Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 September 6

Add links
Source: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
< 5 September 7 September >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:55, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Punga People

AfDs for this article:
Punga_People (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 low-content page that seems to exist only to promote a minor tourist attraction. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:01, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ross Finlayson (talk) 00:05, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:06, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The page had been orphaned until a few hours ago. That's why nobody noticed it before. Ross Finlayson (talk) 04:30, 7 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:10, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WH Smith Literary Award

WH Smith Literary Award (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)

Can't find third party coverage of the award. So it may not pass

ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 22:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

DISMAY at the WHSmith Literary Award luncheon in Church House last week. After announcing that Melvyn Bragg's novel The Soldier's Return was this year's winner, Chief Executive Richard Handover went on to tell the guests that this was the last time the prize would be awarded. It would be replaced by a clutter of prizes for new authors, children's books and "lifestyle", which would be chosen at the final stage by WHSmith's 8 million customers. A sad end to an impressive award - but Arts Minister Alan Howarth tried to have it both ways. Handing the Pounds 10,000 prize to Bragg, he praised the judges for their decision, then went on to call them "gauleiters" and welcomed the new "popular" jury. The Times, May 18, 2000

THE peculiarly elastic literary calendar has an odd habit of elongating years. Last year's prizes continue to spill nonchalantly into 1999. Today we have the shortlist of the WH Smith Literary Award -not as much money as Booker or Whitbread (a mere GBP 10,000) but a distinguished list of winners over the past 40 years, including Patrick White, Nadine Gordimer, Seamus Heaney and, of course, Ted Hughes. ... At least the WH Smith judges have had the wit not to shortlist that peculiarly pointless piece of disposable entertainment which did win the Booker, Ian McEwan's woefully lightweight Amsterdam. Why then this egregious omission of Ted Hughes, this dastardly insult to his last and most loved work? After extensive journalistic sleuthing (all right, a quick phone call), a simple explanation emerges: no-one is allowed to win the WH Smith Literary Award twice. (Not even once when they're alive and once when they're dead? No? Pity.) Let Beryl Bainbridge, the perennial bridesmaid, then win at last, and let her quote a past Booker winner: how late it was, how late. The Scotsman, January 30, 1999

It was a reasonably prestigious prize which the papers took seriously enough to regularly report on. We may not be able to find long analytical articles about the prize as such but I think that would be an unreasonable expectation. Still, I'll see what we can do. Haukur (talk) 16:58, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's what's seems to be a particularly detailed write-up of one award ceremony, though I only have snippet view: "Smith+Literary+Award"&dq="Smith+Literary+Award" Haukur (talk) 17:10, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is plenty of coverage of the award and the winning books in digitised newspapers, as noted by Haukurth above. We can certainly add references, and information such as the amount of the prize (£1,000 c. 1965-1971, £4000 by 1986, £10,000 at the end as noted above). The list of notable authors who have won it would surely have given some clue about its notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 16:26, 11 September 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained and overall consensus is that the topic is notable. Per concerns herein regarding the article's quality, I have added the {{Cleanup AfD}} template atop the article. North America1000 12:20, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Titanium adhesive bonding

Titanium adhesive bonding (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 can't see how this is encyclopedic. To quote the lede, " This article will discuss surface preparation for adhesive bonding to titanium." The examples and tone of the article are overly technical, and the subject seems extremely niche. Article needs TNT. If rewritten, I am not sure the subject is really notable or encyclopedic.

talk) 21:52, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 22:25, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Keep. This one of several student articles created by students in an engineering course at Ohio State University. While we have pure science and math articles that go into the fine details of very technical topics, we are lacking in good coverage of applied science and engineering topics. Engineering may not be considered quite as "sexy" as pure science, but it is equally valid that Wikipedia be an engineering encyclopedia as well as a science encyclopedia. It is good to see that WikiEd is helping to close the gap. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. StarryGrandma (talk) 01:33, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

comment The article does not seem to be about the use od adhesives with titanium, but the even more niche subject of the necessary surface preparation.TheLongTone (talk) 14:33, 7 September 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:36, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thein Naing Oo

Thein Naing Oo (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)

He hasn't played in a

WP:NFOOTY. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 03:39, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:19, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That sounds like crystalballery in violation of
WP:V. We certainly don't keep any non-sporting biographies of non-retired living people simply because there's a chance the subject might become sufficiently notable later in their career.----Pontificalibus 15:28, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Perhaps so, but that doesn't stop the fact the exception rule exists - and going against it would be pretty disruptive, if you ask me.
talk) 15:54, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Where does it exist as a rule? I am aware that the notability criteria for biographies developed within certain sporting wikiprojects are deficient in that they conflict with broader
WP:WHYN over any sport-specific criteria (which really should have been developed to identify only those subjects likely to satisfy GNG).----Pontificalibus 16:02, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
talk) 16:16, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Those three AfD's don't represent a consensus which must be adhered to in future AfDs. In fact they seem to suffer from
WP:NSPORT, and not simply an end in themselves.----Pontificalibus 06:15, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
"to name just three", check the archives for more. Again, I'm not stating it's correct or incorrect but it is consensus - and an AfD isn't an appropriate to discuss your, even if valid, qualms with consensus and/or guidelines, as noted at
talk) 12:56, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Consenus is achieved and maintained/changed by making policy-based arguments like those I set out here, not by pointing at previous deficient AfDs where discussion of the relevant policy is lacking.—--Pontificalibus 13:06, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The AfDs go like that because of the consensus, that's kinda how it works; or at least should. I can see you are coming from the right direction, but you evidently don't have an understanding of the current state of NFOOTY. Which is fine, but you should learn about it - as I would if I was going to participate in anything to do with
talk) 13:17, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
NFOOTY is subservient to NSPORT, and shouldn’t be viewed in isolation as already explained above. These arguments need broad input and shouldn’t rely on people only familiar with particular areas.--Pontificalibus 13:25, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
For the third time, I'm not saying it's right/wrong - just that the exception exists, and going against it is disruptive as it leads to inconsistency. An individual AfD isn't the appropriate place to discuss this, also already mentioned. I can see we're going round in circles, happy editing!
talk) 15:21, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting, with a reminder that those assessing consensus can only apply policy as written. Unwritten rules and undocumented consensus, especially when arrived at within the confines of a single project without being subject to community scrutiny cannot be generally applied.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 21:42, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – Statistics websites, game reports, and transfer reports are all primary sources. Is there even one secondary source upon which we can base this article? Without it, I don't see how this article can be kept and yet comply with core policy
    WP:NOR: Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. Here, we seem to be basing an article entirely on primary sources. – Levivich 15:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]

