Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 16

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:36, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cymru Rydd

Cymru Rydd (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 could not find any reference to this political party - https://www.google.co.uk/search?ei=IaenXdmmLYbQwQLb7LWYAQ&q=cymru+rydd+welsh+republicans&oq=cymru+rydd+welsh+republicans&gs_l=psy-ab.3...7379.10192..10660...0.2..0.66.187.3......0....1..gws-wiz.......0i71.BmcLCVyrBj8&ved=0ahUKEwiZu-rv9qHlAhUGaFAKHVt2DRMQ4dUDCAo&uact=5 Alligators1974 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Alligators1974 (talk) 23:32, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I was able to find passing mentions of the political party but being that it is only minor, it lacks notability. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:53, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I am the article creator. There is no justification for keeping this article and I am more than happy to accept the deletion nomination as valid. doktorb _words^deeds 06:45, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Party is not notable, therefore fails
  WP:GNG. Quick Google search showed no reliable sources regarding the minor party. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:44, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 15:07, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete since subject fails
  WP:ORG, which covers political parties. -The Gnome (talk) 17:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A search yielded no sources of note. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. No sign whatsoever of the sort of notability that would be expected to justify having an article on Wikipedia. Dunarc (talk) 19:37, 23 October 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 may be controversial, but the closing admin is meant to weigh up the strength of arguments on both sides. I am simply not seeing a convincing argument for GNG here. Granted there are some passing mentions of the match post the event, but I am simply not seeing sustained significant coverage to justify a standalone article. I don't doubt that the match had an impact on us soccer, but that doesn't mean an article is kept without having to show coverage in sources over an extended period of time. Fenix down (talk) 07:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that DRV overturned this close to no consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:42, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trinidad and Tobago 2–1 United States (2018 FIFA World Cup qualification)

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Was this game really notable? The result of it was that the US Men's national team failed to qualify for the 2018 FIFA World Cup, but not sure if it has lasting notability as a match in itself. Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Natg 19 (talk) 23:09, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep The article doesn't do a good job of examining the
  lasting impact of the event, which was the canary in the coal mine for U.S. Soccer. Within two years, the entire organization has changed (new managers, new executives, unseating the decade-long tenure of the USSF president) and the match is still used as a comparison, for example this article comparing it to another humiliating defeat last night. SounderBruce 23:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:13, 17 October 2019 (UTC)≥[reply]

• Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 09:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep One of the most significant matches in the history of the US national team and had a major impact, both positive and negative, for years to come. Smartyllama (talk) 17:27, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I went through the references in the article, and there's no indication on why the match is notable. The references all seem routine - and most are dated BEFORE the match took place! Move the content (no redirect necessary) to
  2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fifth Round (where there's barely any reference to this match) and United States men's national soccer team (where there's only 2 sentences and 2 references from the day after the match). Looking at qualifying ... the USA failed to win a single away match, and lost twice at home. With only one more draw (point) separating them from the 3rd qualifying spot, it's not like this particular match was the issue, rather than the other 5 problematic matches. Nfitz (talk) 20:43, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep I would consider the match very notable considering its high press coverage outside the USA and how important it is to the History of the USMNT. I would also consider this match to be as notable as the "Shot heard round the world" match, both of which are "Start" class articles. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:30, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where User:KingSkyLord are the references that say this? They aren't in the article. They haven't been brought forward in this debate, and a Google search (not the easiest search term I'll admit) just yields match reports, and the occasional passing reference. Where's the in-depth coverage of it's significance - or heck, anything in-depth that wasn't filed within 24-48 hours of the match? Nfitz (talk) 16:28, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I fail to see
  2018 FIFA World Cup qualification – CONCACAF Fifth Round. Also, GiantSnowman with articles like this you really should give a few reasons instead of one generic no evidence of notability when clearly some notability does exist makes your delete rationale a rather floored argument that a lot of closers might just ignore your vote! Govvy (talk) 12:01, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Weak keep it is, indeed, an important match, and I reckon passes
  WP:EVENTCRIT. The article doesn't do it justice as it stands. SportingFlyer T·C 09:32, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Where are some references User:SportingFlyer that support that this match has any lasting significance? All we've got are match-day reports, and mostly reports from before the match. I'll happily change my vote, if I could see some references - but I haven't. I hardly think that everytime that a top-tier CONCACAF team barely loses to a second-tier squad, away, is significant ... every time it happens, there's calls for the coach to be replaced ... and we've seen that again this week. Nfitz (talk) 21:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did a simple Google search and looked for articles written after October 11, 2017. See articles like [1] or [2], or even mentions in books like [3]. Some of that arguably isn't

