Wikipedia : Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 8

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:29, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this PROMO for a
WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:46, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:26, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and E.M.Gregory. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:36, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:08, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Behzaad Ghasemi

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

Zip personal notability. Sources are five passing mentions in newsbites... of which the first three are identical. Clear case of dredging the web for tiny slivers of coverage, and nowhere near suitable as an article subject. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete-per nom. Was considering putting up a AFD for a while but never did. I can't find any notability either for this guy. Wgolf (talk) 00:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 00:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC) —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:16, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Those references appear poor. Fails
~GMC ^{{talk to me}} 19:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete-per nom. Fails
WP:BLPNOTE-MA Javadi (talk) 07:56, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete — fails GNG. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:11, 12 May 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:49, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vladimir Kuzov

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

WP:BLP sensitivities here override any other consideration: if the pedophilia stuff is true then we need it properly sourced immediately, and if it isn't then the article needs to be deleted and restarted from scratch. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bulgaria-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 23:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The sources you are looking for are here, and are accessible with Google translate: https://bg.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%92%D0%BB%D0%B0%D0%B4%D0%B8%D0%BC%D0%B8%D1%80_%D0%9A%D1%83%D0%B7%D0%BE%D0%B2 Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some of the sources from the article in the Bulgarian Wikipedia at bg:Владимир Кузов. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in principle. Bearcat has it right; this needs to either be heavily sourced or have
WP:NPOL regardless. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:03, 09 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep - but at the very least, remove any poorly sourced claims per BLP vio. Article needs some serious clean-up if it stays in mainspace. I looked at Reuters but they have a disclaimer about verifiability of the Bulgarian news sources. I found Diplomatic Observer which states on their site they are members of the Press Council and abide by their "professional principals". In the last paragraph of their article, they say Kuzov was expelled for pedophelia Jan 30, 2006 but that's about it. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:39, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anais Zanotti

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

One source is her own website and one source is a forum. You’re hard pressed to find anything else.... Trillfendi (talk) 22:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My search found lots of ghits and pictures, but I didn't see significant coverage to show
WP:GNG is met. The number of hits implies popularity, but not necessarily WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 00:07, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A deeper search by me still found nothing that meets

WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 22:50, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete Article makes no claim of anything notable. Both sources are
WP:NBIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:32, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - does not meet
WP:ANYBIO (no "well-known and significant award or honor" & has not "made a widely recognized contribution") - therefore delete - Epinoia (talk) 21:42, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:11, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Who Will Rock You

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

Inadequately sourced article about a web series. According to the strongest source here, this airs only on the sponsoring company's proprietary advertorial Roku/Amazon Fire app, not on a real television network, so it doesn't get an automatic free pass over

WP:TVSHOW just because it exists -- but the sources are a one-off glancing namecheck of its existence in a Q&A interview with the sponsoring company's CEO, thus not an independent source; one piece of "local band does stuff" human interest coverage in the winning band's hometown newspaper, that wouldn't even clinch the band's notability under NMUSIC all by itself; and just one strong source that's actually about the show. This is not enough coverage to make something like this notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 00:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete The best sourcing I can find is to the (already in the article) Billboard article, which appears to just be a moderately reworded press release. Even leaving it as counting, I can't find additional significant independent sources to satisfy
WP:GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs ^talk 18:00, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:18, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Lenert

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

Only routine coverage, company he heads has no article. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Luxembourg-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all but one of the refs are to his own newspaper, Luxemburger Wort, so the refs do not meet the
WP:BASIC requirement of multiple independent sources - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 20:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Itzhak Fisher

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

Not seeing any in-depth coverage, and the company he runs has no article. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:41, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:16, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. The article is atrocious, the subject is probably notable. Minor dabble in politics. Was co-founder and CEO of RSL communications - which raised during the dotcom bubble some 1.7 billion dollars prior to going bust. Some coverage afterwards. Most of the coverage is in Hebrew (business press and some news) - e.g. some in Haaretz English, profile in Globes on post RSL comeback, coverage on a black check company he founded, and here too, coverage prior to RSL's collapse (per Fisher - not in a bad state), in depth coverage of his termination from RSL. Icewhiz (talk) 13:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources added during this discussion and becasue a simple gNews search [1] shows that this business executive is notable.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:42, 13 May 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. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 02:01, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Sunil Coushik

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

All the references are written by the subject. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a

WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 20:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:17, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep.

(non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 01:36, 16 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

.keep coverage is there, in the paywalled news archive paywalls. Here are copy-pastes of the first several articles in a Proquest newspapers search:

Christian Smith (DJ)

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

No convincing claim of notability for this DJ. I looked for better sources but found no in-depth coverage. No article in sv-wiki although he is Swedish. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 20:23, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:ANYBIO (no "well-known and significant award or honor" and no "widely recognized contribution") - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:59, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Newsday NYC NIGHTS, DJs heat up after Fla. gigs: ]Johnson, Martin. Newsday, Combined editions; Long Island, N.Y. [Long Island, N.Y]24 Mar 2005: B03. "A couple of years ago, Tronic Treatment was not only the Monday night techno party, but it was a reason to work all weekend and have Tuesday free. Then as the scene shifted to Barcelona, so did the DJs. But Christian Smith is back, and Saturday night at Sullivan Room, 218 Sullivan St., he's doing the first of two Tronic Treatments."