August 2019 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 20:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Liquipel

Liquipel (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 notability criteria laid out at

trade rag mentions or nn awards. The only thing coming close to coverage in a big-name RS is the Popular Science "gadgets award" (the one labeled LA Times is actually their blog platform) and that's not sufficient to sustain an article. ☆ Bri (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:38, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:39, 6 September 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. Possibly not there via

WP:GNG. RL0919 (talk) 20:29, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Liselle Terret

Liselle Terret (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 meet

WP:NACADEMIC. When nominating for PROD, Onel5969 said Her highest citation count is 290, but that was for a work in which she contributed a chapter (Applied Theatre). Without that, her highest citation count is 9. However, in my own search, it appears that the book has received 290 citations--it is not clear that the chapter specifically authored by Terret was cited. DePROD by Rich Farmbrough. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 18:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC).[reply]
  • Keep. As a side note, citations are usually a poor indicator of academic notability in the humanities, and one has to look at other factors. In this case I feel that most of the subject's notability comes from her theatrical work, and thus she should be primarily evaluated on
    WP:GNG, taking into account the other sources already in the article. Nsk92 (talk) 20:24, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
I find the first two examples provided here to be good examples of significant coverage and would now consider myself to lean keep. signed, Rosguill talk 21:03, 6 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Labour International Film Festival

Canadian Labour International Film Festival (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)

Semi-advertorialized article about a film festival, not

primary sources, it takes more than just one article to get something like this over the bar -- but even when searching for other sources, all I've been able to find is event calendar listings and press releases rather than actual journalism about it. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:33, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:52, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Char Seawell

Char Seawell (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)

WP:ROUTINE concert announcements etc. PROD removed by creator with explanation that her songs are on Amazon and Apple Music. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 16:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:54, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. --Animalparty! (talk) 01:54, 7 September 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 20:15, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Marvin Wehder

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

Fails

WP:GNG. This is the only non routine coverage I can find. Dougal18 (talk) 16:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 6 September 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. A speedy tag was applied. I might have hesitated if I had seen that it was applied by an IP address. But it is done so the author can go to deletion review if they object. — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 12:25, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emmanuel Michael

Emmanuel Michael (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)

Run of the mill HR manager. Article is more of a CV, and makes no real claims to why he might be notable. The sourced, though many, are weak - lots of primary sources, blogs, articles by Michael and not about him, or articles that barely mention him. Fails

WP:BIO. Hugsyrup 15:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:20, 6 September 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:06, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Khapri Alston

Khapri Alston (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)

Deprodded without rationale or improvement. Simply doesn't meet

WP:NBASKETBALL. Onel5969 TT me 22:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:05, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:42, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:37, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 15:43, 6 September 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 Sinestro Corps. RL0919 (talk) 15:37, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arkillo

Arkillo (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)

Time to flood AfD even more because of staunch inclusionism. Non-notable fictional character, all primary references. TTN (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 14:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:50, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Laser Vision

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

Delete Notability is not inherited. No doubt this label has released material from notable artists but Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion and topics must be notable in their own right. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Lots of references that are PR or mentions-in-passing based on announcements or artists launching albums but nothing else. Topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG

HighKing++ 14:02, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:36, 6 September 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. Sources brought forward to show notability. Sources do not have to be in English. RL0919 (talk) 14:22, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

El Tesoro de Isla Alcachofa

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

Article about a video game from a small non-notable developer. Page consists primarily of quotes from primary sources and some small review sites. Nothing which puts it over the

WP:NSOFT threshold for inclusion. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:58, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • In fairness, the game has been covered by sources like
    Computer Gaming World Spain makes it hard to judge exactly how much coverage the game has. At the very least, if there isn't enough to keep the article mainspaced, I'd appreciate the thing being sent to draft for future development rather than outright erased. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 15:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Sources do not have to be available online or written in English.
WP:GNG
Citations to non-English reliable sources are allowed on the English Wikipedia.
WP:NOENG
Good reliable Spanish language sources are sufficient to prove notability of the article subject. Pavlor (talk) 05:12, 10 September 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) 15:55, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bangladesh (record producer)

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

Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion. Fails

HighKing++ 13:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
HighKing++ 13:54, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
HighKing++ 13:54, 6 September 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 20:14, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edip Ilkbahar

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

Article about a non notable business person who is a founder of a non notable leisure company. All references are just promotional pieces about the company and do nothing to establish notability per

WP:GNG McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:50, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 13:50, 6 September 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) 14:23, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Velied

Velied (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)

Cannot see that any of the references are solid enough to establish notability. TheLongTone (talk) 13:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I was actually in the process of nominating it myself. This individual is far below the required inclusion criteria, the claims of representing the Ukraine in Eurovision are patently false and I can find absolutely no sources to verify the content in this article outside of his own website etc...He has received absolutely no non-trivial, in depth coverage and the claims are well...I don't believe them. It's also pretty suspicious to me that one of the sources is supposedly the Guardian but redirects to YouTube. This is nothing more than a vanity piece that's been ignored and puffed up for years. Praxidicae (talk) 13:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Actually based on that last bit, I'm convinced this might qualify for G3, hoax. The sources they've chosen to prove he was "on Eurovision" are just completely fake, as are the certifications and literally every other claim that would avert an A7. Praxidicae (talk) 13:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I actually believe a speedy delete per g3 is far more appropriate now. An AFD would be fine to discuss the merits of an article that isn't completely fabricated. Praxidicae (talk) 13:22, 6 September 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 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyana Hansen

