Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 January 11

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 03:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yury Kuznetsov (artist)

Yury Kuznetsov (artist) (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 subject does not appear to meet any of the

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:48, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete zero sources found... GNG fail.
  talk) 03:08, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:21, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete agreed, couldn't find any sources. --Theredproject (talk) 18:25, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete cant find any reliable sources.Failure of
  WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 08:14, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:08, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony D. Perkins

Anthony D. Perkins (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 subject that does not meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The only Google news results I see are just quoting him about something, not talking about him. Dream Focus 17:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Community consensus is that LDS leaders have to pass
  talk) 20:02, 18 January 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 Interruption (speech). See the AfD comments for suggestions for more specific sections to merge into. Provide a redirect after merging. -- RoySmith (talk) 04:37, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Manterrupting

Manterrupting (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 like a piece together through original research or

• Keep because it is notorious like any other similar term (
  talk) 22:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. I might cull the information about the app as undue weight, but there's certainly enough out there to expand this into a very credible article. Despite the recent coinage of the term, a Google Scholar search is surprisingly productive, for example. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:42, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:41, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge into Interruption_(speech)#Manterrupting which is the same topic plus more context.Andrew D. (talk) 18:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 21:45, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect into Interruption_(speech)#Manterrupting where's it already appropriately covered, per Andrew D. --Lockley (talk) 04:18, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • That doesn't make sense to me. Manterrupting is an independent term. It'd be like reducing "Mansplaining" to
    talk) 13:16, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
• Merge and redirect per Andrew D, but maybe to the broader section Interruption (speech)#Gender and interruption patterns, where the awkward separate section could be better explained in context. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 03:18, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete (or merge) this article seems to give undue weight to a word that does not seem to be very well established. I would be open to change my mind if the article was improved. wikitigresito (talk) 22:52, 15 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect per Andrew D--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:18, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 03:10, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Billionaire Club

Billionaire Club (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)

Failure to satisfy

It's got a good number of notable actors, so I thought there might be reviews, but thus far was unavailable to find any.

It presumably isn't "Billionaires Boys Club" - the Kevin Stacey film!

Nosebagbear (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:48, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Well, there are easier things to find online sources for than a 15 year old Nigerian film! Also, the correct title for this film is Billionaire's Club. All that said, there's at least one article in a scholarly journal dedicated to analysis of themes in the film: Aniago, Emeka; Onah, Jonas; Okosisi, Callista (2017). "Analytical evaluation of supernatural realities in Nigerian films: Ernest Obi's Idemili and Afam Okereke's Billionaire's Club as paradigms". IKENGA International Journal of Institute of African Studies. 17 (1): 157–163. As it was published well over a decade after the film's release, I can only assume the film was relatively well-known and any difficulty in finding sources is the result of systemic bias rather than actual absent notability. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I had also searched that, though I didn't get the journal (or perhaps I did and didn't read all the way) - definitely one of the odder titles, shame I can't get to it! I grant there's something to the argument - but I use 2000 as my balance point. Nosebagbear (talk)

• Nom partial vote change - to any closer, I didn't want to amend the nomination, but please consider my inherent !vote to be a Weak Delete Nosebagbear (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Article - This movie article was enjoyed by Nigerian's and Ghanaian's despite it was a Nigerian movie, the global community at large also liked it, so keeping this article would very key, but I am sure that in the future the would be good number references and citation Jwale2 (talk) 00:29, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 12:38, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep - I located an additional scholarly source through Jstor. Here is the citation: Brown, Matthew H. “At the Threshold of New Political Communities: Some Notes on the History of Nollywood's Epic Genre.” The Global South, vol. 7, no. 1, 2013, pp. 55–78. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/10.2979/globalsouth.7.1.55. I have access to Jstor so I was able to check the text. Between this and the article noted by the editor above, the film meets
  WP:NFILM.Citrivescence (talk) 07:10, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Question. Why is this being discussed under the title "Billionaire Club" when if one clicks on the wiki-text, one finds out the film is called "Billionaire's Club"? Vorbee (talk) 18:43, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Vorbee: - because that's what the article is currently titled. If it remains then it can be moved, but that can be messy to do mid-AfD. Nosebagbear (talk) 18:47, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been much better if you had performed this move before nominating for deletion. Then it would have been discussed under the correct title.