Toronto Star Pop: [Ontario Edition]Rayner, Ben. Toronto Star; Toronto, Ont. [Toronto, Ont]28 July 2001: J14. " Tronic Treatment (Moonshine). Here's a humbling reality-check for any DJ, bedroom or professional, who might be feeling remotely comfortable with his or her skills. Swedish techno decksman and producer Christian Smith casually unloads one jaw-dropping mix after another on Tronic Treatment, deftly layering tracks across three turntables with such astonishing precision, imagination and ferocity that you'd be forgiven, at times, for thinking he was working with six. Fortunately, while the brain often has a hard time processing the intricacies of the rhythmic overload Smith conjures here, the rest of the body has no such problem. Impeccable programming and a sense of pacing that always matches the velocity and intensity of whatever he's playing- from straight-up, bangin' techno from Ben Sims and Adam Beyer, John Selway and himself, to hard house, creepy electro and a little Latin sing-song- make Tronic Treatment, one savage dance mix. Which, the "wow" factor of a masterful DJ trip aside, is what it's all about in the first place."
Spin away with Christian Smith. Ahmad, Haliza. Malay Mail; Kuala Lumpur [Kuala Lumpur]02 Dec 2000: 22. copyright The Straits Times " CHRISTIAN SMITH (left) is the techno maestro spinning on Kent Choice Essential Mix over RfM at 10, tonight. One of the most sought-after DJs and producers, Smith is recognised for his ability to combine a diverse mix of hard pumping house and tribal funky techno, tight three-turntable mixing, creative scratching and progamming. Dubbed the man who defined new tech-house and funky techno sound, he developed a passion for electronic music at 15, listening to Sven Vath. Smith started as a DJ at the legendary Omen. In 1990, he moved to Washington DC and developed a taste for Detroit techno and Chicago house, becoming a staple on the US dance and club scene for many years, alongside Josh Wink and Richie Hawtin. He returned to Stockholm and with Adam Beyer, Cari Ledebusch and Joel Mull, brought Swedish house and techno to the world. Now, he takes to decks all around the world, Smith had his first producing break with US label Music Now and later on Yoshitoshi, Nervous and Primevil. Although Smith has his own Tronic Music and Strive labels, he collaborates on other labels. "
Get funky with tribal techno: [2* Edition] New Straits Times; Kuala Lumpur [Kuala Lumpur]11 June 2004: 18. " DJ-producer Christian Smith is set to bring the roof down at Atmosphere tonight with his distinct techno funk. THE unmistakable sound of funky and tribal techno will be reverberating at Atmosphere, twelveSI at Jalan Sultan Ismail in Kuala Lumpur tonight, courtesy of deejay-producer Christian Smith. The New York-based DJ is set to bring the roof down with his signature three-deck turntables to create an amalgamation of electronic and tech- house music. Known in the international DJ circuit, Smith's newfound popularity is borne primarily from sheer determination, commitment and a genuine love of electronic music. His innate ability to fuse a diverse mix of hard pumping house and tribal funky techno comes together via a foundation that includes three turntable tight mixing and creative scratching and programming. Smith first caught the electronic music bug at 15, after listening to deejay great Sven Vath at Dorian Gray in Frankfurt in 1987.At 17, he got his first break with a guest spot at Frankurt's legendary Omen. After completing university in Washington, in the United States, he moved back to Sweden and set himself up in Stockholm alongside his Swedish contemporaries Adam Beyer, Cari Lekebusch and Joel Mull. Together, they introduced Swedish house and techno to the world. The last couple of years have seen Smith headlining events every weekend throughout Europe and North America and also in places as diverse as Australia, Japan, Singapore, Taiwan, New Zealand and selected South American countries. His first album, Neuromancer was released in 1991. Since re-establishing himself in Sweden, Smith has set up his own label Tronic Music, which also carries a subsidiary label, Strive. Under the label, he has collaborated with DJs Jean-Phillipe Aviance, John Selway and the incomparable Sasha in the Ibiza compilation. Despite focusing on his labels, Smith has continued with strong releases on other labels, including Primevil, Smile, Rotation, Yoshitoshi, LOOP, Jericho and Primate. Today, Smith is signed under established deejay Carl Cox's In- Tec and has collaborated with some of the greats in the club scene such as Selway and Danny Tenaglia."
Platform: reviews Munro, Gary. The Age; Melbourne, Vic. [Melbourne, Vic]02 Oct 2009: 12. "Christian Smith. THE canniest electronic music figures are those that draw on the past, thus satisfying the purists, while still moving forward and maintaining the interest of the current, often fickle, clubbing crowd. Swedish DJ-producer and Tronic label founder Christian Smith fits the bill nicely. His work with New York's John Selway, straddling the techno and progressive divide, drew critical and public acclaim, with tracks such as Move finding favour with the likes of Sasha and John Digweed. Now, following a couple of EPs for the Britain-based Renaissance, the high-profile label has recruited him to launch its Platform DJ-mix series. He lays out his Detroit (via Stockholm via New York) influences on the first disc, with material from the like-minded Technasia and producer du jour Radio Slave, who updates Humate's classic Love Stimulation for the late noughties. Disc two ventures into contemporary club land, peppered with tracks from Smith and Selway, Timo Maas, Guy J and Karotte. It's all tech-tinged and funky, nodding to what came before while offering a sly wink to the future a foot firmly in both camps."
Rock & pop: INTO THE GROOVE ; ROB NASH REVIEWS THE MONTH'S BEST DANCE RELEASES: [FOREIGN Edition] Nash, Rob. The Independent; London (UK) [London (UK)]18 July 2003: 18.19. " Christian Smith's mix Live @ Womb (Womb oooo9) provides a thrilling survey of recent techno and tech-house, kicking off with Marko Nastic's jolly "Let's Get High" and incorporating Technasia's "Evergreen" and Bryan Zentz's irresistible "D-Clash". Crowd noise is mixed in to recreate the club sensation, giving the set immediacy and excitement; you can almost feel Smith's cutting and scratching tricks. On the techno front, I would also recommend Tresor Never Sleeps (oooo9), a collection of mainly new tracks on Tresor. Fans of the German label's belting, underground sound will not be disappointed by any of the inclusions. And drum'n'bass devotees will enjoy Andy C's Nightlife set (Ram, ooo99), on which the DJ launches a fusillade of heavy bombs, before sidling off into subtler realms, including J Majik's evocative Brazilian-style "Capoeira". The final track on Christian Smith's mix is the new single on his label, Tronic: "Energia" by Vince Watson (oooo9). It's a smooth, rolling tech-house number, with a rich and balanced production and drifting, sensuous, gently syncopated synths, perfect as a hypnotic set-closer. And you get everything in double portions in the Mateo Murphy remix, which beefs up the bassline and drums and breaks more dynamically, while keeping the lovely wistful chords." — Preceding unsigned comment added by E.M.Gregory (talk • contribs) 18:48, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets
WP:BASIC, as per the source examples above. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:37, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep as shown above the subject has multiple and then some coverage in reliable sources and passes
WP:NMUSIC ( only one criteria needed). That these sources are paywalled is another indication of the problems of relying on google to bulild an encyclopedia as doing so results in a dumbed-down recentist mess Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 15 May 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 20:02, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jesse Thomas (singer-songwriter)

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

Completely

conflict of interest editing by her own PR agents anyway. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 21:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete There are a few references provided in earlier incarnations, but just of the press release, small time and insignificant nature that do not back up notability. Likewise, Billboard Heatseekers is a bad chart: a placing there is only a listing relative to actually making a real chart. In other word, #25 on Heatseekers means a release is that many positions of away from making the top 100 only among artist who previously haven't made the top 100, which means it's a lot lower than 125 when you factor in artists outside the top 100 who have previously made the chart. I agree with this nomination. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:23, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails
~GMC ^{{talk to me}} 19:02, 9 May 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. It seems like the sources posted here haven't convinced most people, and many keep arguments are somewhat vague. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:09, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Carl Earl

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

Blatant Promotion for Non

bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of this individual. A lot with him speaking about things but not others writing about him. Awards are not major, HMMAs are not credible. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:43, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Yet another related page from
talk) 06:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
- WP:VAGUEWAVE
  . How is it inline with BIO?

Delete as PROMO. Overstuffed with PRIMARY and unreliable sources, fails
WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:12, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak keep or Draftify. Tried digging more about "Matthew Carl Earl" via Google, I discovered he only has more of interviews from 3rd party sources within the Audio Production industry. The few sources he has as found include 1 and 2.