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

Promotion for non

notable model. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Like the oft deleted Parnia Porsche she was part of a controversial advertising campaign but has no independent notability. Coverage is about that campaign or tabloid. Like that Porsche article this was created by an editor dedicated to promoting one individual and his business interests. The relevant business here is Ultra Tune, the business promoted in that advertising campaign. Pure PR. Probable UPE. See also fellow Ultra Tune model at afd Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Laura Lydall. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 12:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to HDR, Inc.. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:59, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Reid and Partners

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

Promotion for non

notable business. Lacks coverage about them in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with primary, press releases and routine announcements. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to HDR, Inc.. North America1000 12:26, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hurley Palmer Flatt

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

Promotion for non

notable business. None of the "awards" are major. Company lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with passing mentions, primary, press releases and routine announcements. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:44, 6 September 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 20:13, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Flatt

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

Promotion for non

notable business man. Lacks coverage about him in independent reliable sources. Run of the mill chairman who gets quoted in press releases and routine announcements. Probable UPE. duffbeerforme (talk) 12:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 6 September 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 20:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Churumuri

Churumuri (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 blog. Most of the google search results in the recipe of the name on which this blog name was inspired. Looks like there is not much traffic for the blog, not much comments are seen either. Looks like self promotion by the author Crashed greek (talk) 11:37, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a future renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 05:22, 15 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer

List of professional wrestling matches rated 5 or more stars by Dave Meltzer (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)

Fancruft and self referential article not suitable for wikipedia.Gumlau (talk) 12:27, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment You do realize you don't get to throw a "vote" in an AFD you created right? That you want it deleted is already assumed.
talk) 16:49, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Commment I'm aware of this, I was responding to the people who posted in support of keep. Also, this isn't a vote, it's not about how many people go one way or another, it's about the argument, and so far there's no strong argument to support keeping this page.Gumlau (talk) 17:05, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm aware it's not a "vote" that's why I put "vote" in quotations marks. Either way, please reply directly to people or give your reasoning in the lead of the AFD, its more clear and less confusing that way. Also, there is a strong argument to keep it. It's a widely covered topic, you can say it's not, but the sources say otherwise.
talk) 17:56, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The big difference between the linked "best films" page is that the page (which itself is a little crufty), is a combination of many different reviewers and awards, whereas this page is the opinion of one reviewer. If we were to host a page of the best matches according to different wrestling reviewers, then that might be suitable here, but publishing an arbitrary list of matches one person liked is more suited to a wrestling wiki than here.Gumlau (talk) 17:54, 12 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Isn't that the point though? There aren't really any other journalists that could contribute. Like it or not, he is the closest thing wrestling has. There's no policy for this not to be a thing. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:26, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Meltzer ratings are his personal opinions. Due to the nature of wrestling, its impossible to provide an objective ratings on matches. Subjective opinions are not Wikipedia worthy. Meltzer himself has said that his standards for ratings have changed over time. A five star match 20 years ago is not the same as a five star match today and there is no way to quantify the change in standards. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajavel 2k12 (talk • contribs) 09:28, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Even if Dave said don t take his ratings to serious and his criteria changed, it doens't change th fact that are mentioned in reliable sources. Solowrestling, wrestletalk, and Superluchas make news when he gave 5 stars.--HHH Pedrigree (talk) 11:43, 13 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Commment For every reliable source that supports his ratings, there are reliable sources that don't. Even last week, he said he has different scales for NJPW and WWE; He also said watching NXT followed by G1 biased his opinions. So, it is not really a factual or fairer rating system and not Wikipedia worthy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rajavel 2k12 (talk • contribs) 11:09, 15 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: dude doenst really even follow his own list. the scale is now 7 stars, and 5 means nothing due to that.Muur (talk) 00:26, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep but merge with
    talk
    ) 17 August 2019, 2:11 (UTC)
  • Keep - Coverage in reliable secondary sources, including Sports Illustrated [18], Greg Oliver/Steven Johnson book [19], book by Bryan Alvarez [20], book by John Molinaro [21], CBS Sports [22]. As for the arguments provided above, there is no rule that prevents subjective opinions from appearing on Wikipedia--what is important is the coverage in reliable sources, which is demonstrated above. People's disagreements with his system also have no relevance in deletion discussions--the article meets WP:N. Changing or inconsistent rating scales don't matter--even if people write about their objections to the system, the fact that they discuss it is just more evidence of its notability. WP:CRUFT is an essay that the Wikiproject tosses out as an argument against all sorts of things, and it has no actual standing in policy or guidelines. Including the information isn't giving it Wikipedia's stamp of approval, as many people seem to fear--it's just following notability guidelines, which state that if multiple reliable secondary sources discuss it in some detail, it's valid for inclusion. That's clearly the case here. GaryColemanFan (talk) 08:15, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the problem with your links, yes some of them discuss Dave Meltzer's influence, and no one is arguing that, but there's nothing there to suggest that the arbitrary rank of "matches rated five stars or more" is a notable subject in and of itself. I agree with the other poster that this is the sort of subject that probably needs merging with the main Dave Meltzer article.Gumlau (talk) 07:14, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Of course there is. There is an article from Sports Illustrated titled "The History of Star Ratings". I'm thinking the bigger problem is that you might not quite understand WP:N. If a topic gets substantial coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources, it is notable. If anything, your arguments against his rating system demonstrate even more of a need for this page--based on your arguments, it should be expanded to include a criticism section. This works against any merge proposals, as a stand-alone article is better suited to handle this topic (perhaps a section on "negative 5 star matches" should also be added). GaryColemanFan (talk) 15:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 14:53, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This AFD was never added to the logs, so I'm relisting and adding it to today's log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Iffy★Chat -- 14:58, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:49, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
How so? Wouldn't that mean every reception section ever made wasn't encyclopedic? They are simply a collection of personal opinions. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski (talk • contribs) 08:28, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
True. Once they have major publications reporting on the opinions, as mentioned in the above discussion, they're certainly encyclopedic. Sports Illustrated doesn't publish articles about the history of just anyone's opinions. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - But merge with the Dave Meltzer article. As pointed out by GaryColemanFan, Meltzer's ratings are covered in reliable secondary sources. Even though they are the opinions of one critic, they are notable due to their coverage. However, I do believe that they should be merged with the Dave Meltzer article. Meltzer's ratings don't need to be on their own page; as Ducktech89 said, we don't have a separate page for Roger Ebert's ratings. Why should we have a separate one for Meltzer? Aguy777 (talk) 08:48, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
ping me) 13:46, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don't see the argument. 5 stars is considered as good as it gets. That's historically been the top rating. In recent years, he's said that some matches exceed even that and given them ratings that are off the scale. It's still out of 5 stars, though, so it's not an arbitrary cutoff point. GaryColemanFan (talk) 05:55, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Dave Meltzer's 5-star matches lists are of greater importance to the professional wrestling community than casual people believe. Matches with a 5-star rating are generally listed in different wrestling web databases such as cagematch.com or profightdb.com, and these ratings are included in the profiles of the different pro wrestlers here in wikipedia being comparable to their titles or tournaments won. While some may consider these lists a personal opinion of Meltzer, therefore subjective and even inaccurate, the truth is that over the years he has always kept the attention on the wrestling fans and these qualifications are always mentioned and discussed on several websites. What I agree with is the fact that all Meltzer 5-star fights are duly referenced from reliable pages as data bases and not from fan websites as the page is currently. --El malatraza (talk) 20:31, 1 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The 5+ star ratings are a notable achievement in the pro wrestling world, and the notability is established by the rating's news coverage for matches rated as such. Therefore, GNG is passed and the list is established. DrewieStewie (talk) 19:37, 5 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think the page should stay because it's difficult to find a full list of 5 star matches, every list I've seen manages to miss a few matches. ItsMichaelRay (talk) 04:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 10:00, 6 September 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 Hellraiser: Judgment. If additional debate about the target of the redirect is required, it can happen on the talk page; but there is clear consensus to redirect, and not to keep this as a standalone page. Vanamonde (Talk) 21:03, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Children of the Corn: Runaway

