Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 August 1

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 31 July	2 August >

Guide to deletion

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 keep. Article makes its saving throw against deletion. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:48, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ranger (character class)[edit]

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

Primarily a WP:DICDEF mixed with large amounts of WP:OR. TVTropes handles this just fine, but Wikipedia is not TVTropes. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 23:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I feel this is a tentative Keep and massive cleanup and maybe even a Merge with Ranger (Dungeons & Dragons). There seems to be a clear path from Aragorn from LOTR to the concept of the D&D ranger class to the general concept of ranger across other fictional worlds. Coverage of the general "character trope" and its history would be better than what either this list or the D&D has as long as the history can be sourced. --Masem (t) 00:24, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and cleanup per Masem, although failing that a more sensible merge may be to Character class. BOZ (talk) 13:53, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A well known character class found in multiple fictional sources. Needs some cleanup just as Warrior (character class), Wizard (character class), Cleric (character class), and Thief (character class) do, but the solution is normal editing methods not deletion. Reliable sources giving ample coverage of the ranger class are easily enough to find. [1] and [2] for example. Dream Focus 18:41, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as they are quite the same and also lack references that show they are notable. The sources you mentioned are not about "rangers" in general, but rangers as specific to a particular game, so it would be WP:SYNTH if they were combined._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 01:14, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are books such as Working with Video Gamers and Games in Therapy: A Clinician's Guide By Anthony M. Bean which talk about the ranger archetype. I'll see what other sources can be found. Dream Focus 09:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That does seem like enough content to improve the Character class page with referenced sections on each class. I'm still not convinced that each class requires its own article though. ~~Not even TVTropes separates the classes into sub-articles.~~ Actually they do, my bad._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 09:54, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Dream Focus 09:28, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is nothing like a dictionary definition and so the nomination's reference to WP:DICDEF is misleading. The nomination's reference to TV Tropes is even more incongruous as this has little to do with TV. So, there's no case for deletion but, just to be sure, here's a reasonable source on the topic which demonstrates the topic's notability and potential: The Evolution of Fantasy Role-Playing Games. Andrew D. (talk) 12:16, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:19, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

NIOA[edit]

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

XFD nominated on behalf of IP user.

Reason provided: Declined speedy (looked suspiciously like a promo page). A paywalled source and two sources with casual mentions only. Fails WP:GNG. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. I'm seeing significant coverage in WP:RS ([3][4][5]), and enough information to create an article. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 07:17, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Hawkeye7, erm those 3 articles support 1 event only. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First ref is a client's press release, and second and third refs appear to be advertorial from non-reliable sources. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 03:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The first is an Australian government press release from the Minister for Defence at the time, Christopher Pyne, announcing that NOIA is taking over the old Benalla Small Arms Ammunition Factory. The second, three months later, is from the Asia-Pacific Defence Reporter, an important news site, and says that it has won a major contract to manufacture 81 mm mortar ammunition. The third is from Queensland Country Life, a major regional newspaper, and is about the company being a finalist in the Telstra Business Awards, a prestigious honour (and the NOIA article would be linked from there if it had been updated to add the 2018 finalists). It also tells you a bit about the history of the company. All three sources are independent and highly reliable, and are about different events. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:24, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A press release is a press release--not independent, and certainly not that one. The other two appear to be either advertorial or press releases recycled for free. I invite other editors to read them and judge for themselves. --Hobbes Goodyear (talk) 01:34, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 08:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Only two sentences, way too brief for an article entry. In second reference mainly talks about Rheinmetall, with NIOA only mentioned at the end as a munitions partner. Emphasis seems to be on self promotion.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Teraplane (talk • contribs) 08:54, August 3, 2019 (UTC)
Delete Seems like Self Promotion/Advertisement. --LuciferEdits (talk) 17:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SYNTH and WP:NCORP. The only three sources are trade or local publications. How is this a notable company? Bearian (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graphmatech[edit]

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

Article currently just an infobox and one sentence (which is a COPYVIO from the company's website) with no sources. I've searched for sources online, and found some rehashed press releases, blog posts, and routine mentions in business directories, but nothing that would satisfy CORPDEPTH. Fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 21:18, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 23:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, pretty clearly fails WP:NCORP. I believe it could be notable in the future, but wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I've removed the copyvio. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Iraq Raza Zaidi[edit]

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

A search in English and Urdu indicates that this person passes neither WP:AUTHOR nor WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - he's not teaching at a major university as defined by WP:PROF, not has his research contributed more than the average scholar. Bearian (talk) 23:21, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROF , h-index is low and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:54, 3 August 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 04:39, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RB Link[edit]

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

An airline carrier established in July 2019 and having just 2 planes probably doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brunei-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The nom hasn't indicated why this is not a notable topic. The nom hasn't even determined if it's notable or not ("having just 2 planes probably doesn't pass WP:NCORP"). You don't nominate an article for AfD if you think something "probably" isn't notable. Easily found in-depth coverage of this scheduled service airline, like from Aviation Week, Air Transport World and Brunei News. [6][7][8]. Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Oakshade. Nominator has clearly not considered WP:BEFORE. Bookscale (talk) 12:29, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. — JJMC89 (T·C) 01:55, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arne Wik Kristiansen[edit]

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

Biography of a man (apparently no longer living) who seems to have been an inventor. Turns up no results in Google scholar so claims to being a scientist look doubtful. External links to articles of uncertain reliability but no inline refs. Nothing I can find suggests notability. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The entire text of the articles consists of unverified WP:OR. Searching for verifiable RS sources does not produce anything of substance. Nsk92 (talk) 00:14, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:27, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - run of the mill amateur scientist. Bearian (talk) 19:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I just noticed that the article about Arne Wik Kristiansen is deleted. If I had been contacted via e-mail I may have helped with information. Arne Wik Kristiansen died 23. March 2014: https://www.digitalarkivet.no/view/387/pc00000003710595

Here is more information about him:

Here is Kristiansens book "Peptider i blodet":

https://www.nb.no/search?q=ISBN%2082-994376-0-1&mediatype=b%C3%B8ker

Here is his paper "Gravity, Light and Climate":

http://www.peptider.no/

Kristiansens patent:

https://patents.google.com/patent/CA2468536A1/en

https://data.epo.org/publication-server/document?iDocId=2930456&iFormat=2

Here you can read how Mr. Kristiansen won his case in the European court of human rights:

https://rettsnorge.com/Ny%20seier%20mot%20Norge%20i%20Strasbourg%20%E2%80%93%20denne%20gang%20Knockout

https://lovdata.no/static/EMDN/emd-2008-025498.pdf

Article:

https://www.naucat.com/en/equipment/engines-equipment/prototype-proves-hydrodynamic-flushing-technique

With this information I hope you can restore the article about Arne Wik Kristiansen.