The major interview refs he has from 3rd party sources include 1, 2 and 3. These are certainly not enough but there's much hope for more exposure in the news. Coming to the current page, it sounds too promotional and loaded with unreliable sources. I recommend incubating this in draftspace. If it must be kept, it requires proper clean up of those fluffy sources and promotional lines. But certainly for me, deletion can be too hard for this. Benleg4000 (talk) 14:18, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"major" is quite a stretch for the 3 non-bluelinked "major interview refs he has from 3rd party sources" thatmountain.com, tvovermind.com, and trektoday.com. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:01, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify or Delete First, I don't agree with a Draftify or Keep !vote - the article either passes or fails. The reason for Draftifying is because the article shows promise but does not yet meet the criteria for Keeping.
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:21, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:27, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article cleaned up to comply with
WP:NRV. OliverKianzo (talk) 21:14, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The cleanup, reducing the sources by almost half, was a great improvement. However, while it is clear that his music is drawing some attention, I am still not seeing
WP:TOOSOON, a composer still in his twenties who looks likely to become a notable composer. Just, he's not there yet.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Examining the page and sources directly as they are listed now on the page shows at least three sources to establish notability which are independent, reliable, neutral and significant coverage to meet
WP:NMUSIC as well, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", which since at least 2017 has been the case. The content should be cleaned up, but that's a different issue, things like DOB don't need to be specific to mm/dd and a source for their list of instruments would help, and a source column for the credits would help. Notability does hit a baseline from more than one pathway.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 16:17, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

References

^ Remington, Kate. "Matthew Carl Earl's Music Gets Arena Of Valor Players Stoked For Battle". www.wshu.org. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Video game composer Matthew Carl Earl discusses 'Arena of Valor' score & more". Nerd Reactor. 12 January 2018. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ Chan, Tony (27 December 2017). "Matthew Earl | Follow these Core Values to Compose Great Music". Game Dev Loadout. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "INTERVIEW: Arena Of Valor Composer Matthew Carl Earl, Creating Music for Video Games". GameTyrant. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

Bold text— — User:Nubtrazolacine|Nubtrazolacine]]]] (User talk:Nubtrazolacine|talk]] • Special:Contributions/Nubtrazolacine|contribs]]) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Or, virtually so. A new account that has rapidly made 62 edits, mainly to Matthew Carl Earl, Richard Ludlow and Hexany Audio.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NO. 4 sources: a local public radio station plus 3 articles in non-bluelinked, niche publications ≠

WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:54, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was no consensus. Could also have been "keep" as that side goes into more detail in the source analysis, but it's clearly not a consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:05, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that Game Dev Loadout is someone's blog. and that NONE of these sources is bluelinked.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To Hexany Audio: Found two more sources in sound industry after a quick search, with publications that cover this field:

Huges, Sam (18 February 2018). "Interview with Arena of Valor Composer, Matthew Carl Earl". The Sound Architect. Retrieved 11 May 2019.^[1]

N, Jvon (4 April 2018). "Interview with video game composer Matthew Carl Earl on Tencent's 'Arena of Valor'". Set The Tape. Retrieved 11 May 2019.^[2]

References

^ Huges, Sam (18 February 2018). "Interview with Arena of Valor Composer, Matthew Carl Earl". The Sound Architect. Retrieved 11 May 2019.
^ N, Jvon (4 April 2018). "Interview with video game composer Matthew Carl Earl on Tencent's 'Arena of Valor'". Set The Tape. Retrieved 11 May 2019.

--68.33.74.204 (talk) 20:39, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would there be any value in merging this article and Richard Ludlow into Hexany Audio? All three are up for deletion, and it's because they each have a couple of reliable sources but no more – as far as I can see Mr. Earl and Mr. Ludlow's notability comes from their company, so perhaps if they were all included in one article which would then have have a dozen reliable sources, there would be a better chance of keeping the verifiable information, instead of deleting all three. Richard3120 (talk) 21:16, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This above suggestion doesn't make sense. They are distinct topics. While notability can transfer from a company's major employee's notability per WP:CCSI#CORP, their pages are different distinct topics.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 15:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
summing up, we have a series of editors, including an SPA and an IP, arguing to keep this page about a young composer based on sources that include personal blogs and Vimeo, but is almost entirely sourced to non-bluelinked websites covering the video game and video production industry. An exception is the [[Hollywood Reporter[]] where he appears in a long list of nominees for industry awards. (Composers are, of course, covered by numerous widely recognized, edited publications.) I have raised the question of whether such websites can constitute the sole support for notability of a subject at Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:30, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak DeleteSeem to be a lot of Trivial, mentions, some COI mentions and maybe (maybe) a couple of sources that may fail RS. None too sure but not seeing any real notability at this moment.Slatersteven (talk) 18:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and E.M.Gregory. - GretLomborg (talk) 19:41, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. One minor award, few interviews in minor outlets, mentions in passing.
WP:TOOSOON. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:40, 15 May 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.

4imprint plc

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected

csp

|username}}.

)

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

The article was declined 7 times on AFC in various obviously Undisclosed Paid Editing attempts. This was also pointed out by another editor of this article [2]. The editor then "improved" and accepted this AFC. The editor has since been blocked (which I just noticed). Anyway, even if we do not disregard the judgement of a blocked editor, the problem is a bit bigger than that here.

The article is clearly about a company which has made various attempts to promote itself and wikipedia is not a tool for promotion of corporations. It not notable enough, does not pass

WP:GNG

and therefore should be deleted.

Companies are not listed on wikipedia simply because the have a millions in revenue or because of passing mentions and trivial coverage / annual awards given to companies every year... instead notability has to be established in depth - that has not been done here.

Jesve Psernel (talk) 12:51, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply

Keep. Despite the dodgy history of the article there are multiple independent sources. And its big enough that it would be surprising if there are not a lot more.Rathfelder (talk) 18:07, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

