Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 12

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 11 June 13 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Randykitty (talk) 12:18, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sandeep Tandon

Sandeep Tandon (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 has not attracted sufficient independent, in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet

FreeCharge. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SmartSE (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I requested this article be undeleted through the undeletion request form. It was reviewed and approved. This article is primarily about Sandeep Tandon, not Freecharge. He has multiple instances of press coverage about his contributions as an angel investor in the start-up industry. An additional notice has been placed on the article indicating a contributor has a COI, which I disclosed on my user page and Sandeep Tandon's page. USCalum91 (talk) 23:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not much in terms of independent sources or significant enough coverage to merit a
    WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:35, 9 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 23:20, 12 June 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Malaria and the Caribbean

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

Unsourced personal essay on the topic. This is likely a notable topic, but there's nothing here that would be salvaged to build an article on the topic. I think a clean start per

WP:TNT may be best. Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. Ajpolino (talk) 21:36, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Notable topic but needs references such as McNeill, J. R. (2010-01-11). Mosquito Empires: Ecology and War in the Greater Caribbean, 1620–1914. Cambridge University Press.
    ISBN 9781139484503. and "CARPHA urges region to deal seriously to eradicate mosquitoes". Jamaica Observer. May 14, 2019. Retrieved 2019-06-12. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 22:13, 12 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:15, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jim C. O'Brien

Jim C. O'Brien (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)
  • Created by subject's employer (see SPI and COIN report).
  • Doesn't seem to pass
    WP:GOOG
    . Results yield corporate bio from employers and connected institutions, routine coverage, a brief mention in a book footnote...
  • Written as an autobiography/resume. MarioGom (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 20:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:32, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per above, I din't find anything that makes him notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:50, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Seems to me like this AfD needs more discussion. On the one hand, he's notable for being the first Special Envoy for Hostage Affairs of the United States, and he received a lot of coverage for it.
    WP:TOOSOON. Pilaz (talk) 15:48, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

References

  1. ^ "US appoints 'first hostage envoy'". 28 August 2015.
  2. ^ Cole, Kevin. "Omahan picked by President Obama to coordinate return of U.S. hostages". Omaha.com.
  3. ^ "Obama to name James O'Brien hostage affairs envoy". Reuters. 28 August 2015.
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. There's consensus that this does not belong in main space. Anybody who's interested in working on it can request a move to draft space at

WP:UND. Sandstein 08:12, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Individual behaviour in organisations

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

Original research, largely unsourced. The glowing paragraph on the Myers–Briggs Type Indicator, (which is pseudoscience) shows that this article is unapologetic opinion, not a summary of what independent, reliable sources have to say about the subject. Vexations (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 09:45, 13 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:39, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Driver Drive Faster

Driver Drive Faster (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)

Only references to their own material. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:44, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning Keep: the trajectory of this band seems to have mirrored that of the band they evolved from, Polytechnic – interest from the music press and alternative radio stations, supported bigger name acts on tour, released one album, then split up... at least, I assume they split up before making a second album, because their website and their record company's website are both dead, and the band's social media goes cold in 2013. It's true I can't find much in-depth coverage of the band itself online. But their sole album was reviewed by a variety of reputable UK music publications, as shown at AnyDecentMusic [3] (the MusicOMH review link is dead, but easily retrievable using the Wayback Machine). Wide coverage of this album doesn't surprise me, given that Polytechnic had attracted a fair amount of interest from radio and record labels, and there would be interest in the music coming from this new group. And given that the album was reviewed in so many publications, I think it's likely that there would be at least brief print coverage of the band itself in NME and Q from the time. Richard3120 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:20, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as their albums have been reviewed in multiple reliable sources as per
    WP:GNG, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:42, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Eatigo

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

Fails

WP:CORPDEPTH. Promotional content already removed Kleuske (talk) 10:20, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 10:46, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 14:50, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:00, 12 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:13, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gordy Bunch

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

Fails

WP:GNG. GPL93 (talk) 14:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:56, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non notable and fails NPOL. Per nominator GPL93
    ☎) 18:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
After further searching it seems that the subject passes
Horse Eye Jack (talk) 17:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per Bearcat. Fails
    WP:SIGCOV. Just a local politician. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:38, 20 June 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. On second thought, the nomination makes so little sense that a consensus to delete is unlikely to emerge. Sandstein 19:55, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

University of Computer Studies (Maubin)

University of Computer Studies (Maubin) (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 have enough media attention or doesn't qualify to be a page clickheretogototheuserpageofAggarwala2727 (talk) 13:11, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:08, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:09, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I cant read Burmese sources but this is a recognised university in Burma so automatically notable. Mccapra (talk) 19:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep . Fully accredited (goverment) degree awarding institution. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 01:43, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete.