Best regards

Joppechristensen Joppechristensen (talk) 18:05, 15 May 2022 (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 speedily deleted by Berean Hunter per CSD#G5 (mass deletion of pages added by sockpuppet of block user). (non-admin closure) • Gene93k (talk) 14:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Southaven, Mississippi shooting[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:EVENT. Bbarmadillo (talk) 20:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 21:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think this event fails WP:EVENTCRITERIA Tragic, but not especially notable and no WP:LASTING. Lightburst (talk) 22:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sadly, this is run of the mill for 21st Century America. Bearian (talk)
Delete tragic event, fails WP:NCRIME.E.M.Gregory (talk) 13:52, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — we need these shootings to be documented! Nellisks (talk) 01:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - tragic but at this point run of the mill.BabbaQ (talk) 15:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. National headline on the day of/next day. Coverage seems to be dying down to local level and there doesn't seem to be any particular reason this will have continued coverage. Icewhiz (talk) 07:43, 5 August 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) 01:54, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dax (rapper)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician, not properly referenced as having any notability claim that would pass WP:NMUSIC. Of the 48 footnotes here, 42 of them are just his own songs metaverifying themselves on online music stores or his own self-published YouTube channel; another two are Q&A interviews in which he's talking about himself, not being written about in the third person; and one is his roster entry on the self-published website of the college basketball team he played for. That means literally 45 of the 48 footnotes are not support for notability at all. And of the three remaining footnotes that actually are to some form of third party third person media coverage, none of them is compelling evidence of notability either: one is just a piece of "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in the local newspaper of the city where the college he attended is based; one is covering him solely in the context of aspiring to get signed to a label in the future; and the third is just about him beefing with a much more famous rapper. As always, the notability test for musicians is not just that their music is locatable on online music stores or social media platforms: the notability test is that he has received significant reliable source coverage about him accomplishing something that passes WP:NMUSIC. As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when the notability equation has changed, but the sourcing and substance on offer here suggest that this is just WP:TOOSOON at best. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wholeheartedly agree with nom. I have removed non-reliable sources from this article in the past, then sent to draft, then removed the same sources when it came back out of draft again, so am well aware of what is left and its lack of WP:SIGCOV with which to satisfy WP:NMUSIC. WP:TOOSOON. -Lopifalko (talk) 08:03, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The nomination is spot on with the problems with the sources. Of the three cited as being marginally legitimate, they are either small time or solicit submissions for content, adding up to no significant coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:54, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Nearly all publications solicit for content including the NYT, LA Times. Guardian etc, I've submitted articles to them, all declined of course Atlantic306 (talk) 23:03, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, Atlantic306 (talk), as does the company I currently work for, HistoryNet [9], and the ones previous. My experience [10] gives me insight into the nature of user submissions, and how certain publications and websites differ from one another. I agree not all user submission content in unreliable, but I do find a distinction in significance between a non-assigned “Next-Big-Thing” promotional piece in the NTY, LA Times, etc., vs. one submitted to HipHopDX (which is the one I non-specifically referred to). Especially for an artist whose career experience so far is measured by listens/views to self-download sites and YouTube videos. ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 04:11, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Insignificant coverage. Taewangkorea (talk) 12:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:59, 6 August 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. SNOW. (non-admin closure) Nightfury 20:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Party USA[edit]

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

Almost off sources are from 2010, including a few self published sources. It's probably worth keeping it with a bit of cleanup, but I'd like to get a few other opinions on whether it should be kept/or deleted. Swil999 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Swil999 (talk) 20:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and possible speedy keep) - unambiguously meets the general notability guidelines, with significant coverage from the Washington Post, Newsweek, CNN, CSM, AP, etc. deletion is not cleanup, and even though their most significant coverage is from 2010, notability is not temporary. Once notable, always notable. MarginalCost (talk) 13:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Corn cheese (talk) 07:10, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Wikipedia does not have a requirement that an article topic still has as much current coverage as it may have garnered in the past, so the fact that the sources are from 2010 is not a problem — as long as enough of the sources are reliable, we simply don't care if they're newer or older. There are an incredible number of notable topics — dead or retired people, defunct organizations or companies, etc. — that we could not keep articles about at all if the notability requirement was that they were still getting coverage in the current news cycle. Even most former presidents of the United States would have to be deleted if that were the rule. Which is why it's not. Bearcat (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS. Subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Bearcat (talk) --SalmanZ (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Even I, a dedicated tea drinker sipping a cup of loose leaf Formosa Ooolong brewed in a Yixing ware pot as I edit, endorse the notability of this page.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:10, 4 August 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 John T. McManus. Can be merged from history if desired, or redirected elsewhere. Sandstein 08:09, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent-Socialist Party[edit]

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

Dead party that never elected any candidates to any office. Does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:16, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to American Labor Party based on content, or lack thereof. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:07, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

May be merge to John T. McManus instead. As coverage of this party in reliable sources seems to be limited to his 1958 candidacy for Governor of New York. --MarioGom (talk) 09:28, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to American Labor Party Therefore, among the left-wing voters will retain its support . - MA Javadi (talk) 17:05, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Merge to where?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:30, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Claire McVey[edit]

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

I don't believe being the youngest victim of a particular disease meets the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). This information is more appropriate for inclusion in the article for the disease itself, Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. This stubborn editor has also created Grant Goodwin, Sarah Roberts (accountant) and Matthew Parker (teenager), other vCJD victims whose articles are up for deletion as well. — TAnthony^Talk 18:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 20:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. GNG is not met for any of these victims, particularly since most of the sources are not SIGcov. Tragic but not encyclopedic. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article has even less merit than the Grant Goodwin one in that it least tried to get past because he was a unique case (for the moment). This comes nowhere near meeting WP:NBIO and clearly violates WP:BIO1E. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:14, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why are the victims of this disease in the UK more important than victims in other countries? This and its companion articles fail to tack a global look at issues, which is a problem of lots of Wikipedia, but still should be addressed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:35, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with above. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:29, 8 August 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. Can be restored if somebody wants to use the content in the main article. Sandstein 08:10, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Food and drink in Manchester[edit]

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

List of trivia that reads more like a poorly-worded advertisement. Not an encyclopedic article. Parrot of Doom 18:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew D. (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nominator; moreover, WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, and to the extent there are any truly notable aspects of Mancunian cuisine with WP:RS coverage they can be folded into the city's article under Culture/Cuisine. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a travel guide. (edit conflict) –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 21:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No clear primary topic. Barca (talk) 22:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge The main article about Manchester doesn't seem to contain anything about the feeding of its people. For example, the link to Curry Mile, which we find in this article, is not in the main article. Such details are not trivia; they are significant features of the city and so we should retain and build on this per the policy WP:PRESERVE. To demonstrate the notability of the topic and its potential, see the source Feeding the Victorian City – a substantial and respectable book specifically about the food supply of Manchester. Andrew D. (talk) 13:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Light Merge to Manchester, with no prejudice against restoring it to its own article if it is ever re-written properly. This is definitely a topic that could be a properly written, well sourced article, however the current article is terrible and, quite frankly, does not have any content worth preserving. As stated in some of the deletion arguments above, it falls completely afoul of WP:NOTTRAVELGUIDE, and is written more like an advertisement than an encyclopedic article. As such, redirecting it to the main Manchester article, and possibly adding the useful links as mentioned by Andrew Davidson there, seems like the best solution for now. I would also suggest that, should the article wind up being kept, or is ever properly recreated in the future, it should be retitled to Cuisine of Manchester, as that appears to be the standard title for these kinds of articles, such as with Cuisine of New Orleans or Cuisine of New York City. Rorshacma (talk) 16:02, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Manchester. Corn cheese (talk) 07:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- this is not TripAdvisor. Cassianto^Talk 08:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Food wise, I'm not seeing evidence of anything beyond a WP:MILL food scene, a street of curry shops (MILL in towns with an immigrant neighborhood and, of couse, a few micro-breweries have sprung up.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 7 August 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) 19:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Murder of Bianca Devins[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not for news; the article can always be recreated if this turns out to be more than a passing news-cycle story. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 18:33, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I contested the PROD because my opinion is that WP:NOTNEWS matters are better handled at AFD. Still, the topic clearly has a ways to go before it is suitable for WP. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 18:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep due to the unusual amount of national news coverage that this murder is getting. Note that teh murder took place on July 14 and that coverage in national media has been ONGOING through today. This does not like the sort of ROUTINE crime that falls under WP:NOTNEWS. E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:15, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the extensive coverage on national media, which has been continous since the murder took place. Furthermore, this made rounds on social media due to the nature of the leaked images, which lead to hundreds of thousands of accounts accross Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, discussing the murder and redistributing the images. I argue that these factors give this murder a particular significance, rather than simply being another murder in the news cycle. I would keep this article, but I might add more information about the social media reaction at a later point. Appleedits 12:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note in Draftspace: Draft:Murder of Bianca Devins Bkissin (talk) 19:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please feel free to go ahead and incorporate the draft/rewrite the article. It's a very nicely written draft. Note that coverage continues. Man who police say killed Instagram star Bianca Devins wears bulletproof vest to plead not guilty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:25, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable death meets WP:SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 14:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - neither PROD nor delete article. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. Extensive international coverage from murder to date. At this point in time, lacking a crystal ball, we can not determine whether said coverage will continue (though it seems likely it will), and the sole issue here for NEVENT/NCRIME is continued coverage, therefore per RAPID we err on the side of keeping the article. Icewhiz (talk) 07:41, 5 August 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 Merrill Cook. Sandstein 08:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Party of Utah[edit]

