Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 9

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. – bradv🍁 05:25, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Core Education & Technologies

Core Education & Technologies (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 Company has dissolved over a year back. The listing of article is causing confusion between people. There is no update on this article, in January the moderator has requested for updates but yet after 6 months there has been no updates. The company is not even listed on the NSE or BSE since 2015.

Request to delete the page as there is no update on this article since many years.

Thank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nasha316 (talk • contribs) 05:45, June 13, 2019 (UTC)

There is no requirement that articles be up to date or that organisations are still going. Rathfelder (talk) 21:51, 15 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment This discussion page was created without the {{
  WP:AFDHOWTO when you do so. Thank you. --Finngall ^talk 23:11, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: the article being out of date is a fixable issue and not a reason for deletion. However, the references are not compelling – many are spammy. I would say this should be closed with no prejudice against speedy renomination if a valid rationale is provided. – Teratix ₵ 03:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• keep
  notability is not temporary, it is permanent; and AfD is not clean-up. If something from the article is confusing the readers, then try to resolve the issue. Post about it in relevant wikiprojects. By nominator's logic, we should delete Elvis Presley, Commodore International, and BlackBerry 10; because these legends ceased to exist. —usernamekiran(talk) 16:57, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I think the company just passes
  WP:CORP. I've updated the article a little bit, mostly using past tense throughout but also referencing a Forbes article about the company's troubles. I was unable to find the right reference that would allow us to say "the company went down at date XXXX" so I'm leaving the "update needed" template for now. Pichpich (talk) 23:17, 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 2024 Russian presidential election. ‑Scottywong| prattle _ 06:19, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The transit of power in Russia after Vladimir Putin

The transit of power in Russia after Vladimir Putin (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)

Crystal balling. Slatersteven (talk) 13:35, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per
  WP:CBALL: It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.·Carn !? 13:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The problem is this is a collection of suppositions about what might happen, its not a clear cut analysis of future events.Slatersteven (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Slatersteven: There can be no analysis of "future events". This is not "future history" it is a retelling of the analysis of present situation (trends and tendencies, forces of political actors, etc) carried out by experts - political scientists, sociologists and journalists.

There is no editor opinion in article, there are "predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field" as

WP:CBALL

allow us to do. Russian and international experts have long spoken out on this subject, so quite comprehensive generalizing works have appeared.

If I misunderstood the rules and there will be consensus that the article should be deleted - i ask instead of this please transfer it by subsection to 2024 Russian presidential election.·Carn !? 14:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 14:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Notable topic. Nomination is not valid without detailing why that policy applies here. It's akin to nominating 2020 United States presidential election for the same reason.----Pontificalibus 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The 2020 election is an event likely to happen, this is not about an event likely to happen but speculation about a number of events that might happen (well to be more precise speculation about what might stop an event (the 2024 presidential elections) from happening), one (according to the article, and the only one required in law) unlikely to happen. Hell even the page name is wrong, as at least two of the scenarios involve Putin remaining in power.Slatersteven (talk) 15:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Among Russian experts there is common name on a topic "Problem 2024", maybe it is better name for an article.

