Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 16

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 15 August 17 August >

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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:58, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taleeb Noormohamed

AfDs for this article:
Taleeb Noormohamed (edit | 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 proposed for deletion about eight years ago. Editors elected for a borderline keep. It does not seem the article has improved since. It relies predominantly on dead links, primarily to promotional and other

relevant list of 2019 candidates may be appropriate. Wherever the discussion goes, I think it is worth having. I find these sort of discussions, seem to come up every election cycle.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:54, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:21, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been noted on the Political parties and politicians in Canada project talk page.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 20:34, 20 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:59, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Because We Care: A Benefit for the Children's Hospital of Orange County

Because We Care: A Benefit for the Children's Hospital of Orange County (edit | 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 significant coverage. Non-notable album. I would support a redirect or merge to the hospital, but it doesn't have an article and I'm not sure if it is notable. SL93 (talk) 22:12, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Note that the album actually has an AllMusic review: [1], and the hospital got some notable bands to help out. A fine effort by everyone involved, but the album is a minor curiosity and the one review at AllMusic doesn't quite add up to enough notability. I can find nothing else beyond typical directory listings and some periodic efforts by the hospital to sell more copies. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:52, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Merge : It will be better Andy Kearns (talk) 08:02, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with what? ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Andy Kearns has been blocked and also uses the names Rasi56 and Hafiz ansi among others. See Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Hafiz ansi. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:55, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comments by blocked sock puppet. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:35, 19 August 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. This article is sitting in a little bit of a grey area with respect to notability. The argument to keep rests on the subject meeting the guideline at

WP:NSPORTS, not an independent guideline; so I'm going to defer to what NSPORTS has to say, which is: "subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline. The guideline on this page provides bright-line guidance to enable editors to determine quickly if a subject is likely to meet the General Notability Guideline". If that's what we apply here, notability clearly is not demonstrated, and so I am closing this as "delete". If people want to haggle over the potentially ambiguous differences in those pages, this isn't the place. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:36, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

StrongSide (video game player)

StrongSide (video game player) (edit | 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 has gone through two previous AfDs, neither with any clear consensus. I'm inclined to argue that Cavanaugh is not notable due to a lack of significant sources about him specifically; in searching for materials I found some more prominent coverage in sources like [2][3] but I don't think they rate being 'independent' (he was signed with an MLG umbrella team, and he worked at Prima right around the time of the interview.) As such, leaving aside the question of whether he'd meet

WP:GNG as required. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 22:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:05, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 16:06, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep Reading through the past two AFD, I'd like to point out that Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Sports_personalities is clearly met: "A sportsperson is presumed to be notable if the person has actively participated in a major amateur or professional competition". [4] and elsewhere do mention him being in these tournaments, notable professional gaming teams he has been on, all of which have their own articles by the way, and he is mentioned elsewhere although briefly. Dream Focus 17:30, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The second part of that notability guideline is and so is likely to have received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. There's no indication of significant coverage of the article subject alone, hence why I listed it. (I'd also frankly argue about applying "major" to most professional esports competitions, as until recently and still for many games they do not generate anything like the attention and press of 'traditional' sports. What's "major" for esports would not be considered "major" for a cricket player or football player, etc.) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 15:01, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • The "presumed to be notable" is all that matters. As for how popular video game tournaments are, [5] " The 2018 Mid-Season Invitational tournament, a League of Legends tournament hosted by Germany and France, was the most watched eSports event, with a recorded 60 million unique viewers." Not sure how many people watched the Halo tournaments though. But you can't just dismiss it claiming it can't compare with traditional sports. Dream Focus 15:55, 20 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:00, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Release Me (Tevlo song)

Release Me (Tevlo song) (edit | 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:NSONG. Won a non-notable competition hosted by a music software company to produce a demo record using its software, and that's about it. No indication that this song has been talked about anywhere except on the software company's website and on the usual music streaming sites like Soundcloud and YouTube. Richard3120 (talk) 21:27, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 21:28, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Striking !vote by sock puppet, now blocked GirthSummit (blether) 13:01, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - does not meet
    WP:NSONG - can't redirect because the artists mentioned, Tevlo and Veela, don't have articles and the FL Studio article does not mention the song - no evidence of notability; therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 01:35, 24 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2J The Richest

2J The Richest (edit | 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 musician fails

WP:NMUSIC Ceethekreator (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 19:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Striking comment from newly created account and obvious copy of above comment. AmericanAir88(talk) 17:45, 22 August 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 07:54, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bose Soundbar

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

Advertisement, fails

WP:GNG Störm (talk) 19:22, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:01, 19 August 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 there seems to be no support for the proposal.