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

Defunct minor political party that elected no candidates to any office and did not appear to receive substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Merrill Cook, since it was mainly a vehicle for his varried political career.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The founder Merrill Cook or somebody else has not elected no candidates to any office and did not appear to receive substantial, non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. - MA Javadi (talk) 15:19, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merrill Cook, where a brief, sourced mention can be added.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Merrill Cook. --SalmanZ (talk) 21:09, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The party existed, as established by sources. The stub is sourced and it is useful, including importantly to differentiate itself from the Utah League of Independent Voters which, per the article, "is sometimes mistakenly believed to be affiliated with the Independent Party. ULIV is a nonpartisan political group seeking structural reform to Utah's political system as part of a national effort led by IndependentVoting.org." It is like a disambiguating function, to provide clarity to readers, which is a considerable service. Also, the party was substantial in that it generated >130,000 votes in one election, and then the article documents that its next/last candidate garnered just over 1,000 votes, so it went kaput. There is no form of promotion going on; this is just a proper simple very short article that probably should never be expanded. It would not be proper to have the stuff about the other party covered in an article about the individual person Merrill Cook. User:Johnpacklambert, User:E.M.Gregory, others, could you please reconsider your different !votes?

It is extremely high quality in its brevity, in the sense that quality means fitness for its purpose. I have commented in another AFD or two about our needing to have some sort of designation of that, that it is as well-developed as it should be, as opposed to the Featured Article system which is only capable of recognizing huge articles.

It may be late in the AFD for this "Keep" argument to "win"; if it is not kept then redirect/merge to Merrill article is better than outright deletion. We are obligated to seek alternatives to deletion. --Doncram (talk) 21:40, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram, I don’t think your comment makes any sense here. This stub isn’t even cited properly - to call this a model of an article is bizarre. This article is actually of incredibly poor quality. None of the factual claims this article makes are backed up by internal citations. Four of the sources are completely broken. No sources are given that establish significant, non-trivial coverage - the sources include mentions that it achieved ballot access or citations that are supposed to explain who a candidate was, but are broken. The Utah Leauge of Independent Voters does not have an article and there is nothing at all indicating there is any confusion at all here - that claim seems to be original research. The only thing that seems even remotely notable about this party is that Merrill Cook founded and ran on it - which is why it should be merged to his article, just like we merged the American Delta Party to the Rocky De La Fuente 2016 presidential campaign page. This article clearly does not meet WP:ORGCRIT. Toa Nidhiki05 16:21, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:28, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:28, 1 August 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 De Leonism#Political parties. No sourced content to merge. Sandstein 08:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

New Union Party[edit]

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

Incredibly minor political party that never elected anybody to any office. No sources are cited and no significant coverage appears to exist. Does not appear to meet WP:ORGCRIT (significant non-trivial coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources.). Toa Nidhiki05 12:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to De Leonism#Political parties.E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:27, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this tiny, short-lived party has long been listed at De Leonism#Political parties. The page has only two sources, one is primary, something put out by this small party, and the other was published by Socialist Labor Party of America, the rival party form which some members had broken away to form this party. The claim on the page is that this party existed from 1974-2013. Proquest news archive searches with keywords produce nothing on this party, just hits on the phrase "new union party" used to describe sundry other political coalitions. a books search does somewhat better [11], "New Union Party: Founded in 1980 by defectors from the Socialist Labor Party, this DeLeonist militant democratic socialist party "advocates political and social revolution"..." (p. 117 of Political Perspectives: A Reader, Mary Hyatt, Gregory Publishing Company, Jan 1, 2002.) I continue to think that MERGING to De Leonism places this party in context, always remembering that there is no claim tha tit ever fielded a candidate or won an election.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:46, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete and redirect to 1984 Arkansas gubernatorial election. RL0919 (talk) 18:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Woody Freeman[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a failed gubernatorial candidate. Like most Billy Hathorn articles, most sources are either routine campaign coverage, original research or basic government documents, or passing mentions or tangential connections to the subject (such as focusing on his opponent-Former US President Bill Clinton). Probably best to delete and then redirect to 1984 Arkansas gubernatorial election. GPL93 (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 17:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 1984 Arkansas gubernatorial election, as almost all meaningful coverage is of the race, with most of the rest just being routine directory/database information. The Arkansas Business article may look slightly promising, but without more, I think the best move is to merge. Unlike the nom, I see no need to delete first, and there is good content that should be merged in to the campaign rather than simply redirected. MarginalCost (talk) 13:34, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Redirect to 1984 Arkansas gubernatorial election. No creative content should be carried over due to User:Billy Hathorn's editing history, which is rife with copyvios. A sentence or 2 about him may be appropriate, but it should not be taken from Woody's article due to possible copyright issues. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:46, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- I'll confess ignorance to that particular user's history. If copyvios have risen to the level this is the commonly used practice, then I have no objection to your solution. Is there a single central page documenting remedies for the user's work? I obviously see the many notices on his talk page, but is there an existing consensus for a presumption of copyvio? MarginalCost (talk) 16:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is long-standing policy: Wikipedia:Copyright violations#Addressing contributors. MER-C 13:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - And as for User:Billy Hathorn specifically: see Wikipedia:Contributor copyright investigations/20110727#Background and the 700 articles listed there, and Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Billy Hathorn for sockpuppets doing the same. --Closeapple (talk) 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect as a presumptive copyright violation. The other substantive content was written by a LTA. MER-C 15:53, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shreedeep Rayamajhi[edit]