While independent sources maybe present,

Jesve Psernel (talk) 05:37, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Delete. A shady article and the subject of a promotional merchandise. Article's history also suggests Wikipedia Terms of Service violations such as undisclosed paid editing which is yet another reason that this article itself is a violation. --103.255.6.95 (talk) 07:07, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not pass the Wikipedia WP:Notability criteria, on top of being UPE infested. --50.198.13.3 (talk) 17:14, 7 May 2019 (UTC) — 50.198.13.3 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:25, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~*Keep.~~ weak keep The largest distributor in North America of those random widgets you get at conferences, job fairs, and whatever, but like many business to business suppliers, the name is not something that appears in public that often. Although it's only a few percent. So it looks like there are a whole bunch of these companies each having a market share of single digit percentage point. The article needs to be re-written, have the talk page tagged with known COIs, and sanitize all promotional contents, but inclusion seems warranted. See https://www.asicentral.com/news/newsletters/promogram/january-2019/4imprint-increases-annual-sales-18-in-2018/ Graywalls (talk) 20:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is an obvious attempt at advertising. Company size does not necessitate or excuse the violation of this Wikipedia policy. Current page references also include websites hosted by the company itself, run-of-the-mill best workplaces lists, unnotable websites, and broken news links. — 2600:1008:B126:8B8D:59AF:FBEB:2AE3:7AC8 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 17:20, May 8, 2019 (UTC).
Delete. This article fails to meet relevant notability guidelines. Company sales volume alone doesn't warrant inclusion. This is an obvious attempt at using Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. Also, ASI (Advertising Specialty Institute) is an industry publication that 4imprint is a paid member of and is hardly an impartial or independent resource. If size is justification; why not give everyone on this list a Wikipedia article while we're at it then as well: https://www.asicentral.com/news/web-exclusive/july-2018/top-40-distributors-2018/? — 69.246.235.92 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. The preceding unsigned comment was added at 00:38, 9 May 2019 (UTC).[reply]
Keep and move to
The Wikipedia Library. — Newslinger talk 09:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
1. Miller, Paul (February 2001). "4imprint Makes an Impression with Samples". Catalog Age. Vol. 18, no. 2. New York: Penton Media. p. 18. Retrieved 9 May 2019 – via
  Business Source Complete
  . 4imprint sends thousands of types of samples, Iott says, including pens, mouse pads, and travel cups - all imprinted or embossed with the 4imprint logo, phone number, and address.
2. Scott, Stefanie (7 July 2000). "Power of Promotion: 4imprint wants to place it in the palm of your hands". Newspapers.com
  .
  Continued on page I-6
I note that the editor who accepted the draft, Legacypac, was highly active at
Articles for Creation. They were not blocked for any reason related to draft reviewing, conflicts of interest, or paid editing. — Newslinger talk 09:48, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There are more than two analyst companies providing research on this company (e.g. Edison Investment Research, Peel Hunt, Liberum, finnCap, Berenberg) and therefore meets the criteria for establishing notability. Topic meets
HighKing⁺⁺ 17:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Despite the history of the article is unreliable, but has enough reliable sources. --SalmanZ (talk) 23:28, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The company evidently lacks an in-depth coverage in the news media. Having gone through a lot of them, they are generally either not trustworthy or talking about routine events like funding, opening new offices etc. I’m surprised by those who voted to a keep. I’d argue them to take a second look. In essence, an advertisement. Plus, the company clearly doesn't pass the notability guidelines given the available coverage. Only two analyst companies providing research on this company are not enough to qualify for a Wikipedia page, if this is a notability there will be millions of non-notable companies can exist on the Wiki to build a spam farm.157.47.252.208 (talk) 05:13, 10 May 2019 (UTC) — 157.47.252.208 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Actually you're wrong. Two analyst companies providing research is, in fact, the minumum for establishing notability. Please read
HighKing⁺⁺ 14:35, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

The three sources I posted do not fit your description, as they are in-depth articles on the company.
reliable sources to establish notability, and the newly added citations exceed the requirement. — Newslinger talk 06:03, 10 May 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. Nomination was close-enough to vandalism. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 17:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hatwal

Hatwal (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)

Unreliable and unauthenticated information Binit14 (talk) 17:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:35, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

LittleBizzy

LittleBizzy (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 hosting provider, the only (brief) coverage that was ever received was about an unremarkable lawsuit. Praxidicae (talk) 17:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.
However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.
Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected
csp
|username}}.

[REDACTED - Oshwah] EkonTim (talk) 09:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Concur with nom, appears only serious coverage is about the lawsuit, otherwise they have nothing useful to summarize for an article (rest is
talk) 16:59, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete - no notable coverage of the company itself, only the lawsuit, which makes it "one-event" notable - doesn't meet
WP:CORPDEPTH - therefore, delete - Epinoia (talk) 19:46, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 10:43, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, The article fails notability Alex-h (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails notability standards and
WP:CORPDEPTH. Oshawott 12 ==()== Talk to me! 23:42, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:33, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Renata Ceribelli

AfDs for this article:
Articles for deletion/Renata Ceribelli

Articles for deletion/Renata Ceribelli (2nd nomination)

Renata Ceribelli (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)

Deleted once before. Of the two references in the page, one is dead, and the other is a fairly trivial mention. Fails
WP:BIO. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jayjg ^(talk) 16:43, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 05:58, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete What coverage is out there on her falls under the realm of gossip. Trillfendi (talk) 20:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - does not meet
WP:ANYBIO (no "well-known and significant award or honor", no "widely recognized contribution") - having a job is not a basis for notability - Epinoia (talk) 19:15, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Per nom. Fails
WP:BIO. --SalmanZ (talk) 18:47, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete, Doesn't meet
WP:ANYBIO THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 17:20, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Elton C. Pody

Elton C. Pody (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:NPOL. Sources used are obituaries, govt. records, or routine local coverage. GPL93 (talk) 16:32, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject was mayor of
WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 18:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Ruston is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic inclusion freebie just because they existed as mayors — but as usual for Billy Hathorn stuff, the assumption here was that as soon as he could find a legacy.com obituary, the topic had met GNG and none of the other sources had to fulfill any further standards of reliability or independence or substance. But that never has been, still isn't, and isn't ever going to become how this works: the notability test for a mayor hinges on the depth of journalistic coverage he can show, not on whether his family placed a death announcement in the classifieds or not. Bearcat (talk) 13:05, 9 May 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 improved, with the suggestion that the article be further expanded from the French Wikipedia page. bd2412 T 13:39, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pandora (sculpture)

Pandora (sculpture) (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 notable enough to justify a standalone article, no sources on page. Google search determines that only other references online are from Pinterest as well as an art site that solely uses the text from the article. Cogaidh (talk) 15:14, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge~~ to
WP:GNG, however I think it is enough that a merge to the artist's page, where the statue is already briefly discussed, is appropriate. Rorshacma (talk) 16:37, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Keep Changing my position to Keep, as there are now enough sources to warrant a stand alone article. Rorshacma (talk) 17:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Drive-by nomination with no consideration of
alternatives to deletion. The nomination's assertion about sources is false, as noted by Rorshacma. And notice that the French article is substantial and has plenty of sources. All the topic needs is attention from an expert such as Johnbod. Andrew D. (talk) 12:12, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Neutral The long French article certainly shows that sources are there - whether this unrefed 2-liner is worth keeping is another matter. It doesn't even give the measurements. Mind you, we have hundreds of these, with a ref or two. Johnbod (talk) 14:11, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from nomination: "no sources on page", it does now! added the book source above, WHOOP, WHOOP!!!! Coolabahapple (talk) 13:35, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

and added info about a François-Louis Dejuinne drawing of it. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i'm surprised there aren't more wikiarticles on notable Pandora artworks ie. Pandora sculpture by John Gibson: source here, source here, anyway, the French wikiarticle on Cortot's Pandora does state that Gibson did pay tribute to Cortot with his rendition here. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:53, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems notable, looking at the added sources (I added another) and at the French Wikipedia page! ---
talk) 16:23, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment ("not another one coola!?":)), and the Museum of Fine Arts of Lyon (where its held) believes it to be such a significant artwork in its collection that they offer an audio commentary on the work "About Pandora, Jean-Baptiste Cortot, 1819: The myth of Pandora" (no. 177 under "Sculptures XIXe"). Coolabahapple (talk) 16:27, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets
WP:NBOOK:)), article now has sources that reflect this, also in addition to any above sources that aren't in the article(?), there are books such as Les Beaux-Arts: illustration des arts et de la littérature (1843) in which the publisher L. Curmer describes it as "the most remarkable work of Cortot" see here (in French). Coolabahapple (talk) 17:36, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@
talk) 23:40, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep the article is unlikely to make it to Featured Article anytime soon, but it doesn't have to. All information is verifiable in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 01:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Jean-Pierre Cortot - not one of his major works and not individually notable enough for a stand-alone article - it is listed in the Jean-Pierre Cortot article as an early work, so should redirect there - Epinoia (talk) 19:09, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Coolabahapple and their work improving this article. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:58, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:32, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Adedayo Ojo