Phil Bridger (talk) 19:00, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Possibly, but unless it's absolutely clear-cut, like a grammar issue, I prefer to check the mood of people before performing a move. That would have required delaying this AfD (which is both more important than a minor move but also can handle it if people opt to Keep). Additionally it risks unneeded multiple moves if the AfD decided on something different. TL;DR - I could have, but there were better reasons not to; than to. Nosebagbear (talk) 19:05, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 09:09, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mohamad Fakih

Mohamad Fakih (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)

Being a privately held company, where the claims about the company are being made cannot be verified you cannot take at face value much of the information is correct or highly accurate. Blogs, Twitter or Facebook entries, web page updates are the place to promote the business he owns. It is extremely rare to see pages about other privately owned companies senior executives because there is no value to it other than to promote the individual. The page about the subject only holds up as a resume. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OrangeProperties (talk • contribs) 00:12, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 00:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 01:47, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Another paid PR piece. Non-notable, needs to be deleted. Skirts89 (talk) 17:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]
• Not sure. Looks like undeclared paid editing product. Sources are not so bad but they do not look to meet notability requirements. Not terribly bad as promotion, there is more about his philanthropy than trying to promote the food company. If notable, he should be mentioned at Quebec City mosque shooting and Paramount Fine Foods. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 03:47, 3 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - Without even reading the article, I know Fakih is the founder of Paramount Fine Foods, and is known for his philanthropy and aid to immigrants to Canada. I still get my news via dead tree, and my recollection is that that there is at least one profile piece that I've read about him. I am not expressing a "keep" yet because I understand that my personal recollection that there are sources is not the same as actually producing them, ut it might take me a bit to dig them up. I should have access to the newspaper archives for the newspaper I am subscribed to, for checking. -- Whpq (talk) 21:49, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - This Toronto Star article is already a reference in the article. It is a substantial write-up specifically about Fakih. This Toronto Star article from 2012 is another substantial piece about Fakih. This Globe and Mail article is about Paramount Fine Foods, but includes substantial info written about Fakih. Ther is also this Finacial Post article about Fakih. This represents substantial coverage from multiple independent reliable sources with which to satisfy
  WP:GNG. -- Whpq (talk) 01:27, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Interesting case with set of four sources, all of which I would call non-independent as they are write ups based on the writers interviewing the subject, as I argue here: [[1]]. These four sources contain no third party sourcing. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 01:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • The virtue of the interviews being conducted by Toronto Star and others makes them third party sources. The question is if these are only primary sources but at least the Globe and Mail contains secondary considerations (discussions with independent people not affiliated with the man or chain). Add the coverage of the defamation and his charity work, and GNG for BLP is clearly met. --Masem (t) 02:08, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    • I can see your point, but these articles are not from minor news sources. The Toronto Star and the Globe and Mail are major Canadian newspapers. That their editors have made an editorial decision that Fakih is worth covering (i.e., is worthy of note). These are not straight interview pieces, and I expect that the reporters on these assignments did do their fact checking. So I'd agree that using a quote from Fakih from one of these articles as a reference to verify a specific claim in the article would be problematic, from the point of view of notability, the decision to write an article about Fakih does establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 02:10, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Borderline keep . Of course there is nothing special to write about it, but a chain of 80 restaurants surely is an achievement of note.
  talk) 02:07, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per Whpq, even if I disagree that the sources meet the GNG. The GNG is not absolute in our decisions to keep or delete articles. I am influenced by the public causes, and the lack of blatant commercial publicity. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 04:19, 17 January 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.