WP:SIGCOV, but again, I'm a weak keep, so I'm not really that arsed to track down better coverage, really just noting I'd be very surprised if it's not ultimately notable. SportingFlyer T·C 04:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Do you consider any of the sources mentioned here, User:SportingFlyer as SIGCOV? The MLS Article mentioned below is the only thing I've seen that doesn't seem to be at the time of the match, or briefly in passing. But is MLS a secondary source that is "Independent of the subject" - I'm not sure it is, given all the spam they keep emailing me promoting this team. Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The major American sports teams hire independent writers for their websites, IE the league doesn't directly control the content, I think MLS is the same way. SportingFlyer T·C 20:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep There is plenty of coverage—from 2017 to now and in the media of various countries—describing reactions and consequences (failed qualification). I'd say it passes
  WP:LASTING because it essentially brought about many changes for the USMNT [4] and was described as a wakeup call for U.S. Soccer. I also found interesting that this match is described as "rock bottom", "catastrophic," etc., even in sources published longer after the match, and is used to make negative comparisons (e.g. the recent 2-0 loss to Canada [5] [6]). This was a historic match for the USMNT; the article could be expanded with some of this information. ComplexRational (talk) 21:59, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ah User:ComplexRational! That MLS Article is interesting - but as I ask above, is it a secondary source that's independent of the subject? The other two are brief mentions, when the USA lost another match this week to a CONCACAF team that it should have beaten - and quite frankly the first time I heard about this Trinidad match was listening to commentary during that match last week - but there were mentions of other matches too. Is every unexpected loss noteworthy? What about Honduras 8, Canada 1 (which I don't think is, despite seeing frequent references to it). Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom.--Ortizesp (talk) 19:23, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Plenty of matches in qualifying stages tend to result in certain teams not qualifying. This isn't special. Number 57 11:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep passes
  WP:GNG. This game is still being referenced in coverage which shows sustaining notability.4meter4 (talk) 02:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

What reference do you, User:4meter4 consider as GNG and SIGCOV? The MLS Article mentioned above is the only one that seems close. But is MLS a secondary source that is "Independent of the subject"? Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment - with the 7-day deadline on this approaching, I suggest relisting this, while we discuss the recently found sources further. Nfitz (talk) 16:49, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 23:38, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Navfitness

Navfitness (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to be defunct. Only references are to its own publications. Doesnt seem very notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The app's official website is dead. The article's 2 sources are the official website. It was created in 2015 by a user who basically only ever contributed this article, and it has not had any attention to its content since. A quick web search does not bring up any worthwhile sources. Does not satisfy
  WP:NSOFTWARE. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete since subject fails
  kamikaze account isn't helping. -The Gnome (talk) 17:58, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A search yielded no sources. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:03, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joachim von Westphal

Joachim von Westphal (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 music producer and promoter. No reliable independent sources found. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - this search result from google de says its it all:https://www.google.de/search?source=hp&ei=DqunXdnLOMXxkwWlnJ7oCQ&q=Joachim+von+Westphal&oq=Joachim+von+Westphal&gs_l=psy-ab.3..0i22i30.856.856..1391...0.0..0.69.69.1......0....2j1..gws-wiz.oMcqbeIctoY&ved=0ahUKEwjZipLP-qHlAhXF-KQKHSWOB50Q4dUDCAc&uact=5Alligators1974 (talk) 23:45, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable artist. Barca (talk) 01:57, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - besides the
  them being run of the mill for the most part. Bearian (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Does not describe achievements that are important or significant. Has no refs; the external links don't help. A web search does not help. Does not satisfy
  WP:GNG. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:01, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete since subject fails
  single-purpose account whose owner put up a couple of articles on German music a dozen years ago and then disappeared. -The Gnome (talk) 18:03, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:28, 23 October 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 based on improved sourcing. RL0919 (talk) 22:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graem Whyte

Graem Whyte (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 sculptor. Article lacks reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I was surprised to find sources for this artist. I found him profiled in ART21, which is significant. A few other sources are decent. Note that "Popp's Packing" refers to the business operating his home studio business, which also includes several adjacent pieces of land with ongoing projects (e.g. "popp's Packing", a gallery/storefront). He is all about the
  talk) 23:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep Sourcing has significantly improved. There is now independent reporting on Whyte (and Lerman). It is published in reliable sources, and specifically about their work. Vexations (talk) 11:51, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep
  WP:ARTIST. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:20, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:05, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Defiler

Defiler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Doesn't seem notable—

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.

Delete - all I could find on the internet were such links as facebook, twitter and his website (only self-publish refs)). Alligators1974 (talk) 23:48, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subjects lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Meatsgains^(talk) 00:56, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:42, 23 October 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.

Overload (Transformers)

Overload (Transformers) (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 fictional character TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Overload is an Autobot in several series, but a Deception in another one. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 17:57, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  List of Autobots. Most of them were Autobots, but there was only one Decepticon. ミラP 17:52, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect to
  List of Autobots.4meter4 (talk) 02:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to List of Transformers comics characters. Tone 20:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kup (Transformers)

Kup (Transformers) (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 fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NFICTION. Has a good entry on transformers wiki, nothing is lost. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Transformers comics characters.4meter4 (talk) 02:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to List of Transformers comics characters where it is listed. There isn't enough to say about the subject to warrant a separate article. Slideshow Bob (talk) 17:56, 23 October 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. Lack of independent reliable sources to support notability. RL0919 (talk) 22:08, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

ClayClaim

ClayClaim (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 12:21, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Searches revealed no sources of note. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 22:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Legends (Transformers)

Legends (Transformers) (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 toy line TTN (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:14, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails NFICTION / NPRODUCT. Has a good entry on transformers wiki, nothing is lost (https://tfwiki.net/wiki/Transformers_Legends_(franchise)). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:14, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:GNG.4meter4 (talk) 02:49, 23 October 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 08:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Department of Psychology, NTNU

Department of Psychology, NTNU (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Insufficient evidence oif notability . We usually restrict articles on academic department in a university to the very few most famous one in the world. Two nobelists who shared a prize for joint work is not sufficient to achieve that. None of the references are actualy about the deparrtment. DGG ( talk ) 08:25, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. How many university departments are there with two Nobel laureates then? (And how many psychology departments?) I find literally tons of articles on quite ordinary educational institutions, including university departments that are nothing out of the ordinary (to mention just one example, massive coverage of all Category:Departments of the University of Manchester such as Psychological Sciences at The University of Manchester which seems like a quite ordinary psychology department, certainly less known than this one; the University of Manchester as a university is roughly on the same level as NTNU, NTNU is probably more recognised in some respects). Plus, of course, tons of articles on obscure high schools with fewer employees, fewer students and no notable research, all three meaningful criteria for an educational/research institution. There are entire universities in the US that are both smaller and less significant than this department.