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

Fails

WP:NFILM. Direct to dvd film nothing found in a before search of any interest. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Judgment and Runaway were filmed alongside each other for rights retention reasons, and their productions were directly linked (sharing several of the same crew members and filmed in the same locations). The
Children of the Corn: Runaway article does. DarkKnight2149 02:17, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The page is a stub. The number of citations in itself isn't the issue. I'm also not convinced that the film is independently
notable enough to stand on its own as an article, having seen the sources in the article myself. DarkKnight2149 04:49, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I fleshed out information for the page. Like I said before, the film passes
WP:NFF, now with extra content and development information. There isn't any real reason to delete this page, information was found regarding filming, cast, and release; the essential elements to keep any film page in the mainspace. Many citations are from the most reliable news sources and companies (MovieWeb, The Hollywood Reporter, Bloody Disgusting, ect.). The film passes the basic requirements to keep on the mainspace, clear as day. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I have contacted
WP:NFF rules. Cardei012597 (talk) 05:31, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I don’t believe I can participate in this debate at this point, as canvassing can be taken into account and would come off inappropriate. The way the invitation to participate here is worded regards me as a “tiebreaker”. Rusted AutoParts 05:57, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just want your personal opinion, thats all. Do you believe this film passes
WP:NFF? You can agree or disagree, I would just like to hear your opinion on the matter. If you wish to not participate, I understand. I only want to protect this page from wrongful deletion. Cardei012597 (talk) 06:36, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I'm sorry but I have to agree with Rusted AutoParts that we are at the limit of Canvassing because without want to seem judgemental I don't agree with the statement "He is one of the best users who upholds
WP:NFF rules". I checked out his afd stats [23] and in the 9 years he has been on WP he has participated in only 97 AFD discussions and 54% of his !votes matched the result (61% if we ignore the no consensus). In his last 8 !votes (which were on future films) only 3 of his !votes matched the result. Asking for a personal opinion in an AFD and qualifying the person as as a "tiebreaker" is looking to sway the result and I commend Rusted AutoParts for his decision not to participate. If the page gets deleted and you disagree and think it is "wrongful" you can ask for a deletion review. If there is no consensus then it will not be deleted so there is no need to ask for a tiebreaker. If you want their personal opinion for your own reasons then you can ask for it on another talk page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:19, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Ok, I'll compromise with both of you. As a consensus, I'll add a stub tag to the film page, we close the discussion, and keep the film page on the mainspace. I will add more within the following weeks and months. I think thats more than fair for all of us and we can finally move on from this discussion. Cardei012597 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't even have to compromise with you. I am doing this to be nice. The simple fact that BOTH of you are choosing to ignore is this: Children of the Corn: Runaway passes
WP:NFF. I am being really generous by offering a compromise, allowing a stub tag on this film page. This discussion should close and my compromise become the clear consensus. Cardei012597 (talk) 21:18, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
That is not how "consensus" works, and the number of citations alone does not make it notable.
WP:NFF only addresses what point an unreleased film should receive an article assuming the topic is notable to begin with. By your logic, any released movie with citations should have its own article on Wikipedia. Children of the Corn: Runaway received very little coverage outside of its announcement, release date & trailer, and horror sites. I'm still not convinced that there is even enough information out there to get the article to an acceptable length that justifies its own existence. It's also an entry in a franchise that has been going direct-to-video for decades, and even the first Children of the Corn isn't as famous as classics such as Nightmare on Elm Street, Friday the 13th, or Hellraiser. DarkKnight2149 22:04, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Comparing this film page to others is really quite sad. I am not convinced you understand
WP:NFF. Any and all films that can prove that filming, casting, and release was done, with many reliable citations, should be your number one priority, NOT whether or not this page is "like" other film pages. Your argument is very weak. We, at Wikipedia, keep film pages in the mainspace if they can validate filming, cast, and release. This film page has. You can't reasonably disagree with this simple fact. If a film page has proper citations that prove filming, cast, and release, than that page belongs on the mainspace. This is the most important Wikipedia rule upholded for film pages. I have upholded these Wikipedia laws time and time again on other film pages. Your argument is not sufficient enough to warrant deletion, plain and simple. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:35, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I clearly understand Wikipedia rules and what qualifies for the mainspace. I have created over 20 reliable, well sourced articles, and garnered AUTOPATROLLED, NEW PAGE REVIEWERS, PENDING CHANGES REVIEWERS, ROLLBACKERS permissions. One of the articles I created is a GOOD ARTICLE, Kitbull, just like the previously mentioned Hellraiser film page. I don't even care about the Children of the Corn film franchise, but what I do care about is upholding Wikipedia rules and which page qualifies to stay on the mainspace. I am not your average wiki editor, I have learned, practiced, and understood the exact qualities of what a film page needs to stay on the mainspace. Your assessment and basis for deletion is inaccurate and weak. Any and all film pages that prove filming, casting, and release with reliable citations is automatically allowed onto the mainspace. In Wikipedia, this fact has and will always be upheld with EVERY film page, regardless of personal opinion of feeling. You can not prove this simple fact wrong, no matter what debate you give. Cardei012597 (talk) 22:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am done discussing this. You can not prove my facts wrong. You won't be able to convince me or many others of your position. I am moving on to protect more pages from baseless, wrongful deletions. Cardei012597 (talk) 23:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I did not "compare it to other film pages" in the way you are suggesting. (My final sentence was meant to convey that this franchise has been going straight to DVD for decades, and even the original isn't exactly the most covered film out there) And this entitled, passive aggressive attitude is uncalled for. Other users are allowed to express their viewpoint in a deletion discussion without having to deal with subtle aggression, and I have years of experience and thousands of edits to my name. I didn't start editing yesterday, even if I haven't been as prolific lately as I used to be. As previously explained, if you think that every single movie that "validates filming, casting, and release" is automatically notable, then I'm afraid you have misinterpreted
WP:MOSFILM. Ask around if you find me untrustworthy. DarkKnight2149 23:34, 27 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
To be perfectly honest I am dumbfounded by the level of bludgeoning going on here and the lack of understanding of basic guidelines concerning AFD by Cardei012597. If I didn't know better I would guess there was a COI problem here and the fact that you are autopatrolled is very worrying indeed. If I were you I would step away and let the discussion continue rather than trying to negotiate a keep result by using your user rights as an argument. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:36, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
As an aside I shall be checking out you article creations to make sure that inappropriate articles haven't slipped through the net. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:38, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:06, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,
Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete.