Shyam Ganesh

Shyam Ganesh (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 in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 10:41, 20 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - clear failure of
  WP:GNG and NACTOR Spiderone 11:26, 2 January 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.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 15:06, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:01, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment a couple of sources were added by @RebeccaGreen: very shortly after this AfD was started, but I've no idea what they say - I can't find more than mentions elsewhere, however I'll stay neutral for the moment. Anyone with access a summary would be appreciated. Nosebagbear (talk) 13:54, 10 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nomination. -The Gnome (talk) 09:27, 19 January 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.

Welly (toy company)

Welly (toy company) (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 have checked several times for sources on this company, but can only find directory listings and sites selling their products. The article has never had any independent sources about the company, and I cannot rectify that. Guy (Help!) 11:17, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I have found and added three sources about Welly diecast cars, and I expect that there are more offline - I think it would be easy to show that they are notable. Perhaps the article could be renamed Welly (diecast cars)? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:57, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 18:40, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Keep If independent sources are available, the article can stay.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Response Hi @
    HighKing⁺⁺ 15:14, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

Right. The three sources above are a blog and two directories. Guy (Help!) 16:06, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My "keep" vote was a qualified one: if proper sourcing can be found, the article can be kept. Hence, I changed my vote to "weak keep." TH1980 (talk) 23:28, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I am unable to locate at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. There does appear to be one book reference (pg 185) and perhaps there are others in other languages but, as I said, I can't find anything else. As such, topic fails
  HighKing⁺⁺ 14:42, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete on account of subject failing
  WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 19 January 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.

Reagan strange (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 enough notability for her own article. Teb728 redirected page to The Voice, which was disputed by page author via revert. Bensci54 (talk) 17:39, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  The Voice (U.S. season 15), which this article largely duplicates content from. --Michig (talk) 18:13, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect Beyond the abject mess that this article is... being on a reality show isn’t notability by itself. Trillfendi (talk) 22:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect as above. Simply not notable. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:53, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete. Not even notable enough for a redirect. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 14:04, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  The Voice (U.S. season 15) and correct the capitalization as noted above. The singer is not notable outside of the show, but her name is possibly a search term here if fans of the show try to look her up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Tone 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 South Coast blackout

2015 South Coast blackout (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)

Minor event about which little is or can be written. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Redirect – I disagree in that the event was "minor" as at the time it was the largest blackout in the history of BC Hyrdo in British Columbia. That said, I also suggest

WP:USERFY if the article is deleted as I would like to preserve some of the information. Also, this article is far from the worst attached to Category:Electric power blackouts. I would like to see a review of some the articles listed there. AuroraIL (talk) 03:46, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

In British Columbia particularly, there have only really been three notable windstorm's in recent memory. They occured in 2006, 2015 (article in question), and 2018. The latter occurred a few weeks ago, causing major damage to local landmarks and the resulting power outage surpassed that of the 2015 blackout. Of course this is all subjective. It appears that if storms in the Pacific Northwest do not particularly affect the states of Washington and Oregon it is not as notable. I forgot about the 2016 storm as it is not particularly notable in British Columbia. My point is that I think that there is potential for this article to be expanded. There's only just little to expand on in its current form as it is focused primarily on the blackout and not the storm that occurred in August 2015.

@Marino13: as the editor who originally created the article. Northwest (talk) 00:52, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. As someone who lived and worked without electricity for two weeks after the
  Great Storm of 1987 in southern England this looks trivial.Charles (talk) 09:34, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Commemt – Interesting, thanks for the read. Although, I would think with the population density of that region it should have been worst than the

Columbus Day Storm of 1962. But it occured over 25 years later. It's as if responses to storms have improved in some capacity. I feel it is safe to say that had that storm occured in the 2010's you most likely would not have gone without electricity for that amount of time. Northwest (talk) 11:29, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

I suspect it would take just as long now because of the huge number of trees and powerlines brought down.Charles (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Good for historical and reference purposes for the area involved. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mgbo120 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable source for reference.Charles (talk) 21:36, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep-useful--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:21, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:11, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GaBi (software)