The department has existed for 50+ years, is one of Norway's two main psychology departments and includes a Nobel Prize-winning research group of some 100+ scientists. In its field this is one of the world's leading research environments. The department is part of the country's largest university with over 40,000 students and nearly 8,000 employees so material on all the individual departments wouldn't belong in the main university article.

Also, the Nobel Prize for the two Mosers is just one of several honours the research environment based at the institute has received; it was also one of 13 research groups appointed as elite research environments by the Government of Norway in 2002, and it is one of the world's Kavli Institutes (certainly all the other universities with Kavli Institutes are among the world's leading).

Also, while the department has been part of NTNU since 1996, it was originally an independent educational/research institution. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 09:10, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions.Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:07, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:09, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. @Ella Sjødyr: I think you make a good argument that the institutions work prior to it's merger into the university may be a good reason to justify keeping an article on the department. That would be contingent though on finding significant coverage on the Psykologisk institutt prior to 1996. If you can find references like that I would support you in keeping this article. Best.4meter4 (talk) 03:07, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first reference is a 342-page book about the institution's history from 1946 to 1996 (when NTNU was formed by the merger of several university-level institutions in Trondheim). In my opinion the more important issue here, though, is that the department is at least as significant, and in many, many cases more significant, than all the hundreds of other articles on university departments that I can find, and that it would seem particularly odd to delete what is not only a very large, well-established and reputable psychology department at a well-established, reputable university, but in fact the world's only psychology department with any research that has/academics who have been awarded a Nobel prize.

• • In a list of psychology research institutions, psychology at NTNU with its offshoots, with its combined 200 scientists and a long list of awards, including the government appointment as elite research environment in 2002 and the Nobel prize for the Mosers, would easily belong to "the very few most famous ones in the world" (which doesn't appear to be the general criterion anyway, for anyone who has ever looked into other articles on university departments here). --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. @
    WP:GNG. 4meter4 (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

• Addtional comment. The nobel prizes only confer notability on the actual winners and not to the department because
  WP:notability is not inherited. The only way to prove notability is by showing evidence of three verifiable sources that are independent of the subject where the Department of Psychology, NTNU is the central focus of those sources. If you can't do that then the guidelines for inclusion tell us to delete.4meter4 (talk) 19:32, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • no:Tapir Akademisk Forlag was a well-established academic publisher in Norway from 1921 to 2012 when it merged to become Akademika forlag, one of Norway's current main academic publishers, and the author of the book was a recognised scholar (for instance the Royal Norwegian Society of Sciences and Letters published a collection of essays in honour of him in 1998[7]). The fact that the student welfare organisation in Trondheim was a shareholder (but not really involved in actually running the company) has no bearing on the publisher's standing, and in fact, academic publishers (and journals) owned by student welfare organisations and such are quite common (Sweden's main academic publisher is also such a publisher). As far as I can see there is no general criterion to have exactly three sources, and the article includes adequate sources at this point (the article includes six, including one particularly high-quality, particularly in-depth source). Of course more could be found for a department mentioned in national news media every day, but for me to spend further time on improving the article, rather than concentrating on my work on the Norwegian Wikipedia where I don't have to waste time on unproductive discussions instead, I would like to see a more constructive attitude than the unwarranted close policing of the article and application of entirely different standards than those normally, overwhelmingly applied to comparable articles in the US and UK so far.

• • The Nobel prizes of full-time staff are clearly relevant, also when evaluating the department's notability, and in fact all articles on universities with any Nobel prize laureates go out of their way to mention them both in the lead and body. The Nobel prize is really just one of several expressions of the fact that the institution's research activity is considered particularly significant; the appointment of the entire research environment (not just individuals) as elite research environment by the Government years before the Nobel prize was another example of that. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 20:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @
  WP:Articles for Deletion by a concerned editor. This is where we appropriately review articles by following our written policies. The policies have broad consensus behind them. You may not like them, but they are implemented consistently. Having multiple secondary sources that show significant coverage is a non-negotiable here at AFD per policy, and this is something you are just going to have to accept if you want to edit on wikipedia with success.4meter4 (talk) 21:16, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete Article fails the significant coverage guideline of
  WP:GNG. While assuming in good faith that the book is a quality reference, it is the only single reference in the article of significance. The newspaper article "NTNU-sentre vant forsker-millioner" is merely a press release of governmental research funds given to the university, as well as to several other institutions. The articles about the Nobel prizes are primarily about the faculty members and not the institution. As stated above, notability is not inherited. The article Fenton, André A. (2015-06-01). "Coordinating with the "Inner GPS"". Hippocampus. 25 (6): 763–769 is a journal article not about the institution but researched at the institution making it a primary source which is not usable per WP:Verifiability. WIth only one good reference, there is not enough evidence to support inclusion.4meter4 (talk) 20:44, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• • Your false claim that Adresseavisen publishes "press releases" really shows your lack of understanding of both sources and this topic area. I'm quite sure: Had the US government appointed 13 elite research environments in the US, based at the country's most recognised universities, that also went on to win Nobel prizes and other honours (both institutional and individual), US-based editors would have been enraged if Norwegian editors had insisted that the institutions weren't notable or that the main newspapers in the US just published "press releases", and in fact, they don't have a problem at all with endless streams of articles on quite ordinary university departments in Anglophone countries, whose only source is typically a "Portrait of a University", published by the university, not even about the department. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Again Ella Sjødyr, it's about 13 research institutions so the Department of Psychology, NTNU is not really the main subject, the money being awarded is. Significant coverage has to be an article specifically about the Department of Psychology, NTNU as a whole, not an awarded grant to 13 institutions. You are once again not hearing what I am saying or comprehending the policy accurately. Please feel free to bring any United States University Departments to AFD and I will evaluate them the same way I am here. (FYI there are only two other Department of Psychology articles on wikipedia, and I doubt either of them would survive an AFD)4meter4 (talk) 21:21, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have now nominated the only wikipedia article on a Department of Psychology in United States for deletion using the same rationale as I have for this article. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences. You and this article are not being targeted unfairly.4meter4 (talk) 21:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I seriously doubt that article will end up getting deleted, but in any event it is far less notable as a research institution than this department. It's a college with some programs, and the article doesn't describe any notable research. As a university, Brigham Young University, established by the Mormons, is ranked as #77 within its own country; NTNU, established by the King of Norway, by comparison is often ranked as #2 in Norway (#1 in its core fields). The BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences article is one article in a series that seems to include all departments at Brigham Young University.