Adedayo Ojo (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 appear to meet
WP:GNG as the coverage is largely either routine, mentions, or not independent. Article has been predominantly created/edited by a number of SPA/COI editors, one of whom has requested it be deleted for lack of notability here Melcous (talk) 12:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 13:51, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Many many issues here but the fact that one of the references is Amazon is the nail in the coffin for me. Blatant advertisement. Trillfendi (talk) 19:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see anything notable in his life. But his company did receive a well known award. Sincerely,
^☎ 05:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Eastwood

Martin Eastwood (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 appeared on some reality TV shows but other than that there is nothing to indicate notability. Numerous low-quality sources mention his attempt to get 100,000 instagram followers but that is obviously not going to confer notability. SmartSE (talk) 12:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Subject doesn't meet
WP:NMUSIC or related guidelines. (An association to a record label, regardless of its output or chart success, does not confer notability. Even if the latter were cited. Which it is not. Being a "co-manager" of any business [regardless of its success or notability] does not confer notability on any subject.) The COI, PAID, PROMO and other issues are also concerning. In short: a firm delete. Guliolopez (talk) 14:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:31, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Ramazan

Pakistan Ramazan (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 coverage in
WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:59, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:13, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above. Google search shows no notability. Cogaidh (talk) 15:19, 8 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 12:48, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Reinhart

Christopher Reinhart (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 fail to see how someone aged 20 could be a notable historian. Fails
WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 10:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:53, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think that Christopher Reinhart met the Wikipedia guidelines. In 2019, Christopher Reinhart recieved the most outstanding title from the University of Indonesia (and the Minister of Higher Education). Therefore, he met the second criteria of Wikipedia's notability on academics which says as follows: The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. See: https://www.ui.ac.id/berita/christopher-reinhart-peneliti-mudah-peduli-sejarah.html

Christopher Reinhart also promotes the usage of transnational perspective in historical writings. This perspective is relatively new in the discussion of historical research among the University of Indonesia's historian which indicates that his research has a significant impact in his scholarly discipline. Xiahe08
My auto translate of the award reads: "Christopher Reinhart was selected as the Achieving Student of the Faculty of Culture, University of Indonesia in 2019. The election of Christopher Reinhart as the main achieving student of FIB UI was supported by good academic achievements. Over the past three years, Rei has published 19 articles and journals about the history of Indonesia." So it is a best student award. The award may have been presented by a minister, although that is not stated in the source, but that doesn't make it a prestigious award in the sense meant by the policy. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:01, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Xiahe08, as the creator of the article (and the only article you have edited), do you have a conflict of interest to declare? Edwardx (talk) 12:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per A7 (no indication of importance). --Tataral (talk) 14:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - core policy
independent sources can be found on a topic, Wikipedia should not have an article on it. The article does not contain (and I could not find) any independent sources... let alone enough to satisfy PROF or any other more general notability guideline. Seems like a likely vanity page. -- Netoholic @ 18:06, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Sources indicate he is a research assistant. Doesn't meet any of the criteria of Prof, or GNG and in addition unable to verify as all the sources in the article were blocked by my ISP as possibly containing malware. Even if he did have the listed papers published, it isn't enough to show notability yet. Maybe later, much later probably. Philafrenzy (talk) 19:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this blurb. No notability expressed. Trillfendi (talk) 20:04, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The only form of notability claimed in the article is academic, but
too soon. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:25, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Fails GNG and all academic-related notability standard. There is also a possible
WP:COI issue as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:38, 11 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete A research assistant to an academic who is a redlink must be NN. This is not altered by half a dozen academic articles. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:04, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Per nom. Fails
WP:NACADEMIC- -MA Javadi (talk) 22:49, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete – The ageism of the nomination aside, the subject doesn't appear to come close to meeting
WP:NACADEMIC. 142.160.89.97 (talk) 02:37, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete.
WP:TOOSOON - doesn't pass GNG nor PROF. Icewhiz (talk) 14:54, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete Research assistants are unlikely to be notable and I didn't find anything in Google Scholar to support a claim of notability for him. Fails both
WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 23:00, 14 May 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. There is rough consensus that she passes
(non-admin closure) MrClog (talk) 14:08, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Manon Mathews

Manon Mathews (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
^☎ 10:00, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:46, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added a few sources, a little text, the article needs a lot of work, but I think she passes
WP:CREATIVE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I agree with E.M. Gregory. I removed a lot of unsourced (or poorly sourced) information and worked on formatting.
talk) 22:11, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 17:30, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2021 Formula One World Championship

2021 Formula One World Championship (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
too soon to be creating the article. Most of the content is duplicated from the 2020 article. Major revisions to the sporting and technical regulations are expected for 2021 which would be cause to create this article to be created in advance, but as per this source, those regulations are unlikely to be published until October 2019. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 08:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom, at this stage there is insufficent information to warrant an article for a season which won't start for almost 2 years. Normally I would say Draftifiy, however a draft of this already exists (
here) from which this eintire article appears to be copied from anyway. As Mclarenfan17 points out details of the 2021 season are due to be released in October ^[1] and the article can be moved from draft to mainspace then or earlier if a significant announcement is made but at this stage it is simply to early. SSSB (talk) 08:58, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: there is already a draft version at
Draft:2021 Formula One World Championship. It appears that most of the article has been lifted from that page. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:31, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looking at past seasons, it always seems to be typical that this comes up every season that a season wants to be deleted. For me this is properly a case of
talk) 10:07, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per Matt 294069. In fact there was a time when someone made F1 season articles 6-7 years ahead of time and a bunch of these articles were deleted at AFD per
WP:TOOSOON....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:19, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete per nom. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:42, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just to soon for this. We already have a
WP:SALT so that we can focus on the draft and assure that that's the one which gets published when time is proper to do so.T v x1 22:21, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment: ironically, whoever created this article seems to have copy-pasted content from the 2021 draft ... but didn't carry over the (few) 2021-specific details in it. Mclarenfan17 (talk) 01:09, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep See
WP:PRESERVE, we prefer such non-destructive choices. As for the argument that there's nothing to say about 2021, this is evidently false as there is lots of planning and publicity about this – see What's at stake in F1's crucial 2021 rules meeting..., for example. Andrew D. (talk) 10:32, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