Article is about existing problem of succession in personalist regime - only one scenario (Constitution change) isn't about transit of power. Other scenarios about loosing formal power by Putin.·Carn !? 17:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Which is the problem, this is not about one probable event but three possible (and one unlikely) event (according to the article). This is an example of various "experts" making conjectural predictions of what might be. The only difference between this and those "what if" books written by historians is here they are postulating different futures, rather then alternative pasts.Slatersteven (talk) 13:32, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  talk to me or see what I've been doing) 19:27, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Can you be more specific? All statements are given by sources, what exactly bothers you? ·Carn !? 11:00, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per
  WP:CBALL. At this stage only unfounded speculations are available Alex Bakharev (talk) 11:44, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • If speculations are made by political scientists or sociologists, not by editors, as I wrote above -
    WP:CBALL specifies that they are ok. ·Carn !? 17:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Weak keep or merge to
  WP:CBALL tells: All articles about anticipated events must be verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred. It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced.. It is properly referenced. My very best wishes (talk) 01:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. The article needs a lot of work (including a new name), but it's a topic that gets coverage, e.g. [1], [2], [3]. Encyclopaedic things can be said about it. Bondegezou (talk) 10:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is there a consensus that new name should be "Problem 2024"? I didn’t name the article that way because I didn’t understand whether clarification is needed, like "Problem 2024 (Russia)" ·Carn !? 10:41, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Problem 2024 would be better than the current title. Bondegezou (talk) 16:18, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  π, ν) 15:03, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete or Merge per
  WP:CBALL. Article is filled with speculations. Best is probably to merge with any other article regarding Putin and Russia as a whole. Maybe the 2024 Russian presidential election? Lefcentreright (talk) 17:00, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to 2024 Russian presidential election for now. The article is full of speculation and cannot be explained with accurate sourcing until 2024 arrives. Also, who knows, Russia could pull a China and change the term limit, especially with a unpredictable leader such as Putin. AmericanAir88^(talk) 16:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge sourced speculations into
  WP:CONCISE and would probably not be a very helpful redirect for this reason. ComplexRational (talk) 14:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge acceptable sourced content to
  too soon for a stand alone article. Otr500 (talk) 02:47, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:57, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Voice Mobile

Voice Mobile (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)

A brand which uses name to sell Chinese-made phones in Pakistan. No factory, nothing in Pakistan. No impact on Pakistani people lives. Using WP as a promotional platform. Limited to no coverage in reliable sources. Badly fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:01, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete references are press releases, and barely demonstrate that "Voice Mobile" is a thing that exists -- as opposed to a phone called "Voice" sold by United Mobile.
  π, ν) 20:40, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Article is merely an advert; not enough to pass
  WP:CORPDEPTH. -Lopifalko (talk) 07:13, 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.

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 should be deleted because it fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. --KAP03(^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 18:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• User 2yechan was hired by Treasure Studio Inc, the parent company for CoCoMelon. The user has been instructed to write information regarding the history of CoCoMelon company, which does not have much media presence outside of YouTube. The CoCoMelon Wikipedia page is a young work in progress, and current lack of sources does not justify grounds for deletion. All video screenshots are justified by fair use. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.226.132 (talk) 20:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Unscrupulous paid editing; burn it to the ground. It might be possible to write a decent article using
  reliable sources like [5][6], but where decent sources exist, they seem to discuss "Kids YouTube" as a whole, rather than any particular channel. This page is a shady and secretive company trying to manage its own reputation by violating Wikipedia policy. It needs to go. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• User 2yechan believes that nothing is further from the truth. With 10 minutes of research or by simply clicking on the links provided in the wikipedia page one could see that CoCoMelon had nothing to do with the children's video YouTube Scandal. We have always been dedicated to providing free education for children since the inception of YouTube. Be wary of bias created by internet articles. The user 2yechan apologizes for formatting errors that may have occured, these were created in ignorance of the Wikipedia method. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.169.226.132 (talk) 22:00, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you please disclose your relationship with Cocomelon? How are you able to speak for 2yechan? TheAwesomeHwyh 17:07, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I created this page last year as a redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels and have had almost no involvement with it since. If this AfD determines that the page should not be kept as an article, I believe we would be best served by redirecting it again to the YouTube list, where Cocomelon is among the highest-ranked channels, rather than deleting it outright. LifeofTau 22:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• "Sourced" to the company's YouTube videos; no other sources actually documenting the company properly, cited (now or in the original article) or to be found; an edit history full of whitewashing like Special:Diff/907435630; edits from IP accounts writing the content that geolocate only either to Irvine, California (the formal location of the purported parent company) or to Murmansk (which I suspect might be a clue to the reason for the secretiveness); and

  CoCoMelon lacks presence on the internet, under direct discretion of the company to maintain privacy. Please understand this choice […]
  — User:2yechan 2019-08-09T22:12:32