WP:REFUND applies. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 22:24, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Swop

Swop (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 dance style also apparently known as "hip-hop lindy" or "lindy hip-hop". A websearch come up with mentions here and there (mostly on social media and video sharing websites), but I'm having trouble locating any sources apart from this 2010 article about the creation of the "brand new dance genre" of swop. That's

Lindy hop (the swing style that apparently influenced this modern development). Swing Hip Hop looks like a potentially valid more general article, but that got deleted ten years ago. – Uanfala (talk) 12:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 13:03, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was a 3 sentence article, the first two sentences of which are covered in the one at hand (except that the deleted article spelled it "swap"). The third sentence was another couple-XY-danced-it-on-a-dance-competition-tv-show claim. Uncle G (talk) 23:46, 12 June 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. Randykitty (talk) 12:11, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Context-aware network

Context-aware network (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 see some evidence that "Context-aware network" is a real concept:

However I have no confidence that this article accurately describes the concept of "context-aware network" that the above sources discuss. It seems to be a lot of unreferenced assertions and original research.

It does cite one published book (the first cite above), but it doesn't clearly identify which page(s) in the book supports which of its assertions. Although the book does briefly discuss an "Ad Hoc Context Aware Network" at one point (p.22), what it has to say about the topic appears to have only limited connection with what this article talks about.

Also found Christian Makaya; Samuel Pierre (5 April 2012). Emerging Wireless Networks: Concepts, Techniques and Applications. CRC Press. p. 87.

ISBN 978-1-4665-1619-9
. which appears to plagarise/copyvio this Wikipedia article (given most of the article text was written in 2005, and that book was published in 2012, I presume the plagarism/copyvio is from Wikipedia to CRC Press and not the other way around).

While this topic itself might be notable enough for an article (if someone was sufficiently motivated to write one), the currently existing article is basically unsalvageable, and so deletion is the best option.

WP:TNT. SJK (talk) 12:19, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. SJK (talk) 12:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:54, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The current draft is in no way an obstacle to improvement. If the nominator or anyone else thinks that they can do better, they can overwrite any or all of the current text per
WP:NOTCLEANUP
.
Andrew D. (talk) 10:04, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The existing text is a nett negative to the project. In no way does it "attract readers". It might confuse some, and it reflects badly on WP in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Andy Dingley. The actual topic title may be notable, but all indications seem to point towards the fact that this article does not, in any way, correctly or accurately describe what the actual concept is. There is a big difference between an article that is imperfect, and one that is comprised entirely of
    WP:TNT may not be official policy, but the idea that incorrect, borderline incoherent, articles are better than nothing is ludicrous. Rorshacma (talk) 15:15, 14 June 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. Creating a redirect from Yasin Börü to the event is a matter of editorial discretion. Black Kite (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Yasin Börü

Death of Yasin Börü (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 biographical value besides the referred event. Viztor (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 03:02, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm pretty much sure that a child's death during a riot, which was covered by the media, 'has' biographical value. Yet, I'll respect the outcome of this discussion and wait for the results. Keivan.fTalk 03:04, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not enough information to justify a separate article from the main event,
AidanSW (talk) 04:48, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Delete - Not notable. No coverage beyond the fact of his killing. Can redirect to 2014 Kurdish riots, but I doubt anyone is actually searching this name.Hydromania (talk) 04:53, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Move to
talk) 17:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Never heard of Yasin Börü so I ran a proquest news archive search on his name. Here is the first article in the search:
  • Yasin Börü murder case goes awry, top suspects present documented alibis

Cihan News Agency; Istanbul [Istanbul]17 Apr 2015. " STANBUL (CIHAN)- An investigation into the murder of four members of the Free Cause Party (Hüda-Par), among them 16-year-old Yasin Börü, has come undone, as three of the top suspects have presented documented alibis.

