WIKIPEDIA:ARTICLES FOR DELETION LOG 2019 SEPTEMBER 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 13 September	15 September >

Guide to deletion

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 delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 11:20, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Frontier Digital Ventures

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence for notability . Refs 1 and 6 are notices. Refs 2, 3, 4 , and 5 are promotional interview, where the company president says what he pleases. Article written by single purpose account, presumably a paid editor though no COI is declared. DGG ( talk ) 23:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. Garden-variety WP:CORPSPAM failing WP:NCORP. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus|
reply here} 01:56, 20 September 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Monica Gayle (actress)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The article is sourced only to IMDb, which is not a reliable source. There is no evidence that she meets the notability guidelines for actresses. The article has existed for 7 years without any reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 22:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:29, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:41, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Zero notability. Trillfendi ( talk) 13:20, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Doesn't passes wikipedia basic notability guidelines. Doingitgimpy ( talk) 07:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - run of the mill character actress in B films. Just to be sure I did a basic Google search and found few sources, none of them reliable. Bearian ( talk) 00:15, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Delete because she is best known for a niche thing and she fails WP:NACTOR, not a lot of sources. IlluminatingTrooper ( talk) 05:55, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Non-notable actress. Barca ( talk) 20:59, 18 September 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 — Amakuru ( talk) 11:27, 23 September 2019 (UTC) reply

G-Series (record label)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Lots of references that are PR or based on announcements but nothing else. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:59, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:00, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:44, 6 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - Brief mentions don't add up to WP:ORGCRIT.-- CNMall41 ( talk) 19:03, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep- It seems the nominator has taken it upon themselves to systematically delete every single article on Bangladeshi record companies. Of course if the subject fails notability guidelines they should be deleted. I just find it hard to believe that there is not a single notable record company in a country of 160 million people. Please search and review sources using জি-সিরিজ, the Bengali transliteration, if you are unfamiliar with the language then there is always Google translate. I am going to cite three news reports (written in Bengali, the national language of Bangladesh and in reliable sources), 1st, G-series was the first company in Bangladesh fined for copyright violation, copyright laws are generally poorly enforced and as such this case was a milestone. The 2nd sources is a profile on the company on their 35 founding anniversary. The 3rd, a news article about a music video of the company that generated complaints and including an official one to the police. I will also add a brief mention in a book published in 2007 in Kolkata, India. There is a significant number of results when searching google news using the Bengali transliteration. Those results in combination with the English sources available, including those used in the article, show that subject has been operation for number of decades and has continuously received coverage in reliable sources. A record company who have released a significant number notable albums and/or albums by notable artists every year and is a major record producer in Bangladesh, which is not my assertion but has been noted by and stated in a number of sources. Many of the newspaper in Bangladesh do not have online listing or archives that can be accessed online. There is also a limited number of Bengali language and Bangladeshi books on google books. The sources available do show that the subject passes WP:GNG. I do not find this article to be promotional, which the nominator stated, but it definitely could use more sources and expansion but that is not the job of AFD. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 10:36, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- Response I looked at the references and thank you for providing them. The 1st reference fails WP:RS as it has no accredited journalist as the author. Leaving that aside, the reference fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it says almost nothing about the company itself. If the case was a milestone though, perhaps there are other articles that provide a more in-depth profile of the company? The 2nd reference also fails WP:RS for having no accredited journalist as the author. Leaving that aside, it also appears that this website requests users to write articles and provides a gmail address. This also raises alarm bells and I would argue for this reason, this article fails WP:RS. The 3rd reference also has no accredited journalist as the author of the article and fails WP:RS. The reference also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no details about the company. The book reference contains a single reference and also fails WP:CORPDEPTH as it contains no in-depth details about the company. While I have no doubt this label exists, in order to meet the criteria for establishing notability, at least two references must exist that provide Independent Content (as defined in WP:ORGIND) and in-depth information. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I dont see how jagonews24.com fails RS, where does it ask for writings (I see it now), and in any case this was written by the Entertainment reporter. Plenty of newspapers encourage letters. And as for the identity of the author that matters only for opinion pieces. Bangladeshi newspapers, like Kaler Kantho, do not usually list the identity of staff writers and would often write Chittagong District Correspondent or sports correspondent. Cultural context is important. if we exclude Jagonews, there are at least two significant RS. The book as I have is a brief mention, but it adds to the evidence that the company is notable, given that the book was published in a foreign country and had found the company notable enough to take note. Vinegarymass911 ( talk) 03:16, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Strongly Keep- Wikipedia is not a Competition for delete article ! Not quite right, I suppose. I haven't any idea why continuously nomination all of bangladeshi record level artical. recently i saw some of bangladeshi record level article deletion process I'm also voted previous deletion. There are several references in the corresponding Bangla article at bn:জি-সিরিজ and a Google News search for the Bangla name "জি-সিরিজ" generates several more possible references. I'm strongly recommend for check those reference. There are 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 all of source prove that this article passes on WP:GNG. This is one of the major record level in Bangladesh. 35 year's a Bangladeshi famous record level company is not reputable indicating for general notable in wikipedia. I don't think. This article should not be deleted.-- Nahal^(T) 07:57, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- Response There may very well be an article on the banga wikipedia, but other language wikipedia versions do not necessarily share the english language guidelines. There is no doubt that the company exists - the question is whether it is notable. I've looked at the 10 references but in my opinion, none of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability as follows:
  - This Daily Star reference fails as a RS as it has no attributed journalist. Leaving that aside, it is neither significant coverage nor in-depth.
  - This Online Dhaka reference is a business listing in a compilation and as such is defined as trivial coverage, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  - Same as 2nd source mentioned by Vinegarymass911, fails for the reasons provided above.
  - The dailyjanakantha.com reference fails WP:RS as it has no attributed journalist but leaving that aside, the article is effectively a listing of more than one hundred songs available on the YouTube channel for the company in time for Eid. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  - Thie prothomalo.com reference is based on an announcement of a new album with a mention-in-passing for the company but says nothing substantial about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  - This Daily Star reference has no attributed journalist but leaving that aside, is based on an announcement (fails WP:ORGIND and is a mere mention-in-passing on the release of a CD, fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
  - This sarabangla.net reference has no attributed journalist but leaving that aside, is based on the public launch of more than 200 songs for Eid and contains no in-depth information on the company, fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This bdnews24 reference has a mention-in-passing of the company with no in-depth detail, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This channelionline.com reference has a mention-in-passing of the company with no in-depth details, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
  - This Daily Inqulab reference is a copy of the 2nd source mentioned by Vinegarymass911, fails for the reasons provided above.