  Yes, let's maintain that privacy by removing this unverifiable unreliably sourced sneaky advertising through paid editing. The redirect is the right answer. Uncle G (talk) 09:13, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  The page history is full of anonymous IPs doing weird things, like editing other users' sandboxes, including apparently trying to get them deleted, and attempting to answer a semi-protected edit request, and mucking about with automated reports and bot-task pages. XOR'easter (talk) 14:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  For reference's sake, Murmansk: 5.142.197.66, 5.142.228.103, 95.52.16.54, 95.54.185.123, 95.54.188.148, 178.68.118.42, 178.68.127.202. Irvine: 70.169.226.132, 98.185.164.198. XOR'easter (talk) 15:15, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, restore the redirect and protect. Guy (Help!) 09:33, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of most-subscribed YouTube channels per pretty much everyone else. I think that there could be some potential for notability in this article but in its current state is too far gone to even try to fix. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:04, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:05, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. TheAwesomeHwyh 04:06, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. --KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 04:14, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete -- undisclosed paid editing about a non-notable YouTune channel, with a promotional tone and no meaningful sources. --Orange Mike | Talk 18:29, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Per above,not significant secondary sources , promotional Alex-h (talk) 15:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: If you search for this on Google but exclude results from YouTube and Dailymotion, you find exactly zero reliable sources.
  talk) 19:16, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete -- Asolutely no evidence that the company is notable outside of their own links Dexxtrall (talk) 21:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. A YouTube channel with 50M+ subscribers should be notable. The fact that the only coverage we can find are people writing (e.g. in the WSJ) who are these guys? is somewhat disturbing. But we can't make an article out of that, and the paid-editing issue also means that the existing content is unusable and that keeping an article free of future promotion is not going to be easy. Better just to delete. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:02, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I'm currently trying to rescue this article with a "criticism" section, as the question of who exactly makes these videos seems to be what the media focuses on. I don't know if the sources found are enough, though. (Also, how fast do you bet the I.P adresses will try to remove it? I give it a day.) TheAwesomeHwyh 18:11, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Your section on criticism/controversy is good, but looking at the available sources, IMO they just aren't in-depth enough about this particular channel to sustain an article on it. That text could be incorporated, however, into YouTube or List of most-subscribed YouTube channels. The former already discusses controversies over child-oriented videos, and the latter already has a section about milestones and reactions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:02, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  Yeah, after I wrote it I was thinking that too I woudn't have any problems with it being incorporated into another article if this one got deleted. TheAwesomeHwyh 18:00, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:04, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intraculturalism

Intraculturalism (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 neologism. Most of the stuff I'm seeing online are mirrors. For the record, until now the article hadn't been edited in 1,112 days, and it only had 20 edits in its history, despite the fact that it has been on Wikipedia since June 2006. I'm honestly not sure if this subject is a thing outside of this article; the article does not cite any sources.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions.  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  18:14, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a book search throws up a number of refs in the context of theatre, so it appears to be a term used in critical discourse in that field. Not sure if it’s really notable or if it’s just a
  WP:DICDEF. Mccapra (talk) 19:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak Delete I did not find any sources for this concept, so this particular concept does not meet
  talk) 19:59, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as it does not appear to be a notable concept. However, I agree with keeping the article if sources that prove the word's sufficient usage are provided.
  Ktrimi991 (talk) 21:24, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete an unsourced dict-def.
  π, ν) 20:43, 14 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. – bradv🍁 05:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Virginia McLaurin

Virginia McLaurin (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:50, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep:
  WP:NOTCLEANUP [ Wm335td (talk) 20:31, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