Instead of discussing a random, individual department it would be better for editors who disagree with the current, extensive coverage of university departments to start a more general discussion. We also have coverage of some 30 departments at the University of Manchester, a respectable but medium-tier university by UK standards (behind the likes of Oxford and Cambridge), and comparable coverage of numerous other universities. Personally, I don't understand any desire to get rid of such articles on university departments like this one, with its 1,100 students, 244 staff/scientists and a track-record of groundbreaking research, when we have thousands (tens of thousands?) of articles on high schools that are far less notable on all counts, and I think it would be more reasonable to discuss the coverage of all those high schools before getting rid of any university departments, both the more obscure ones such as those at Brigham Young University, and those that are world-leading in its fields, such as this department and departments at the top universities in the US (such as those other universities that, like NTNU/this department, have been awarded Kavli Institutes: Stanford, MIT, Johns Hopkins, Caltech and Harvard). --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 22:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please see the RFC at

WP:GNG. It's that simple.4meter4 (talk) 00:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Predictably, US-based editors are showing up in streams to keep the Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BYU College of Family, Home and Social Sciences article on a fairly obscure and undistinguished US department of their country's #100 or so university (one of dozens of departments within that school with articles), while insisting that an article on a far more notable department in Norway with a large Nobel Prize-winning research group and national appointment as elite research environment must be deleted for inane reasons. If we ever needed any evidence of systemic bias against European (non-Anglophone) people or institutions, here it is. --Ella Sjødyr (talk) 12:18, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Two people is hardly a stream. I'm confident policy will win out in the end.4meter4 (talk) 23:21, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Upon first seeing this I was wondering what was going on. As I read further, and looked at the article, it became clear there are notability issue. The Department of Psychology is one of seven in the Faculty of Social and Educational Sciences. The school has close to 60 departments and they are covered in the
  Hey I have leaned towards delete. Otr500 (talk) 22:27, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

We may witness just 1 (one) review by

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:50, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:51, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Skillet discography. ―Justin (koavf)❤T☮C☺M☯ 06:01, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to the band's discog. No charting and only one review. I would have said just redirect it next time and take to a discussion if someone objects. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:01, 2 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to The Older I Get (the title song from the EP). feminist (talk) 05:07, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Skillet discography per above, not enough content. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 20:44, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

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 08:18, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Luma Health

Luma Health (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:59, 23 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - I'm not sure whether the funding pieces do not meet
  WP:ORGCRIT. Perhaps you meant that it's a single event, thus it is not significant? I see there are multiple reliable secondary sources from May 2018, May 2019, August 2019, September 2019. So the references do not revolve around a single event. Moreover, the pieces on The Wall Street Journal and VentureBeat were done by staff reporters, independent of the subject, and both articles provide significant coverage of the company. — Kstone999 (talk) 14:05, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

These are general announcements about recent funding so the WSJ and VB articles would not be considered significant when it comes to company notability. I agree that the sources are reliable, but they don't provide anything in-depth that can establish notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 16:28, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I understand what you're saying, but I still stand with my earlier decision. Both articles don't just mention the funding rounds but go more in-depth about the platform, it's history, successes. Moreover, it looks like there are other non-funding-related sources available, like this one, which were not added to the article. Perhaps it could be tagged with {More citations needed} or {Sources exist}, but I leave it up to you. — Kstone999 (talk) 18:00, 26 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Coolabahapple, I created the article and I believe the subject meets the notability guidelines. Do you think WSJ would make a post about a non-notable company's funding or announcements? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 17:18, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• hi KartikeyaS343, not sure why you have pinged me about this as i have only added this afd to some subject/project lists, i do not have knowledge of WSJ reporting policy, and have not looked at the article sources, anyway, where i am it is early morning (definitely not early evening/5.30pm:)) so need some zzzzzzzzzs... Coolabahapple (talk) 19:07, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, my bad! I mistakenly pinged you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 19:11, 27 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

no probs:)) Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The article consists of frame contents only, i.e. is written surrounding the subject not about the subject. I'm sure there are millions of healthcare companies in the world, and web has become a common focus among them.
  What's unique or important about this company? flowing dreams (talk page) 08:15, 28 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please, check the article now. There are in-depth coverages which I added in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:45, 29 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: does not meet
  WP:ORGDEPTH. Run-of-the-mill private company going about its business. --K.e.coffman (talk) 03:55, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep because there are in-depth coverages in independent sources within its industry which makes it pass
  B2C company that it will have huge press mentions. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 20:13, 6 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Which ones pass