A number of the references above were in relation to album or song releases by known artists on the Gseries label - note that notability is not inherited. In my opinion, there is a stronger case for a wikipedia page for the founder, Nazmul Haque Bhuiyan Khaled, than for this company. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I disagree with your argument. there is no reliable source or fail WP:RS of information here, These are nothing but irrational. One of the country's most popular newspapers will certainly publish the news by a journalist reporting the news. Everyone is convinced that anyone has the nomination rights but it isn't good to be competitive, Thanks-- Nahal^(T) 08:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde ( Talk) 21:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete All I see is promotion without any asserted evidence of notability. Trillfendi ( talk) 21:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- Response. Since it is a Bangladeshi article, it is basically found in Bengali Wikipedia. Please search on google bn:জি-সিরিজ and review sources via transliteration. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 those source can be passed to WP:NCOMPANY, Thanks.-- Nahal^(T) 09:30, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete, as self-promotional and fails WP:GNG. 4meter4 ( talk) 22:47, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment and keep the article as it currently stands clearly has problems with WP:PROMO, however, current content is not a reflection of a subject's notability, as per WP:CONTN. Comments above about The Daily Star are incorrect - it is a newspaper of record. A quick English language search shows G-Series was the first label to release a hip hop recording in Bangladesh as well as G-Series referred to as a major label and as a leading label. All these articles have authors cited (although a lack of a cited author is not enough to discount a reference in a newspaper of record). This table might possibly provide some context to the current discussion: Wikipedia:WikiProject_YouTube/Notability#AfD_discussions in the context of G-Series' 3.3 million Youtube subscriber count (there seems to be a consensus that subscriber count does have a bearing on notability).-- Goldsztajn ( talk) 10:20, 23 September 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) 23:57, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Jeffrey Alan Scudder

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Previously deleted nine months ago in December 2018; the sourcing in this similar version has the same problem as the deleted version: it does not provide enough independent sources to establish notability. Some of the sourcing looks good at first glance, but when you investigate it is not. for example the first link to the book on Remixing and Drawing is just three sentences saying that the author met Scudder. The Schloss-post article is an interview conducted as part of a residency, and published by the residency. Most other references are primary sources like this event announcement. Overall what is needed is independent in-depth commentary that establishes notability. Such RS commentary is not in the article, and I can't find any in a search. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 19:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - this was deleted less than a year ago, and the current sources are unreliable. There's no real claim of notability. Bearian ( talk) 00:17, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
delete I didn't think he was notable last time and I see nothing that shows he's notable as an artist or has the coverage to meet the GNG. Sandals1 ( talk) 15:02, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep This artist is notable in the art + tech software world. Some above have said vaguely that there isn't a claim for notability, but there are at least 3 cites that focus primarily on his work, published in reputable spaces in the area of Art + Tech such as the Profile in Rhizome.org link. Also, the editor who originally nominated the article for deletion has said the articles associated with residencies don't count towards establishing notability. That seems like more of a personal opinion, as it's not in WP policy as far as I understand. Whether it's an interview or associated with a residency, if it's an article in a reputable source, it should function as a source, and helps establish notability by showing the institutional attention on the artist. These sources were added to improve this new version of the article after it had previously been deleted. Hexatekin ( talk) 19:21, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Just to clarify, articles associated with residencies don't count towards establishing notability because they are not independent of the subject. Residencies are compensated gigs in one direction or another. You go to the residency and they either pay you to go, or you pay to go. When the hosting organization of the residency writes about your or arranges for someone to write about you in the context of the residency, it is not independent reporting as would be the case in an independent journalist coming along and writing about you without being connected. Notability is all about independent sourcing. The residency sources are fine for establishing that it happened, but they do not confer notability as they are not independent sources. ThatMontrealIP ( talk) 23:22, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. No improvement since last time. Xxanthippe ( talk) 10:20, 18 September 2019 (UTC). reply
Delete,no sign of notability, does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h ( talk) 16:17, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG . Pharaoh of the Wizards ( talk) 06:10, 20 September 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. Barkeep49 ( talk) 16:43, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply

8chan (disambiguation)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary disambiguation page, since there is only one listed topic besides the primary one. A hatnote on 8chan would suffice. Geolodus ( talk) 19:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Geolodus ( talk) 19:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete, per nom. For just one use, forcing an extra step, through a dab page, is unnecessary. — ShelfSkewed Talk 19:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect - Redirect to the main 8chan page, then include a hat at the top of that article that points to the alternative page. We should only have separate landing / disambiguation pages when there are 3 or more possible meanings Michepman ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Would the redirect not meet the speedy deletion criterion G14 if we were to do this? Geolodus ( talk) 06:27, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Yes. Don't do this. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:26, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - The hatnote on 8chan is sufficient for the other topic, and a redirect is unnecessary, since its fairly unlikely that anyone would actually search specifically for the disambiguation page. Rorshacma ( talk) 04:07, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Disambiguation page is not required per WP:2DABS. Change hatnote at 8chan to {{ for|Robot 8-chan TV series|Toei Fushigi Comedy Series}}. Shhhnotsoloud ( talk) 13:26, 22 September 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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 22:39, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Jack Gosnell

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP is sourced to a non- WP:INDEPENDENT bio and a purely incidental mention. A WP:BEFORE is somewhat foiled by the fact that a better-known person by this name, who appears to be a real estate developer, is frequently quoted. However, precedent here suggests ambassadors are not inherently notable and a Consul-General is of significantly lower rank than an ambassador. Chetsford ( talk) 18:23, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 01:40, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom, position is not presumed notable per NPOL with no indication of notability in sources. Reywas92^Talk 01:54, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete position is not default notable and sourcing is inadequate. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. Generally, we have deleted lower-level diplomats. Compare George S. Messersmith, who as consul general in Berlin granted Albert Einstein his visa. Bearian ( talk) 00:25, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Consul-general to a city is not instant notability freebie in and of itself just because he exist(s/ed?), but this is not reliably sourcing that he would clear WP:GNG for it or any other reason: there's a primary source staff profile on the self-published website of an organization he's directly affiliated with, which is not support for notability at all, and there's a single newspaper article which briefly mentions Gosnell's name in the process of being fundametally about Al Gore, which is not the kind of source that vaults him over the bar all by itself. Bearcat ( talk) 00:36, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete WP:MILL diplomat, not sourced well enough for the project anyways. SportingFlyer T· C 18:04, 18 September 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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Benny 'Ben' Harris

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:BLP has no sources except to talent agent's website and an IMDB listing. a WP:BEFORE is difficult due to how common the name is, however, the content of the article does not indicate potential WP:N. Chetsford ( talk) 18:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:01, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete total lack of indepdent, reliable sources. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:15, 15 September 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) 23:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Indus Business Academy, Bangalore

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Started copy editing it and found that it had quite an advert like tone. I did a copyvio check because of that and it came up with an 80% possibility of a copyvio violation. Cannot find any noteworthy sources for the rest of the information LampGenie01 ( talk) 18:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. LampGenie01 ( talk) 18:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 18:12, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete a GSearch turns up nothing substantial except stuff like Quora, MBAUniverse.com, etc. If this is kept a revdel may have to be done to hide the couple of paragraphs of copyvio in the previous revisions. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete I've found and added a couple of ranking websites, and cleaned out some laughable wikiwaffle, but cannot find anything substantial to justify retention. Nick Moyes ( talk) 22:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete As per nominator! It doesn't passes wikipedia basic for school and should be deleted. Doingitgimpy ( talk) 07:46, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete No notable presence. David notMD ( talk) 13:55, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep. Degree-awarding tertiary institution. -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:52, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- Accredited by the IACBE, which is a recognised accreditation authority, so not any sort of mill. [1] -- Necrothesp ( talk) 10:51, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. Fails WP:ORG,~~possible Degree/Accredit Mill.~~. IlluminatingTrooper ( talk) 05:19, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Technically meeting some Wikipedia guideline (not rule) for keeping an article doesn't automatically make this a keep. Other factors have to come into play and as a whole due to the sources (including ones added by Nick Moyes) it still falls short . IlluminatingTrooper ( talk) 03:54, 19 September 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) Jovanmilic97 ( talk) 21:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Aeryon Labs

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Promotional article, one third-party RS. WP:BEFORE shows press releases and passing mentions. Has been tagged for five years without improvement; little prospect of improvement. PROD removed, but without improvement. David Gerard ( talk) 17:43, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard ( talk) 17:46, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep. This article isn't within my sphere of interests, but I saw it on the WP:AVIATION article alerts page. I typed "Aeryon Labs" into my newspapers.com account (kindly provided to me free of charge through the Wikipedia Library) and found the following items that I feel proves that the subject meets the standards of WP:GNG. As I said, I'm not interested enough to edit the article myself, since I am working on other things, but anybody who is interested in the subject matter is encouraged to include the following:

National Post (Toronto, Canada) 24 Aug 2011, p. 4 ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/514482730) "Waterloo-built drones helping the rebel cause". three full-page columns describing the drones built by this company and their use by rebel forces in Libya. The company is mentioned 6 times by name. This article appears to have been distributed by wire service as well, as I see a largely similar article in the Edmonton Journal (Edmonton, Alberta) p. 29 ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/476380179) credited to the Financial Post, Toronto.
National Post (Toronto, Canada) 14 Sep 2012, p. 8 ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/514733165) "'Easy to spot' marijuana with drones: Halton Police". two 3/4-page columns describing the use of the company's drones by the Halton Police department to spot illegal marijuana plants. The company is mentioned 4 times by name.
The Gazette (Cedar Rapids, Iowa, via Reuters Wire) 23 Jun 2013, p. M4 ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/541558510) "Drones count down to commercial takeoff". three half-page columns mostly describing the company's "scout" drone and how it is awaiting FAA approval to inspect oil pipelines in Alaska. The company is mentioned at least 5 times by name.
Non-trivial mention in National Post (Toronto, Canada) 14 Jun 2014, pp 23 (FP1) and 27 (FP5). ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/514516592 and https://www.newspapers.com/image/514516548/) This was a larger 2-page spread about the growth of the drone industry in Canada. The company is not the primary focus of the article, but if I assume that the newspaper is a standard 22-inch paper, the company is extensively discussed in about 11 column-inches of the roughly 40-column-inch article (excluding tombstones and art). This article, slightly abbreviated, also appears the same day in the Ottawa Citizen, p. 21 ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/468538493) credited to Financial Post with files from The Associated Press and The Canadian Press, so I assume some kind of wire service distribution as well.
Non-trivial mention in The Edmonton Journal, 17 Jun 2015 ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/477020970) p. B1 and B3, "Drones make buzz in many industries" discusses the growth of the drone industry in Canada. Aeryon receives about a paragraph in that article discussing its offerings.
The Gazette (Montreal, Quebec) 2 April 2015, ( https://www.newspapers.com/image/427139736) p. B9, gives two paragraphs of a relatively short article about how the major growth of the drone industry is expected to be years away. Cited to The Canadian Press, which I'm guessing is a wire service.
There are more, but I stopped here. I think the examples above prove notability. If someone is unpersuaded I can go further down the list of 37 matches on Newspapers.com alone. The article is lousy. But it needs to be improved, not deleted. RecycledPixels ( talk) 09:18, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- that's awesome, thank you for those :-) - David Gerard ( talk) 14:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep - as documented above this is a notable aircraft manufacturer, with linked articles to a number of their aircraft designs which we already have articles on. The article needs improving, not deleting. - Ahunt ( talk) 12:35, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep - sources such as [2] give more than just passing mentions, and also per other sources described above. The article is also not unduly promotional - it could be improved, but not worth nuking altogether in its current guise. — Amakuru ( talk) 20:56, 22 September 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 deleted by an admin per WP:G5. ( non-admin closure). --- DOOMSDAYER520 ( Talk| Contribs) 16:57, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Aakash Ravikrishnan

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. Fails WP:GNG and all the results show from one site mid-day which is not WP:RS. Fails coverage in multiple reliable sources. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Harshil ^{want to talk?} 16:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom. Hughesdarren ( talk) 00:17, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep passes wp:gng have enough coverage on reliable sources, i just cited the article as well thus i request the consesus closing admin to check it, and since he won the award he passes notablity as well Jhummu ^Shiv-o-Hum! 06:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Kindly cite reliable sources here. Mid day is not WP:RS. — Harshil ^{want to talk?} 06:34, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

The Pdf from the officials site of Lower Great Lakes Emmy Award mentioning his name and catagory of the award along with coverage on Rolling Stone is a WP:RS and thus passes the notablity of the subject Jhummu ^Shiv-o-Hum! 06:57, 15 September 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. Tone 16:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Emmy Songz

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources in the article are primarily interviews and are not independent of him. The page creator is a sock of User:Coal Press Nation. He currently has an open SPI case. The page creator created this particular article about himself, violating WP:COI. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete A quick Google search revealed no reliable sources to support notability. Perhaps additional print sources or sources under the subject's birth name might reveal, but I'm not that invested in this AfD. Walter Görlitz ( talk) 15:41, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: per nom. Non notable musician. Ceethekreator ( talk) 22:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep Subject is notable as a public relation and also as an entrepreneur. He passes WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. He has made innovative contributions to the entertainment field according to the publication made by New Telegraph [3]. He clearly fails WP:MUSICBIO and would be a case of WP:TOOSOON if we where to look at the subject as a musical artist which he currently just started few months ago even if he had a number 1 song on iTunes chart he still fails WP:MUSICBIO but passes WP:GNG having received significant coverage on Tush Magazine [4]. He has been subject on The Punch [5] and Leadership [6].-- Goodie9696 ( talk) 17:47, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment. User:Goodie9696 is a sock puppet of User:Coal Press Nation and the page creator of this article. He currently has an open SPI case. He violated Wikipedia's COI policy by creating this article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 08:18, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- Is this some type of campaigning @Versace1608, cause I don't understand why you have to leave a message on my talk page and still kept on emphasizing on this. Let me state my mission on Wikipedia, I am here to contribute to the Alté community by writing more articles about anyone involved in this soundcloud genre that became mainstream in Nigeria. Am still going to create more article's on "Tems", "Prettyboy D-O", "Show Dem Camp", "AYLØ", "Tomi Agape", "GMK", "BOJ", "Dami Oniru" and the list goes on. I came across this brand "Emmy Songz" after his alté pop single "Konnect" topped chart and having The Punch interview him about the success of the song. Which got me interested in this brand and also he was topping Teni song case on chart and that got my attention wanting to write about him but the press where coming in slow so I had to keep the article why I had my eyes out looking for more press why it was on my draft till It was enough to establish notability. I don't understand where you driving to or what you trying to clarify cause to what I have put together is enough to establish an article independent of the subject.-- Goodie9696 ( talk) 22:33, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete What versace says +. Can this also be salted, article has been recreated multiple times without significant improvement in notability. Mahveotm ( talk) 19:23, 18 September 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. Tone 16:20, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Thekraj Secondary School

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. ~SS49~ {talk} 05:35, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 05:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep: ~~per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES#2.~~ On second thought, my arguments are better than this potentially controversial/outdated appeal to precedent.