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

clearly doesn't fulfill the WP:N criteria...sources are from some blogs and just because he wrote for the Huffington Post or was assaulted doesn't mean the subject qualifies to have a Wiki page. There are no extensive coverage on him... Ozar77 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Ozar77 (talk) 04:02, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 04:06, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The ref-bombing is a red flag. The principal contributor's username is "RayShree" and they've blanked their user and talk pages after receiving a COI warning. I've tried to cut the crap but someone with a better sense of RS and relevance to notability is required here. I will remove the primary, social media and self-published sources to aid. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 20:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Rollidan (talk) 16:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pretty clearly self-promoting and I think WP:BLP1E applies. Mccapra (talk) 04:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 95% sure that sources that I've left in do not meet the qualifications to establish this subject's notability. Was holding out in hopes that someone else might look at it thoroughly and clean it up further. Add that with BLP1E concerns in the comment above, and I have to agree notability isn't sufficiently established to discount the self-promotional aspect of the article. I would expect an activist that ruffles feathers particularly in the current climate of attacks on freedom of speech to get decent coverage in national newspapers, which is sorely lacking here. So, I must conclude the subject maybe notable in certain sections of the blogosphere at best, if that. Usedtobecool ^✉️ ✨ 07:25, 8 August 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. Any cleanup or renaming can be handled outside of AFD. RL0919 (talk) 17:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rothschild loans to the Holy See[edit]

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

Written by single editor (see this ANI thread for context in this subject matter). The article details a 400,000 quid loan (some 30-40 million quid today) - which is fairly small loan. Much of the material in the article is un-sourced. Some of the sources are primary. Much of the article is based on a popular audience book by Gerald Posner (see Gerald Posner#Controversies).

Sourcing / POV issues in the present article aside - I am unconvinced from my WP:BEFORE that the topic is treated in an in-depth manner in sources. Certainly the 1832 loan itself passes WP:V, but most sources I see do not cover this particular loan in an in-depth manner. Icewhiz (talk) 15:52, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--due to how this article helps fill in the bigger picture. In short it helps fill in the gap for the time between the 1745 Vix pervenit and the 1917 Code of Canon Law. The size of the loan is unimportant; the significance is in how this was a violation of longstanding Catholic teachings. Calvinists had been the first to say that usury was not a sin, Anglicans and Lutherans were more controverted for a while until eventually the pro-usury section carried the day. At the time of these loans, only some smaller conservative groups of Protestants were still anti-usury along with the Catholics, who remained so until 1917, although some traditionalist Catholics are still anti-usury today. The change in doctrine/practice between 1745 and 1917 could ostensibly be dealt with in Usury#Christianity, but the level of detail seems inappropriate for that more general article. Similar articles by topic to this one are Medici Bank, zinskauf, Crime_in_Vatican_City#Vatican_Bank_scandal, Institute_for_the_Works_of_Religion#Controversies, and Vatican leaks scandal. An overview of these shows that this article is developed about as well, if not better than these other articles, except for Medici Bank.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:59, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ I began to edit the article, which was filled with strange [12] anachronisms and antisemitic slurs [13] and began to realize that this strange article is hopelessly flawed, studded with antisemitic tropes [Rothschild loans to the Holy See#Reactions], larded with misunderstandings of the terms it uses in much the same way that User:Epiphyllumlover misunderstands theological debates about usury (the historic debate that began during the commercial revolution of the 11th century was over the point at which an interest rate becomes usurious, not over the legitimacy of lending money,) it is riddled with irrelevant excursions into Catholic-Jewish relations and competition among banking houses unrelated to the topic. I gave up attempting to improve the page wen it became clear that this page is WP:NOTHERE. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC) because Gerald Posner book.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment--The traditional Catholic position is here: Question 78. The sin of usury. A concise summary of the conflict is found in C.S. Louis's Mere Christianity. As for it being "not over the legitimacy of lending money [upon interest]" this was a separate issue to the "point at which an interest rate becomes usurious." The definition of "usury" varies depending on the debater/position, but it is too bad the article doesn't discuss this issue. As is the case in much of Islam today, there were various work-arounds employed to avoid usury; one is described in Medici Bank, the zinskauf was another workaround. As for concerns that the article is anti-semitic, I would be fine if the article title was changed to simply Pre-1917 loans to the Holy See (even without any additions, this title is suitable because of the discussion of the "six banks" in the article which were a rival to the Rothschilds) or merged into Rothschild_banking_family_of_Naples, which already mentions the relationship with the Holy See anyway.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 01:19, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep Well sourced. 80.111.42.123 (talk) 09:58, 3 August 2019 (UTC) preceding is from a blocked sock. [reply]

Keep -- This is a well written article on a significant historical topic. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Well written? The entire section of "Catholic—Jewish relations" is OR / SYNTH and off topic to this article. The prose might read nice - but it does not quite match the citations. Furthermore, most sources mention this small loan in passing - not treating it as a standalone topic at any length.Icewhiz (talk) 12:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I am open to removing all or most of this section. Additionally, the "Reactions" subsection contains statements that reflect anti-semitic canards or sentiments. I am open to removing it, reducing the direct quotations to footnotes, or adding clarification as how these statements are considered anti-semitic today even if they were common back then. The issue here is one of undue weight, as these controversial subjects unfortunately attract a prurient interest which may be stronger in character than the meritorious parts of the article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:02, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Other than ~~a couple of unsourced statements~~ (all statements are now sourced), the article and its sources look good. Any minor defects where people think the article may stray into SYNTH or some other perceived deficiencies, just go ahead and re-edit to match policy and/or your personal taste. The most glaring fault I find is a lack of context: it is not as if the Papal States had not borrowed before, sometimes in fact quite large amounts, and, quite frankly, borrowing was a way of life for governments and it remains so to this day for the large majority of governments, by far. The addition of a para showing the other Papal States loans of the era would be most useful, but this is certainly no grounds for deletion. XavierItzm (talk) 14:11, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously. This is a very well written article, properly cited, conforming to top-notch sources and top-notch expert authors. We prefer the coverage of a topic in a manner covered in independent, secondary, well-regarded sources and this is what we have here. If some editors have an issue with the wording; please propose an alternative formulation. GizzyCatBella (talk) 15:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I have eliminated all «^{[citation needed]}» templates and replaced them with book sources, with quotations, from The Jewish Encyclopedia and God's Bankers: A History of Money and Power at the Vatican, Simon & Schuster (2015). XavierItzm (talk) 15:42, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Complaints about the way the article is written belong on the article talk page as they are not arguments for deletion. This is a notable topic and good sources are available; if it needs clean-up, clean it up. Zero^talk 17:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have not previously looked at this article so what I’m seeing now reflects a lot of work by other editors since the nomination was made. The topic itself seems clearly notable to me, so I’m mostly concerned with how the article presents it. I think the inclusion of anti Semitic language, properly contextualised, is appropriate here because the topic is something that evidently generated a lot of it: the article should record that and help the reader understand the context for these racist expressions. I agree with XavierItzm that the article lacks context - ideally there should be something to indicate how frequently the Vatican borrowed, and how much. I also agree that the entire section on Catholic-Jewish relations needs to come out. Any useful and properly sourced material can be merged into Catholic Church and Judaism but doesn’t belong here. Neither of these two concerns provides a basis for supporting deletion however. Mccapra (talk) 04:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mccapra, while I agree that revision of the C-J relations is needed, wholesale removal of it is not warranted. See TP. XavierItzm (talk) 06:22, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator. Deryck C. 20:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jinduicheng Molybdenum[edit]