WP:ORGCRIT?--CNMall41 (talk) 00:38, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you for asking. Please, check [8], [9], [10] etc. and all of these discusses the services provided by the company. It has been cited in Journal of Medical Internet Research as well. Do you think the WSJ would cover a funding of non-notable business? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:52, 7 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You asked do I think WSJ would cover funding of a non-notable business? Why yes, yes I most positively would! Also, it not only has to meet ORGCRIT, but references (for the purposes of establishing notability) must also meet CORPDEPTH and most importantly

HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete. Usual variety startup 'invest in us/buy us' spam. Sources are either primary or business-as-usual. Fails
  WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Please, check [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]. Do you think these are spam? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 07:31, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK then. This Business Insider article could be a good reference since analyst reports are regarded as meeting the criteria for establishing notability so long as the report provides in-depth information on the company and isn't a mere mention-in-passing. Seeing as the company is explicitly mentioned, I think this is a good reference. This VentureBeat reference fails

HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for your kind explanation. Do you think this WSJ article [16] adds anything to it? I believe WSJ wouldn't do churnalism. Please, let me know. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 15:59, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's largely based on a funding announcement, counts as "trivial coverage" (see

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete There's potentially one research report available which discusses the company but I am unable to access a copy. An article requires "multiple" references to meet the criteria for establishing notability. None of the other references meet the criteria (most are the usual
  HighKing⁺⁺ 10:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Can you please have a look at these researches and reports: [17], [18], [19], [20] and specially these:[21], [22], and [23] ? KartikeyaS343 (talk) 16:31, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Thanks KartikeyaS343, this research resport covers Luma in depth so that research report, along with this one mentioned earlier means we've met the requirements for establishing notability. Topic meets GNG and

HighKing⁺⁺ 12:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Thank you very much for taking time to look at the sources. I have added another journal citation in the article. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:26, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Its got coverage in reputable independent sources like Healthcare IT News and the San Francisco Business Times.Rathfelder (talk) 19:18, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, possibly Strong delete - When I did Google quotation mark-enclosed phrase searches for "Luma Health" on Google News and Google web search, the only articles I found were related to their venture capital funding raises, employee hires and departures, and signing of business deals with other companies—all of which amount to trite, trivial, and inconsequential matters. At the same time, the rest of the results were
  WP:CORPDEPTH, but it's doubtful. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:24, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per
  WP:ORGIND. Lightburst (talk) 01:37, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:CORPSPAM

and, to improve, Wikipedia's got to get smaller. -DM

Have you checked [24], [25], and [26]? These are not routine mentions or about fundings. I still didn't get the answer to if publisher like WSJ started making news about non-noatble businesses! KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:05, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343, Thanks. Ref #17 is a company-commissioned survey (trivial or trite coverage), #18 is a directory listing of select company executives as far as I see it, and #19 might qualify. I haven't checked the journal article, but if it's not about the company. it doesn't qualify. The company might be producing notable medicines, which could be notable, but that doesn't mean it is notable. Its researchers/employees would, however, be notable.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:40, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you very much for checking. Could you please check if any of these: [27], [28], [29], [30] qualifies? These were the other sources I found using Google searches. Regards.KartikeyaS343 (talk) 14:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: I have added news sources with a citation from the Journal of Medical Internet Research. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 09:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep. Well, here's my two cents: a few of the sources are merely listings (e.g. Bloomberg), while others (WSJ, Business review/journal articles; medical journal) are both
  significant coverage of the corporation and its services. Bearian (talk) 01:34, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

WP:CORPDEPTH?Doug Mehus (talk) 01:47, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Dmehus, The articles from WSJ and a few of the business magazines are behind paywalls, which in my mind actually means they are substantial. IF these media companies charge you, there must be something good behind the curtain, right? Bearian (talk) 01:52, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian, LOL, that's disappointing Bloomberg has started charging for access to the articles. Many Bloomberg articles, though, tend to relate to corporate earnings announcements, merger speculation, asset sale rumours, and product announcements—none of which is substantial. I don't think my academic library subscribes to Wall Street Journal, so probably can't look it up. Have you tried using Sci-Hub or Academia.edu to look up the journal article?