The school is real 1 2 3 and turns out to be a center of significant community activity and participation. 4 5 6 The person the school is named after indeed appears to be a locally respected philanthropist. 7 It appears in the news for its educational and sports achievements. 8 9[2][10] This is enough reason to keep a publicly run secondary school, whose establishment date (within 10 years of Nepal's entry to modernity) suggests its one of the early schools in the country (safe to assume it's of special value to the local community). Here's some SIGCOV in news sites with editorial boards, not yet shown to be unreliable. 10 (not sigcov but not mere mention) 11 12

tldr: It's a community school that's real enough, big enough, potentially historically significant due to its age, covered enough for a third world school far away from the capital city. We should keep it. Regards! Usedtobecool ^TALK ✨ 07:48, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep: per the excellent rationale by Usedtobecool, and based on very long standing precedent for government high schools. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 10:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep: A notable school. More references can be added to support its notability. Doingitgimpy ( talk) 07:48, 16 September 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 Alpha Digital. Tone 16:21, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

PAOK Channel

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The page is way too minor, and I've put most of its info on the Alpha Digital page. NickBlamp ( talk) 14:34, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 14:37, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Merge into PAOK FC#Batatoudis era (1996–2003), where a one-sentence mention of it should suffice. Nate • ( chatter) 23:15, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:14, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - nothing worth merging/redirecting. Giant Snowman 14:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete: No independent reliable sources. The third source (rizospastis.gr) doesn't name the Chanel.-- Ah3kal ( talk) 08:41, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to Alpha Digital, per nom, where it is mentioned by name and sourced. Useful redirect but doesn't look like there is necessarily page history to preserve. czar 15:55, 21 September 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 List of Decepticons. czar 15:49, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Payload (Transformers)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article fails to establish notability. TTN ( talk) 13:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 13:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 ( talk) 18:47, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to List of Decepticons. Two of the three incarnations are Decepticons. FoxyGrampa75 ( talk) 01:17, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect to Transformers characters list as above. AngusWOOF ( bark • sniff) 17:38, 17 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Decepticons per the above. Aoba47 ( talk) 21:00, 19 September 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 List of Batman Family enemies#Corrupt cops and government officials. czar 15:48, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Arnold John Flass

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable fictional character TTN ( talk) 19:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 19:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 19:37, 7 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep notable fictional character. -- 24.101.156.239 ( talk) 18:52, 8 September 2019 (UTC) Sockpuppet of permabanned troll A Nobody. Reyk _YO! 07:00, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Merge to Gotham City Police Department. The adaptations to other media mean there will be some sources that discuss this character, but probably not enough to sustain an independent article. My proposed target currently discusses the comic version only, so some of the other media material could be merged. Argento Surfer ( talk) 13:22, 9 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Redirect to List of Batman Family enemies#Corrupt cops and government officials as Arnold John Flass is already listed there with a description - not notable enough for a stand alone article - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per WP:FICTION and WP:GNG - Epinoia ( talk) 03:33, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Redirect per Epinoia -- Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 ( talk) 12:28, 17 September 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Adewale Adeleke

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I declined a G4 here because the recreated article was not substantially similar to the deleted version. I may have been wrong to do so, as the fundamental problem which led to deletion has not apparently been addressed: this person seems not to be notable by our standards. His brother is notable, his father might perhaps be, but notability is not inherited. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers ( talk) 10:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete per nom. Despite performing minor copyedits to the article and removing unreliable sources, the subject isn't notable and has not been discussed significantly in reliable sources. He fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:CREATIVE. The subject is the owner of a non notable record label. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:18, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete a non-notable businessman. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:05, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as per nom. Does not appear to have done anything that makes him worthy of inclusion in an encyclopedia. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 18:23, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - there is a longstanding practice that we delete articles about producers, unless they meet WP:GNG generally, and specifically WP:CREATIVE. I don't see this here. Bearian ( talk) 00:55, 17 September 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) 09:59, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Aleena (actress)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No references found in google or no notability found of Aleena actress / stage dancer who lost his life in 2007. please don't be confused with aleena indian actress , this aleena was a pakistani stage dancer. پاک آرمی زندہ باد ( talk) 09:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log ( step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 14. — ^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete a passing article on the death of a fairly young entertainer is not enough to show notability. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:10, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - WP:NOTMEMORIAL - does not meet WP:NACTOR with no significant roles in multiple notable productions - Epinoia ( talk) 23:44, 20 September 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. Seems like consensus here is clear enough that it applies to all articles. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:00, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