These suspects have proven that one was hospitalized, another was behind bars and the third was serving in the military on the opposite side of the country at the time of the murders, which took place during violent protests in the southeastern city of Diyarbakir on Oct. 7.
The undeniable innocence of these suspects has aroused suspicion regarding the integrity of the investigation.
The latest proof of innocence was presented earlier this week, after Ersin Adiyaman had been labeled a fugitive, located in Istanbul, taken into custody and detained for a day. Following his detention, the branch of the military in which he had served sent documents to authorities revealing that Adiyaman had been performing his mandatory military service in western Turkey while the crime was taking place on the other side of the country. Adiyaman testified at the Diyarbakir 5th High Criminal Court, confirming that he was in the 57th Artillery Brigade in Menemen, a district in the province of Izmir, between Oct. 6 and 8, and that he was only discharged on Oct. 22.
In March, lawyer Mahsum Kaya revealed that his client, Ahmet Y., was in prison while Börü and his friends were murdered. Kaya stressed that, though he had submitted documents proving that his client was still behind bars until Oct. 9, his client has not been released.
Similarly, suspect B.D. has been able to prove that he was admitted to Selahattin Eyyübi State Hospital on Oct. 2, where he received treatment until Oct. 24, making him unable to have committed the crime.
During the Eid al-Adha (Feast of the Sacrifice) holiday, Börü and his friends Riyat Günes, Ahmet Dakak and Hasan Gökouz were distributing the meat of sacrificed animals to those in need with friends in Diyarbakir, a province at the center of violent protests that took place across Turkey between Oct. 6 and 8. The protests were triggered by the Islamic State in Iraq and the Levent (ISIL) having besieged the Syrian Kurdish town of Kobani.
According to witness reports, the four friends came upon a group of protesters on Oct. 7 while distributing the meat and ran away, seeking shelter in the lobby of an apartment building, where they were pursued and stabbed by the protesters. Witnesses say Börü fled to the building's upper floors but was pushed out of a third-floor window by unidentified protesters. The group ran over his body with a car and crushed his head with a stone.
(Cihan/Today's Zaman) CIHAN .
  • My comment: There are 54 news stories in the archive. Activists in the case has a twitter account with 5141 followers [4], translation reads: Yasin Börü Case: This account is used to inform the public. Developments related to the judicial process will be shared. Google his name and lots comes up. At this point, I have no idea what tht fuss is aobut, not even sure whether he Kurdissh, Turkish, or whethere this is about one of the other foualt lines that causes regular plitical tremors in Turkey. But there is a page on him in Turkish Wikipedia: [5]. And the terse nominating statement makes me wonder what axe Nom has to grind here. E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails
    WP:SIGCOV. The event he was killed at was notable, but he is not. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:23, 20 June 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 and redirect to Rotary International. Randykitty (talk) 12:10, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Hewko

John Hewko (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 search for independent sources about this person hasn't revealed anything very promising. Appears to fail

WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:30, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hewko is CEO and Secretary General of Rotary International, the organization with 1.220.000 members and usd 100.000.000 budget.
Hope this if enough? --Perohanych (talk) 19:48, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
None of those sources appear to be independent of the subject (I thought the Bloomberg one might be at first, but the "request update" link at the bottom of the page suggests not). Cordless Larry (talk) 20:26, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The "request update" link at the bottom of the Bloomberg's page does not mean that Bloomberg does not make fact-checking of proposals for update.
What about Forbes?
Google Search shows 160.000 results
--Perohanych (talk) 08:20, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes source is an interview. I clicked through 11 pages of Google results without finding any significant coverage, and then it told me that was the end of the results, so I'm not sure where the rest of the supposed 160,000 are. Cordless Larry (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
In
WP:IV one can read: «At the other end are interviews that show a depth of preparation, such as those that include a biography.» The Forbes source is a kind of an interview that at the second part includes the Hewko's bio. --Perohanych (talk) 13:54, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
It is also imрortant that the interviewer is a recognized journalist — Devin Thorpe, Bestselling Author, Educator and Speaker. Just search for Devin Thorpe in Wikipedia --Perohanych (talk) 15:17, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Please also consider, that John Hewko is the Chief Executive Officer and General Secretary of
Rotary Foundation. He oversees the operations of both entities and manages a combined operating budget of over $400 million and assets of more than $1 billion. — John Hewko: General Secretary/CEO – Rotary International and The Rotary Foundation, Ukrainian Catholic Education Foundation --Perohanych (talk) 15:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Perohanych, you've been editing Wikipedia long enough to know that notability is judged by coverage in reliable, independent sources, not by operating budgets. Cordless Larry (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG. I am also sure, that you are not cordless :) Please help me to improve the article, to find reliable, independent sources for the article. --Perohanych (talk) 02:59, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
As I mentioned above, I have already searched for reliable, independent sources and didn't find any significant coverage. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Perohanych The Forbes piece isn't valuable to establish notability because its a.) an interview and b.) written by a contributor and not Forbes' editorial staff. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    The interview shows a depth of preparation and includes a biography. The interviewer is a recognized journalist. See above! --Perohanych (talk) 15:31, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The biography looks like it's been cut and pasted in to me. I doubt that the journalist wrote it. Cordless Larry (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I had planned to nominate this yesterday but forgot. He is not independently notable and I'm not convinced his position in RI is notable itself. Praxidicae (talk) 17:39, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Is CEO of Wikimedia Foundation independently notable? Budget of WMF is the same as RI, assets of RI are much bigger, history is much longer. --Perohanych (talk) 18:01, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Let me know when their website is in the top 5 most visited and used sites in the world. This isn't even remotely a valid argument. Try again. But by all means, if you want to delete Jimmy Wales, please send it right on over to AFD. I'll grab the popcorn. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not mean Jimbo, but Katherine Maher --Perohanych (talk) 20:50, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - heads a very large, well established organization and the general public may want to look him up. Admitteddly, the number of sources is borderline, but I don't think that Forbes interviews just anybody. Pundit|utter 03:43, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pundit Wikipedia is not a directory for heads of companies or CEOs. You cannot substantiate an entire BLP with "he works for xyz." Praxidicae (talk) 14:22, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Rotary International is not just a company. It's a worldwide movement with more than one million people, which inter alia almost defeated poliomyelitis on our planet. And Ivan Hevko do not just "works for RI", he leads RI. --Perohanych (talk) 03:48, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae I think your argument is valid, we should not be a phone book, and we should not promote CEOs' egos. However, It seems that Rotary International is not a company, but a really large NGO, operating in 200 countries, with 1.2 million individual members, which makes it one of the largest non-religious membership movements. The question, of course, is how many largest NGOs deserve detailed coverage and bios for their CEOs. I'd say that probably not more than top 100 per budget, membership, or some other criteria are a safe bet. I don't have any data to support that, but my best guess that RI would satisfy this criterion because of its wide membership. Pundit|utter 07:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be making an argument based on the fact that it's core mission is "good" but
Wikipedia is not a soapbox. No one is contesting the notability of Rotary International, so I'm not sure what your argument is here about the organization itself but even so, notability is not inherited. Being a member or working for a notable organization doesn't make an individual notable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:30, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I am not sure, but I have heard, that there is a criteria for majors of cities - number of people who live in the city. Am I right? --Perohanych (talk) 05:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Are you trying to make an argument for his notability under
WP:NPOL? Because I can assure you he does not meet that. Praxidicae (talk) 15:58, 18 June 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) 02:58, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Scriptophile

Scriptophile (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)

Dictionary definition but moving this to Wiktionary is not an option because scriptophile is a

neologism that nobody uses (or at least nobody uses on the web and isn't in my old 2000 page English dictionary). Pichpich (talk) 19:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.

