ATDs. Boleyn ( talk) 17:28, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Where are these RS articles that have significant coverage of her as the main point? Everything I've seen its in the context of her as Simon Danczuk's wife Bledwith ( talk) 18:30, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Just look at the sources in the article - there are lots of reliable sources and the majority have her as the main focus, not her ex-husband. Boleyn ( talk) 16:44, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:06, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 17:19, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Ashish Merkhed

Ashish Merkhed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Maybe WP:TOOSOON at the moment. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hitro talk 11:59, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Arizona Diamondbacks minor league players. Those advocating for keeping the article haven't made their argument effectively. Merge content selectively, as needed to the target page. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin 19:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Corbin Carroll

Corbin Carroll (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Only one statement in the article which might be notable, his .540 batting average in high school. The article doesn't even say he signed with MLB, only that he was drafted. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 03:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 05:40, 17 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Just being a 1st round pick and signing doesnt pass GNG.. baseball draft picks often flame out without making the majors. Spanneraol ( talk) 22:57, 23 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 12:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:56, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Per everybody except a socker and his socks. Sandstein 07:11, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Fadetheblackk

Fadetheblackk (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Rapper with coverage consisting of blog posts, promo sound-bites, and three times the same rehashed press release. His "ranking on the artist music charts" seems to be at - 1349? (but I'm possibly reading that site wrong...). Probably TOOSOON, at this point pretty much an exercise in raking together shreds of notability that don't add up to WP:NARTIST. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 21:03, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ___ CAPTAIN MEDUSA talk 17:05, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
So, let's clarify this - are you the subject's publicist? -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 16:31, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
No I am not a publicist nor have any relationship with the artist I do like his music and had an opportunity to see him perform at power105:1, I'm a blogger for the Times Of India and a social media consultant David Arriela( User talk:David Arriela) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.239.132.134 ( talk) 16:46, 28 June 2019 (UTC) reply
By any chance, do you have any COI? Is this article somehow related to your job as a blogger? Thank you. William2001( talk) 01:41, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:44, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete - There are a lot of sources, but on review, they appear to be the result of a PR blitz. There simply aren't the kind of high-quality, independent, reliable sources offering deep coverage that are required to pass WP:GNG. Hugsyrup ( talk) 12:48, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Virginia Theological Seminary. And/or to Historical Society of the Episcopal Church, as editorial consensus may determine. Sandstein 09:59, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

African American Episcopal Historical Collection

African American Episcopal Historical Collection (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails NORG as all significant coverage is from the organizations running it. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 21:04, 24 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 10:39, 25 June 2019 (UTC) reply
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus is headed toward a merge at this point, but two merge targets have been suggested. Relisting to obtain more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America 1000 11:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The subject wasn't considered notable last time round and the consensus is that he is still not notable. Since this is a recreation I am protecting the page. Just Chilling ( talk) 12:45, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Hemachandra Wijeratne

AfDs for this article:
Hemachandra Wijeratne (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article was previously deleted (via AfD) and then recreated by a different editor however it still fails to address the previous concerns, namely WP:BIO and WP:DIPLOMAT.

Simply being an consul for a country does not confer automatic notability. Also being the brother of a politician/military officer does not confer notability either ( WP:NOTINHERITED). The references relate to him either just being the Consul-General for Turkey, not details of any achievements he made in this position, the other references relate to him being the brother of Ranjan Wijeratne or are related to him being a schoolboy cricketer. Hardly sufficient to establish notability. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt ( talk) 11:34, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete due to lack of WP:SIGCOV about the company itself. RL0919 ( talk) 17:25, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Prosoft Engineering

Prosoft Engineering (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources are mainly primary or promotional, and a lot are the company's own website. My own research finds little but PR, passing mentions of products on software review websites, etc. Thre's a lack of substantial independent coverage of the organisation itself, so fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Hugsyrup ( talk) 10:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

  • Delete Per NCORP. Non-notable company with no significant coverage, the only time they are covered are passing mentions when their products are reviewed, in non-notable reviews and often only one site. -- qedk ( t 桜 c) 11:11, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 11:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Speedy Keep as passes WP:NPOL. Non-admin closure. §§ Dharmadhyaksha§§ { Talk / Edits} 11:00, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Pilot Rohith Reddy

Pilot Rohith Reddy (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable local politician. Doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG Hugsyrup ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hugsyrup ( talk) 08:40, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

East Orlando Chamber of Commerce

East Orlando Chamber of Commerce (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG John from Idegon ( talk) 05:30, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:33, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The arguments that this is so poorly sourced as not to warrant a merger are convincing. Sandstein 07:10, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

List of tallest buildings in Peoria

List of tallest buildings in Peoria (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:LISTN. Almost none of these buildings are notable. The two that are notable are for historical reasons, not their height. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 ( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 10:37, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
OTOH, there are lots of similar lists for lots of cities that have smaller buildings. See e.g., List of tallest buildings in Gary and Talk:List of tallest buildings in Gary. In that sense, there is just a need to improve the sourcing. Cf. List of tallest buildings in Rockford, Illinois, which implicitly shows sources exist to improve this article in like manner. WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 11:21, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I would also note, as I discussed on the talk page of this article, that the list is apparently incomplete. 3 churches and 14 high rise buildings per Emporis. This should be subject to expansion. 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  1. St. Mary's Cathedral 230 ft - church 1889