K. P. Rajagopal

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another cricketer who fails to meet WP:GNG. This RfC has already confirmed that SSGs like WP:CRIN do not supersede the GNG. CricketArchive and Cricinfo statistical profiles, which can be regarded as trivial coverage per WP:SPORTBASIC, are not sufficient to establish notability. Dee 03 08:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

I am also nominating the following related pages because of the same reason:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 08:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 08:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 08:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dee 03 08:34, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Procedural Keep Each cricketer should be independently reviewed. Govvy ( talk) 22:02, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete inadequate coverrage of any of these individuals. A procedural keep is just a beuaracatic attempt to stall such deletions when there clearly is no evidence that any of these individuals are notable. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 06:00, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete all- per obvious consensus at other AfDs of this kind. These articles are supposedly biographies, but are actually match scorecards. The sourcing is so weak that it's not even possible to determine the person's full name or any other biographical information. Reyk _YO! 07:13, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete is the best option here, given the closing of recent very similar AfD. I might consider redirecting S. Chakravarthi to List of Assam cricketers and K. P. Rajagopal to List of Kerala cricketers as lists exist for the teams they played for.

In the case of all the other articles, we have a single cricket match, a surname and some initials with little, if any, hope of sourcing anything more detailed. The biographies fail WP:GNG - I consider it very unlikely that we'll be able to source anything more on these - if we do, of course, then re-creating the article is easy.

In the case of the two Indian cricketers above, each played two matches but otherwise the same applies - we have nothing to be able to add anything at all to the article.

Given the similarities of the articles and the lack of details we have on each one, I consider it appropriate to bundle them. If they were hugely different to each other then I might agree that they shouldn't be, but it's clear that WP:BEFORE has been met in my view, so can see no reason to procedurally close them. Blue Square Thing ( talk) 10:53, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete,low coverage does not meet notability Alex-h ( talk) 16:43, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete the article fails to meet WP:GNG. Lack of significant coverage to have an independent page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pawfeet ( talk • contribs) 11:57, 20 September 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) 10:01, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Outline of Right-wing populism

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-neutral fork of Right-wing populism, created by editor site banned in 2018 for pushing an Islamophobic POV. Unnecessary and duplicative, but also frequently contradictory of the main article. Headers are expressions of opinions and not facts, as is the content of the sections, which is heavily weighted to an anti-Islam-centric view of RWP. Original outline article, before removal of unsourced and non-neutral material, can be seen here. Beyond My Ken ( talk) 08:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 08:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete. I had a look at a few different recent past versions of this article and I didn't see any that showed any hope of being valid articles. None of them were actually an "outline" and if anybody does want an outline of the subject then Right-wing populism is the place to go. The main content was just lists which were curated in a POV way. If anybody wants a big list of articles related to the subject then Category:Right-wing populism is the place to go. This is indeed an unnecessary POVFORK. -- DanielRigal ( talk) 11:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment Delete is probably the right thing but it’s bad form form for the editor doing the nominating to effectively blank the article then nominate it. Of course once the content is removed deletion is obvious. It would be best if we judge the article based on versions prior to the blanking [ [7]]. There may be value to such a list but it might be achievable through category tags instead. Springee ( talk) 11:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
I was thinking the same thing when I saw this and have restored it to the point when it was nominated. Dream Focus 15:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Nothing salvageable in current or previous versions; any potential content belongs in Right-wing populism. – dlthewave ☎ 13:54, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Having read through the article it just seems like personal opinion, politically biased at that. No references at all. Dream Focus 15:27, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - not an outline, but an unreferenced fork. I'm generally against WP:TNT but I don't believe we can keep an NPOV article at this title long-term, nor see the need for an outline here. Daß Wölf 16:28, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as a POVFORK that doesn't add anything new to the main article and conveniently omits any criticism of right-wing populism. (Note: I'm generally against all outlines for the former reason, but this is a particularly egregious case for the latter reason.) – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 21:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete per everyone's comments however mostly because it is an unnecessary content fork and more of a project page for the author themselves. Ajf773 ( talk) 09:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete with fire. Indeed, this is ultimately a POV-pushing content fork that's attempting to present an alternate view of a topic that already has a more neutral and balanced article, not a properly constituted outline of a topic that's broad enough to need an outline. Bearcat ( talk) 00:40, 17 September 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 only keep arguments appear to be done by a sockpuppet farm and have also been contested - with no rebuttal - for failing WP:ORGCRIT Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk, contributions) 10:04, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Kelvin Wu (financier)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The usual issues with a business leader vanity article. Largely reads like a corporate bio with hyperbole ("unicorn to be"). This is fixable, however the sourcing is insufficient for an article about an individual. It is a collection of press-releases about activities of the company which does not allow for writing of a proper biography for a corporate officer. The value of those sources for an alternative article about the company (AID) are equally doubtful. Therefore, raising AfD as failing WP:GNG and WP:BIO. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 07:05, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Comment the article was speedied twice G11 at Kelvin Wu. Tracy Von Doom ( talk) 07:26, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete. As per nom. Underwaterbuffalo ( talk) 12:14, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Keep A notable businessman in Hong Kong, China. There are many notable sources available online in English and chinese also and can be added to article. Instead of deleting can be improved easily. Doingitgimpy ( talk) 07:45, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Doingitgimpy: your help in identifying those sources would be much appreciated. I take SCMP as the gold standard for HK reporting and the only sources I could find are around AID's investment in HMV, where Wu is sometimes quoted or mentioned. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 08:00, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Jake Brockman: I will be more than happy in mentioning references here. I just did a simple search on Google, and found many significant coverage about Kelvin Wu FinanceAsia, TheWrap, ChinaHollywood, Yahoo, Reuters, SixthTone, CUHK, AidFund, ScreenDaily, and Finance Yahoo Doingitgimpy ( talk) 09:35, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep As per seeing above ref, this person seems notable. Article should be improved further Zinzhanglee ( talk) 09:56, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Doingitgimpy:,@ Zianzhanglee: I am not convinced that those sources are sufficient. This is a mix of company listings, executive profiles, press-releases and "business as usual" reporting about company business where Wu is inevitably mentioned in his corporate role. The report about his suspension following lapses at Everbright Capital might count towards notability, though it is fairly weak. Very few of the articles are actually about him as opposed to being about a business. One can assume that every corporate officer will be mentioned in press about their companies. Even if AID was found to be notable, this does not automatically translate to their leadership. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:28, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep @ Jake Brockman: I understand what are you trying to say. These sources are full featured articles about Kelvin only FinanceAsia, TheWrap, ChinaHollywood, Yahoo, Reuters, SixthTone, CUHK, AidFund, ScreenDaily, and Finance Yahoo. While others for actually what you saying mentions is representing Kelvin for CEO of the companies like Legendary East Ltd and Orange Sky Golden Harvest Entertainment Ltd. Film Studios, [8] Hailkatie ( talk) 14:06, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Hailkatie: thanks for this. Those are the same sources mentioned above. "Fully featured" implies they are in-depth sources about the subject. However, they are largely PR and corporate business as I outlined before, falling short of "significant coverage". _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note to the reviewing admin. This deletion discussion has attracted a some attention from very new users who have been registered in he last 1-2 months and with limited editing activity - a profile that also applies to the author of this article. Articles about Kelvin Wu have a long history of COI/promo/paid editing - refer to [9], [10], [11]. The article in Chinese is tagged as having promo and coi concerns. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 15:38, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply
And I've CU-blocked all three of them. Not only do they all know each other, they are all almost certainly part of a UPE farm. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 21:45, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep Passes WP:BASIC and as per above references should be kept. Funnygooster ( talk) 11:56, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Behaviorally the same as the above three socks, also blocked. MER-C 16:50, 20 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - article was created by undisclosed paid editor, now blocked. - Zanhe ( talk) 01:37, 21 September 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. ( non-admin closure)