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

Article on a metals producer has had only two references for the last 10 years, both of which are non-RS. A basic BEFORE (JSTOR, newspapers.com, Google News, Google Books) finds it mentioned - along with dozens of other metals manufacturers - in scores of press releases from market analyst firms promoting forecasting reports but no WP:RS. Fails WP:GNG. Chetsford (talk) 15:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A list company and way many in-depth article by using the Chinese name (Chinese: 金堆城钼业) to search. The quality of the wiki article is not the reason to delete it. Matthew hk (talk) 19:05, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and withdraw as nom based on above !vote. Thanks to Matthew hk for being able to do a more thorough BEFORE, in Chinese, than I was able to do. Chetsford (talk) 19:38, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:09, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pinmarq.com[edit]

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

No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. The only references given that actually mention the site are web rank listings. None of the actual articles cited have to do with the site. Google search is equally fruitless. ... discospinster _talk 15:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:34, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG and as WP:NOTPROMOTION. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:36, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Founded in 2019 clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:12, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:13, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gamma Alpha Chi[edit]

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

Notability. Even with the Perspectives magazine (which I did track down at one point), I don't think it meets notability, especially without any confirmation on the 26 chapters. Naraht (talk) 15:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 15:56, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The fraternity's website is dead, and a Google search didn't turn up anything beyond a mirror of the Wikipedia page. Thus, I don't see enough in the way of verifiable information on which this article can stand—I mean, arguably we can't even verify the verb "is" in the first sentence, as opposed to "was". —C.Fred (talk) 16:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

(OP)I'm actually having more luck verifying the locations of chapters of Gamma Alpha Chi Professional Sorority in the field of advertising (Founded in 1920) which merged with Alpha Delta Sigma in the 1970s. I'll probably end up creating an article about *that* group (I found a list in a Baird's Manual of American College Fraternities from the 1950s that shows more than 30 chapters).Naraht (talk) 22:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Since this AfD is about the social fraternity started at LSU in 1990, there should be no problem with subsequently starting a page at the same title about a different organization—provided, of course, that the professional sorority meets notability requirements. —C.Fred (talk) 20:51, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

True, standard issues, but with a page long writeup including chapters in Baird's Manual and various mentions in American Advertising Federation documentation, shouldn't be too bad. Just wanted to get my mention in because "recreating an AFD deleted page" sometimes gets done even if what is there is completely different. This is the exact *opposite* from a request to salt.Naraht (talk) 21:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 (talk) 17:24, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Laing[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 15:00, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He’s going to be announced as a contestant on Strictly Come Dancing soon. He has numerous acting credits and television appearances. Danis fast game (talk) 15:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - not because he is expected to be in something else (I am expecting to be the next Prime Minister, but that doesn't make me notable), but simply because there are enough sources around to meet general notability guidelines. Sure it is a crap article. Some of the sources should be deleted quickly (blogs and advertising). Certainly it shouldn't be advertising his inane products, but Wikipedia policies are firmly for keeping. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 15:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:31, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BASIC / WP:GNG. Just needs work. Boleyn (talk) 10:36, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Needs a lot of work, but the unofficial consensus is if you appear as a celebrity on Strictly, you're notable enough to have an article. 2A00:23C4:3ADE:0:2424:8900:BD7D:D4D6 (talk) 18:17, 5 August 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) 17:25, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Mignault[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. Sources are either mere mentions (where Mignault has written a piece for a publication) or are of questionable independence - likely promo pieces initiated by the author, or are not from reliable sources. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:55, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Created in mainspace by author, then draftified by ST47. Author moved back to mainspace, circumventing AfC. See also page log entry "10:16, 1 February 2018 Kusma talk contribs deleted page Daniel Mignault (G5: Creation by a banned user in violation of ban (CSDH))" Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO. Blantant PROMO and obvious COI for a " bestselling author, social media marketing consultant, and an actor. Daniel is the CEO of DM productions, an influencer (with a following of over 350,000 people), and a #1 best selling author as well. " He wrote an article 2 Tricks to Gain More Instagram Followers. ZERO evidence that either of his "books" is a "bestseller", as claimed. sheesh.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:23, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. WP:TOOSOON. WP:NOTPROMOTION. Tonereport (☎) 18:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP, WP:MILL, WP:NOTRESUME, WP:NACTOR, and WP:TNT. The sourcing for this BLP is terrible. This is a run of the mill up-and coming actor and sometimes writer. It's written as a resume, and would require extensive research and editing to make it into an encyclopedia article. Even if all of the claims are true, which are written in bombastic tones, he's just not notable as an actor. Bearian (talk) 23:30, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not linkedin, articles should not read like resumes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:55, 6 August 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) 17:04, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dustin Hunter discography[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBAND. The only source I found was written by Hunter, who said that music was releases on a self-created label. Rogermx (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 14:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The parent article on the subject was deleted 11 months ago. Perhaps deleting this separate article on his discography was overlooked? ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG – list of non-notable self-released records by non-notable YouTuber, created by near-SPA and not updated in eight years (although none of the records released in the intervening period have been notable, either). Little else to say, really. Richard3120 (talk) 15:38, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since the musician's article was deleted due to lack of notability, the same is true for his self-released records and his discography in general. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above. Aoba47 (talk) 23:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If a musical artist doesn't have a main article about them, it would be very unusual to warrant having a discography article for them. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:57, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No article plus fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC so it is a delete. Josalm64rc (talk) 00:17, 5 August 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, as Hoary has HEYMANNed the hell out of it :) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:06, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atsushi Fujiwara[edit]

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

Technically ineligible for PROD because an article at this name was deleted at AfD in a batch nomination in 2009 (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fujiwara Manami), but that subject matter was not related to the photographer currently discussed at the article.

I can't find any indication that the current subject is a notable photographer. I tried searching his name in English both ways as well as his name in Japanese, but found nothing independent. His ja.wiki page is nearly the same as this one, no further sources to be poached. Overall I can't see my way to an WP:NCREATIVE or WP:GNG pass. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 12:12, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Per Hoary's WP:HEYMANN upgrade, I withdraw my argument for deletion. I can't close as withdraw because of the delete vote however - Red Phoenix, given Hoary's rework and addition of sources, would you be willing to strike your delete? ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:58, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Okay, I get the idea that someone was trying to establish notability by listing a bunch of magazines, ones I'm presuming to which this photographer contributed images? Regardless, that does not establish that the photographer is notable. WP:GOLDENRULE is not met. Red Phoenix ^talk 14:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Stricken as requested above. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:08, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The English article is just a set of lists, and was created by the same SPA who created the Japanese article. It's terrible. Fujiwara is pretty well known here in Japan. Given time to look in the (not free of charge) back issues of Asahi, Mainichi and Yomiuri, I'm pretty sure I'd find stuff about him. (But where would I find the time?) -- Hoary (talk) 13:13, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I still haven't had time to visit the library where I might access newspaper databases. But if like me you don't pay, here you'll still be able to see the first half of a Mainichi Shinbun article devoted to Fujiwara and his photography. -- Hoary (talk) 01:00, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There's a two-page article on him and his magazine Asphalt in the December '12 issue of Nippon Camera. And I suspect that at least some of the newspapers rather cryptically referred to in the list of "references" (which I've just moved from the article to its talk page) will be substantive. -- Hoary (talk) 11:22, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's enough about him. -- Hoary (talk) 01:09, 5 August 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 - thanks Hoary. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nogami Tohru[edit]

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

Boilerplate rationale adapted from my previous AfDs of similar photographer articles (such as Keizaburō Saeki), which itself was largely borrowed from Cckerberos at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hideki Kasai. Keizaburō Saeki, Hideki Kasai, and this currently-nominated article are all identical bot-created articles. I have nominated several others for deletion, but have improved and de-orphaned quite a few more when sources have been available.