WP:CSD#G11 as well. -- Ed (Edgar181) 13:36, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Yash Rai

Yash Rai (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 page about a non-notable entrepreneur/wrestler/youtuber. All sources in the article currently are primary, and I cannot find any other sources, not even poor quality ones. There are no SNGs for wrestlers, so even if he is a professional wrestler, he would have to meet

WP:ENT and there is no indication that he does. Hugsyrup 09:26, 6 September 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. Sandstein 20:12, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon

Anachronisms in the Book of Mormon (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 article is subject to problems with

WP:FRINGE. This is, in essence, an article about an unverifiable religious text and historical and scientific problems in that text. As a religious text, it is subject to the principle of faith-based evidence. That, in and of itself, makes scientific verifiability virtually impossible. The article is, basically, a series of attacks by editors seeking to discredit historical and scientific claims by the religious text followed by believers seeking to substantiate the historical and scientific claims. The only "scholarly" literature on the topic is in faith-based publications (both pro and con). Since the religious text is not taken seriously by historians, there are no reliable sources that specifically address the issues of why it is not used as a serious source of historical information. Therefore the non-Mormon side of the issue consists of either original research or faith-based attacks. Sources on the Mormon side of the issue also consist entirely of either original research or faith-based defenses. None of the published sources on either side of the issue pass the reliable source tests of Wikipedia. If compared to other religious texts, there is, for example, no article on "Anachronisms in the Bible". Taivo (talk) 08:34, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

