Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 29

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. 331dot (talk) 11:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

58th United Kingdom general election

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 has been long-established that we shouldn't have articles on the election-after-next for full cycle elections. See e.g. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/United States presidential election, 2024 (3rd nomination) as a recent example (or this, this or this). This article should not exist until 2019 United Kingdom general election is over (and even that article has been moved prematurely as Parliament has not yet ratified the election). Number 57 21:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as per past precedent. We have created pages for the last few UK general elections at the start of the campaigns for the previous elections (see 55th election, 56th election and 57th election). None of these pages were deleted, although the 55th was nominated for deletion the nomination failed. This page has valid information about the election, especially relating to the date. The nominator concedes that, if not already, this page will be valid in 44 days time, so quite different to the example of the 2024 United States presidential election nomination of 2018, where the page would not be valid for over two years. If there is a hung parliament following the 2019 election, this election could take place in a few months time. --Philip Stevens (talk) 21:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Draftiy until 13 December. Keep: Seems silly to delete less than six weeks before needing to recreate it. I think the comparisons to previous deletions of presidential election articles is flawed as, in the UK at least, the second a general election is called there are important political calculations to be made about the following election. 79.77.0.19 (talk) 22:08, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete All content is about UK elections generally and nothing is specifically about the 58th election besides the date. Recreate the article after the current campaign is over when we will have literally a single actual fact about it, even if only 44 days away. Draftify is fine, but this is all just copy-pasted from 2019 United Kingdom general election; it is redundant and serves no purpose. Reywas92^Talk 22:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. There's only a brief period in which this will be the election-after-next,and as soon as a UK election is called it becomes a distinct entity needing different coverage from the one that comes after it.(The deletion,on the third try,of the 2024 USA presidential election article was an even worse mistake...the date-fixed-by-law-into-the-indefinite-future status of USA elections is more thoroughly established,and of longer standing,than the UK law that has actually only been followed once and has been campaigned against in a major party's manifesto...there is nothing speculative about assuming American election day is not likely to change).12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Unclear what "on the third try" is supposed to mean. It was deleted on the second nomination too, for very good reason, but recreated over a
    WP:NOTE)... Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
    • Well,I'm especially bitter about people deleting mentions of scheduled American election days from articles on future years,when standing law requires those elections to be held on those dates in those years,while keeping speculative predictions of things that may or may not happen in those years.They may not need full-blown articles yet but no harm is done.The 57th election being called is what makes the 58th something that there can now be articles about...you can't fault there not having been any UNTIL know as a reason not to acknowledge that circumstances have changed.12.144.5.2 (talk) 22:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep agree with others, don't see the point in deleting now. The planned date of the election may also be of interest to readers. Bellowhead678 (talk) 22:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

  WP:INTERESTING is not a policy-based argument to keep. The date could also be mentioned at List of United Kingdom general elections and this redirected there. Reywas92^Talk 22:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

  ]

• Keep For the sake of convenience, just keep the article? What is the point in deleting an article that will ultimately be recreated in a number of weeks? No need for this excessive bureaucratic debate over a inevitable article that will eventually come into existence, so why not now when the groundwork has already been laid. Eolais | Talk | Contribs 23:28, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Agree with Eolais. Deleting or even discussing the deleting of an article that will be recreated in a matter of weeks when there will be no question of its existence is just adding to unnecessary busywork when when editors can be spending more productive time creating new articles of notable topics and improving existing ones.Oakshade (talk) 02:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - It'll become much more relevant two months from now. There's no need to delete it now only to inevitably recreate it a few weeks later. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 05:52, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Always going to be relevant. It will become relevant soon. Peter Kelford (talk) 09:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep will be relevant. --Panam2014 (talk) 16:16, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep In 5 weeks will need to be created. What is the difference? --Crazyseiko (talk) 21:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep While I was doubtful and can see the nominator's rationale, the fact that it would almost certainly be created as soon as the 2019 polls close (ie in 6 weeks) means deleting know is probably pointless. Also it is not unknown during election campaigns for discussion to start about the next election and attract a lot of coverage. For instance it may well be that party manifestos include pledges of electoral reform which would come in at the next general election (for instance changes to the voting age) and so might be discussed in the artilce. Dunarc (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Draft - move the article to the Draft stage. GoodDay (talk) 20:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per
  WP:BURO, since even the nom accepts that the article would be uncontroversially recreated anyway in a matter of few weeks. Kahastok talk 18:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep for reasons above. Errantius (talk) 21:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Wait it out. The article will inevitably become notable/crucial following the 12th of December, so deleting it now, just to be created in a little more than a month, doesn't make any sense. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:34, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep for simplicity; as noted above, it seems a bit bureaucratic to delete in the expectation that it will be created again, unchanged, before the end of the year (when it will be acceptable)