Machiavellianism (politics)

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is a severe breach of Wikipedia's content fork policies, as the entire "political thought" section is merely a truncated summary of pieces of the articles found at The Prince and Machiavelli's original page, visible here. One user tried to copy and paste an entire section from the St. Bartholomew's Day massacre article, visible here (which is still a CFORK). His reputation, influence, and thought are all carried out on their respective pages, making this article have no real usage. Also this article fails in the NPOV department, as the article states that the topic is a "trope" and with statements such as "turned almost into a caricature of devious villainy. Though in discussions of Machiavelli's thought "Machiavellian" and "Machiavellianism" may be used in reasoned critiques, in general usage the terms more often occur in political polemic". No matter what "source" you put before that, it still does not read neutrally. Also, the article has been disambiguated for no reason, as it is one of TWO usages of the term, which would justify a hatnote, not a disam page. Redirecting or merging this article wouldn't be a problem, but deletion seems the far better option, as the contents explained in this article are explained elsewhere, also in a objective way. SuperWikiLover223 ( talk) 06:51, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Withdrawn by nominator I realize that now is not the time for an AfD, and also other commentors answered without reading or acknowledging my concerns, giving the "keep" opinion an unfair advantage. Other than that, the article can be fixed. SuperWikiLover223 ( talk) 17:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Speedy Keep Apart from the sheer bad manners of nominating an effectively new article (for less than 24 hours) carrying an "in use" template, this matter has been under discussion for some time at the talk page, where only 2 days ago SuperWikiLover223 said (his bolds): "However, I have no problems (absolutely zero) with keeping the political article, granted we do either a disam page, or a dab remark on the proposed new psych page." This is only one of a number of complete flip-flops he has done in the course of the discussion. He was the one who (a tad prematurely, imo) performed the split to create the new Machiavellianism scale yesterday. I then set up Machiavellianism, the old page, as a dab (as had been more or less agreed on talk), and had begun the process of refocussing this article. I entirely agree that, and have said throughout the discussion, that the potted summary of Machiavelli's actual political philosophy was much too long, and a content fork. I have now solved this problem by hiding the lot of it - a few sentences of similar stuff will be needed for context, but it was waaaay too long. In the recent past SuperWikiLover223 has argued for keeping this stuff, and I'm glad to see he now agrees it should go. SuperWikiLover223 has always had difficulty accepting that the subject of the article, the trope of a caricature of M's philosophy, exists, and has removed very well-referenced material on this. This is not covered at all on the main M page (a SuperWikiLover223 reserve these days) and should not be given much there apart from a sentence and a link here. The case might be compared with a suggestion to merge Reds under the bed with Marxist-Leninism. This should be a neutral article on what was never a neutral subject at all - SuperWikiLover223 needs to be able to tell the difference. He has also been removing chunks from the article, in an inappropriate way, and despite the in use tag. This nomination should be speedily closed; after a few hours the article is by no means ready to be assessed yet, hence the in use tag. I'll also point out that he has been canvassing editors who he thinks (perhaps wrongly) will support his position, [12], even in one case starting a virgin talk page for an ip, but he did not contact me, as the creator of the new form of the page, in the same way. Johnbod ( talk) 13:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