But what you learned about tapirs is
WP:OR in the context of that article. --Taivo (talk) 17:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Seems cited to an outside source. Hyperbolick (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
They are "outside sources", but they are not reliable scholarly sources. They are religious sources without independent peer-review that are dedicated to promoting the Book of Mormon. That's the problem with this article. Either the information is
WP:NPOV. --Taivo (talk) 21:43, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • So if they're robust secondary sources, we say "The were no horses at this time.[source]".
If they're not adequate secondary sources, i.e. they're Mormons writing about Mormon interpretations, then we treat them as PRIMARY. We refer to them as "Mormon scholar <Dr Foo> explained this as a reference to tapirs instead.[source]". Andy Dingley (talk) 11:53, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Andy Dingley. If biased, expose the bias. Hyperbolick (talk) 18:45, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:45, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If this article needs to be deleted, the somewhat identical anachronism section needs to be deleted on the Archaeology and the Book of Mormon page. If this article is to be deleted and the other section kept, than information that is on this page but is not on the other needs to be included there in the anachronism section of that article. I think it might make sense to eliminate the article but am neutral. I do think it would be useful to only have one article or section of an article on anachronisms as now it requires the maintenance of two essentially identical topics on two different articles.Geneva11 (talk) 20:10, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly make more sense than a standalone article. --Taivo (talk) 22:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
You can add Criticism of the Book of Mormon to that list, it contains a section that attempts (badly) to cover the same ground as the article being discussed. There has been recent talk of either improving Anachronisms or merging it into Archeaology of.... I have a nasty suspicion that if they were merged, some future editor would helpfully split out a new "anachronisms" article to shorten some of the others. Pastychomper (talk) 09:29, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep To insist that sourcing must be from "peer reviewed" sources has never been our standard. Those who publish in favor of the Book of Mormon are overwhelmingly much better educated than those who attack it, and trying to label people as "fringe" for a religious belief held by over 16 million people is over using the term. The attack on this article is basically an exercise in trying to exclude voices from Wikipedia that some editors disagree with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:46, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what your point is other than to disparage authors on both sides of the issue. This isn't an "attack" on an article other than to point out that the article is not, by its nature, encyclopedic. The title itself is a veiled attack on Mormonism and is based on a subclass of anti-Mormon literature.
WP:FRINGE applies not because of the number of adherents, but because historians give zero credence to the historical claims of the Book of Mormon. It's fringe because the views are fringe within the world of scholarship. --Taivo (talk) 09:22, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
I see no sourcing problem here (at least, not ones that can't easily be fixed thus). We would need our usual standards of sourcing for claims about the historicity of tapirs etc. As to the Book of Mormon itself, then that's easily available as a (presumably authentically transcribed) copy. A
WP:PRIMARY
source. That's obviously a problem for WP generally, but A primary source may be used on Wikipedia only to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. So we're fine to use the Book itself to state "The Book of Mormon describes horses", we need an everyday RS to say "There were no horses in America in that geological timeframe" and we need the slightly more esoteric secondary commentary upon this to say "Mormon may have been referring to deer or tapirs instead", which we do indeed have here.
Any specific problems (which could certainly exist) should be listed at Talk: and means found to resolve each one separately. There's no overall issue requiring deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It is well sourced that e.g. the book writes about steel. Amazing! How could Joseph Smith in 1827 know about steel? Anachronisms would need to be about things more recent than the earliest evidence of the book, i.e. after 1827-ish. I don't see anything like that in the article, which means the useful anachronism content is exactly zero at the moment. What Smith claims about the book's age doesn't create anachronisms. If I write a book next year and claim the book would be from 10,000 years ago then no one will be surprised that the book talks about mobile phones, and no one would write a Wikipedia article about it. --mfb (talk) 12:34, 7 September 2019 (UTC) Misunderstood the article. Maybe the introduction could be improved. --mfb (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
And if you claimed your book was translated from one written 10,000 years ago?--Auric talk 12:57, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sorry, but I don't understand your point here.
The anachronisms here are not as you describe, an anachronism between the text of the Book and Joseph Smith's time period of 1827. There's no claim that he's talking about mobile phones.
The anachronisms are those between Smith in 1827 (where steel was known) and the bronze-age period supposedly being described. As a critique of Mormonism (implying it's a fabrication by Smith) this is seen as a serious flaw: the sort of flaw one might expect in such a fabrication. A similar thing happens in the King James Bible (2 Samuel 22:35 [24]) where references to steel (rather than bronze) were introduced by 17th century translators. One would not expect the Angel Moroni to make such a gaffe. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:15, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ah okay, I misunderstood the purpose of the article. --mfb (talk) 02:12, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
LotR isn't presented as fact and the inspired word of God. Now maybe you and I don't see the Book of Mormon as such, but some do. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:24, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But just because you have a belief (which, by definition, means that you don't require any proof or evidence to think it's true) doesn't mean that Wikipedia has to endorse that belief system when it violates the nearly universal opinion of the scholarly community of historians, archeologists, linguists, etc. Wikipedia endorses that view by allowing a pseudo-debate in its pages between pseudo-reliable sources (written, peer-reviewed, funded, and published solely by believers) and people of the opposite belief view who aren't scholars because scholars don't waste their time telling us that the moon isn't made of green cheese just because some community believes that it is. --Taivo (talk) 03:32, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • The other fallacy that has been stated here over and over is that "we just follow all the policies and this article will be 'fixed'". That's false. It assumes that the BOM is an actual document from ancient America and serious scholarly discussion is needed (and exists) to clarify the problems. It assumes there there are an equal number of peer-reviewed scholarly works on both sides of the discussion and that the discussion is scholarly. That is a false assumption. Historians ignore the BOM as a historical text with "anachronisms" because they universally treat it as a work of fiction from the imagination of Joseph Smith. Therefore, just as no scholar of lunar geology ever has to write "the moon is not made of green cheese" in a peer-reviewed text, no historian of ancient American history ever has to actually write, "the narrative of the Book of Mormon is fiction". Thus, trying to "fix" this article by adhering to Wikipedia's policies leaves an article that is overloaded with Mormon "scholarship" from pseudo-academic sources that receive peer-review only from other Mormon scholars. It gives the appearance of legitimate scholarship that is overwhelmingly weighted on the side of Mormon beliefs and not on the actual state of affairs in the scholarship of history. --Taivo (talk) 20:56, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But we can still have an article on Disproofs of a dairy origin in selenology, same as we do on Miracle Mineral Supplement, Vani Hari etc. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:32, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
But when we have a "disproofs" article for something that is almost universally ignored without having to say that it's being ignored, then there ends up being no scholarly sources that actually say, "I'm ignoring this because its fiction/fake science/etc." In this case, that means that there are pseudo-scholarly sources, written by believers, peer-reviewed by believers, and published in works that are funded and edited by other believers, that appear to outweigh the actual nearly-universal scholarly view on the subject just because no scholar outside the belief system finds it necessary to say "I'm ignoring this because it's fiction". --Taivo (talk) 03:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP should be reluctant to "endorse" any particular viewpoint. The latest from WMF now seems to imply we have to give weight to the anti-vaxx viewpoint as well, which is probably time to wind up the whole project. We certainly shouldn't endorse any particular belief system, but nor should we claim that such a belief system is objectively wrong.
If a particular set of beliefs is based on canon texts which contain objective logical flaws or anachronisms, such as these, then it is legitimate for WP to produce an article such as this which describes them: the basis for why it's an anchronism should be given, any refutation or explanation of such (which is likely to be PRIMARY or SELFPUB) should be given too, making it clear that that's a subjective viewpoint. The effect all that then has on your belief system is up to the reader. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:04, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix. I'll note that if this is deleted, material being moved into this article from other articles on the grounds it should be in this article and not duplicated needs to be reinserted in the original articles. Doug Weller talk 15:27, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and fix, or failing that, merge into one of the related articles. The claim that all the "scholarly" sources are either from faith-based publications or OR/SYNTH seems to be based on the assumption that the article is a proof or disproof of the Book of Mormon as an historical text. The article is not (supposed to be) about that, it is about claims in the Book of Mormon that are (considered to be) anachronistic. WP doesn't shy away from discussing current thought within religions, or current criticism of religious texts. Saying "the Book of Mormon mentions elephants, this paper says there were no elephants, critics/apologists say this/that" is entirely within the scope of the article and (in my view) within the scope of WP. The problems arise if the article either says or implies "therefore the Book of Mormon is true/false" - that kind of wording should be removed. Pastychomper (talk) 09:26, 9 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Many of the posts above, argue whether the Book of Mormon is to be viewed as historically accurate. That is a separate question. This article lists a number of points, with varying kinds of documentation, that are anachronisms or have some logical flaw. The fact that sources are not peer-reviewed is not a Wikipedia standard for most articles (though it may be more logical on an article such as Vaccination). This article will offend many, cause some to dismiss it, but it is still a valid article. I do not intend to Watch or edit it, but it should be kept. Pete unseth (talk) 13:16, 10 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There needs to be an independent source for this information. The top Google searches lead to this page and an apologetic LDS website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:F140:400:A01E:B59F:C9CE:58B4:F62 (talk) 18:55, 11 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - references show this is a topic that has been discussed in the literature - supplemental to
    WP:CONTENTFORK as including all this information in Historicity of the Book of Mormon would make that article too long - Epinoia (talk) 18:37, 12 September 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. Withdrawn by submitter, concerns about accreditation/degree mill were resolved