(Incidentally, calling it "58th" rather than "next" or a specific date seems an excellent change on what we've done when this has come up in previous years). Andrew Gray (talk) 20:17, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep agree with others, don't see the point in deleting now.
  WP:NORUSH. The date also may be relevant to our readers. Wm335td (talk) 20:49, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep per others as this is a scheduled event and there's a past precedent for these articles. On 13 December we can move it to Next United Kingdom general election, but I guess this isn't possible at present since it would cause confusion. This is Paul (talk) 17:10, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

• Comment Within 1 day this deletion request has already been met with heavy opposition. I believe I speak for most people that there really is no need for the deletion of this article to be deleted. When the hard work is done, why undo it for the sake of it not being relevant right now. It will become relevant once the results of the subsequent election are released; no further reason for this discussion to continue, I think consensus has been reached. Eolais (talk) 21:50, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Agree with Eolais: looks to me like a consensus after good discussion. Errantius (talk) 21:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• If the article is going to be kept, then it should be renamed Next United Kingdom general election. -- GoodDay (talk) 13:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not until it is actually the next UK general election. At present the next UK general election is the one before. Kahastok talk 14:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Then again, we could use the Canadian example (see

44th Canadian federal election) & stick with the current title. GoodDay (talk) 14:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Why shouldn't we just do exactly the same thing as we did in 2017, 2015 and 2010? That is, wait until the current election is finished, and then move the article to Next United Kingdom general election? Kahastok talk 17:35, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cool. GoodDay (talk) 18:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, we can move this on 13 December. This is Paul (talk) 17:12, 3 November 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.

Darian Shirazi

Darian Shirazi (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 Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete and
  WP:BASIC. Repeatedly recreated to the point where this is becoming disruptive. -Ad Orientem (talk) 05:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per
  consensus changing. Bearian (talk) 15:02, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - per
  WP:SALT. This has been deleted or merged three times already before. - MA Javadi (talk) 22:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete and
  salt per the arguments above. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per the arguments above. Lexy iris (talk) 21:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not even close to being notable. Are all 4 nominations for deletion on the same individual?John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:48, 2 November 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) 21:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

VoiceX

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

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources to establish notability. Also has COI concerns. Dee03 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Does not seem to meet
  WP:NOTRESUME, Wikipedia is not a place to post your resume. MacDoesWiki (talk) 21:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Does not seem to have enough coverage for the project to be notable. Mungano (talk) 03:00, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. While I have contributed to this article, I agree that it's notable. I support the deletion Helloanant007 (talk) 03:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Agree with above. A search for news, on jstor, and on pubmed on the term turned up nothing. Jlevi (talk) 03:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Dee03 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dee03 19:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, Article does not have enough coverage to be notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:58, 4 November 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) 21:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Veronica Dillon

Veronica Dillon (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)

Wikipedia is not a Linkedin of business executives, it very clearly fails to establish what she is notable. If you are SVP of a company, it doesn't makes you notable, lacks

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 21:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Below the threshold. Hyperbolick (talk) 22:18, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:01, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:03, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak keep - while not all corporate executives are important, she is the head lawyer for one of the major media outlets, and is often involved in major libel issues, of which she appears to be an expert. She's presented for PLI, a major source of CLE's for lawyers. A
  search reveals lots of potential sources. Bearian (talk) 22:59, 18 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Delete per nom and
  WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Subject not even included in The Washington Post, her employer and main claim to fame. Other senior VPs at the company don't have or need encyclopedia articles. StonyBrook (talk) 03:11, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Fails
  WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 11:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

There is nothing to validate her as being notable. scope_creep^Talk 12:00, 5 November 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) 21:35, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arasakumar B. T.