GaBi (software) (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 contributed by a probable undisclosed COI editor has only two references, one of which is to the company's website. A BEFORE in Google News, Google Books, newspapers.com, and JSTOR [searching for "Gabi AND (thinkstep OR software)" fails to find SIGCOV in RS]. Chetsford (talk) 17:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This fails WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 20:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This article fails the criteria for notability at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies), the relevant guideline for this type of article, because the company has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. - tucoxn\^talk 20:09, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Meca Sapiens

Meca Sapiens (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)

Page relates to a non-notable machine learning architecture. Article shows signs of significant

• Comment I created a COI notice here, which may be of interest to this discussion. I would like to otherwise recuse myself from the vote. 129.173.213.205 (talk) 17:05, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If it has the sources and references, keep it! Perf115 (talk) 19:14, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment It does not have any references that independently confer notability from what I could identify. That's why I nominated it for deletion. Simonm223 (talk) 19:19, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Clarifying none of the references independent of those accredited to the author of the architecture and the wikipedia page that I can access make any mention of Meca Sapiens at all. In fact none of the accessible references even mention the word "Meca". Furthermore more than half the references were published long before the architecture was conceived. Instead the entire article is a work of
  WP:GNG came up entirely empty. Simonm223 (talk) 19:30, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 19:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete It's another J.E. Tardy. COI and SPA problems. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:58, 17 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet
  WP:NSOFT; significant RS coverage not found. K.e.coffman (talk) 04:11, 18 January 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.

Zion Square assault

Zion Square assault (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)

Brawl (at a location in which several other altercations occured over the years - beware in searching - there are several other events at this square) with one serious injury (though later determined to be a cardiac condition not directly related to the brawl). A whole bunch of coverage in August 2012. A little bit of trial / plea bargain coverage in 2013 - and then mostly nothing. No LASTING effect or SUSTAINED coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 15:26, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:28, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• SPEEDY KEEP - Even a brief review of the sources cited in the article shows sustained coverage of the incident (e.g., this book reference from 2015). FOARP (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  A few sentences. Fails INDEPTH.Icewhiz (talk) 16:46, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And this book that has a whole chapter on it? FOARP (talk) 18:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is a book with very small chapters - in this case 2 pages per the index. It was also written close to events (2013), so not an indication of SUSTAINED. More importantly, it is not a RS - Max Blumenthal writes for RT and AlterNet and is not known for factual accuracy.Icewhiz (talk) 20:31, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this isn't very convincing. Two pages is quite significant for coverage that "addresses the topic directly and in detail". The year after most definitely is sustained coverage. And this is still only one of two dozen references in the article. FOARP (talk) 21:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not a RS - and trial coverage (which is what Blumenthal's two page meandering essay is) written during the trial is not an indication of SUSTAINED. This event created a whole bunch of