(non-admin closure) Andrew D. (talk) 16:46, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Proposed United States purchase of Greenland

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 article is misleading. THere is no proposal per reporting. Just Donald Trump asking his aides into looking for some.

WP:NOTNEWS certainly applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:01, 16 August 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:01, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yves Vatelot

Yves Vatelot (edit | 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'm not entirely sure that the subject passes

WP:PROMO concerns given that both this article and The French Wiki article were both created this month by the same SPA, who has conveniently left out the only real coverage that I could find of Yves Vatelot-which was that he was sued for false advertising by the Union of Grand Cru Classés. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 16:50, 16 August 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 University of Ottawa. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:02, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Ottawa Library

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

Can't find any independent sources, and doubt it is independently notable from the university it belongs to. ~~

- talk 15:51, 17 August 2019 (UTC))[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:01, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
- talk 15:01, 16 August 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 result. OP indeffed as a sock; nobody else has offered a substantive opinion. As such this AfD is irrelevant to the future fate of the article, and should be ignored entirely. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:48, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hridi Haq

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

unsourced, not notable enough to be here! Rasi56 (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:59, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment - Rasi56 please submit only one !vote - your nomination serves as a "delete", and you then submitted a second "delete". Netherzone (talk) 19:53, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment #2 to Rasi56 - in Articles for Deletion, we always try to preserve all actions/edits in the debate. Instead of deleting a mistake (as you did in your second !vote), use the "strike out" code to cross-out a mistake or a change of opinion. Only cross out your edits you wish to change, not others. That way the conversation and debate is preserved. See here to see how it is done. Hope that is helpful info. Netherzone (talk) 22:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Netherzone: bro you told me that I voted two times,thats why I removed duplicat vote. I did nothing or strike out this, this strike I see now after your mention. But what can I do now please tell me.-Rasi56 (talk) 05:03, 17 August 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:47, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Powstro

Powstro (edit | 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 seeing more then trivial mentions of a minor accessory supplier. Slatersteven (talk) 14:45, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:19, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It is actually not trivial. The shop of eBay is full of Powstro chargers. And even if it were, is that already a reason to erase the article? --Handroid7 (talk) 14:50, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
See
wp:n. Slatersteven (talk) 14:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
They actually have 100000 followers on AliBaba. --Handroid7 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Slatersteven (talk) 08:31, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Slatersteven: Because had I created that article as a draft or in my own user namespace in first place, that would not have made any difference, but it would never have been nominated for deletion. And from the perspective of others, it does not make a difference whether deleted or moved to my own user namespace. --Handroid7 (talk) 08:23, 24 August 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. The sources provided by those arguing to keep are not terribly convincing, but the OP has been indeffed as a sock, and the only other "delete" !voter had provided no substantive argument. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:10, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nurul Kabir

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

Poorly sourced, not enough notable Rasi56 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rasi56 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Rasi56 (talk) 14:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Sionk: first link you gave "Nurul Kabir to continue his defence on Dec 20" it doesn’t prove his notability. second link, Asia Media forum award is non-notable award,there have thousand of this type o awards. If it notable award then there have many people who gets this type of award then everyone should inculde in wikipedia. -Rasi56 (talk) 05:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I think you misunderstand notability. A simple Google search will come up with plentyh of coverage about his court appearances. The Asaia Media Forum award was presnted by Kabir to the winner, I gave this as an example because it gives a section of biographical info about Kabir (and the reasons he was respected enough to be presenting). Sionk (talk) 09:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: court case doesn’t prove his notability, there have many cases by journalists and writters, you can found in internet. and asia media forum is non notable forum. We need strong independent evidence of his notability. Rasi56 (talk) 10:39, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This is getting tedious. We clearly disagree so should wait for input from others. Whether or not you think Asia Media Forum is non-notable, the lengthy news article is in Sri Lanka's The Sunday Leader, so is international news coverage. Sionk (talk) 10:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Sionk: Yes for sure wait for others. But nothing with the newspaper. Newspaper is verified but asia media forum isn’t, I just mention that above. Rasi56 (talk) 11:22, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I have just updated the references. As the editor of a major English language national daily, Nurul Kabir has been really in the forefront of defending media freedom in Bangladesh despite the persecution he faced both legally and physically while others usually succumb to pressure as we saw during the rule of the military-backed Caretaker Government from January 2007 to December 2008. He is notable enough not only as an editor but also as a writer since he authored several books.
    The Red Moulana by him is the only comprehensive and authoritative biography of Abdul Hamid Khan Bhashani in the English language. - S M Maniruzzaman (talk) 14:27, 19 August 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. Nom withdrawn