Arasakumar B. T. (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-national political party official who does not appear to have been elected to any post that passes

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. People are not automatically notable just for being regional organizers with political parties, and this one is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over
  WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete, Per above, people normally are not notable for being active in local organizations. Alex-h (talk) 09:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: I completely agree with
  WP:GNG. Kakaey (talk) 08:35, 5 November 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) 21:39, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SG Suryah

SG Suryah (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 Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  run of the mill. Bearian (talk) 15:05, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. People are not automatically notable just for being regional organizers with political parties, and this one is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over
  WP:NPOL. Bearcat (talk) 16:24, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Speedy Delete looks like promotion of not notable politician. Fails
  want to talk? 01:27, 5 November 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 22:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters

List of Mortal Engines Quartet characters (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)

Unnecessary, non-notable, bare bones character list. There are some 10+ articles that can easily cover the context of their characters. TTN (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 18:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete Per
  WP:LISTCRUFT. Does not seem like it will become anything besides an indiscriminate character list with no real-world context._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 18:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note The character Hester Shaw currently has a stand-alone article, which spans pretty much the same as this LoC. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:28, 30 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 22:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Knockaround

Knockaround (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) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I Googled the company but couldn't find enough sourcing to suggest the company is notable enough. TechnoTalk (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oil (band)

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

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

This band has members from more well-known bands, but in itself the broken-up band does not seem to have meritorious releases. Multiple cleanup tags since 2012. Geschichte (talk) 15:12, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 21 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, because having members from more well-known bands -is- point 5 of
  WP:BAND. And it's the subject of an encyclopedia written by Mark_Allan_Powell who appears notable. - ChrisWar666 (talk) 23:28, 28 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep. Passes criteria #5 of
  WP:BAND. More significantly, a published encyclopedia has its own entry on the group. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia first and foremost, and if another encyclopedia has an entry on a topic (even a specialized encyclopedia) wikipedia should automatically cover it.4meter4 (talk) 03:27, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Keep as exercising
  Music Might which is a reliable web magazine source, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:05, 1 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GapChart

GapChart (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)

Completely fails

• Comment I have thus far been unable to find appropriate secondary sources on this topic, can anyone else find any? If not this should be deleted. EvilxFish (talk) 09:22, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I found zero RS on this term except for blogs like this [1] from "fred Vernier", same user name of the editor who created this article in 2014. 01:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I found zero independent, in-depth, reliable sources discussing this technique. With all primary sources, this article is original research. Without RS, a merge is not recommended and I don't see any compelling redirect targets. Hence, delete. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 01:49, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. I found one substantial peer reviewed journal articles on the topic. Appologies for no urls as I am using my university's internal database to access this content:

1. "Using Gap Charts to Visualize the Temporal Evolution of Ranks and Scores"; Perin, Charles ; Boy, Jeremy ; Vernier, Frédéric ; Perin, Charles (Editor); IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 29 September 2016

Thanks for finding and posting the reference. While peer-reviewed, it is not independent of the creator Frédéric Vernier, so unfortunately does not contribute toward notability. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:32, 6 November 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 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indus Media Group

Indus Media Group (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 independent coverage found for this media group. Fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete lacks third party coverage needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 2 November 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.

Cecil Hammond

Cecil Hammond (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)

Promotional

Rhythm Unplugged (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Flytime Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Draft:Flytime Promotions (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

-- Cabayi (talk) 16:24, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete all as
  Extended-Confirmed Protection, because they might be notable, but should only be developed by a neutral editor. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete both as spam and as non-notable. The festival might be notable, but I can't see enough evidence that Hammond meets
  WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: per nom and delete votes. If there was no COI issue, I would have !voted to keep Rhythm Unplugged and redirect others to it. Only Rhythm Unplugged passes GNG to me. HandsomeBoy (talk) 12:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:44, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Cecil Hammond, fails
  talk) 14:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• I feel that from common knowledge in Nigeria, Cecil Hammond does meet GNG, unfortunately there are not enough direct references to prove this and that may be why there are a lot of Delete votes, but I would definitely Keep Rhythm Unplugged, which definitely passes
  WP:GNG.Onyeuwaoma2000 (talk) 03:50, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If there are not enough direct references about the subject, then they do not meet

talk) 21:30, 4 November 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) 15:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

X-Pol: the Explicit Polarization Theory

X-Pol: the Explicit Polarization Theory (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 notable, is based entirely on primary citations all from J.Goa EvilxFish (talk) 15:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - I found no reference to this technique that wasn't either a Wikipedia mirror or was written by the same person who coined the name. No independent sources. Agricolae (talk) 10:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No independent sources, written by SPA to promote it. Reywas92^Talk 19:06, 31 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) 15:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings

List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings (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 think we are firmly in Wikia territory here. We have a list of commentators, we have more sports coverage than you can shake a stick at, the Dolphins are still winless after pulling a Falcons Superbowl 2nd half, and we have this YUGE list of pairings? I believe we are falling foul of NOTDIR, for instance. (With apologies for what appears to be a baseball metaphor.) Drmies (talk) 15:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment there are also these articles:
  List of Major League Baseball on Fox broadcasters, ESPN College Basketball broadcast teams, Olympics on NBC commentators are also relevant to this discussion. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:29, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
  • Hmm we have an Eagles fan here--or so they claim. Tell us how much you hate Dallas, so we can verify your credentials. Drmies (talk) 15:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. I'm all in favor of lists of commentators. They're often independently notable; there's a long tradition of writing about the quality, color, and character of the people talking about the quality, color, and character of sports events. But pairings? For lists of commentator pairings to be notable separate from just lists of commentators, I'd think, per list policy, that the concept of commentator pairings would need to be notable. And, it's ... well, not, at least as far as I can tell. So my preference in the broader sense would be to delete any pairings list where the corresponding commentator list exists, convert pairings lists to commentators lists where the former exists but not the latter (if there are any), and retain any pure commentator lists. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:50, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete agree with nominator and
  « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 17:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• I'll note that of that list, at least
  List of Major League Baseball on Fox broadcasters is formatted in terms of pairings, but doesn't appear to have a corresponding simple list of commentators, and so is better restructured that deleted. That may be true of some of the others as well; I'm not really excited enough to dig into this mess that deeply. Olympics on NBC commentators is probably a special case that warrants independent editorial examination regardless. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:46, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Now up at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Olympics on NBC commentators. Thanks. Drmies (talk) 01:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails
  WP:LISTN which requires that the topic has "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Here, the sources in which the topic has received arguably significant coverage are either non-reliable source blogs or sources (Fox and NFL) which in this case are not independent. Cbl62 (talk) 12:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete There's a possibility that the list might actually pass
  ignore all rules and state that deletion of this list makes Wikipedia better.--Paul McDonald (talk) 14:34, 1 November 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) 15:45, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

N K Mondal

N K Mondal (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 Authors-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Fylindfotberserk (talk) 15:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per nomination. Article was previously speedily deleted and create-blocked under the name
  WP:CSD#G6 can be invoked in the future if recreated. Deleting admins were Bbb23 and Primefac. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 15:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Nothing here even attempts to claim that he has actually held an
  WP:NOTLINKEDIN; people are not automatically entitled to have articles on here just because they exist, but rather must achieve certain quantifiably notable things (e.g. a politician holding a noteworthy political office, a writer winning a noteworthy literary award, etc.) to get in the door. Bearcat (talk) 17:38, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete Yet another vanity page for a non-notable BJP politician. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per
  significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 30 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) 15:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Straube

Robert Straube (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've looked for reliable sources, mentions in books and news for Robert Straube artist and Bob Straube artist. I've found a few snippets, some local press, a mention of him writing about his heart problems, but nothing that seems to back up notability and certainly not to the extent that he "may have been one of the most printed artists in American history" which is at best PEACOCK and at worst looks like a hoax. Happy for someone to properly reference the article and I'll close this down.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, somewhat regrettably. Based on what little we have to go on from this stub, I'm pretty sure the subject was the artist responsible for several of the backgrounds used for the checks printed by the Deluxe Corporation. As they're one of the largest check-printing companies, that might very well make Straube's claim to be one of the most-printed American artists one of those "technically true" sort of things — although clearly not in the way people expect. Unfortunately, for Wikipedia to have anything to say on the matter, there has to be coverage in reliable sources. And the people in these sorts of corporate graphic design positions, even when their work is encountered everyday, just don't attract attention by reliable third-party authors... which appears to be exactly the case here. As far as I can tell, Deluxe doesn't even mention the artists responsible for its checks themselves (which makes sense, as this sort of work was almost certainly done as work-for-hire). Barring some sources that somehow evaded my search, we're left with no alternative but deletion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 16:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the artist may have been better known as Bob Straube, but searching for sources with that name didn't yield much either. The content of white bear center URL is preserved at https://web.archive.org/web/20100313032547/http://whitebeararts.org/?110120 shows that he was a well-liked instructor there, but gives no indicating that the her received much critical attention for his work. Vexations (talk) 19:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 15:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merck Molecular Force Field

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

)