Dmehus, *sigh* I can't, since I'm neither teaching nor enrolled in grad school full-time this semester. Bearian (talk) 01:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - If we ignore some of the business listings and company profiles, there are sources that meet both
  WP:SIGCOV.  Centron   X   11:23, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per CentronX.4meter4 (talk) 03:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: What I see was a non-notable run-of-the-mill company that is lacking in reliable sources according to acceptable standards. An editor added more to apparently bolster the notability and I see two references, dated the same day, that mention raising 6 million and 6.3 million and I wager these are referring to the same money. There are at least five references that mention raising 16 million. On just a scan I see seven out of sixteen references on two items and this jumps out as
  too soon, and comments by User:Dmehus (I did a search) are accurate. A headcount (not how things should go) show 8 to seven with my !vote so either a slim margin to keep or the rationale for delete is persuasive to bring a closure of no consensus or maybe even delete. It is close but I think two sources out of sixteen on the article, and many listed here that fail to establish notability, should be taken into account that notability is so far lacking. Otr500 (talk) 23:46, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Ok, what I understood is that you are basically referring to the rationales I gave earlier but it has been re-listed after that. If you believe there are at least 2 sources that advance notability, then I can check again if I can find more sources. Can you please advise? Thank you. KartikeyaS343 (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply: Thank you for your diligence. I would welcome the occasion of not deleting articles, more so than can be imagined. If you find an additional source, that follows our sourcing guidelines towards notability, I would most certainly change my !vote and I am sure a
  WP:Hey would be considered. Note; Please bracket a user you are specifically addressing (KartikeyaS343). I am about to leave and just happen to check my email or would have missed this. Also, this has been opened awhile so if you are successful, and it should close, ping me for sure. We can then possibly check with other involved editor for an opinion on reopening. Here's wishing you luck, Thanks, Otr500 (talk) 14:53, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Just to add to your comment I am not, nor should other editors, digress to such a low number. Just so that you know and it has been discussed on other AfD pages, the guidelines state that there must be "multiple" references (that meet the criteria for establishing notability) and consensus on other AfD pages is that there must be at least two. You say consensus on other pages is three - can you point to this consensus somewhere? Having been involved in hundreds of AfD I have never seen 3 suggested anywhere.

HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

That's worthy of clarifying. I certainly argue what constitutes "multiple" qualifying sources to be at least 3, not 2 as that is far too low to establish notability, and ideally at least 5.Doug Mehus (talk) 19:43, 25 October 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 Redirected, non-admin closure. Ten Pound Hammer • ⁽What did I screw up now?) 20:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019-20 San Jose State Spartans basketball team

2019-20 San Jose State Spartans basketball team (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats

)

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

Page is redundant to '2019-20 San Jose State Spartans men's basketball team' and is unnecessary Gzagona (talk) 19:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly
  Talk to my owner:Online 20:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Carey (singer)

Michael Carey (singer) (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)

A7 declined. There is literally nothing out there on this guy. A search for the song title + Michael Carey yielded nothing. The only source in the article has been robots.txt'd, making it unclear how distinct the coverage was.His name is mentioned passingly in sources on Randy Bachman (or in the context of other people entirely such as this), but notability is

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 18:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete.
  WP:MUSICBIO with criteria such as charting, awards, or touring. Bearian (talk) 01:56, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Non-notable musician, the only claim is that he released an album. It only has 1 (inaccessible) source and I cannot find more with a quick Web search. Does not pass
  WP:MUSICBIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:56, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. A search yielded nothing. Fails
  WP:NMUSIC.4meter4 (talk) 03:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:37, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mariah Huq

Mariah Huq (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)

Recently created, unsourced article that fails to meet the requirements of

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. AussieLegend (✉) 18:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete no refs. scope_creep^Talk 21:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I have fixed an error in the nomination. According to this edit by the article creator, the single role that the subject has had is only recurring. --AussieLegend (✉) 04:19, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Article does not meet the requirements of
  WP:NACTOR and there is no references. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:46, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:47, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete IMDb is not a reliable source. I still think we should create a speedy deletion method to rid outselves of the clutter of articles unsourced to anything except IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:30, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete.fails
  (T) 11:27, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. The sole keep arguments have been refuted, to say nothing that sockpuppetry is not acceptable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:39, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yivsam Azgad

Yivsam Azgad (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

not meet wp:notability Saff V. (talk) 06:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Support most(if not all) of the sources are primary sources. Doesn't meet general notability guidelines and academic notability guidelines. Also there are a lot unreliable sources like Wikipedia in Hebrew. That's not a reliable source.--SharabSalam (talk) 06:47, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:48, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete The article reads like a CV, and combined with the image, looks highly suspect in terms of
  WP:COI. Number 57 20:56, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:50, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yivsam Azgad is a well-known art curator, science fiction author, eminent journalist and spokesperson of the Weizmann Institute of Science in Israel. He already has a Wikipedia page in Hebrew, which is well supported with links to reliable references and meets the Wikipedia guidelines. The article in English has been created in consultation with the above-mentioned article in Hebrew and with the references provided within the same. However, this article needs to be amended with regard to the references attached, which can be fixed via editing. The grounds on which this article has been opened to discussion for deletion is unclear to me and it seems a bit biased and suspicious, given that Yivsam Azgad has given a lot of service to Arts, Science, and Journalism including many science-based socio-cultural initiatives which are recognized worldwide and thus deserves a Wikipedia page in English.Q936 (talk) 20:13, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: I have edited the page, corrected the references and introduced sections. The article is objective with reliable links and references and as such meet Wikipedia's guidelines. - More references will be added soon. Q936 (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: The page has been edited. It is no longer reads like a CV. Also, a new image has been uploaded.Q936 (talk) 21:44, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Saff V.:,@Number 57: Please have a look at the Wikipedia pages: Nano Comics and Science on Tap.

• Yivsam Azgad is the editor of Nano Comics (a comic series in English, Arabic, and Hebrew) and he is the one who initiated and responsible for the social-cultural Science on Tap.
• Israeli author: He is also a well known Israeli author (see his list of publications).
• Israeli curator (including science-art): Yivsam Azgad has also been exploring the concept of combining art and science: displaying contemporary Art exhibition in research spaces at the Weizmann Institute and exhibiting scientific images in art spaces in Tel Aviv and elsewhere (see: http://www.weizmann.ac.il/Arts/en/home).