(non-admin closure) Nosebagbear (talk) 10:39, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre

Panineeya Institute of Dental Sciences & Research Centre (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unreferenced stub. Fails

Degree mill. With no evidence for or against we cannot extend good faith to spam-prone topics. Article on such website-only 'schools' should be assume to be spam ads for degree mills, unless someone can prove otherwise. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:26, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:22, 6 September 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. Insufficient sources found to meet

WP:NCORP. RL0919 (talk) 15:43, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Softarex

Softarex (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 article created, No

WP:GNG. Meeanaya (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Meeanaya (talk) 04:21, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 04:21, 6 September 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) 07:00, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ar-T

Ar-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)

There is very promotional. Fail to see how this musician is notable, nothing source and external links are primary doesn't appear to be much in the way of in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. No chart placings, no official signings, fails

WP:NMUSICIAN. A search brought up little else actually related to this person. VocalIndia (talk) 03:28, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:57, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:34, 6 September 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 20:11, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgio Nadali

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

The page does not credibly indicate the importance or significance of the subject & seems to have been self-published. (I edited it down some).

talk) 03:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:22, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:22, 6 September 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 20:07, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Martial Arts Japan Kickboxing Federation

Martial Arts Japan Kickboxing Federation (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)

Kickboxing organization with no evidence of notability. Article has no sources. My search found no articles on the organization itself--just routine sports coverage of results and upcoming events. Sandals1 (talk) 02:04, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:08, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • Delete - no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources per
    WP:ORGCRIT
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:07, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

California Gold

California Gold (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 team. Played in the fourth level of American soccer and lacks the coverage needed to meet the GNG. Coverage is either about people associated with the team or routine sports reporting. There is no significant independent coverage of the team. Sandals1 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 01:47, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Merging article A into article B means A is not notable, not that B is notable. An average attendance of 246 indicates even locally it wasn't very notable. I don't see evidence that "the article already passes
WP:GNG
with the articles referenced." Here's my take on the sources given:
1) article is about a local who coached the Cruisers for 14 games before being demoted and quitting and is now at a division 3 school. Doesn't make the Cruisers or Gold notable.
2) Quotes by non-MSL GMs about playing MSL teams. Passing mention at best.
3) Article about BYU soccer team and their loss to the Gold. Routine sports coverage.
4) Local coverage of a Utah team beating the Gold. Routine sports coverage.
5) List of attendance for lower level U.S. soccer teams. Passing mention.
Not a single source that is significant independent non-routine coverage of the team. Sandals1 (talk) 12:29, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the coverage is independent and there's more out there. This was a professional soccer team which performed in the country's top cup competition and was clearly covered by media. The fact Stanislaus County was merged into the article just means you have to do more of a before search than normal. Also, the attendance thing is a red herring - in their best year, 1999, the team averaged over 2,000. SportingFlyer T·C 17:14, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The Lamar Hunt Cup is open to all levels of U.S. soccer so competing doesn't seem to provide automatic notability. Of course the tournament is covered by the media, so are many sporting events. Even 2000 fans is not much--many high school football teams draw far more and they're not notable. I didn't say the coverage wasn't independent, just that it wasn't significant. Sandals1 (talk) 21:32, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
All the Modesto Bee articles in the world would only count as 1 source, even if you overlook the fact that every pro soccer team on the planet is going to receive coverage from the local paper.Sandals1 (talk) 23:09, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to disagree with you on whether over eight years and 300 articles worth of sources count toward
WP:GNG, especially since you only contribute to deletion discussions and don't have any vested interests in creating or maintaining content. SportingFlyer T·C 23:46, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
My editing habits don't impact the validity of my arguments. If anything, it means I understand those policies better than most. Quoting
WP:GNG: "Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability." Quite willing to agree to disagree.Sandals1 (talk) 14:17, 7 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
  • The team was in the third division for the first five years (as Stanislaus County), most fourth tier US teams pass
    WP:GNG, and as I've noted, there's plenty of sources behind a paywall. This could be a class C article if all of those get incorporated. SportingFlyer T·C 00:15, 8 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:23, 8 September 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) 06:59, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Roeske

Emily Roeske (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 meet the notability standards for actors or martial artists and I don't think the coverage is enough to meet the GNG. Her acting career was over by the age of 13 and she was never played the lead. Sandals1 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 01:23, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:12, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:12, 6 September 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. No "keep" rationale has been forthcoming. Sandstein 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bishop Wale Oke

Bishop Wale Oke (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)