WP:CSD#G7. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:17, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

ErimtanArchaeology and Arts Museum

ErimtanArchaeology and Arts Museum (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)

Typo in title of a blank article. Requested by the creator. CeeGee 18:32, 12 June 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. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 18:07, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Assam Petro-Chemicals Limited

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 evidence of any notability. A failed draft due for deletion which was moved by its author into mainspace without any further review. Source all demonstrate its existence and not its notability. Fails

WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   14:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   14:29, 12 June 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. AfD is not a vote, and the opinions of editors with low participation in Wikipedia outside of this discussion (including the article creator), are given little weight. The arguments for keep rely on sourcing that is not generally considered sufficient to demonstrate notability of the subject. bd2412 T 19:08, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

PyCM

PyCM (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)

It is pretty clear to me that this is a course project/student project with which an associated paper is published. As of now, this do not belong here. We should see if this gets more popular. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:46, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think this article is good enough in comparison with other open-source softwares that accepted before (like Cantera_(software) & Aika_(software)). َAnd in my opinion with this popularity and dependent codes, it is something more than a course project. Sarminhamidi (talk) 12:19, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for identifying other non-notable articles. They have both been
PRODed. Clnreee (talk) 20:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

I hope my comments are helpful. Aviow (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  • Seriously, Github is taking the role of a reliable source? Viztor (talk) 20:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Viztor: "As of May 2019, GitHub reports having over 37 million users and more than 100 million repositories (including at least 28 million public repositories), making it the largest host of source code in the world." [1] [2] [3]

References

  1. ^ "User search". GitHub. Retrieved May 23, 2019. Showing 37,446,292 available users
  2. ^ "GitHub passes 100 million repositories". VentureBeat. 2018-11-08. Retrieved 2019-06-13.
  3. ^ "Repository search for public repositories". GitHub. Retrieved June 5, 2018. Showing 28,177,992 available repository results

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Aviow (talk • contribs)

  • Those would be good for the GitHub page, but have no relevance for this article. Clnreee (talk) 07:44, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because of the lack of significant mentions in third party reliable sources. Clnreee (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No indication of meeting NSOFT. Charmk (talk) 23:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 00:08, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SebastianQuilo: I mean. You do sound like we're going to map the whole dependency tree of Github projects. We're not going to have an article on non-notable library even if some other non-notable libraries authored by some notable entities use it. Notability is not inherited. You don't write an article about every single department of a company, same here for libraries.Viztor (talk) 08:45, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Viztor: Your statement (Notability is not inherited) is completely right. But a big question is : what is the exact definition of notability? there is no general answer for this question which includes all the topics. These kinds of libraries, never reach general notability, but are popular between experts. I suggest you to take a look at Scikit-learn (a big name in machine learning), most of it's references are their own website.--SebastianQuilo (talk) 11:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • SebastianQuilo: Well, your arguments are based on definition, so I will have to answer on that. Notability can be defined in many ways, as given in many guidelines. However, I'm pretty sure in this particular case, the library is not that popular even in the list you give, with the top one having 5k stars and this few hundreds, while scikit-learn is the most popular in some categories. If you'd like to push for some other inclusion criteria for software libraries inclusion, I'd welcome that. However, even if something like that is presented, with the data we have now, this particular library would not merit an article. Viztor (talk) 12:15, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "CLaF: Open-Source Clova Language Framework. Contribute to naver/claf development by creating an account on GitHub". NAVER. 14 June 2019. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  2. ^ "Guideline for designing optimal crowdsourcing experiments: MaastrichtU-IDS/crowdED". Maastricht University IDS. 15 November 2018. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  3. ^ "Statistics Topic". GitHub. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  4. ^ "Statistical Analysis Topic". GitHub. Retrieved 17 June 2019.
  • Keep: based on references found above.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Djm-leighpark (talk • contribs)
  • Delete Fails
    WP:PROMO . Wikipedia is not the place for people to promote their own projects and such corruption should be swiftly uprooted from this encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:03, 20 June 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) 02:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Post Millennial

The Post Millennial (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 about an online news startup, not

WP:GNG requires much more than just one decent notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added some citations. The site is growing quickly and has been cited in National newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Halijohn (talk • contribs) 14:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Getting cited in other publications is not the notability test for a media outlet. Being the subject of coverage in other publications is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 15:29, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:47, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per the well analyzed rationale of the Nom. Sources may be perfectly acceptable for content without advancing notability and this is lacking. According to Alexa.com there would be 2470 websites rated higher. Relaxing the notability criteria could open the door for a host of equally non-notable articles. Otr500 (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the nom. Clearly fails
    WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:55, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 13:11, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alina Jenkins