All of the coverage of her is

WP:SIGCOV of her life or deeds. She is an ordinary woman who happens to live in D.C. which is full of prominent people, some of whom she happened to have met or get awards from as countless others do, but she doesn't inherit their notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 20:45, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete This is a horrible example of presentism. Nothing she has done rises above routine.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per GNG (BBC, ESPN, Washington Post), but needs serious cleanup and trimming. — JFG ^talk 04:26, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:SIGCOV of her, and the Washington Post article is a fluff feature only in existence because she did something quirky around a president, which is where the bulk of "her" coverage comes from. She and her bed bugs are not notable, Barrack Obama is. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I've done all the cleanup I could. Found more in-depth coverage at The Independent, and removed some bad sourcing. Re: only in existence because she did something quirky around a president, it's not our business to opine on why a person gets coverage; all that matters is that she did get coverage in multiple independent RS, hence it's still a Keep. — JFG ^talk 06:36, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Meets
  WP:GNG. 172.56.28.248 (talk) 14:57, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  banned sock struck. -- zzuuzz ^(talk) 18:42, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Per
  WP:SIGCOV. 71.161.233.35 (talk) 18:40, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Significant coverage, in reliable sources independent of the subject. Not only for her dance with the Obamas, but also before and after that. The article could use some additional articles to beef it up, but as is, the subject is already sufficiently notable. David in DC (talk) 16:07, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as noted above, she won a major award for volunteerism. Her meeting with the Obamas became an Internet meme and she got lasting, significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 16:23, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There is enough coverage. Szzuk (talk) 18:30, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:07, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Amica Chips

Amica Chips (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)

Does not pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 19:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

ping me) 17:26, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Fails
  WP:NCORP. There are many passing mentions in industry-related blogs and info newsletters about the extruded snack manufacturers group which includes this company, but I could find nothing with a solid focus on the article subject. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:56, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, fails GNG and
  HighKing⁺⁺ 18:42, 15 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Widow's Bane

The Widow's Bane (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Theroadislong (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per coverage in the following reliable (albeit local) sources: [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] Admittedly some of these are (partly) interviews but I still think WP:BAND is met here. IntoThinAir (talk) 22:41, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per the reliable sources identified above, local reliable sources are acceptable for bands and musicians as per criteria 7 of
  WP:NMUSIC, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 17:03, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Current references are sufficient to establish notability. Pichpich (talk) 22:47, 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.

Pentacle (The Virtual Business School)

Pentacle (The Virtual Business School) (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)

Have done a quick

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 02:43, 11 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) 05:13, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Smile (2003 film)

Smile (2003 film) (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 film the sources are just too weak to pass

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 17:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete redundant,I think ita wil be deleteKimfromkorea (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC) striking a blocked sockpuppet --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:30, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Before deciding what we do with this article, it would be important to bring in someone who speaks Kannada. That's the language of the film so reliable in-depth coverage may exist in Kannada. I've left a note at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Karnataka asking for help. Pichpich (talk) 22:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: Not
  primary source, one (Chiloka) a user edited source, one is a forum, and one is a viewing certification. The article states "The film with hardly a theatrical run of 20 days". Otr500 (talk) 04:05, 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 05:09, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marblemedia

Marblemedia (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)

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I have also tagged

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's

list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Like with Distribution 360, non-notable company created by COI editor. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG, non notable media company. Josalm64rc (talk) 18:19, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  talk) 07:09, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment: Notable television was produced by Marblemedia (Netflix) Blown Away Reality TV Several passing mentions for Blown Away here in the Observer Marble Media was nominated for the 2019 Canadian Screen Award in the category of Best Children’s or Youth Non-Fiction Series for hit series Just Like Mom and Dad.

Some routine press here and a show produced for CBC TV I am inclined to say that a media company is known by their work but I am going to keep researching before an ivote. They look to have won significant awards. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• • Response Even if notable programming or movies were produced by Marblemedia, notability is not inherited. We require two in-depth articles on the company that contains independent content - passing mentions fail as they aren't in-depth, press releases fail as they aren't regarded as having independent content. It is incorrect to state that Marblemedia was nominated for the 2019 Canadian Screen Award and I know they state this on their website but it is misleading. The nomination was for the TV program and not for the production. Similarly, the rest of the awards on their website are similarly misleading. You say that you are "inclined to say that a media company is known by their work" - I'd say that has nothing to do with the notability of the company and it isn't supported by any of our policies or guidelines.
    HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:06, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SEVEN24 Films

SEVEN24 Films (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)

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG and

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:38, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Not notable, just a promotional article. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 16:46, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:29, 15 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.