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

Promotion article for none notable forcefield EvilxFish (talk) 15:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as notable (subject of multiple
  WP:NPOV content, but if so that would certainly merit being cleaned up. DMacks (talk) 18:06, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

If what you are saying is correct then the article should be kept, note both of those references are primary though. I found a few forcefield pages that I believed were promotions (one of which has already been speedy deleted) based on their citations (usually all papers with a recurring author or lacking completely). I may have made a mistake in my assessment of this one. EvilxFish (talk) 18:55, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, second-person (independent), but not "a review article on the topic" (

WP:SECONDARY). DMacks (talk) 17:09, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Keep. I'm really out of my element on this particular flavor of chemistry topic, but there's clearly discussion of the Merck Molecular Force Field in quite a few book-format chemistry works in addition to scads of journal hits. This Kluwer Academic computational chemistry textbook goes so far to call MMFF "popular" (as of 2004, at least), and frankly that's probably good enough evidence as any. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• An easy keep on the basis that other researchers not associated with Halgren or his affiliation have written on the subject. For instance both [2] and [3] have MMFF in the paper's title. Halgren gets a decent number of cites for his papers on this subject. In particular this paper has 4,341 citations according to scholar. SpinningSpark 07:59, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. Notable. Promo can be cut out. Bearian (talk) 15:12, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:58, 31 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.

Welfare Party Kerala (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)

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 14:49, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Smerge to Welfare Party of India, assuming that independent RS can be found to support that article (which might be the case based on an extremely cursory search), or else delete. My initial reaction was to advocate for retention here, because we have articles for the state affiliates of the US Republican and Democratic parties. However, that's not really analogous. List of political parties in India tells us that (as of 2017, apparently) there were "8 national parties, 52 state parties and 1785 unrecognised parties", of which the Welfare Party of India is one of the latter; its article is currently entirely sourced to the party's own self-published website. If there is coverage of some of these literal third-tier parties in reliable sources, there's no problem with having articles for them (clearly, we don't have an article for all 1785 of them!), but they need sourcing. And there's certainly no expectation that their subsidiary affiliates would warrant inclusion. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 17:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge as suggested. Bearian (talk) 15:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge
  Welfare Party Kerala is part of the Welfare Party of India, so it is best for it to form part of the main party's article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kerala-related deletion discussions. PATH SLOPU 15:11, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was speedy delete. Copyright violation of https://www.isu3d.org/ and https://stereoworld.org/3d-organizations/international-stereoscopic-union/ SpinningSpark 23:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

International Stereoscopic Union

International Stereoscopic Union (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 stereo club, a Google search revealed no in-depth coverage in reliable sources (just a few mentions and listings) to meet Wikipedia's

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 08:05, 15 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Per nom, this article also is a blatant copyright violation and has been since it was created. I would speedy it if there wasn't an afd debate around it.
  Help out at CCI!12:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

• Speedy delete per
  WP:G12. FOARP (talk) 14:23, 29 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 22:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lenin Circle

Lenin Circle (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)

Microscopic and local communist group in Italy, written in two lines and without any apparent encyclopedic relevance. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 12:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:36, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Though small, the subject is relevant to Wikipedia. The article can and should be expanded. The article should be moved to "Lenin Club", consistently with what has been done with several other articles. As it was correctly pointed out, circolo translates into "club", not "circle". --Checco (talk) 13:04, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Expanded with what informations? I have found only a few sources that offer no interesting details. Can you explain the reasons why this subject is relevant to Wikipedia?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:12, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - No
  WP:BEFORE in independent, reliable sources. There is coverage of the "Circolo Lenin" from after 2008 (e.g., this article) and also of an organisation of the same name in 1968-69, but neither of these can be discussing the party that is the subject of this article which was founded in the 1990's and merged in 2008. FOARP (talk) 14:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Comment In fact it is so, there is no third-party source about this microscopic communist club, which clearly cannot be considered encyclopedic (indeed the user who expressed himself for "keep" was not able to provide any motivations).--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 09:29, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a total lack ofthird party sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:54, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable group. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep. This discussion seems silly, that no one can find sources, meanwhile there is the fact that the organization has a different name in Italian which no one has searched under. For shame! I don't read Italian well, but numerous sources within Google Scholar's 28 hits on "Circolo Lenin" look like they have substantial mentions of the club, which looks like it adds up. Also search in general Google yields 4,030 hits. One hit is this Youtube video which seems to be about the 40th anniversary of Circolo Lenin in Puglia, like a conference panel or something, back in 2009 (it was founded in 1969). Looks like there is a lot. Tag for development, sure. And move/rename. --Doncram (talk) 00:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehm, the Circolo Lenin in question was founded in 1994 from a split of the PRC. Before stating that the discussion is silly, you should compare the sources with this page. In Italy, especially in the past, there will have been many communist clubs called "Circolo Lenin". And in any case not even the Apulian "Circolo Lenin" seems to me encyclopedic.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 21:36, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. While comparing the sources with in this page, there is no independent, reliable sources.