Another minister with a church, and some local coverage--in an article mostly filled with fluff and primary sources. Drmies (talk) 01:20, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:13, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
@HandsomeBoy: - just a reminder that this has now passed 7 days so is subject to immediate close - if you want to provide a justification you need to do so ASAP Nosebagbear (talk) 10:40, 13 September 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 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The WISE Awards

The WISE Awards (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)

There is nothing to indicate this award is notable. I found no significant independent coverage. The only sources are either from the organization giving it or recipients of the award and neither are independent. Fails the GNG. Sandals1 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sandals1 (talk) 01:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:15, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:15, 6 September 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 20:06, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fireboy DML

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

The subject of this article fails

WP:MUSICBIO. He is still an up and coming artist in the Nigerian music industry. He only has four singles to his name and none of them are notable. Doesn't have a music career to speak of.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 01:07, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:47, 14 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Wrigley

David Wrigley (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 fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Played 109 games in DEL and at least 200 is needed to pass #2. He also has no preeminent honours to pass #3 or #4. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:53, 6 September 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. No "keep" rationale has been forthcoming. Sandstein 20:05, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Enenche

Paul Enenche (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)

Please see the history for evidence of POV and possible COI editing; the dozen Amazon spam links are evidence enough. Subject is a run of the mill pastor, and nothing here proves he passes the GNG. Drmies (talk) 00:49, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
talk) 03:18, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
The pastor/founder of the largest Pentecostal [List of the largest evangelical church auditoriums|church auditorium] in the world does not seem to me like a "run-of-the-mill one". HandsomeBoy (talk) 08:07, 9 September 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bedo Brwynllys

Bedo Brwynllys (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 to meet

WP:POET Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Helloimahumanbeing (talk) 19:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Could you try and expand the article a bit with more sources and citations? It would be useful for me because I plan to add it into fr.wiki next week. I'm sure you can make it. Genium. 00:10, Sep 6, 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, as above. Genium. 00:10, Sep 6, 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:38, 6 September 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 Autobots. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:58, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Nightbeat (Transformers)

Nightbeat (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 three "Top X" lists are completely trivial filler articles, and I'm not even sure if "Topless Robot" is important enough to count as a reliable source. TTN (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 17:55, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:36, 6 September 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 20:02, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bruce Mulherin

Bruce Mulherin (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 fails

WP:NHOCKEY. Highest league played was the ECHL which only grants notability for preeminent honours to but the subject has none, so ge fails #3. Also has no preeminent honours in college to pass #4 as well. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the
list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 00:27, 6 September 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 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Harryhausen: The Lost Movies

Harryhausen: The Lost Movies (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 meet

WP:COI editing Melcous (talk) 14:40, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • External links added I have noticed significant coverage of the content of this publication in recent weeks. To this end, I have added external sources to this article which show wider coverage and interest in the book, such as conventions and external events relating to its content; I hope that this helps RobertCJ (talk) 08:53, 31 August 2019 (UTC)RobertCJ[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:16, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - promotional material about a book that has not been published - the references are promotions for an unpublished book - the article creator has made few edits outside of John Walsh and Harryhausen - the John Walsh article has been up for deletion and there is a note on the John Walsh article that "A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject" (same article creatory) so there may be
    WP:NFILM says we shouldn't have articles about unmade films, but this is a book about unmade films, so not sure if that guideline applies) - Epinoia (talk) 17:26, 12 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 11:31, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CJ Pearson

AfDs for this article:
CJ Pearson (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 a person of note Gorginhanson (talk) 21:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This page does not exist, has not existed since 2009, and is SALTed. Please close this AFD. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 23:02, 22 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:22, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:23, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:24, 23 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Mccapra: The AFD was originally transcluded with the placeholder "PageName". I have stricken the above comment. Squeeps10 Talk to meMy edits 15:27, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Squeeps10: ok great thanks for explaining. Mccapra (talk) 16:47, 29 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 01:44, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep perhaps the best argument for deletion of this article would be
    WP:GNG. Also there is no rational put forward by the nominator, so it is hard to know what they are arguing against. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:27, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply
    ]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:12, 6 September 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 20:01, 13 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]

MoneyTap

MoneyTap (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)

Madeup references. Doesn't pass

WP:ORGCRIT
(Some press releases and some raised capital).

Also note: The author was blocked for sock puppetry and paid editing ref Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 01:10, 30 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Company received a substantial amount of funding (namely 9 million USD) and Sequoia Capital played a role. It got bonafide press articles too from sources such as Business Standard, The Economic Times, The Financial Express (India).[29][30][31][32] On top of it, it serves a market that can be tapped and it keeps people from from being gauged by the credit card companies. Furthermore, about 20% of India is still unbanked so their app will be very helpful to these people too. So the company is doing a lot of social good and worthwhile things via the service they are rendering to their customers. As far as awards, in October 2017 Moneytap as selected in the 20 Global Startups for The India Fintech Awards Demo Day by India Fintech Forum. India is still a developing country, but it has a lot of potential. And if it economically rises, it would lift a tremendous amount of people out of poverty. The Chinese lifted a tremendous amount of people out of poverty and India will probably be the next country to do so.And India is a democracy too unlike China. It would be tremendous thing to see India's economy grow fast and it would great if Wikipedia played a role in this matter and did not hamper it with being picayune about featuring its innovate companies that are getting press. I haven't look at the editors past edits, but I think this is a distraction as the articles has reliable sources and the company appears to have a lot of growth potential.Knox490 (talk) 19:05, 31 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@
WP:ORGDEPTH as it is a trivial coverage. As for other refs, I couldn't find anything but I doubt their legitimacy too because outreaching to these newspaper for certain amount is definitely possible, and the bulk press release history supports this claim. Again, keep in mind that the author was blocked for sockpuppetry as I mentioned in the rationale. Regarding being selected in top 20 Global startup doesn't qualify to be notable. There's nothing to be sentimental about the country here. If the topic doesn't qualify to be notable, it should not exist yet. Bishal Shrestha (talk) 00:07, 3 September 2019 (UTC)[reply
]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 00:11, 6 September 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's
talk page or in a deletion review
). No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2019_September_6&oldid=1142612840"