To quote Cckerberos: "This article is a generic stub, generated by a bot in 2007. It makes no specific claim to notability; it appears that similar stubs were created for every photographer listed in 328 Outstanding Japanese Photographers, all with the format "Name (years) is a renowned Japanese photographer" (compare the nominated article with Gen Ōtsuka, for example). Tokyo Metropolitan Museum of Photography states that the sole criteria for inclusion in the book was to have a single photograph in the museum's permanent collection at the time the book was published. That doesn't seem to meet WP:CREATIVE."

In addition to Cckerberos's excellent commentary, I'll note that I've done as thorough a WP:BEFORE check as possible for an English-speaker: Google searches of both the English and Japanese order of the English transliteration of his name. None of the English transliterations turned up anything of use. He does not appear in the reasonably thorough The History of Japanese Photography.

I have also checked his Japanese name, but all I found was this page, which appears to be a book sales site and is not independent for the purpose of supporting notability. The Japanese Wikipedia has no article about him, so there are no sources to be borrowed from it. I searched his Japanese name there and found nothing.

In the absence of reliable sources, we cannot verify that this person is notable, so the article, like many of the previous bot-generated photographers before it, should be deleted.

Courtesy ping to Hoary, who is knowledgeable on the topic of Japanese photographers, and who I'm terribly sorry to be pinging to another one after I just promised I was all done with them. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:57, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment and question. Perhaps only one of his various photobooks has been published recently, but JCII still has copies for sale of the retrospective they held in 1993. The "328" book says (page 244) that his photographs are in the collections of Nihon University, Yokohama Civic Art Gallery and others, as well of course as of Syabi itself. So all in all I'd say the man merits an article. Hands up anyone who proposes to write one. (Note that you'll have to read sources in Japanese. Guessing at the meaning of Google Translate's mangled translations isn't going to hack it.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, see, this is why I ping you to these. Those holdings are definitely enough to hit NCREATIVE, so I'll add those to the article and withdraw the AfD. Thanks, as always. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:00, 1 August 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) 12:46, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Dwyer-Lynch[edit]

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

Fails GNG / NACTOR /NFOOTY. Most significant role seems to be a recurring role as a taxi driver on a British soap. The football coaching is even less notable. Little coverage of our subject in RSes, and the article itself is quite promotional. Icewhiz (talk) 11:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 11:48, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:53, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – no indication of notability. Searches not finding any sources to meet NBIO or GNG, and I'm not seeing any SNGs met, either. – Levivich 00:16, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:18, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:20, 2 August 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.

Adam Everett Livix[edit]

The result of this discussion was delete. The actual discussion has been hidden from view but can still be accessed by following the "history" link at the top of the page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate 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) 09:20, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kenza Drider[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E, and fails WP:NPOL. Subject defied the burqa ban, got fined, and declared she would run in the 2012 presidential elections (she did not in fact run - as she did not manage to collect the 500 required endorsements). Coverage of the subject mostly limited to 2010-2012 (during her political run), subsequent media hits are mostly reuses of stock photographs of Drider (in full niqab, reused in the context of further burqa/niqab in Europe coverage). Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E. Mccapra (talk) 07:32, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People who declare themselves as presidential candidates, but then aren't actually on the ballot as actual presidential candidates in the end, do not clear WP:NPOL — and what she does have coverage for just makes her a WP:BLP1E, not a person who has cleared the ten year test for enduring encyclopedic significance. Bearcat (talk) 03:50, 2 August 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. Editors disagree about whether this event has had the continued, in-depth coverage necessary to escape WP:NOTNEWS. Since editors can in good faith disagree about sich matters, I can't resolve this dispute by fiat. Sandstein 08:17, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Mohammad Habali[edit]

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

queried delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mhhossein and SystemDisrupt: queried delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not much has changed from the previous AfD, closed in March 2019. We had a few additional more months of silence - lack of continued coverage. On July 22nd AP did run a wire piece - [14] - on Israeli investigations at large, which used the Habali incident as an example - devoting a few lines to it (and then mentioning it along with all other pending cases - e.g. - "All of the remaining Gaza investigations, and several in the West Bank, including the deaths of Habali and Nakhleh, remain .... The AP piece is not WP:INDEPTH (being but a few lines), and doesn't change the lack of WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE of this sadly routine event. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Palestine-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 05:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt the title as it fails WP:NOTNEWS. (Note: I have contributed to the article) Salting needed as it is evident that the author has strong feelings associated with the topic/subject and is repeatedly creating a non notable death event article. This death was a sad event but it is a conflict zone where hundreds are dying (from both sides). The AfD-1 was closed as delete and the main concern was failing WP:NOTNEWS. As we can see the coverage of the event has petered out after the initial spurt as is expected from such cases. Now the right thing to do was to wait and watch if the death gets WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE over an extended period of time in multiple RSes or not, but the author has jumped the gun on a minor coverage in one source where the subject is Israel Army and Habali is used as an example among others. I agree with Icewhiz in his assessment that this new article is not WP:INDEPTH coverage. And accordingly the article should be deleted. It seems to me that this article will be created everytime Habali name comes up in newspaper, so I am suggesting a salting as well.--DBig Xrayᗙ 08:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SALT? Do you know what it is? So, you don't like the subject to appear again and is it because of your strong feeling with regard to the incident? Also, "repeatedly creating a non notable death event article" is a baseless and bizarre argument, the admin restored it after it was speedy deleted. --Mhhossein ^talk 12:39, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lets be accurate - restored on your challenge and put up by him at AfD. Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to ignore the rhetorical questions. Here is the article log in case anyone has doubts about the factual basis of "repeatedly created"
31 December 2018: The article was first created by Mhhossein
18 March 2019 : Deleted by AfD 1
30 July 2019 : The article was created again by Mhhossein
30 July 2019 : CSD tagged and deleted by Anthony Appleyard.
30 July 2019 : CSD challenged by Mhhossein. Article restored by Anthony Appleyard and nominated for AfD2. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Are these your evidences for accusing me with "repeatedly creating"? OMG! By the way, you failed to show why the subject needs to be SALTed. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article had been the subject of multiple reliable sources since the date of the incident. It was deleted allegedly because it lacked continued coverage and now there are sources proving it was a false argument. Habalis's death was mentioned in a work by Medico International [15]. Despite the allegation, The article by the Associated Press dedicates enough space to Habali and the piece essentially commences with detailing the death in 4 paragraphs. As the reliable sources say, there are dozens of incidents involving IDF's shooting of Palestinians and it's interesting that in the two works ([16], [17]) dedicated to the investigation into death of Palestinians by Israeli soldiers, Mohammad Habali's death is covered.