Pedophile press

Pedophile press (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)

Sneaky pedophilia advocacy dressed up to look encyclopedic. This topic needs

It has 71.3% authorship by, and was started by, a user who mainly or only edited pedophilia articles and is now banned.

"Pedophile press" is

Some material was recently removed. A careful reading of this material shows even more the pedophile advocacy motivation behind this article. It contained 3 more links to Ipce and 2 to another pedophile advocacy site called "exitinterview.biz", along with 2 others that looked suspicious but were dead links. It contained lines such as "Experts on pedophilia as Frits Bernard and Edward Brongersma..." (these men were actually pedophile activists) and "In 1987 was launched in Netherland Paidika: The Journal of Paedophilia, a scholarly journal which took a positive scholarly approach towards the study of pedophilia.[13] From the beginning, Paidika differentiated from other pedophilia-related publications. It had a professional layout and an impressive editorial board which reviewed the submissions to the journal. During its nine years of publication, Paidika managed to remain faithful to Bullough's (1990, 320) observation and publish a great number of well researched scholarly articles." (Did you catch how scholarly it was?)

Thanks to Uncle G for pointing this out to me. A related AfD is

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 15:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete I agree with the nominator's reasoning. Also the creator of this and the other article mentioned was blocked in 2014, no reason listed anywhere. All of their edits seem to be related to this topic. Dream Focus 15:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete as recreation of previously-deleted material, per the observation at the related AfD. And even if it weren't, the nomination makes a good case for deletion anyway. XOR'easter (talk) 18:58, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom, and maybe we can get an admin willing to
  WP:SNOW close this. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Strong delete per nom and previous responders. Putting aside the controversial topic (which by the way Wikipedia is not censored), it is a full list of non notable publications. Ajf773 (talk) 19:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• My rationale, as at the other discussion, is that these specific edit histories plagiarising word-for-word promotional content from "BoyWiki" are entirely undesirable, and should be deleted. Uncle G (talk) 23:51, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete it is unclear that most of these publications are anywhere near notable enough to merit inclusion in any way.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:21, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, none of the entries are notable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 07:00, 10 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Caroline Ford (medical researcher)

Caroline Ford (medical researcher) (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)

As associate professor she does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:23, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - A Google Scholar search results in 1346 citations and an h-index score of 19. Netherzone (talk) 13:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In that list you have CC Ford CS Ford CE Ford C Ford, CP Ford and Caroline Ford, some of the articles are from before she started to publish (2005 according to her bio) with subjects as diverse as "Religion and popular culture in modern Europe" from 1993, "Altered Responsiveness of Rat Liver Epithelial Cells to Transforming Growth Factor β1following Their Transformation with v-raf" from 1990 "The Less Traveled Road: A Study of Robert Frost" from 1935 etc etc --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dom from Paris I'm not sure we are looking at the same thing. If you do a more refined search in GS, look at CE Ford here; the citations (and stats) are her cancer research. Netherzone (talk) 15:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oops you are right, my apologies. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak delete - According to SCOPUS her most cited work by far is this review with 239 citations. However, from my time looking at citations here it seems like reviews in biomedicine get cited way more than primary papers. So I'm not convinced a cited review indicates that a person's work has impacted the field in the same way that highly cited primary literature does. Her other most cited papers have 89 and 88 citations (with her as first author), and 53 citations (with her as last author). So while I think this is a bit of an edge case, I agree with nom that these citation counts are generally too low to demonstrate that the subject's "research has made significant impact in their scholarly discipline". Happy to be persuaded otherwise by others. Cheers Ajpolino (talk) 21:18, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

WP:GNG; I just can't see a few of the sources. Thanks all! Ajpolino (talk) 17:35, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