Thanks, Q936 (talk) 22:06, 14 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Q936, Thanks for your efforts, the main issue of the article is lack of notability, unfortunately, sources which were added by you are not enough to confirm his notability for instance, this one is self-published source. It is better to let to know other users' votes instead of calling me.Saff V. (talk) 07:39, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Not to Delete - Yivsam Azgad NOTABILITY:

To confirm notability, here is a link from the Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University: ^[1] Thanks Q936 (talk) 11:52, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Vote for no deletion There should be hardly a question of notability here because Yivsam Azgad, as mentioned by user Q936, is a well-known journalist, writer, and art curator. He is the brain behind Science on Tap, which has been a great success in Israel and highly recognized worldwide. He is the creator of Nano Comics which is published in English, Arabic and Hebrew and is highly popular amongst children. Besides that, sources referred to confirm his notability are well established, for example, the article in Lexicon of New Hebrew Literature, The Ohio State University which is bagged only by outstanding individuals in literature in Hebrew and journalism. 0587 (talk) 22:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)— 8570w (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Q936 (talk • contribs). [reply]
• Delete per
  WP:BASIC: People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject. That is not the case here. Yoninah (talk) 23:29, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete - fails to meet notability and overly reliant on primary sources. --mikeu ^talk 20:07, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - while at first glance the references look good, a deeper dive reveals a
  no way to verify any of the information about the person. I have been to several World Cons, and won an award for most humorous costume at a regional SF con. He's unknown as a science fiction writer in North America. The page from OSU is a staff-written page; anybody who works in academia knows they're essentially self-published. If it were one of several sources, that would be fine, but as the only source, and in Hebrew, no. Bearian (talk) 01:48, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete I did extensive searches. He got many hits in my university library, but in all of them he was merely acting as the mouthpiece of the Weizmann Institute of Science and none of the articles were about him. The Hebrew wikipedia article yields nothing better in terms of sourcing. Both are clearly self promotional. Fails
  WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 03:42, 23 October 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 07:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zoltán Arany

Zoltán Arany (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 18:41, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think he's relevant. This track on Youtube has alone over 2 Million clicks. His own channel has over 19 Million video views ( Social Blade link), for medieval music, that's enormous. Therefore he is quite famous in the medieval music scene. --A11w1ss3nd (talk) 21:51, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For social media it is subscribers that important and he has 30k, or just under. 30k is not a lot. The figure somebody needs to reach to be stand-alone notable is 250k subscribers. Nationalistic songs tend to get played much more by definition, and on top that there is not much else. scope_creep^Talk 23:05, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete there is not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:57, 24 October 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.

Liriel Baenre (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 fictional character. The current reception is trivial. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge with
  talk) 04:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep or merge, as suggested above. BOZ (talk) 23:19, 16 October 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.

Yharaskrik (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 fictional character. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:15, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Forgotten Realms. I agree with the nominator. The article is exclusively sourced to a single novel, which is not remotely sufficient, and I can't find any other reliable sources. However, as a potentially useful search term I'd personally have been tempted to just boldly redirect this rather than nominate at AFD. Hug^syrup 12:09, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Merge with
  talk) 05:00, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep or merge, as suggested above. BOZ (talk) 23:18, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to
  WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 00:55, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 05:36, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Krant M. L. Verma

Krant M. L. Verma (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

Of dubious credentials; see this RSN thread. ∯WBG^converse 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 11:54, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for want of
  reliable sources showing significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 19:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete there is very little written about this man, and little indication that he is notable.Strandvue (talk) 00:26, 24 October 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. While consensus is to delete, this AfD is closed without prejudice against someone creating a redirect. The lack of consensus of a redirect target does not seem worth relisting when there is a clear delete consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:28, 24 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Young Sinatra: Undeniable

Young Sinatra: Undeniable (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Seems to fail

Note: This discussion has been included in the

- talk 07:07, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• delete per rationale of first deletion. Nothing appears to have changed. Mangoe (talk) 15:03, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• I don't know how this works, but deletion will be detrimental to informing about full discography AB365 (talk) 2:53, 9 October 2019 (UTC)

@

WP:RS is the Hot New Hip Hop website, and even there it's only a couple of brief paragraphs introducing a download link. Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep or merge - Do not delete this useful search term. --Jax 0677 (talk) 13:48, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or redirect maybe, but you can't "keep" just on the basis that the search term might be useful. Can you show how this passes WP:NALBUM? Richard3120 (talk) 17:32, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Reply - I am not adamant about keeping the article, hence the reason I said "Keep or merge". --Jax 0677 (talk) 18:30, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't really answer my question, but never mind... Richard3120 (talk) 16:20, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• reply - I can not show that it passes WP:NALBUM. --Jax 0677 (talk) 19:58, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete sources cited are not reliable. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 05:19, 19 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Logic or Logic discography as this could be a viable search term and it would make sense for any information on this mixtape to be housed at the article for the artist or the related discography list. Aoba47 (talk) 03:19, 20 October 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 08:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Taraneh Mokaram