(non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

ITTF Africa Cup

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

Unnotable, undersourced. De-proded without explanation. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 14:31, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:33, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm fine with this. – Broccoli & Coffee (Oh hai) 00:03, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh hai Their is no need for the deletion of this page since it as been improved on.
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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:46, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angélique Vialard

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

Snooker player notable for reaching a quarter-final in an amateur competition. Generally only professional players are notable, and doesn't seem to be backed up by any sources to confur

WP:GNG Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 13:36, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 15:24, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Striking !vote by sock puppet, now blocked GirthSummit (blether) 13:00, 18 August 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) Rollidan (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Single Tax Party

Single Tax Party (edit | 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 was to be deleted following Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Commonwealth Land Party (United States) but either never was or was recreated in violation of policy. Toa Nidhiki05 12:34, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:BURDEN refers to verifiability, not notability. And the article aready cites a book source and an article in Time magazine. Sionk (talk) 08:36, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Mere mentions don’t warrant an article.
WP:ORGCRIT requires substantial coverage. Toa Nidhiki05 12:25, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Are they mere mentions? I can't believe how people on Wikipedia go out of their way to manufacture reasons to delete articles about anything before 1990. Well, I can't fight a one person battle, unfortunately. Sionk (talk) 19:54, 18 August 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 02:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ventura Filmes

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

Seems promotional. Created by same person who wrote the autobiography

WP:NME. Willbb234 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Willbb234 (talk) 07:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 11:07, 16 August 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 100 Women (BBC). Vanamonde (Talk) 18:07, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ruth Medufia

Ruth Medufia (edit | 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:BIO1E Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:52, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Redirect (to 100 Women (BBC)) - Unfortunately I feel I need to agree, there isn't enough coverage in them to satisfy Sig Cov (particularly once the paragraphs about how good/important the BBC 100 list is). I couldn't find any more suitable secondary coverage. No obvious redirect target. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:18, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirecting, to stay in line with the rest of the list I'm not sure how much content should be added, but a small level could be added regardless of the result of this AfD, though nothing near a proper merge. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:41, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to
    WP:WHYN: "We require 'significant coverage' in reliable sources so that we can actually write a whole article, rather than half a paragraph or a definition of that topic. If only a few sentences could be written and supported by sources about the subject, that subject does not qualify for a separate page, but should instead be merged into an article about a larger topic or relevant list." ----Pontificalibus 13:41, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
That list seems to require an individual to be independently notable to be included (otherwise there'd be more than 5 or so non-blues) - if we merged this, it would stop qualifying for it. I'm not against merging if the list has a broader set of rules or there's an alternate target. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:47, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I would be against merging into this list because it is clearly for notable people as per the WP definition so the inclusion would need a blue link (I'll have a look at the redlinks already there.) If there were a page for the BBC 100 women then that would be the logical place but that might be just listcruft. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:58, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Massive apologies to @Pontificalibus:, I thought I'd written it on mine, which makes no sense since I didn't propose merge. Mea maxima culpa Nosebagbear (talk) 21:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No problem, as it is I would be happy to merge to 100 Women (BBC), and am noting it down here so it's clear you are not objecting to this new target.----Pontificalibus 09:17, 18 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: See 100 Women (BBC), where she is listed and linked. Did anyone try a "what links here"? Inclusion in that list, along with the profile in Medium and speaking at international conference, seem sufficient to confer notability. PamD 14:43, 17 August 2019 (UTC) (expanded 14:47)[reply]
I'm happy for that to make a more logical merge target, but I still don't think, on its own, it can provide enough coverage to satisfy
WP:BASIC Nosebagbear (talk) 14:48, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I agree with the merge target but I too also fail to see how being chosen to feature on this list as one of what I can only presume are the "everyday heroes" makes her automatically notable. This is not IMHO a significant award as per
WP:ANYBIO. This documentary series deliberately mixes notable and anonymous women that the documentary makers find inspiring. We have already discussed such lists (Forbes etc) and concluded that they do not confer notability without more in depth coverage in other sources. If we accept this as conferring notability then being featured in any documentary in any capacity will suffice so long as it's reported elsewhere. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:04, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I'd missed the extension. Surely speaking at an international conference would fall afoul of the same
lack of independence that disqualifies the interview part of an interview article? Nosebagbear (talk) 15:22, 17 August 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 Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 16:49, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tonica fugata