WP:SUSTAINED we would typically look for sources after the crime and trial in question. Icewhiz (talk) 08:46, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Speedy keep — I will
  significance. News cverage existed for a year, maybe more, and I will review some of the hits I am seeing in academic journals.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:49, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  While there are several academic journal hits for "Zion square" - per my review they refer to other incidents and topics (e.g. a spate of violent incidents in 2014-2015, political rallies, safe spaces for queers, etc. etc.). The location itself is very well studied (possibly the most studied modern street location in Western Jerusalem) - both due to its use in political rallies, and being a focal point / intersection point for youth in the street - however coverage of other incidents/phenomena in Zion Square does not make this 2012 incident notable (though it does complicate BEFOREing). Icewhiz (talk) 08:55, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Page title is wildly inaccurate as a description of a teenage rumble between the Sharks and the Jets, with highly overblown language and use of some highly partisan sourcing. Rumble in Zion Square would be more like it, although, if we are going to write an article about every time two groups of young men hanging out on the street corner start throwing punches....E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:15, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That you can describe a hate attack where a group attempted to beat someone to death as a 'west-side story rumble' is so amazingly offensive I am surprised you are even allowed to edit IP articles. The Judge described it as a lynching. I suppose he was 'partisan' too. I suggest you restrict your comments to actual policy-based arguments instead of bullshit. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:49, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Folks, let's keep it civil here. It doesn't matter what the nature of what took place is. What matters is whether there was sufficient significant coverage in reliable, independent sources to indicate notability. FOARP (talk) 21:22, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep More typical Wikipedia Zionist bullshit, where every dead Israeli Jew merits an encyclopedia article but no Palestinian qualifies for an article unless she or he can be maligned. — Malik Shabazz ^Talk/_Stalk 02:42, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lions' Gate stabbings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Halamish stabbing attack and Malik Shabazz. If we are going to have an article for stabbings of settlers in occupied territories, which the person who nominated this article say clearly belong in the encyclopedia, then lynchings in Jerusalem with coverage well beyond either of those articles certainly pass that same standard. nableezy - 01:42, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  We have articles on events that have SUSTAINED coverage. Some attacks do, many do not. This particular incident - does not have such coverage - possibly since while it was a sensation in the initial August 2012 news cycle - the subsequent investigation and trial resulted in a less sensationalist outcome. Icewhiz (talk) 06:57, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So, reporting that went on for a year in the Israeli national press.... sounds pretty sustained to me. FOARP (talk) 12:13, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Less than a year. One major (national and international) coverage spurt in August 2012. Minor coverage (brief) on a plea bargain in May 2013, and additional coverage on 8 July 2013 (verdict). So - no - far from continuous coverage that "went on for a year in the Israeli national press" - and one one would expect, for a notable event, sustained coverage after the end of the event (e.g. from 2014-15 onwards). Icewhiz (talk) 12:45, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And, as noted, plentiful references for those years exist. 1 2 3 4 5. Your point here is that even with the references in the article the coverage lasted "only" ~ten-eleven months and "not a year"? This should have been Speedy Kept TBH. FOARP (talk) 13:23, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy keep The sources used talk for themselves. --Mhhossein ^talk 16:33, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This AFD is already in

WP:SNOW territory. FOARP (talk) 21:15, 14 January 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.

Club 420 (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 mostly unsourced one-paragraph article would make more sense as a section in the article for 420_(dinghy). The two boats are not sufficiently dissimilar to warrant a separate article. Merging would make the most sense. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Mr. Swordfish[reply]

• Merge: As I outlined above, the Club 420 and the International 420 are basically the same boat. The club version is heavier (i.e. more durable for club usage) and has a different mast. Some of the running rigging may be different (i.e. simpler on the club version) , but no more than the variations you would see among boats of the same class. Support merging into 420_(dinghy). Mr. Swordfish (talk) 15:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment Was I the only person who expected "Club 420" to be about something different? FOARP (talk) 15:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The reason for deletion are the reasons for creation ironically. The Club 420 is NOT a 420 the club 420 shouldn't really use the 420 logo, the club 420 is NOT international it bearly exist out of north America where there is also I420 association, they have different administration and champions. It the fact the product looks very similar it needs seperate page as it makes it clear. interestingly no one has expanded the club 420 page with north American champions etc. It does need editing but it is important not to imply by having it on the same page that it is a linked product in any way User yachty4000 10:54 12 January 2019

The C420 is very much a "linked product" to the I420. When US manufacturer Vanguard Sailboats started building the I420 they offered a sturdier, simplified version for club usage, the C420. They did the same thing with the 470 (although the club 470 ceased production over 20 years ago). It's a variant, not a separate design.

I understand that you hold the opinion that the C420 is not a "real" 420, and that it shouldn't use the logo, but that's only opinion. While it is true that the C420 is mainly a North American phenomena, I don't see how that's relevant. Agree that there are different class associations and different championships, and several other differences. These differences can be clearly explained in one article rather than two.