@Ajpolino: Here are the articles you mentioned. I'm not sure if you're familiar with Australian media, but the Sydney Morning Herald and the Adelaide Advertiser are state-wide papers, not just city papers. The New Scientist article has a history of research into breast cancer in mice and discovery of that virus in humans. The bits about Ford are:

"Over the following years, several other groups reported similar findings. In 2000, Polly Etkind at New York Medical College not only found MMTV sequences in human breast cancer tissue, but also found that some samples harboured more than one strain of MMTV, suggesting multiple recent infections. In 2003, Caroline Ford, now at Lund University in Malmö, Sweden, detected MMTV sequences in 42 per cent of breast tumour samples from Australian women, but in just 1.8 per cent (2 out of 111) of samples of normal breast tissue. Ford's team also found MMTV sequences in six of nine male breast tumours examined. And when Ford investigated the two samples of normal breast tissue that tested positive, she found one came from a woman who had had a tumour in the other breast, while the other came from a woman who developed a tumour after the sample was taken. ..... In Vietnam, just I per cent of women develop breast cancer, and when Ford looked at samples from Vietnamese women in her 2003 study, she found MMTV sequences in just 0.8 per cent of tumour samples and none in samples of normal breast tissue. ..... The most recent studies by Ford and others, however, have been based on looking for MMTV sequences in tumours that do not resemble any known HERVs. What's more, these sequences have not been found in normal tissue from the same individuals, as would be expected if they were HERVs. "This suggests a recent infection and integration of viral DNA," Ford says.

Other researchers are not convinced. No one has yet isolated the entire MMTV genome in one piece from a human cancer cell and shown that it yields viruses able to infect cells, points out Robert Weinberg of the Whitehead Institute for Biomedical Research in Cambridge, Massachusetts, winner of a Nobel prize for his work on viruses and cancer. ........ None of the supporters of the MMTV hypothesis are claiming to have provided conclusive proof. "Our results, and those of others, only indicate an association and point to some possible implications," says Pogo. "We have not claimed causation in any of our papers." Ford agrees. "This work is preliminary, and the topic as a whole is still really in its infancy," she says.

The Australian is about someone else questioning her research and the award. It had a paragraph break after almost every sentence, so I've taken them out:

"A SYDNEY PhD student has found herself at the centre of a scientific cyber row after a national award led to her breast cancer research gaining international publicity. In the science world equivalent of David and Goliath, University of NSW student Caroline Ford finds herself pitted against 2003 Victoria Prize winner David Vaux. Apart from questioning the validity of Ms Ford's research, Dr Vaux has also attacked the structure of the Fresh Science award and called for changes to its format. Fresh Science is a national program to highlight work of young Australian scientists that has received no media attention. All nominated work must have undergone peer review and have been published academically, as the main criteria in selecting the winner is the candidate's ability to explain their research. After her win, Ms Ford's research, which highlighted a link between breast cancer and a virus, gained media exposure in the ABC, the BBC, international and national newspapers, and was picked up on wire services from Spain to Mexico. Dr Vaux, who has been honoured for his pioneering work in the molecular biology of cancer, believes her findings are 'most certainly wrong' and during the debate on the Australian Science Communicators email list branded them 'junk science'. He has called on her research team to repeat the study using a more recognised technique -- a move Ms Ford has rejected. He has also called for an expert panel to judge the science of the nominees in future Fresh Science events. But according to Fresh Science co-ordinator Niall Byrne, Ms Ford's science had been subject to peer review as part of her publication in the international journal Clinical Cancer Research. The validity of her results was an issue for that community, he told the HES, adding that he saw the dispute as a 'case of two reputable research teams having a dispute over technique and the interpretation of results'. Mr Byrne pointed to the example of Barry Marshall, whose work on the role of infectious agents in the cause of stomach ulcers was resisted by the medical community but later proven. 'This may lead nowhere, but we shouldn't hide the idea,' he said. Dr Vaux said he supported Mr Byrne's view that the public should know science was not perfect. However, Dr Vaux said that where public health was at stake, unconfirmed reports should not be reported. He pointed to the scare over the measles, mumps and rubella vaccine link to autism that sent immunisation rates plummeting. If Ms Ford's findings were right, he said, it meant breast cancer was contagious and that women with the disease should be quarantined to prevent its spread. 'I believe that scientists have a responsibility to challenge reports that they think are wrong when they are in the public domain and they think they have the potential of causing harm,' Dr Vaux said. Ms Ford told the HES she believed scientific debate was 'really important', but preferred not to comment further. However, in an email to the Australian Science Communicators, she said the 'pejorative and personal comments by Dr Vaux are inappropriate and unjustified scientifically'."