2 Northwoods Community Church 2 church 1997
3 Sacred Heart Catholic Church - church 1906>=<br<

The high rises are: 1 Twin Towers I 3 308 ft 29 high-rise building 1984
2 Twin Towers II 3 308 ft 29 high-rise building 1984
3 Commerce Bank Building 2 256 ft 17 high-rise building 1920
4 Associated Bank Plaza 3 243 ft 20 high-rise building 196
5 Becker Building 4 211 ft 16 high-rise building 1993
6 Hotel Père Marquette 8 187 ft 14 high-rise building 1927
7 Glen Oak Towers 1 168 ft 15 high-rise building 1953
8 Lehmann Building 161 ft 12 high-rise building 1916
9 Chase Bank Building 135 ft 9 high-rise building 1904
10 Caterpillar Administration Building 1 134 ft 8 high-rise building 1967
11 Central Building 1 128 ft 10 high-rise building 1914
12 PNC Bank Building 5 13 high-rise building 1926
13 River Valley Plaza 2 12 high-rise building 1910
14 401 Water Street 1 8 high-rise building 1905

If we are DISCUSSING deleting this article, we should consider WP:NEXIST 7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 12:51, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

First of all the existence of articles for other cities means nothing, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Second Emporis is not a reliable source, it is WP:UGC-- Rusf10 ( talk) 14:43, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Prve your claim that Emporis is what you claim it is. Djflem ( talk) 22:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
@ Djflem:I started a discussion on this, see Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Emporis.com. I am certain it is not reliable, but if you think you can prove otherwise go ahead.-- Rusf10 ( talk) 23:18, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Delete Tallest buildings lists should not be made for every small town that happens to have a few buildings that are barely outside the definition of a skyscraper (Emporis sets the bar at 100m, CTBUH at 150m). Not to mention the lack of coverage that can be found from a non-database, non-local newspaper source. Sounder Bruce 22:08, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
I since the nominator doesn't believe Emporis is invalid, he would agree that this ivote would also be invalid since it bases it argument on it, right?

Djflem ( talk) 22:19, 3 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Rusf10 WP:NEXIST has nothing to do with the existence of other articles. You mischaracterized what I and that guideline state.

Notability is based on the existence of suitable sources, not on the state of sourcing in an article

The absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable. Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources, not their immediate presence or citation in an article. Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article. Thus, before proposing or nominating an article for deletion, or offering an opinion based on notability in a deletion discussion, editors are strongly encouraged to attempt to find sources for the subject in question and consider the possibility of existent sources if none can be found by a search.
7&6=thirteen ( ☎) 10:53, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
user:7&6=thirteen So, what sources have you found (other than Emporis.com)? You cannot just declare there are sources without proof. Furthermore, do the sources meet WP:LISTN discussing the buildings as a group?-- Rusf10 ( talk) 15:26, 7 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:09, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Gabriel Abed

Gabriel Abed (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I can see why a previous editor nominated this for G11: the sources cited in the article are completely unusable, due to either independence concerns or a lack of depth. I was able to find interviews in mainstream Caribbean sources [16], [17], but these are light on independent coverage. There's also tons of sketchy coverage in crypto publications, but none of them appear to be reliable. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 04:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as the G11'ing editor. From past AFD experience, consensus seems to be that interviews shouldn't be used to establish notability. Barring that, this guy doesn't pass. Etzedek24 ( I'll talk at ya) ( Check my track record) 17:42, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Toranj Kayvon

Toranj Kayvon (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Two minor roles in movies does not meet WP:NACTOR. It's just WP:TOOSOON for this actress. Draft article already exists, only option is AFD. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ravensfire ( talk) 04:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:14, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:15, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:16, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Mail1Click

Mail1Click (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not a notable product (does not meet either WP:NSOFT or WP:NPRODUCT), 100 hits on Google outside of Wikipedia mirrors, sources listed appear to be purely promotional articles. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. - CHAMPION ( talk) ( contributions) ( logs) 03:24, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America 1000 19:29, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:08, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Christopher Ferry

Christopher Ferry (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject is notable only for one insignificant event, when his sons placed his portrait and phone number on a billboard as a birthday prank. Outside of this event, Ferry is a low-profile individual. —  Newslinger  talk 02:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA( talk) 05:19, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —  Newslinger  talk 05:27, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU (T) 10:18, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. The consensus is that the website fails WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources. Just Chilling ( talk) 02:02, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

FUMBBL

FUMBBL (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website. Google search results in just fewer than 100 hits, none of which are significant discussions of the site in reliable sources. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 00:35, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Pokémon#Fan community. Merge selectively avoiding WP:UNDUE. (non-admin closure) Szzuk ( talk) 06:33, 8 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Serebii (website)

Serebii (website) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources:  Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable website; it may have been around since 1999, but if the reliable coverage is restricted to one magazine writeup [23], then that's not enough. Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 00:04, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy ( talk) 01:23, 1 July 2019 (UTC) reply
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from " https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_July_1&oldid=1142224661"

Videos

Youtube | Vimeo | Bing

Websites

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Encyclopedia

Google | Yahoo | Bing

Facebook




Top Of Page

Home • Search • Translate

© CSE