When I edit Wikipedia, I try to bear in mind that the vast majority of readers know little or nothing about the subject and strive to present a clear and concise introduction for the uninitiated. FOARP's take is probably fairly typical. "A 420 is a sailboat?" The I420 article clearly states this in the first sentence. The C420 page sends the user on a snipe hunt with "The Club 420 is a derivative of the International 420 that is popular internationally." and you have to click on the link to find out what an International 420 might be. Granted that can be fixed with a simple edit, but for the typical user learning that the 420 is a small sailboat that comes in two variants is sufficient. Hair-splitting by editors very close to the subject matter does not serve the general audience.

I don't know that there's a lot to be said about the C420, which may explain why the article is still a one-paragrapher after seven years. That indicates to me that it doesn't merit a separate article. If enough material gets added to justify a branch, then we can address that at the time. For now, let's just merge the two. We can always add material to the merged article expanding on the differences between the two classes and that may be more illuminating to the casual user than separate articles. Mr. Swordfish (talk) 19:23, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge: After more than 7 years this page has developed into very little. It should be merged with the article on the International 420. Dolphin (t) 10:56, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge onto "
  encyclopaedic interest. -The Gnome (talk) 09:34, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge to 420 (dinghy). -- RoySmith (talk) 16:58, 19 January 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Feel Tank Chicago

Feel Tank Chicago (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)

Looks like a load of

• KEEP - As usual I started out ready to delete this, but once I did my
  WP:BEFORE sources popped up: 1 2 3 4 5. whilst the subject matter might seem like nonsense, well, this doesn't make it not encyclopedic. FOARP (talk) 15:04, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• All but #3 are primary, and the author of source #3 doesn't seem notable. François Robere (talk) 15:32, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• The subject being "fashionable nonsense" does have relevance to this discussion: first as a heuristic indicating that this has no scholarly importance and doesn't pass
  WP:NOTABILITY; and second as an indication for how we should write about it if it does (eg. as pseudoscience or fringe). François Robere (talk) 13:38, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 17:57, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 11 January 2019 (UTC) Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  Jovanmilic97: Ann Cvetkovich (s. 2) is affiliated with the "Public Feelings Project", of which FTC is a part; notice that on p. 170 she refers to FTC as "one of our cells". Deborah Gould (s. 4) is mentioned here as a founder of FTC (as Debbie Gould); you'll notice in the first end note she refers to FTC as her "collaborators" and thanks them "for our ongoing conversation". François Robere (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Even with that, there are a lot more scholar hits to be considered 1 2 3 4 5 6. I can't see anything more of these articles than the snippets in the Google search interface but they appear to discuss the subject and are not written by Berlant or Cvetkovich. Per

WP:NEXIST it appears sources likely exist to sustain notability. FOARP (talk) 12:32, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

1. I've no access to this one. It mentiones Cvet. in the abstract, but doesn't seem otherwise related.
2. Same, with Berlant.
3. Review of Cvet., mentions FTC in passing ("For Cvetkovich, this term refers to a project in which the author and like-minded participants formed groups such as 'Feel Tank Chicago'...").
4. Primary source - was invited by FTC to perform work.
5. Already cited as s. 3 in the previous batch. Seems like the only relevant secondary source.
6. Doesn't mention FTC.

François Robere (talk) 13:29, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is not much beyond content written by the founders.-
  WP:WAWARD) 19:44, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nomination. Irrespective of one's opinion about the group's purpose and activities, the subject simply does not meet Wikipedia's requirements for
  WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 09:41, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete After assessing everything up until now, Francois is right. There are not enough independent secondary sources that cover this organization in detail, making it fail
  Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:07, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's

talk page or in a deletion review

). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 09:12, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Bibl

Michael Bibl (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 seem to meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A CV-like article on a working graphic designer, supported by links to routine listings. The article makes no claim to notability and searches are finding social media listings but nothing to indicate that the subject has attained
  WP:ANYBIO notability. AllyD (talk) 14:34, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: I concur with AllyD (talk). Google searches reveal very little information beyond social profiles and there are no third party sources that suggest this person meets Wikipedia's notability guidelines. Quorum816 (talk) 18:03, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete GNG fail. A graphic designer who has a job, like 500,000 other graphic designers. Not notable.
  talk) 02:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 02:32, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete dont have any significant coverage, failure of
  WP:GNG Reddragon7 (talk) 08:58, 18 January 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.