His death was notable since the mentally ill man posed not threat to the soldiers and he was still shot from back! That's why his case is occasionally mentioned by sources as a file needing investigation. --Mhhossein ^talk 14:09, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

— Note to closing admin: Mhhossein (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. --DBig Xrayᗙ 15:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Very short paragraphs - extremely short paragraphs - 160 words in total. As for the medico.de blog post - it seems to be a WP:BLOGS - not a RS - and furthermore has a single sentence mentioning Habali in passing.Icewhiz (talk) 14:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
This amount of coverage is already enough for demonstrating reliability when it's put besides other sources. Also, medico.de is not a personal blog, rather it's a "self-published expert source". --Mhhossein ^talk 13:26, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was deleted back in March, things haven't changed much since, lacking continued coverage. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 17:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article engages in way too much POV-pushing to be acceptable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

...and it's not even an AFD argument! --Mhhossein ^talk 13:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Incident in which a mentally ill/mentally incompetant individual was in the street during a tense security operation and was shot. This sad death has not had WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the media or WP:LASTING impact.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:04, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It looks POV at first glance and on the borderline of notability. Avaya1 (talk) 17:00, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Emphatically not an argument for deletion. If it is POV then edit it. nableezy - 17:15, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  - Searching online the first results on Google are blogs like Electronic Intifada and B'tselem. ~~Meanwhile, Wikipedia does not have articles for things like the murder of Hannah Bladon in Jerusalem, even though that killing has coverage from every major newspaper.~~ So the criteria for notability is what seems POV here, as well as the sources used to cite it. This story is not even covered by the BBC, for example. If the standards for what is notable for a Wikipedia change, and sources and require less coverage, then it would be worth including.Avaya1 (talk) 17:21, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
    - A. Btselem is not a blog. B. the BBC is not the arbiter of what we cover here, and we have sources from the Associated Press, Times of Israel, and Ynet and Jpost are available, along with al-Jazeera and al-Arabiyya. We cover a huge number of violent acts against Israelis that have similar or less coverage, eg Bat Ayin axe attack or Killing of Rabbi Meir Hai. It is only Israeli acts of violence that seem to require a different standard to be included here. nableezy - 17:28, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
      - Oops there is an article for 2017 Jerusalem Light Rail stabbing. However, in this case there is a lot less coverage than for many stories/deaths which don't have Wikipedia articles. (Btselem is a personal website of an NGO). Avaya1 (talk) 17:33, 7 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Uh yeah, you should probably check the RSN archives on B'tselem is. nableezy - 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep notable death per WP:NTEMP the article has sufficient WP:RS many Palestinians are killed in this conflict and some of them are notable. This one is notable. Lightburst (talk) 01:30, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Except that there was an AfD 3 months after the incident, and the incident was found to lack WP:SIGCOV. Now, just 4 months later, the page is back, and still fails WP:SIGCOV. E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:43, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the message. Everyone knows an AfD is about who shows up to ivote. WP:RS exists, and notability is not temporary. Lightburst (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

keep - this is per WP:NTEMP the article has sufficient WP:RS that I will !vote this way. also per WP:GNG and source quality.BabbaQ (talk) 15:34, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep — more than enough reliable sources and continuing coverage. Obviously. Zero^talk 20:46, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A vast number of RSes around the world cover this event such as reuters, haaretz, timesofisrael, NYT, aljazeera, abcnews, nbcnews, jpost, middleeastmonitor,YNET NEWS, i24news and other forein news agency like btselem, maannews, wafa.Saff V. (talk) 06:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please read Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_newspaper News incidents gets covered in many national and even international newspapers. But to be considered notable they need to have extended coverage over time. this is lacking.--DBig Xrayᗙ 13:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is you who should read it. This article is not about breaking news. Zero^talk 14:03, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even if its notable and I am not sure about that right now its written as one sided POV piece that should be deleted per WP:TNT --Shrike (talk) 10:15, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There is ample coverage of this notable event, they talking about the video of him being shot in the back, and the aftermath. Dream Focus 15:37, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
There is an established precedent that violent acts in the long-running Arab-Israeli conflict merit articles if there is sufficient coverage in international news, at least for violence committed by Palestinians. See for example Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2017 Halamish stabbing attack, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lions' Gate stabbings, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Beersheva bus station shooting (2nd nomination), Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2015 Shuvat Rachel shooting. See comments in those AfDs in which the argument that carried the day was Clearly not a routine event, so NOTNEWS does not apply. Or Wide international coverage, SUSTAINED national coverage. As to whether or not there is such coverage, this continues to be covered in the international press and even more so in the Arabic press. See for example this AP story from July 22 2019, 8 months after the event. Or in Arabic, sources show coverage in July 2019, Al-Arabiya special in July 2019. Per that established precedent and the continuing coverage, keep. nableezy - 18:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, however, that the incidents you list all had WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, whereas in this case the WP:RS coverage in the months since this accidental death during a live-fire security incident is as a case example in a longer story stating that investigators have found no evidence that this is anything other than the sad death of a physically and mentally incapacitated individual who walked into the street during a live-fire security operation. E.M.Gregory (talk) 20:25, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Continued coverage is not needed per WP:NTEMP. The death was notable, and widely published- and that notability is not temporary. However, Israel is just now probing these deaths. There are articles from July 22, 2019 New York Times, it is an AP article which was picked up by ABC and most other news organizations. If it is behind a paywall, you can read the AP article here. The Saratogian. The death only happened eight months ago, but the probe will likely lead nowhere as the article states. Lightburst (talk) 21:23, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article cited to the NYTimes is NOT behind a paywall. It is simply NOT ON the NYTimes website. The Times often posts AP and other wires services stories on its web page, put does not maintain them there. It, seems, as far as I can tell, to archive only stories that it has edited, not wire service breaking news that stories it briefly posts.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I gave you three sources showing continuing coverage, including the Associated Press showing that continued coverage internationally. Also including a feature in a broadcast from Al-Arabiyya, and another Arabic source. You have authored a number of articles on Palestinian violence against Israelis that have considerably less coverage ongoing coverage, eg this. Funny how it is only Israeli violence against Palestinians and not Palestinian violence against Israelis you believe should be excised from the encyclopedia. nableezy - 22:22, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF, but I do invite editors to compare this incident with the 2015 Jerusalem bus attack taht Nableezy references.E.M.Gregory (talk) 22:56, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, the favored argument of the one set of rules for one side and another set for the other. Thanks for being so blatant about it at least. nableezy - 23:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2015 Jerusalem bus attack, a terrorist attack on a civilian bus in which innocent passengers were murdered in cold blood, had WP:INDEPTH, WP:DIVERSE coverage when it took place, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE in the years since, and WP:LASTING IMPACT, albeit page could use improvement. This death in the crossfire of a security incident has meets none of those criteria.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:13, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is all very obviously untrue. This is an article on Israeli forces killing an unarmed man or murdered in cold bold, has WP:INDEPTH and WP:DIVERSE coverage and the only reason it does not have coverage spanning years is that the event is less than a year old. It does however have coverage up to a couple of weeks ago, an article by the Associated Press that you, seemingly in bad faith, excised from the article on spurious grounds (could have just googled the title to find the right url). The article on the bus attack has coverage from late 2015 from the time of the attack and a bit more at the time of a conviction in June the following year and some fluff about a plague in September. Its coverage spans from October 2015 to September 2016. Nothing since. Here we have coverage from December 2018 till July 2019. Explain to me again how this is not what it so obviously is. nableezy - 02:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I excised a misleading, dead link as I discussed above.E.M.Gregory (talk) 09:58, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You removed a deadlink entirely, replacing it with a {{fact}} instead of either just tagging it {{dl}} or, you know, spending the 5 seconds it took to find a working link by googling the title. Funny how the link you removed is the one that makes a mockery of your attempts to claim there is no continuing coverage, huh. nableezy - 15:21, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The link was not merely dead, it was misinformation because the story was not a New York Times story at all. It was an AP story. The link made it look as though there had been NYTimes article about this crime when there was in fact no such article.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I dont really see a point in continuing this little sideshow, but the reference you removed included agency=Associated Press. Using a malformatted reference markup for a source you know is reliable as an excuse to remove it entirely reeks of bad faith. As does pretending this artice does not have sustained coverage that is equivalent to or exceeds that of articles you have an established record of supporting inclusion for and even creating. Just so long as it is Palestinian violence that is. nableezy - 18:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The NYT link was archived and is still available by the way. So there's also that. Sean.hoyland - talk 18:20, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Archived by Wayback, NOT by the Times.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As I stated above, it is not in the NYTimes archive because it was an AP story that ran on the Times website during a brief news cycle. NYTimes does not archive the wire service current events articles it briefly posts. When the Times deems a story significant, it assigns one of its own reporters to the story (it has a bureau in Israel for the purpose.) Therefore, it was misleading to have this on the page as a NYTimes story.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bad faith is exhibited in your incorrect assertion that 2015 Jerusalem bus attack "coverage spans from October 2015 to September 2016. Nothing since." despite the fact that there was a 2018 article on the page when you wrote that comment. and, of course, you could have searches, and at the top of your search you would have found a Law360 article from earlier this week, Facebook Defeats Appeal Claiming It Aided Hamas Attacks. I, however, recognize that you are not required to improve the articles you discuss. Any more than I am required to go searching articles for a valid reference to add to a page that, in my opinion, clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:CRIME and WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE and should, therefore, be deleted.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:28, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You mean the MFA memorial site? Yeah, thats not a reliable source, sorry. Oh, sorry maybe the ToI piece that once mentions one of the victims in an article about his son. Perhaps I should have made it clear that I was referring to reliable sources about the article in question, not those tangential articles that editors are known to use to feign actual coverage. Bad faith is removing a source you know is reliable and you know disproves claims you are making because of a dead link. I think thats really quite enough on that topic though, and I dont plan on responding to repeated badgering from you about my !vote. nableezy - 18:42, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. I meant the article by David Horovitz: The relegitimizer: A terror victim’s son partners with government to combat BDS; His father was killed on a bus in 2015. "has become a dedicated anti-terrorism activist since the killing of his father — pressing Facebook to prevent the abuse of its platform for the incitement of terrorism, challenging international hypocrisy and inaction in the face of Palestinian terrorism, and, most significantly, now pouring his considerable energies into “Concert” as its volunteer chairman." It shows WP:LASTING, which the EVENT we are discussing here lacks.E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, thats the ToI piece that once mentions one of the victims in an article about his son. Thats the those tangential articles that editors are known to use to feign actual coverage. But again, please stop badgering me, Im not exactly fond of your favorite pastime of disrupting AfDs. nableezy - 20:47, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this page is an Wikipedia:Orphan, an indication of lack of notabililty.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:32, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Whoa I ran Nableezy's assertion that "in Arabic, sources show coverage in July 2019" source through gTranslate and it is press release datelined: "Palestinian Foreign Ministry, Ramallah." A government press release is not WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:08, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, thats the location, not the author. And the other Arabic piece is from al-Arabiyya. nableezy - 16:23, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Here's the thing, you are arguing WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, even though this reads like a Foreign Ministry press release, not least because the page is topped with a colorful official seal that reads: State of Palestine - Ministry of Foreign Affairs". The gTranslate text reads : "The Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Emigrants on Sunday called on the International Criminal Court (ICC) to quickly prosecute Israel for the killing of 22-year-old Mohammed Hossam Habali, and to open a serious investigation into the ongoing crimes of occupation against Palestinians. In a statement, the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned the heinous field execution committed by the Israeli occupation soldiers deliberately against Al-Habali during the storming of Tulkarm at dawn today. The martyr Mohammed al-Habali is a person with disabilities. The ministry considered that the crime is a horrible indictment for the brow of mankind." Not WP:SIGCOV. A rehashed press release posted on Radio Sawa. But can you explain why it reads "the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Expatriates condemned the... committed by the Israeli occupation soldiers deliberately against Al-Habali during the storming of Tulkarm at dawn today." I ask because it looks like the press release was released in December 2014, when the death occurred.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um, here's the thing, a Foreign Ministry doesnt usually refer to itself in the third person. And beyond that, continued coverage is demonstrated by, hello, the Associated Press on July 22 2019 or al-Arabiyya in July 2019, in addition to that source. You can keep pretending those sources dont exist, you can even try to keep coming up with nonsense reasons to excise it from the article. It does however exist, it is cited in the article, and it shows that even internationally this continues to receive coverage. nableezy - 17:06, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