Tonica fugata (edit | 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 software. I am unable to find any substantial independent coverage of it in reliable sources so

WP:NSOFT is not met. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 09:40, 16 August 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 06:17, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Casey Fenton

Casey Fenton (edit | 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 notable outside of company, fails to establish notability as an individual. All of his news coverage are primarily for the company. Meeanaya (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: 1 week passed, no !votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ––
(talk) (contribs) 06:16, 16 August 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. Any renaming can be discussed on the talk page

(non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 04:00, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Hurricanes and the Making of Caribbean History

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

Needs a fundamental rewrite to be encyclopedic. No evidence that this needs a separate article from Atlantic hurricane and many of the statements are just wrong. Jasper Deng (talk) 00:51, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 01:45, 16 August 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. Some sources were added but there has been no engagement since to evaluate them, and only minimal participation in general after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:36, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Association for Political Science Students

International Association for Political Science Students (edit | 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 organization lacking significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains(talk) 21:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello Meatsgains!

    The reason cited for the deletion of the page is "Non-notable organization lacking significant coverage in reliable sources". IAPSS is the largest association for political science students around the world and it partners with bigger associations like International Political Science Association and so on. But you're right, the association doesn't have enough coverage.

    Maybe we could simply put a notice at the beginning of the article to indicate that some references are missing instead of deleting the entire thing?

    Looking forward to your reply!

    --PoliWrites (talk) 08:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • The deleted version of the article had such notices for six years, from 2013 onwards, to zero effect. An AFD discussion is the time to actually show some sources. Uncle G (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hello again!

    Changes have been made to the page and sources have been added and there were contributions made other users. It'd be great if we could keep the IAPSS page.

    Let me know what you think and what else should be done!

    --PoliWrites (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

    • Why not cite your sources? You wrote a 14KiB article and so far have cited sources for two of its sentences and some table entries. What were your sources for the rest of the article? And why did you not put them in to start with? Uncle G (talk) 06:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:32, 16 August 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. The comments lean to Keep but given the limited participation and few sources surfaced, I don't see a clear consensus here, and it has already been relisted twice. RL0919 (talk) 04:32, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Angela's Christmas

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

Short film which does not pass

WP:NFILM. Press is simply on sites which are like TV Guide, or Leonard Maltin's guides. Onel5969 TT me 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC) Onel5969 TT me 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 11:19, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article is valid because it has references from Decider and Hot Press. Thornstrom (talk) 11:30, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 04:22, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:31, 16 August 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) 01:31, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ferry

Tom Ferry (edit | 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

WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 05:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:30, 16 August 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) 01:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Abhinav Kumar (marketing)

Abhinav Kumar (marketing) (edit | 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 references appear to me mainly mentions, with a few press releases put in. The individual's jobis in marketing, and WP is not the place for it. DGG ( talk ) 05:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:29, 16 August 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) 01:30, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vida-Flo

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

Insufficient notability. Nearly all the references do not mention the company/product - they are about IV hydration in general. This article was rejected multiple times at Draft:Vida-Flo (IV hydration therapy) for lack of notability, but the article creator just bypassed the AFC process to create it in article space with the same content. Peacock (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:17, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:44, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. Just because there is lots of references, doesn’t mean its notable. None of the references mention the subject in their title.
    ping}} me in replies) 20:17, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 16 August 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 AKD Group. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:29, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AKD Capital

AKD Capital (edit | 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 sources, fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 22:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. J947 (c), at 02:39, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:03, 16 August 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/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_August_16&oldid=1142614715"