Alina Jenkins (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 radio presenter. Article appears to be more of a CV (

WP:GNG. - Funky Snack (Talk) 12:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:19, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:49, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:50, 12 June 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 18:46, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Style & Society (magazine)

Style & Society (magazine) (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)

UPE Promotion for non

bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the mag. A lot of PR and primary. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:44, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 12:45, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 14:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 June 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) 20:18, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kinya Claiborne

Kinya Claiborne (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)

Promotion for non

bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of her. A lot of PR and primary. Only source of any note is the New Yorker but thats primarily about a news event that she happened to have been at like many other people. Page is pure PR complete with official promo shot. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:01, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:21, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete As I just wrote on another discussion where Amandadoyle543 is involved - this is same editor who was center of COI discussion https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard/Archive_142#Amandadoyle543 - a discussion whereby nothing seems to have come of it. Someone should look further into the editor! Furthermore the person who created this page has been blocked. Something not kosher here. MaskedSinger (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject does not meet the notability criteria. Sources used as references are either not independent (including press releases) or are minor/niche publications and do not represent significant coverage. TimBuck2 (talk) 18:45, 19 June 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. Black Kite (talk) 06:30, 21 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Choi

Tom Choi (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)

Promotion for non

bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of him. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:59, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note:
Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's
☎) 19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The advertisement rescue squadron has been called in. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep A notable actor who has appeared in multiple mainstream television and movie productions. Subject also has Sustained notability (not required)
    ☎) 19:56, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Just being in multiple productions is not enough for NACTOR. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He played the lead role in a film notable enough to have significant coverage at NBC news. [6] He got coverage at [7] At [8] "Tom Choi does a very good job as Brad’s straight-laced father". That's just some of the first page results Google news search shows for "Tom Choi" "actor". Other stuff appearing as well but I think that's enough. Dream Focus 19:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Popdust looks good. Getting closer. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:05, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment In this diff an undisclosed paid editor tag was added without a rationale. I'm going to remove but add it back if there is a rationale - upe is a specific type of spam (hired work) not just any spam like by a friend or family which would be a COI. -- GreenC 20:56, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep can understand why the article was nominated. I'm swayed towards the keep side because of the board membership in SAG-AFTRA - checking the results he was re-elected in 2017 - this can be seen as recognition amongst his peers. --Goldsztajn (talk) 22:32, 20 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:04, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Bovée

John Bovée (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 person is a non-notable political fundraiser and staff person, with little, if any, news coverage. OCNative (talk) 11:05, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:25, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:25, 12 June 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. -- Ed (Edgar181) 19:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated

National Informatics Centre Services Incorporated (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)

Unreferenced & promotional Rathfelder (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 14:12, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. 94rain Talk 14:25, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Has some coverage from some media and mentioned in some journals and books. Does not seem that promotional. Merely a list of products. But I wonder why this article was previously redirected to National Informatics Centre? They seem to be different organizations and they corporate ([9]) --94rain Talk 14:49, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:31, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:52, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - A page on NIC already exists and this page is of no value and holds no relevance. M 11:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 12:02, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Tweedy

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

No notability established and no evidence of

WP:BIO being met. No other references other than his company examinership found. Also, the article hasn't been updated since 2013. ShirLey GOo (talk) 10:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 10:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Doesn't meet
    WP:ANYBIO or related guidelines. For example, neither of the main papers of record in Ireland (IT and IN&M) have any history of coverage of the subject directly. (There are one or two things about his businesses going into administration/etc. But nothing where he is the main subject of the coverage). The same is true of the handful of links which were added to stave off the original PROD tag. (The linked articles do not cover the subject. They cover the subject's businesses. And, at that, only one very limited element of those businesses). That the article seems to have been initially created as some form of attack page (or a joke?) is also a significant concern. Mine is a very firm delete recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 11:23, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:53, 12 June 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 Association for Computing Machinery#Special Interest Groups. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SIGSIM

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

Not notable enough for its own article Rathfelder (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 13:29, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to
    WP:ATD, alternatives to deletion should be considered before deletion. Basic facts about this SIG are verifiable, however, and the SIGSIM is a plausible search term. Hence redirect is a reasonable alternative in this instance. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:10, 6 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:03, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has agreed to draftify, and no other suggestion has been made.