Eva Robin's

Eva Robin's (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)

Subject doesn't meet

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:24, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• comment A cursory
  WP:GNG. 2. I do not think anyone should vote to delete unless someone with Italian language fluency + publishing knowledge can assess the 3,800 sources. --Theredproject (talk) 18:35, 12 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

  • I can't find the relevant policy at this time, but a simple count of google search results is supposed to have no bearing on a move to delete.

    talk) 05:11, 14 January 2019 (UTC)[reply

    ]

• Keep, she was lead actress in several movies (eg. Belle al Bar), presenter of several tv programs on Italian televison (eg. Primadonna on Italia 1[14]), is still active as lead actress on stage ([15], [16]), and received plenty of coverage in newspapers, magazines and books, eg. [17] or [18], several books describe Robins as the "most famous transgender in Italy" ([19], or [20]). The article is shitty (it says nothing about the career), but BTW almost all the current coverage is NOT trivial/passing mentions, the listed articles are all about the subject, she even appears in the title! Source 5 is from the major Italian newspaper, Corriere della Sera. --151.74.244.146 (talk) 00:58, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as subject meets
  WP:GNG. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 03:57, 16 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep as a clear pass of
  talk) 05:13, 18 January 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.

Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona.

Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona. Stats)

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

Error in article name. There's a dot in the article name.

Actually, it should be speedy deleted. I do not know where to request a speedy deletion. ––AiPee213-100 (talk) 13:09, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I have no idea what's going on here. Yeah, the sourcing of the article is bad but, assuming this IS the Charles de Lannoy who was a general for Charles V, sources can easily be found: 1 2 3 4 5. FOARP (talk) 13:45, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy keep. Nominator has not presented a policy-based cause for deletion. After the creation of this AFD, the article was moved to the proper title (without the extraneous period). Although unsourced in its current state, sources are trivially available – this doesn't fail
  WP:RFD is that way; this venue does not address redirects. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 14:25, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  Talk 14:38, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• SPEEDY DELETE: There is a typo in the article name. Please see Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona vs Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona.. Why is there a dot in the article name, for god's sake. I created a redirect from Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona. to Charles de Lannoy, 1st Prince of Sulmona. I just want this useless redirect page to be deleted. Cheers, ––AiPee213-100 (talk) 08:22, 14 January 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 Vladimir Ovchinnikov (graffiti artist). -- RoySmith (talk) 17:01, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gallery repressed (Borovsk)

Gallery repressed (Borovsk) (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 non-notable Monument of regional scale. The main information is in the article Vladimir Ovchinnikov.--RTY9099 (talk) 21:08, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 21:31, 27 December 2018 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:26, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment, Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty has a substantial article here on Ovchinnikov that also includes quite an indepth discussion of this memorial so at the least, a redirect may be appropriate. note: i have not gsearched for non-english sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 28 December 2018 (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.

My mhealth

My mhealth (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 believe this page is one of many articles created by a paid editor. It does not pass

• I created this article. Nobody paid me. I have no conflict of interest. There are 7 independent sources for the article. The NHS has invested public money in the company. Rathfelder (talk) 19:50, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The "7 independent sources" are of questionable validity, since they seem to be paid PR pieces. It does not matter if the NHS has invested in these companies, that does not indicate WP:GNG. Skirts89 (talk) 22:54, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:52, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So have you any evidence to suggest any of these sources, which include a government site, were paid? Rathfelder (talk) 09:42, 29 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - As the nominator, I stand by my initial thought process - this fails
  WP:CORP. Skirts89 (talk) 20:29, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: does not meet
  WP:SPIP. K.e.coffman (talk) 09:16, 13 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete since subject fails
  WP:NCORP. -The Gnome (talk) 09:44, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:NCORP. The sources are either not independent, routine business announcements, or just passing mentions. -- RoySmith (talk) 17:06, 19 January 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 02:05, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Prophet (rapper)