There's speculation and discussion about what they want for 2021, but nothing specific has been decided, let alone announced. Timeframe alone is not justification to have such an article. I can easily link toof a similar AFD which resulted in delete in a similar timeframe, where you were ironically the only one supporting to keep it based on the same flawed arguments as here.T v x1 12:53, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That article – 2020_Formula_One_World_Championship – was not deleted and is still in mainspace. So, the precedent is clear – we keep such articles. Andrew D. (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@
WP:OTHERSTUFF means that you can't argue that the 2020 article existing means the 2021 article must exist too. SSSB (talk) 16:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

No,you’re wrong. That article was actually deleted. It was recreated much later when 2020 specific information was announced. Also, there was another AFD dealing with the article you mentioned which resulted in it being deleted at that time. Moreover November 2017 is not two years away from January 2019.T v x1 22:37, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included by Andrew Davidson in the Article Rescue Squadron's
list of content for rescue consideration. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:26, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep Information about it mentioned in plenty of places as evident in the references in the article. And the ESPN article [3] has a lot to say about it. Also no sense deleting an article only to recreate it later on. This isn't some planned film that might not get made, this is something which is guaranteed to happen so not a crystal ball situation. Dream Focus 18:00, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And yet the parts of that article that cover the 2021 season are
WP:TOOSOON. SSSB (talk) 21:36, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete as too soon, only information is one driver has a contract, as do some venues. When the interesting, expected car changes get announced and finalised, that would be content worth having. Right now, no extraordinary, or at all interesting, information. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:23, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Noble, Edd Straw, Roberto Chinchero, Jonathan. "October compromise likely for 2021 F1 rules to help small teams". Autosport.com. Retrieved 2019-05-08.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:57, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Stinson Leonard Street

Stinson Leonard Street (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 company, fails
WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 17:00, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:01, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I would suggest proceeding slowly here. Sources for law firms are hard to find since there are so many false hits in sources that don't show notability; law firms are routinely named in court filings, lawyer-written articles, and directories. Good sources get lost in the haystack. But this article is about a firm formed from two firms each going back over a century, which almost certainly makes for notability. There's almost certainly some stuff out there, it'd just going to be way difficult to find, particularly online. TJRC (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no inherent notability
WP:SOURCESMAYEXIST - Epinoia (talk) 20:38, 6 May 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) 07:54, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't meet NCORP and the article reads like a directory listing. A simple search literally only shows listings with no notable external 3rd party coverage. --qedk (t 桜 c) 17:33, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. This is still not a very clear-cut case even after a DRV and three relists, but the "delete" arguments are more persuasive. I'm disregarding the conflicting views expressed by Djm-leighpark. There is exactly one opinion addressing the issue of third-party sources that is at the core of this AfD, and it's a "weak keep". There are two other "keep"s (and one "delete") that do not address third-party sources and must be given little weight. Everybody else argues that there are no (or not enough) third-party sources. This argument is, as mentioned, barely contested, and therefore remains decisive. Sandstein 17:28, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kst (software)

Kst (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)

I prodded it with the following rationale: "The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing
Wikipedia:Arguments not to use in deletion discussion, including I guess "this has survived so long it should stay forever" :> Well, let's discuss this a bit more then. Sources, anyone? I couldn't find anything outside trivial mentions and primary sources. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:24, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:58, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: When undoing a prod, giving reasons is entirely optional. Doing so would merely be a courtesy. I find your personal attack extremely misplaced. Samsara 14:19, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't believe I made any personal attack. You yourself noted you were not courteous in ignoring my specific request for a proper rationale, not me. All I said is that your argument is clearly a bad one (in fact, it is not an argument at all). I don't think my response to you at any point has been particularly so, nor less courteous than your reply to me. It is was not my intent to offend you, and if you feel offended, I apologize - but it was my intent to point out, inoffensively, that your argument is useless, not backed in any rationale we have (there's no policy, guideline or even an essay I am aware of that states that 'old enough' articles should not be deleted), and results in likely (as I expect this AfD will end up in delete) unnecessary expenditure of time for editors that will be posting here. Time will tell if I am correct or not, but if this ends up in delete, I hope you'll reconsider your future deprods. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:25, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The software is somewhat notable. It is part of Debian. Google Scholar search for "kst-plot.kde.org" gives 28 hits. So our lemma is notable, and the article is a legitimate stub. -- Oisguad (talk) 09:55, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: As best I can tell, none of those hits are actually about the software; they are about other activities, some of which used this software (or something similar to it) in the studies. Other hits included the "kst-plot" as part of a list of software that could be used for certain activities. When looking directly at Google Scholar for "Kst (software)", many if not most hits are for knowledge sharing technology (KST). Risker (talk) 21:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per Risker, AfD is not a vote and your argument is
WP:GNG. All you have proven is that the topic is not a hoax and it exists, and this is not being disputed. Existence, however, is not sufficient for having a Wikipedia article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. I've looked further for sources, and please also see my comment above. There just isn't enough software-specific information here. It would perhaps be suitable for merge into an article (or list article) that focuses on similar KDE extensions; many of those individual articles probably do not meet the threshold for notability, either, but as a group of applications would probably cross the notability point. Risker (talk) 03:40, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. I fully support soft delete/redirect/merge, as long as anyone can think of a proper merge target (or create it). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:56, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This software already appears in the article
List of KDE applications. Suggest deletion with a redirect to that page. There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application to demonstrate notability, let alone write a proper article. Risker (talk) 03:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Comment:~~Weak keep~~: Comment: (was weak keep as relist but see re-!vote below) Rob Reilly Linux Journal Volume 2010 Issue 196, August 2010 Article No. 4 Real-time plots with kst and a Microcontroller ... seems a likely feasible reference though I haven't read it (its unlikely to refer to the
List of KDE applications#Science. Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:33, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Further scanning through some scholar hits ... and with kst meaning some other things as well filtering is nightmarish ... kst seems to being particularly applied where real time speed is essential. [4].Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:13, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted after Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2019 April 14 overturned the "delete" closure.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:22, 22 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've looked into the source code on this project and it seems to have stagnated, It may work very well but the toolkit it is using is a full generation behind with no activity in it's repo since 2014. The information is sparse even for a stub class article. I second the merge that User:Risker mentioned. I feel that it would better serve the average Wikipedia user if it was alongside similar software that would provide better context then an almost direct copy paste of it's main web page. On it's own it's notability is questionable, but with similar Software related to it, it's far more relevant. Andrdema (talk) 05:20, 25 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The relevant criterion is notability, not software development activity. Samsara 14:39, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'd like to second that. At some point in its lifecycle software can get to the point where it just works and doesn't really need further development. I don't say this has happened here ... but it is possible.Djm-leighpark (talk) 15:35, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I can second (third?) that too - with a stress that this is a clear fail of notability, since nobody has yet found a non-
WP:PRIMARY (manual) source. This piece of code doesn't seem to have been reviewed or studied in depth, hence, it is not important enough to have a stand-alone article. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:56, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep I think this is notable and could become a proper article. I would highlight the following points:
The title Kst suggests that this is statistics for KDE, and that seems to have been the idea when it was first created over a decade ago (and, btw, there are also stand-alone binaries for Macos and Windows, so it pretty much runs anywhere). However, the open source statistics market is now strongly dominated by R, which easily exceeds Kst in features. There isn't really any competition in that market any more, but of course, Wikipedia is not concerned merely with the here and now. As Djm-leighpark as well as the software's homepage emphasise, Kst's strengths are in real time visualisation of data. In fact, it may be the leading open source application in this area. This includes uses in electronics, medical devices, and astronomy. More on that below.