When I said that "i had no problems with the article" was before the subpar rewrite of the article, that's filled with NPOV and CFORK issues. And I was not trying to canvass editors, as I ways trying to notify them of the AfD. SuperWikiLover223 ( talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep A political ideology can not be limited to the article on its founder or its eponym. Dimadick ( talk) 15:16, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

How does the St. Bartholomew's massacre matter at all to the ideology? Did you see my concerns? SuperWikiLover223 ( talk) 16:21, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep This is clearly a significant topic. I'll note that AfD discussions must be conducted with civility on all sides. Chiswick Chap ( talk) 15:49, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Comment New commentors on the page may want to look at it now and see if it is not a content fork of this section of the St. Bartholomew's day massare article, which the other commentators so far have missed.

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. — JJMC89 ( T· C) 04:19, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Yesoe Yoon

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local TV host who is a candidate for local elections. Nothing in the article indicates this person meets WP:BIO. Note the article in it's current form was submitted and rejected at AfC in August. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 02:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC) I think it will be wonderful if you can suggest others what to do instead of being so aggressive and controlling towards others to The Mirror Cracked. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatYoon ( talk • contribs) 02:36, 16 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 02:29, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:35, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:36, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete as per nom Hughesdarren ( talk) 09:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
This one has newspaper articles from Chicago Tribune and Daily Herald. It was rejected because of no articles. We should let the writer to improve it more instead of dictating on what to do. We want encourage others to participate. That's what Wikipedia supposed to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatYoon ( talk • contribs) 13:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete because this is a biography of a living person and lacks citations that demonstrate any notability. Also possible COI creation since the subject is planning to run for office in 2020 and the article had a lot of personal information (ie. like her siblings info). Jooojay

Because this is biography so that is why the author put whatever information he or she knows. ( talk) 22:24, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Agree with nomination. Seems likely there are some COI issues here as well. Also lacks/does not demonstrate basic notability criteria. LandonRules ^(Talk) 05:24, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Should not delete. This articles have many news article supports from Chicago Tribune and Daily Herald. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatYoon ( talk • contribs) 03:56, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep this article.

The article was rejected because the first time user did not know how to participate in talk. It is not fair. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SatYoon ( talk • contribs) 04:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

User:SatYoon is the creator of the article that is the subject of the Afd and has made few or no other edits outside this subject

Yesoe Yoon is an NBC 5 Action Board member and political candidate and more notable than Lily Kim at /info/en/?search=Lily_Kim which has less sources. Matt Farag ( talk • contribs)

User:Matt Farag has made few or no other edits outside this subject

Delete per nom; notability has not been demonstrated + COI may be an issue ( OSE) Eagleash ( talk) 15:41, 18 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete lacking notability.- TonyTheTiger ( T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:00, 20 September 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. Tone 08:14, 21 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Juegos

(Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has no sources, hardly any content, and also it does not make a claim of being notable in any way, shape or form. SuperWikiLover223 ( talk) 00:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. William2001^(
talk) 00:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. William2001^(
talk) 00:25, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

A one fact article — and the fact is wrong. That is according to page 47 of the Instituto Nacional de Cine y Artes Audiovisuales guide to Argentine cinema, where the entry for Mario Sábato gives a different year. And nothing else. But at least with the correct year one stands a chance of finding something else. It was 1970. Uncle G ( talk) 01:19, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - notability not established Mujinga ( talk) 11:22, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete - Doesn't passes wikipedia general notability guidelines. Spittingchamp ( talk) 14:42, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete Nothing to indicate any notability. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:53, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- Keep Per the excellent update work on the article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply
  - Note that Juegos ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) has not been updated. It was blanked and redirected in the middle of this discussion to remove the AFD notice, and the AFD notice added to a different, second, page Juegos de verano ( | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) that is about a different film by different people. Uncle G ( talk) 12:23, 15 September 2019 (UTC) reply

it seemed a plausible redirect but as this will be deleted I've restored it to the original Juegos page. I think we all agree that Juegos can be deleted. Juegos de Verano is the one that meets requirements.♦ Dr. Blofeld 11:30, 19 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep The proper title, Juegos de verano has plenty of hits in books on Argentine cinema. A dirty movie, like a lot produced in Argentina in the 70s. @ Mujinga:, @ Spittingchamp: @ Lugnuts:, you might want to take another look.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:40, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
- That's excellent @ Dr. Blofeld: you are establishing notability but i thought this article was about the 1971 film by Mario Sábato? Mujinga ( talk) 18:48, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Imdb has an empty page for that but I think there's some sort of error.♦ Dr. Blofeld 18:56, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete Non-notable for inclusion as a film. Trillfendi ( talk) 20:15, 14 September 2019 (UTC) reply
Delete as a duplicate of Juegos de verano - Epinoia ( talk) 03:56, 20 September 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.

Videos

Websites

Encyclopedia

Facebook