The Prophet (rapper) (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

Note: This discussion has been included in the

hundreds 08:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

hundreds 08:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

hundreds 08:59, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Per
  WP:GNG since no significant coverage in reliable sources could be found of Prophet (and not the Rise of the Revolution duo) other than the Tahoe Daily piece (which is an interview). I think User:Flooded with them hundreds did the best he could with his previous edits of the page but it doesn't get it over the bar. FOARP (talk) 13:06, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete — Reads almost like a
  NMUSIC.TheGracefulSlick (talk) 16:52, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Poorly written article. Doesn't seem notable. Foxnpichu (talk) 21:25, 11 January 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 02:13, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hero's Heart (video game)

Hero's Heart (video game) (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 Video games-related deletion discussions. The1337gamer (talk) 12:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. PriceDL (talk) 02:43, 30 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Struck duplicate listing; already listed on the Video games delsort page. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 4 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If anyone took the time to see my edits, they'd know I added additional sources after this proposal for deletion. One of those sources is the creator of the games' own Website? And, if you read the actual article, you'll see that I'm just using a screenshot of the actual game's In-Game documentation that is hosted by MobyGames to provide reference data, not MobyGames themselves. This is kinda insane to be honest...I think 2x sources and a screenshot are qualified for bare minimums on a game that came out during an era where documentation is going to obviously be lax. --EarthBoundX5 (talk) 18:39, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

To establish notability for Wikipedia, you need independent reliable sources (eg. review in published/online magazine with regular staff). Your sources are either not independent on the article subject, or user generated content. In both cases not reliable sources in Wikipedia sense. Pavlor (talk) 20:18, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So if an object doesn't get printed in a review, it is doomed to be lost to time? That seems unbelievably against the whole notion of preservation of knowledge...something I thought Wikipedia favored? It also seems to remove the concept of wikipedia all together...taking historical records out of the media and into a user generated realm, not the other way waround. Don't delete something because it's hard to find a source that reviewed it...if the author's site has evidence (http://www.kaser.com/mesh.html), 3rd party sites show evidence (https://www.classicdosgames.com/game/Hero's_Heart.html), and the media itself is shown as evidence (https://www.mobygames.com/images/shots/l/209599-hero-s-heart-dos-screenshot-nag-screen.png)...then that should be more than sufficient for a page to sit for others to add to over years? Do I need to petition some big media outlet to publish a story referencing the same martial I have in order for wikipedia to consider it sufficient? That seems crazy? And my god...wikipedia itself is user generated content... Would physical scans of the media uploaded to wikipedia be source material enough? Do I need to start digging through magazines from the early 90s that never made it to the Internet to prove this case? If so, then I know wikipedia is truly a dead source of knowledge. --EarthBoundX5 (talk) 20:45, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there was some review published magazine in the early 1990s, then that would be (probably) really good source for notability. I agree it is somewhat hard to find non-online sources, but this task is not impossible, as many magazine scans are now online. Notability requirements of Wikipedia are now much higher than few years ago: page that was acceptable back then is now doomed to fail at AfD. Pavlor (talk) 20:55, 31 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - This was a Shareware game, many of which were never reviewed by any magazine but simply listed in advertising. My
  WP:GNG. Don't worry, Moby Games and other sites will preserve it. FOARP (talk) 13:36, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - As well as a fruitless standard search, I also couldn't find any significant coverage in a search of archive.org's magazine scans. (There was an ad listing in Micro Sistemas (Brazil) that included a title of this name, but that's far from significant coverage.) While it can be a little tricky to find information on games from this era, it's normally possible to find far more than this for any notable title. In the absence of any evidence to the contrary, this seems to fail
  talk) 14:40, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, home made game. no search engine results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Perf115 (talk • contribs) 19:08, 11 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:46, 12 January 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)