I haven't tried to find the Spanish, Mexican, etc, coverage of her 2003 findings that this article mentions. Hope this helps, cheers, RebeccaGreen (talk) 19:22, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - article meets WP:GNG and WP:RS and given the overall lack of articles about female scientists generally on Wikipedia, if this is borderline for WP:NRPROF I'd be inclined to err on the side of keeping the article. Bookscale (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I agree if
  WP:GNG is satisfied this should be a keep, but I'm not seeing multiple articles in independent sources discussing her in detail.----Pontificalibus 07:38, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment - please note that this article was written as part of an edit-a-thon to celebrate women working in the STEMM area (particularly in Australia). The subjects were picked specifically because of coverage in various sources. I think it would be wise to show some good faith towards the creators of the articles. Please also note that the article has been improved with additional sources since the nomination. Bookscale (talk) 10:00, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't believe anyone has been accused of bad faith. Just because the article has been created as part of an edit-thon doesn't give it a pass on notability. I don't understand why a new user for whom this is their first edit gets a free pass on "confirmed user" status either. It would be far better IMHO to go through AFC. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:19, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • Calm down, I haven't accused anyone of acting in bad faith - I'm suggesting that it would be wise to do so in this instance by erring on the side of keeping the article. And although a new user created the article, it has since been improved by others. Bookscale (talk) 10:36, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks for the advice but you couldn't imagine just how calm I actually feel at the moment, something to do with the summer holidays I suppose! Asking people to show good faith suggests that maybe they weren't doing so before your advice, but that is by the by. I don't believe that we are doing anyone or the encyclopedia a service by erring on the side of keeping or for that matter deleting. As you said, when I reviewed and nominated it the article had already been edited by 8 different editors including 2 administrators so I really think the "showing good faith to a new editor" boat had already sailed as was less than a dot on the horizon so I honestly don't understand your comment. --Dom from Paris (talk) 11:48, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I have added more sources and some more information about her research. She, and her PhD research in 2003, gained national and international media attention after she won a national award. There has been more media attention on her recent research. I believe that she meets
  WP:NACADEMIC #7 "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." (Some of these sources are in Newspapers.com, and anyone with access should be able to use the hyperlinks; some are in EBSCO, where urls are specific to the institution I access it through, but anyone with EBSCO access should be able to find them from the details given.) RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:24, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per RebeccaGreen. In addition, I'd say that well-cited review articles are indeed an indication that someone is influential in their field, much as having written a standard textbook would be. XOR'easter (talk) 18:47, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Now meets basic notability requirements.--Ipigott (talk) 06:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per PROF c1. Although her research/citation record is not especially outstanding in her field (cancer), it exceeds what we typically consider borderline for academics. Although it is a SPA-created likely fan/vanity page, the article has been improved (as noted above). Agricola44 (talk) 15:09, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per RebeccaGreen. Article has been significantly developed and referenced since AfD lodged. Oronsay (talk) 20:07, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. GS citation record in this very highly cited field is to low to pass
  WP:Prof#C1 now: WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:31, 14 August 2019 (UTC).[reply
  ]
• Keep per RebeccaGreen. Notable not citations but for Superstars in STEM, prizes and also for organising a global book club with ~3000 people. https://www.positive.news/society/the-book-clubs-that-are-uniting-stemminists-around-the-world/ DrPlantGenomics (DrPlantGenomics|talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:09, 15 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Amin Karimpor