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) 15:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Communism from below

Communism from below (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)

Unknown and microscopic Italian communist group, there seems to be no source on this group: it is impossible to consider it encyclopedic. Scia Della Cometa (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:52, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep. Though small, the subject is relevant to Wikipedia. The article can and should be expanded. --Checco (talk) 13:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Checco: Expanded with what sources? Can you explain the reasons why this subject is relevant to Wikipedia?--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 14:09, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Fails
  WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 14:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. If you want, a redirect to International Socialist Tendency would suffice. Bearian (talk) 15:14, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete the articles lacks anything approaching sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Tiny, non-notable communist group. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:53, 2 November 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.

Dirge (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) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:40, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Non-notable, mostly plot-summary Transformer-cruft. Belongs on Wikia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:44, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect to
  List of Decepticons where there are multiple mentions. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:27, 3 November 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 Skyrealms of Jorune#Setting. Tone 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jorune

Jorune (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 topic TTN (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep or merge to Skyrealms of Jorune. BOZ (talk) 11:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect to Skyrealms of Jorune. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect to Skyrealms of Jorune#Setting as unnecessary article split._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - to Skyrealms of Jorune. Merging is not necessary as there is no sourced information to merge. Rorshacma (talk) 16:28, 29 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 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Takron-Galtos

Takron-Galtos (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 topic TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:33, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Note This is one of many (much worse) planet articles for that series, all of them listed in {{Legion of Super-Heroes}}. Their fate should be re-considered after this AfD. – sgeureka ^t•c 06:34, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Any of these with only one page of history going back to 2006/2007 is probably going to have a successful

WP:BEFORE for all of them or bother with many AfDs here. -2pou (talk) 17:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately the PROD patrollers love to undo PRODs about fictional topics, so I can't even bother. TTN (talk) 20:32, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@TTN: Sigh. It's a gamble. Sometimes they work, but you need a tool like TW to keep track because the odds are that half the time some inclusionist will just discard prod 'because'. I still bother with prods, but about half end up here, including for pretty clear, unreferenced content. It helps to suggest in prod that 'this can be redirected to x', then it may be soft deleted instead. Or you can just be bold and redirect such stuff, the problem here is that if you are undone there is often no notificaiton. AfD at least makes undo of redirects less likely.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's also the issue of Mr. Link Dump has a particular special place in his heart for me, so he went above and beyond when doing his "job" of it. I doubt it's worth it in the long run. TTN (talk) 18:53, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Fails GNG. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:12, 4 November 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) 15:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blake's 7 planets

List of Blake's 7 planets (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)

Same as previous AfD.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the

list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 11:32, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete - Happy to add this to the list of "planets of XXXX" lists deleted of late, for exactly the same reasons as the others (
  WP:BEFORE shows the planets of Blake's 7 to be notable as a group. FOARP (talk) 14:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete per nom. Is there no end to these ridiculous planet lists? Clarityfiend (talk) 19:18, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per the above.
  Aoba47 (talk) 11:10, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete. Complete and utter
  WP:FANCRUFT. Nothing notable whatsoever. Ajf773 (talk) 00:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete- poorly sourced cruft.
  talk) 09:25, 3 November 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 22:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Studio 2000

Studio 2000 (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) 11:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:56, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: Not notable, not enough sources.124Sanroque (talk) 16:39, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep/redirect – Makes a decent case for meeting GNG. At the very least, we should merge and redirect to AEBN. --- Coffeeandcrumbs 02:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete: does not meet
  WP:NORG. Nothing to merge and sufficiently obscure so it's unlikely to be a search term. --K.e.coffman (talk) 16:38, 2 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete: Fails
  WP:SIGCOV Kakaey (talk) 07:03, 4 November 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) 15:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SX Video