Perhaps one might wonder why there aren't any third party books on Kst. Well, the Canadian Space Agency provided funding to support the creation of what ended up being an almost 300-page manual written at the universities of British Columbia and Toronto. In case this is of interest, the authors are Duncan Hanson, Rick Chern, Philip Rodrigues, Barth Netterfield, Yiwen Mao, and Zongyi Zhang.

In terms of its connection to astronomy, Kst includes import filters for various formats that are either specific to, or were originally developed in, that field. These include HEALPix, CDF and netDCF, LFIIO, SCUBA and WMAP Time Ordered Data (TOD) files.

I may write more if I can find the time, but for now, I'd like to note that everyone commenting so far seems to have ignored the existence of the manual, with some even complaining about the absence of such material (e.g. Risker: "There's simply not enough reference material to this particular application"). Samsara 15:50, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Manuals are problematic sources, since generally they are
WP:PRIMARY. If manual would be sufficient to make a topic notable, every household appliance would be notable. Heck, even USB hubs and such come with manuals these days... what doesn't? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:53, 27 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Samsara 15:54, 26 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

s>*Keep: Following development progression of article to scrape start-class by myself within the last 24 hours and with adequate referencing and removal of some contentious claims from
WP:PRIMARY I am moved to change my !vore from weak keep to keep.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)</a>[reply
]

Delete—fails to assert why it's notable as currently written, and cursory checks for sources turn up no significant third-party sources discussing it. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 17:44, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need further discussion now the article has been significantly improved since the start of the AfD.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 14:03, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. I've used KST for over a decade, but am not involved in the project. Linux Journal is in depth. The other refs just possibly push this over the line. It definitely shouldn't be deleted - at the very least it should be merged somewhere (KDE? An article on real time plotting?) - as the content does pass
WP:V.Icewhiz (talk) 15:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Verifiability is separate from notability. The issue is not whether we can determine KST exists but whether it is notable enough to have an article. A Linux magazine that uses the software to accomplish a tutorial doesn't expressly demonstrate the importance of the software. Put another way: are there interviews with the creators about KST? An article about KST's importance in applications (rather than just examples where it is used?) Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs^(talk) 16:34, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The contents should be merged at the very least. We do have an interview - [5].Icewhiz (talk) 17:18, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It seems like we need some more source analysis here based on the last few votes
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:50, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The sources per article source are grand. The totality of the hinting of the use of the interview (almost a cherrytoppping that interview actually) the hinting almost seems like an attempt to motivate upclassing work on the article but after 3533 days at AfD/DRV by this one with associated scummering and another astronomical graphical pussycat as well I'm kinda spent and this is past the post.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:24, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This has been here too long. Just have your way and bin it forever as that's what everyone wants.Djm-leighpark (talk) 20:00, 12 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer Within a period of about 24 hours (my impression, did not count it precisely), Djm has added delete !votes or changed his keep !votes, with a "variety" of rationales, on multiple noms,[6][7][8] mirroring his "change of opinion" here, in one case verbatim. Samsara 19:07, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 17:14, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hexany Audio

Hexany Audio (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)

Blatant Promotion for Non
bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the business. A business talking about themselves and their products is not independent. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:36, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Richard Ludlow and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Carl Earl. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:41, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Linked from
talk) 06:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:VAGUEWAVE. So you're just guessing are you? Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep. Topic appears notable. Good sources out there to scale through
talk) 17:38, 3 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
WP:VAGUEWAVE. Which sources are good? duffbeerforme (talk) 01:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Weak Keep or Draftify. Searched for this topic in Googlenews, I only discovered three 3rd party sources. They include 1, 2 and 3.

There's also one source about an award on this topic from Variety magazine here. Certainly, the few sources are not good enough. More is needed. The current page is loaded with a refbomb many of which are not reliable. I recommend pushing this to the draft space for now. If it must be kept, it has to be properly cleaned up. All those promo lines and unreliable refs should be cleared. Nevertheless, outright delete can be very harsh as I stated earlier on Matthew Carl's AFD. Both pages have same issues.Benleg4000 (talk) 14:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Richard Ludlow - Epinoia (talk) 03:04, 6 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable project credits in line with
WP:CORP. New draft removes the promotional aspects of previous draft. ParinazF talk

Delete There are very clear guidelines on establishing the notability for organizations and the references that can be located for the company all fail. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability and the Keep !votes above are vague with no references to policy/guidelines. An examination of the sources shows none meet the criteria as per
WP:NCORP
:
This interview with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
as there is no information provided about the company itself.

This Sound&Picture interview with a founder also fails
WP:ORGIND
as articles relying almost entirely on interviews are not considered (intellectually) independent.

This Berklee reference and this one are from a connected source as Hexany are featured as Berklee Institute for Creative Entrepreneurship graduates and essentially were supported by the organizations publishing the articles, therefore not independent and fails
WP:ORGIND
.

This Variety reference is a mention-in-passing and fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
.

This TVOM reference fails for two reasons. It mainly fails because it is an interview with Matthew Carl Earl and is therefore not intellectually independent and fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
.

The Forbes article fails because it is a profile on the founder, not on the company. Notability is
WP:CORPDEPTH
.

The Cultured Vultures reference fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
as it contains no in-depth information about the company.

This blog post fails as a reliable source as blogs are not considered reliable.

There is no significant coverage and no independent coverage that includes original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Topic fails GNG and
HighKing⁺⁺ 11:40, 7 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not a normal relisting case, I know, but not all of Benleg4000's sources have been rebutted and High King's analysis came quite late in the AFD process. I'd like to see a bit more discussion before settling for a delete close (since most other keep arguments are quite weak given their lack of source analysis)
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources from Benleg4000:
flickeringmyth interview "with Matthew Carl Earl, an employee, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
as there is no information provided about the company itself."