Mohammad Amin Karimpor (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)

None of the sources is indepth coverage. There are a couple of user-generated biographies, and streaming sites. A before search threw up social media and streaming site. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 12:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 02:55, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete a non-notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails
  WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 22:38, 15 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 draftify at least until the event actually happens. – bradv🍁 05:42, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Results of the 2020 Taiwan legislative election

Results of the 2020 Taiwan legislative election (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)

Results article for an election that won't be held until next year. As there is no possible content at present, it's a classic case of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete
  WP:NOTCRYSTAL and per nom. Wug·a·po·des​ 02:10, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Userfy We have many elections articles about 2020 elections. I see this is a "Results of..." article, which isn't quite the same. But useful to save the work somewhere. Bondegezou (talk) 12:51, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft too soon to have this article.
  π, ν) 20:47, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  2020 Taiwan legislative election seems like the simplest solution to me. Pichpich (talk) 22:32, 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 delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Acky's XP Breakout

Acky's XP Breakout (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)

Doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the

Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete no independent references in article. I did find some user-generated content (such as [15]) about the game, but nothing to meet GNG.
  π, ν) 20:49, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete' Currently has zero independent references but I don't see any in-depth coverage elsewhere. Pichpich (talk) 22:31, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 21:09, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Theodor Landscheidt

Theodor Landscheidt (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)

copy right violation, its a straight copy and paste from his obit, which is chock full of unsourced claims Slatersteven (talk) 10:43, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:40, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Delete for copyvio. Mccapra (talk) 14:35, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  I reverted the copyvio addition. Should be revdel'ed if the article is kept. —Kusma (t·c) 16:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  ok I’ve struck my !vote and will reconsider. Mccapra (talk) 17:11, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a poorly referenced stub. Now sure if this has changed my mind or just changed the reason for delete.Slatersteven (talk) 17:24, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as none of the sources I can find are reliable. Mccapra (talk) 06:23, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, sources don't seem good enough. The obit included a claim that he was a judge. Self-published claims tell us he may have been a judge at the Hanseatisches Oberlandesgericht Bremen [de], the highest court in Bremen, which is a fairly high judicial position in Germany. However, most of the notability seems to be derived from pseudoscience activities, and we don't have any good sources for these (other than his own publications). —Kusma (t·c) 08:27, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, Not reliable sources Alex-h (talk) 15:58, 12 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) 05:12, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Serkan Özay

Serkan Özay (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 indication of meeting

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a scheduled delete on two of my articles recently and I decided that I could improve one of them with more first party resources, as recommended by the notice. That is why I added lengthy interviews with the notable person in question, Serkan Özay, by two large media entities, an invited contribution on an official Sony website, and also the videos of a guest academic lecture delivered on a university's official vimeo channel. For some reason, despite my attempts in good faith in trying to improve the article per Wikipedia's standards, it was nominated for deletion with the same exact reasons stated in the first notice--essentially disregarding the later edits that I surmise solve the valid issues raised.

If you could review the latest edit again and in particular peruse the references 8, 9, and 10 that would be great. Thank you for your help. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by McRunninFly (talk • contribs) 15:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The interviews are with him but about Hero Concept so do nothing to establish notability for him. noq (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - sources, such as Linkedin and PlayStation Blog, do not meet
  WP:ANYBIO - his contribution has not been "widely recognized" or "part of the enduring historical record" - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 02:50, 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 Draftify. Fenix down (talk) 10:14, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Silvera

Samuel Silvera (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 fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Subject has not played in competitive match between two fully pro teams nor has he represented his nation as senior or Olympic level. Simione001 (talk) 10:07, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Simione001 (talk) 10:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftify Subject does meet
  A-League listed as the criteria to be considered as a professional team for Australia. Source shows that the subject did play a competitive match with that team. --Crystallizedcarbon (talk) 10:34, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]