talk) 12:24, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Academy of Information Technology (USA)

Academy of Information Technology (USA) (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)

Unreferenced, and lacking in useful content. Merge it into NAF (non-profit organization)? Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:49, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:50, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:13, 12 June 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) 11:58, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Experts-Exchange

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

Most of the sourcing provided is from vanity websites. No real coverage in reliable sources. Fails

WP:NWEB. Störm (talk) 16:51, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 17:15, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The website was quite popular, and may be of intereset in future Wiki5537821 (talk) 08:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; it already survived one nomination, so it can just be rolled back to a satisfactory state. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 08:23, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep kids these days have no respect for the famous double entendres of old. Artw (talk) 02:40, 7 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Most of the arguments here do not appear to be addressing the source issue (Wiki5537821 comes closest) - is there any good source on this website?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:13, 12 June 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. As a merge-back did not have unanimous consensus and involves pages that didn't link to this discussion, I'll punt it to a dedicated merge discussion. This page's history has to stay for attribution reasons, though. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:01, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Summer discography

Donna Summer discography (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 -There exists separate
    Donna Summer singles discography pages, in addition to this page. This article duplicates the information contained on those two separate pages, and does not appear to have been updated, with current references, as frequently as the other two. The separate albums and singles discography pages are linked on the main Donna Summer article. Nqr9 (talk) 03:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:16, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • It was an article split, and the page looked like this quite happily for five years, preserving the edit history and author attribution (which were not carried over), until just over a month ago someone undid that. Always check the edit histories when nominating things at AFD. Deletion is, after all, the removal of the edit history and authorship (from view), so one should be aware of what one is asking about. Uncle G (talk) 12:51, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - since the separate singles and albums discographies were split from this article, this article must not be deleted to preserve attribution. That said, it is actually the separate album and singles discographies that should be deleted, since the split was unnecessary and contrary to the treatment of other musicians' discographies. Rlendog (talk) 13:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Or if the separate singles and album articles have been updated more frequently than the main article, that information should be merged into the main article and the separate album and singles articles should be redirected to preserve attribution. Rlendog (talk) 13:34, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Another option, if the separate album and singles pages are to remain, is to redirect Donna Summer discography to Donna Summer#Discography. That would preserve the history while removing the duplication. postdlf (talk) 18:05, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America1000 14:57, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect
    WP:CONTENTFORK. Now we have two pairs of articles (Discography/Albums Discography AND Discography/Singles Discography) repeating each other's information. If a new greatest hits album were released next week, it would be necessary to update two different Discography articles and there is no guarantee that a user would know to do both, thus making two articles on the same thing inconsistent with each other. Or, enthusiastic maintainers of Donna Summer articles have to do everything twice, which is redundant and likely to cause errors eventually. Put everything back into one Discography article. It's okay of that article ends up being very long, because Donna had such a long and accomplished career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I think this is a reasonable option.Nqr9 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article and delete the other two as per
    Rusf10 (talk) 00:13, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The other two articles have more-accurate chart positions/better references, though.Nqr9 (talk) 02:51, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.

(non-admin closure) 94rain Talk 07:43, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Ametrom

Ametrom (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)

Musician who has questionable notability. He also seems to have a huge COI issue going on. (The prod was removed earlier) Wgolf (talk) 03:41, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Thanks,L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 04:17, 12 June 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) 02:20, 19 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evolution: The Musical!

Evolution: The Musical! (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; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing

Wikipedical (talk) 23:26, 4 June 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:05, 5 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete—I agree with nom about sourcing: it's all very passing-mention stuff, nothing that I think really meets significance threshold for GNG, and I'm not sure how it fulfills any SNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 20:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 01:17, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A non-notable film. Geoffroi (talk) 23:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for sheer lack of sources. The best I could find were a couple of mentions in round-up articles about film festivals, the most in depth read: "The local underground art scene gets a boost at Mezzanine with a screening of Evolution: The Musical!, a hilarious 40-minute religious-themed "movella" by first-time directors and writers Kenny Taylor and Andrew Bancroft that will feature live music and comedy from some of the film's cast." E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:11, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_June_12&oldid=1142613771"