Taraneh Mokaram (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Subject does not seem to be notable. References only support the existence of songs / books, and not why they are noteworthy. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Utopes (talk) 04:48, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment; I wish I could help out more with my initial reasoning, but the article contradicts itself numerous times with the information provided. The first sentence mentions that they were born in 2008, while it is subsequently mentioned that they were born in 2006, and it was mentioned later that they released their first song book in 2009. Whether they were 1 or 3 years old, this series of 4 sentences is pretty wonky. The article uses "he", "she", "his", and "her" to describe the subject, and is listed as a 1980s birthed male poet in the Categories. But even with all of this aside, notability STILL was not established in the article, and only talked about the names of the songs / books that were published, and not whether they were important. So while the first part of this comment has no bearing over whether the article should be kept or not, the lack of general notability does. Utopes (talk) 04:56, 1 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment I’ve linked this article to its equivalent on fa.wiki to which it wasn’t connected. The en.wiki version is obviously a very garbled translation with messed up hijri dates. The refs are the same for both versions. I’ll see what others I can find. Mccapra (talk) 22:08, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Searching under ‘ ترانه مکرم’ clearly shows sustained coverage by multiple independent sources in Farsi. She is a current artist so a lot of this is in social media or blogs and there’s also a lot of interviews. AFAIK the press in Iran do not cover popular music of this sort because they avoid straying unto areas that might become problematic, so I don’t see mainstream news coverage. Allowing for major differences in how things get written about in Iran, I conclude that she’s notable. Mccapra (talk) 03:09, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete She is maybe famous between some fans of pop music but being famous doesn't mean worthy of an article in Wikipedia aka notable. Musicema.com which is the source for many music articles in Iran is not at all a reliable website (You can "buy" articles and interviews for yourself!)Farhikht (talk) 13:42, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment.@Mccapra: Could you please provide links to the references in Farsi. Thanks.4meter4 (talk) 02:11, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment yes: Lyrics of her songs on a popular news site, brief report on her wedding, Her commenting on the release of an album by another artist, 2012, Her lyrics on Iranian poetry site, Bio in Topnaz magazine. I ignored any that were blogs or listings. Mccapra (talk) 03:43, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Fails
  WP:N. There just aren't enough quality sources to justify an article.4meter4 (talk) 10:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment. If she were British or American I’d definitely agree. However I don’t think sources for an Iranian popular artist are going to be what we’d look for in the case of a UK or US artist. 1. All sorts of sources are available in English because it’s a world language with a gigantic volume of sources of every sort. Farsi isn’t. Because it operates at a much smaller scale and has much smaller readerships we’re not going to find the same range material to work from. 2. Mainstream media in the west covers popular culture fairly well, meaning that RIS are generated. In Iran I think that’s much less the case, so the ‘quality’ sources about pop culture we can find in the English speaking world may just not exist in Iran. Thanks. Mccapra (talk) 06:20, 26 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Transformers: Generation 1. RL0919 (talk) 22:24, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Targetmaster

Targetmaster (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 toyline TTN (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:02, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Retarget to Transformers: Generation 1 as part of Headmasters and Targetmasters branding. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 16:45, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Transformers: Generation 1 per AngusWOOF. ミラP 17:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to Transformers: Generation 1, branding seems to point there. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:08, 22 October 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 20:06, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colour Blind (film)

Colour Blind (film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable film, article from same COI editor repeatedly trying to promote British filmmaker Paul Atherton HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 16:19, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:28, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. PR lacking independent coverage. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No significant coverage. Barca (talk) 02:02, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no independent reliable sources in the article, or that I can find with a quick search of the Web. Those it does have are for the backstory and nothing to do with the film. Does not satisfy
  WP:NFILM. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge The article doesn't seem to warrant notability but as is of interest should possibly be considered for inclusion under the Producer's Paul Atherton's article Itsallnewtome (talk) 08:48, 22 October 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.

Bank of China (Canada) (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)

Per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:04, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to
  WP:NORG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Merge per Piotrus FOARP (talk) 14:59, 16 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge as per above and then delete this permastub as there are no indications it meets the threshold for notability in its own right.
  HighKing⁺⁺ 10:56, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

HighKing, By "delete this permastub," does that mean you'd like to see the redirect suppressed? If so, I'd favour that as well. I don't think we need to keep adding redirects for the sake of adding redirects.Doug Mehus (talk) 15:52, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

HighKing⁺⁺ 16:14, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

HighKing, exactly! I'm of the same opinion. The only difference in the latter is the parenthetical qualifier, which people are unlikely to direct type into the address bar or search for. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Procedural Note to AfD Closer: Please note
  HighKing's and my rationale on deleting the existing page URL if this closes as merge. Doug Mehus (talk) 00:35, 23 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was redirect to Vancity. If anybody wants to merge material, they can. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:18, 27 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vancity Community Investment Bank

Vancity Community Investment Bank (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)

Per

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus (talk) 21:41, 8 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note to AfD Closer If and when this AfD is closed and it results in delete,
  Citizens Bank of Canada redirect will need to be deleted in tandem with this to avoid double-redirects. Doug Mehus (talk) 22:48, 10 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. As written, fails
  WP:NORG. Sources are all primary and press releases. Ouch. Ping me if there are new sources/arguments presented so I can reconsider my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:21, 9 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Merge/redirect to
  ISBN 978-086571-575-2. Retrieved 2019-10-20.

  The book notes:

  Citizens Bank of Canada & Van City
  
  Created by Vancouver City Savings Credit Union (VanCity), the largest credit union in Canada, Citizens Bank provides socially responsible telephone and Internet banking. Before they invest your money in a business, they consider the company's record on human rights, military weapon and tobacco production, the environment and treatment of animals.

Vancity Community Investment Bank (VCIB) was formerly known as Citizens Bank of Canada.

Cunard (talk) 23:42, 20 October 2019 (UTC)[reply