Same problem as above as well stated by HighKing. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:40, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article meets
WP:NRV as the references, though local, verify and support the content. More notable references like this [9] and this [10] can be added. Variety, Forbes, Sound & Picture are good sources. The article needs a clean-up to remove the redundant content like 'Credits and Clients' section.Sora Sailor (talk) 16:09, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment References may be deemed "notable" and still fail the criteria for establishing notability. None of the references you mention meet the criteria.
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per
Gamasutra, the first of which is a mainstream newspaper and the second of which is a respectable platform in the area of gaming. The Boston Globe [11] found Hexany Audio an authority to quote with regard to the topic of VR while Gamasutra [12] provided in-depth coverage about Hexany Audio through an interview with its Audio Director. Although the article could use some cleanup, it meets the threshold required to possess an encyclopedia entry. desmay (talk) 19:08, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comment "Mentions" are not part of the criteria for references to establish notability. The Gamasutra reference is an interview with the founder, therefore not independent and fails
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep The article looks improved, the history notes that cleanup has been done after it was marked for deletion. As per the source analysis -
Sound and Picture - this interview of the founder talks about the company

The Boston Globe - this source supports the Berkelee genesis of the company

Further cleanup is required as per

WP:MoS. OliverKianzo (talk) 14:40, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

Note to Closer It is worrying that some editors above !voting to Keep do not appear to have either read or understood the criteria for references to establish notability. Just above, OliverKianzo quotes a reference and describes it as an interview with the founder - this shows a lack of understanding of
HighKing⁺⁺ 16:17, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep There will always be some editors who make incomplete arguments, but that doesn't mean there aren't significant sources per
WP:NMUSIC as well, "Is frequently covered in publications devoted to a notable music sub-culture", which their music product is, quite clearly, as shown by the citations. The page should be kept so it can be improved (itself a different issue entirely), but it does meet the criteria of notability.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:31, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

References

^ Kirsner, Scott. "Berklee students and grads create a noteworthy niche: music for video games". BostonGlobe.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ Francis, Bryant. "Gamasutra talks to Arena of Valor audio designer Richard Ludlow". www.gamasutra.com. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ https://www.gamecrate.com/interview-hexany-audio%E2%80%99s-richard-ludlow-challenges-making-video-game-sounds/20312. Retrieved 10 May 2019. {{cite news}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "Hexany Audio, Berklee-Bred Business, Blasts Off | Berklee College of Music". www.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Audio profession sounds good to Fountain Valley High alum". Orange County Register. 12 September 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Fountain Valley Native to Speak at Europe's Largest Game Industry Even". Fountain Valley, CA Patch. 15 July 2013. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "Richard Ludlow | Berklee Music Network". network.online.berklee.edu. Retrieved 10 May 2019.
^ "81: Follow the Three P's Principle When Choosing a Job with Richard Ludlow of Hexany Audio". GameDev.net. Retrieved 10 May 2019.

Response
independent content

You say the sources you've provided meet the criteria for "significant sources". They don't. Significant coverage does not mean "coverage in a well-known publication" or "namechecked in the Financial Times". Please read the
WP:ORGIND
. You say that Berklee college is independent and not a "sock puppet" of the company. Nobody said they were a "sock puppet", that is a strawman argument. None of the information on the Berklee website contains independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and relies on information provided by the company. I've extracted the quotation below as this is the accepted interpretation of an "independent" source for establishing notability of companies/organizations/etc.

Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.

You (here and as a comment below) use a section from
WP:NCORP
.
You mention
is not inherited
. Even if the CEO is notable, it does not mean that this company meets the criteria.

Looking at the references you provided. The first four, you say are "significant coverate". They are not and *all* of them fail

WP:CORPDEPTH

.

The Boston Globe reference merely namechecks the company twice with no other information about the company. It is therefore not "significant coverage" as is fails to provide in-depth information on the company (fails CORPDEPTH) and is not independent (quotes from CEO) and fails
WP:ORGIND
This Gamasutra reference is a recorded interview with the founder and is therefore not independent and fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
This Gamecrate reference is entirely based on an interview with the CEO. Not independent, fails
WP:CORPDEPTH
.
This Berklee reference relies on information provided by the company and/or the executives. Not only that, but Berklee are using Hexany's profile in order to promote the college. This is not "independent" coverage and fails
WP:ORGIND
.

The next four sources you mention are focussed on the founder. For the reasons I've quoted above, those references also do not meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the company.

HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply

The result was keep. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:56, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: would there be any value in merging Matthew Carl Earl and Richard Ludlow into this article? All three are up for deletion, and it's because they each have a couple of reliable sources but no more – as far as I can see Mr. Earl and Mr. Ludlow's notability comes from their company, so perhaps if they were all included in one article which would then have have a dozen reliable sources, there would be a better chance of keeping any verifiable information, instead of deleting all three. Richard3120 (talk) 21:19, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- This above suggestion doesn't make sense. They are distinct topics. While notability can transfer from a CEO's individual notability per
  WP:CCSI#CORP, their pages are different distinct topics.--Nubtrazolacine (talk) 04:10, 10 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  - No, you are totally misinterpreting what is being said. Not only does
    WP:CCSI#CORP *not* state that "Notability can be transferred" but the RFC it in turn references
    discussed "significance" and not notability. The RFC was not passed and the example it uses in the closing summary makes it clear how common sense should be applied. Nothing in the example lends weight to your argument.
- Response *If* this topic survives AfD (which I doubt as to date, not a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability has been provided) then I agree that some relevant and appropriate information on those individuals could be included.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 13:30, 13 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Delete, although the articles has quite some sources, you will find that only the smallest portion (maybe 4) is actually reliable. The rest is primary (own website), tertiary (MobyGames), or some blogs. Definetly fails
✉) 14:55, 14 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Delete. Fails
WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:43, 15 May 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.

Leader (spark)

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

0 sources, plus appears to be a part of a larger topic. Cheers, FriyMan ^{Per aspera ad astra} 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Definitely a well-covered and much-referenced thing [13]. Looking through the connected articles, Lightning#Lightning leaders goes into some detail, but with specific reference to lightning only. The phenomenon is more general and would benefit from standalone treatment, with generous links to special cases - which is what the article already does. Keep and add some of the readily available sources. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:57, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Complete failure of
WP:BEFORE. Yet another case of assuming unsourced means unsourceable. In depth sources are easily found, this book spends several pages introducing the topic [14] and later devotes a whole chapter to it [15]. Other book sources with in-depth coverage include [16][17][18]. As for "part of a larger topic", I've never heard such an inane rationale for deletion. Everything is part of a larger topic. Shall we reduce the whole encyclopaedia to just one page? SpinningSpark 23:47, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Keep per Elmidae and Spinningspark. I might suggest a move to Leader (electricity), but that's not for this discussion. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 00:09, 09 May 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:55, 15 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Maynard

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

Essentially all these publications are selfpublished. The reviews seems to be routine noticex in Whats On and the like. DGG ( talk ) 07:30, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emphatic, confident Delete vote. Trevor Maynard is a unique-sounding name, so I ran a proquest gNews search. I scanned 93 hits on guys called Trevor Maynard: athlete, art student, brother of the deceased in an obit, petty criminal, a child interviewed at Disneyland (he liked it), and a risk assessor at Lloyds who may actually be notable, but none of the hits was on this Trevor Maynard. Even minor playwrights we delete always have a few hits in local papers in a news archive search. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I had this on my list of articles to nominate for deletion when I get round to it. I note that an editor has been eager to give the impression that the publisher of the books was not
Phil Bridger (talk) 11:13, 9 May 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 Now, as the only user who voted delete switched to keep I can withdraw it. I will remove now remaining false statements in the article (when I nominated it the article only contained false statements and nothing else.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:01, 9 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Blagoveshchensk massacre and Sixty-Four Villages East of the River massacre

)

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

Unsourced claims of massacres, POV. Ymblanter (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the