SX Video (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) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:55, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete I don't see any assertion of notability, such that speedy deletion may in fact be appropriate. Madness ^Darkness 23:06, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete not enough sourcing to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 2 November 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 Steven Scarborough. RL0919 (talk) 16:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hot House Entertainment

Hot House Entertainment (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) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to
  cheap. No clear sign of significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as to justify a standalone article. Madness ^Darkness 23:04, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Redirect – Exactly what Madness said. There are a few sources like this and press releases in industry publications but not enough to constitute significant in multiple independent sources.--- Coffeeandcrumbs 10:11, 31 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. Tone 22:33, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jjaibot

Jjaibot (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 software created in 2019, created by UPE, the page has traits of COI and possible

Note: This discussion has been included in the

talk) 08:28, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

• Delete: It does have some news coverage but I do not believe it is significant enough. EvilxFish (talk) 16:11, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: seems it's an initiative to fight climate crisis...shouldn't be deleted.

That isn't relevant when considering if it warrants a Wikipedia article. EvilxFish (talk) 20:35, 30 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: The sources are pretty bad. The International Business Times source is generally seen as unreliable. Huh, well, Entrepreneur appears to be considered reliable and notable--but that's only a brief description. It doesn't seem to succeed at "significant coverage." It's clear that there is a lot of non-US coverage, but a few of those pages are definitely unreliable, and they're hard to evaluate. Maybe consider AfC-ing on the Hindi Wikipedia and seeing if they've got any better non-English sources? (Also: This is my first AfD, so I'd be interested in feedback on my feedback if possible.) Jlevi (talk) 03:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You would like to re-check the article as i have added some of the reliable source which are definitely Uk/Usa based and also i have removed the unreliable source like IBT. Bollymine (talk) 05:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy Keep: have enough coverage to pass
  wp:sigcov. Doesn't seem having unreliable sources as its been already removed!!Bollymine (talk) 04:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Keep: based on the improvements of the cited articles Kakaey (talk) 06:23, 4 November 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) 16:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dexecure

Dexecure (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)

Lack of evidence for notability according to

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:05, 22 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - yet another instance of spam about an unremarkable startup. I wouldn't be surprised if this was
  WP:UPE, and I've blocked the creator for advertising. MER-C 12:13, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete as per nom and as stated by
  WP:COI Kakaey (talk) 06:53, 4 November 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 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Headstart School (Pakistan)

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

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

A school which is registered as a company, fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Unsourced business directory type entry. Fails GNG. Wikipedia is not Yellow Pages. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:02, 3 November 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 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Al-Bahadar Public High School

Al-Bahadar Public High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A private school which fails

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete.
  WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:08, 3 November 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 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

City Foundation High School

City Foundation High School (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Started by SPA

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - ostensibly written for promotional purposes and clearly fails
  WP:GNG. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 09:11, 3 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]
• Delete - Lead makes unreferenced assertions, and the rest appears to be a staff directory. Fails GNG. How has this article survived for 6 years? — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 13:44, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grand'mere Eugene Because before 2017 RfC we had a policy that high school articles are notable regardless of what is written in them. Störm (talk) 18:43, 4 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Störm, but even before 2017 wasn't the standard supposed to be proof of the school's existence? Today I found exactly one RS from 2009 that appears to be an official and independent source. There may have been offline sources, but nothing more online. Three other sources here, here and here appear to be commercial directories, the last more of a blog with a pop-up window advertising how "to be the top-listed school in Faisalabad", presumably by paying a fee to the host site. I understand the last AfD was a procedural keep based on the 2017 RfC, but maybe I shouldn't be surprised that the article has been tagged for lack of sources since 2013 (almost within half hour of its creation!), and also that no one has removed the promotional text/tone since then. Thanks for nominating it this time around... Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 21:27, 4 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 22:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bloomstar School System

Bloomstar School System (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)

Started by SPA

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:02, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. Ultimately lacks RS. Fails
  WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 02:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

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

talk page or in a deletion review

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FEXCO

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 references are not sufficient to support notability . I don't think they really would have been considered sufficient even back in 2009, when thef article was started. DGG ( talk ) 10:30, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:03, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Keep The article does not make a claim of importance or significance for the subject. 2 of the sources are routine business announcements that do not satisfy
  WP:NCORP. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:10, 29 October 2019 (UTC)[reply
  ]

I changed my opinion from delete to keep because of

WP:SIGCOV that came to light during this AfD, namely: Irish Times, The Times and Independent. -Lopifalko (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC)[reply

]