As far as dawn today, result of one language being ambiguous in its phrasing and translating to another language that is not. That line would be better translated as at fajr (dawn) that day. nableezy - 17:11, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Churnalism.

I'm not ignoring them. I'm arguing that sources found fail WP:NEWSEVENT, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, WP:DIVERSE, and WP:EFFECT. A man was killed. There have been calls for an investigation, and, then, an assertion not widely covered that the investigation was not thorough enough, all of which is WP:MILL. There has not been WP:LASTING impact. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:44, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

A US based wire service running an article detailing that lack of investigation on this some 8 months later is not diverse or continued lol. Sure buddy, whatever you say. Run of the mill when soldiers shoot a mentally handicapped person in the back of the head on a quiet street, apparently unprovoked. Run of the mill when a human rights organization finds and releases video footage of that, directly contradicting the military's earlier assertions. It is so run of the mill that from Saudi Arabia to Qatar to the United States news sources are still running stories about. Yeah, it is very obviously run of the mill. nableezy - 20:46, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There was a minor flurry of coverage when the event happened, and, 7 months later, a brief revisit that produced no certainty about what happened, a very slender thread on which to argue for CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. I am also concerned that all sources are about an accusaion that this death during a tense security operation was a criminal act because evidence is lacking and the investigation inconclusive. What we have is an article about an unsubstantiated accusation. And ZERO indication of WP:LASTING impact. E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:37, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

And he makes that argument while creating 2019 California stabbing rampage. It is breathtaking to watch tbh. nableezy - 16:21, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure buddy, your concern about a "tense security operation" is flatly rejected by the reliable sources in the article. Your wish that we only cover Palestinian violence is interesting but not relevant to our efforts to build an encyclopedia. Kindly stop disrupting the AfD with your unsourced babblings. Thank you in advance. nableezy - 15:29, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE, other than a scant 160 words in an AP piece (out of around 1,500 on other subjects) - which fails WP:INDEPTH. Icewhiz (talk) 15:38, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Did you miss the al-Arabiyya story? Or did you not read the entirety of the AP piece? As it goes back to Habali, repeatedly, and the subject of the story is the lack of any progress in the so-called investigations by the Israelis in, hello, Habali (and others) cases. nableezy - 15:59, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All coins have two sided, and, yes, I expect that Icewhiz saw Al Aribiya, an inconclusive series of video clips demanding that what Al Arabiya believes to be true must be proven, very like the POV AP story filed from Gaza. The other side of the coin is that Israel has investigated, and also found nothing dispositive. But take a step back and it becomes clear that this story with its brief news cycle, so little CONTINUED, and no LASTING, fails WP:SIGCOV.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:26, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The POV AP story? Oh for the love of anything you hold holy please stop babbling nonsense. You have nothing else to offer here, you can stop responding to my !vote now. nableezy - 16:48, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note - E.M.Gregory has been blocked for abusing multiple accounts. The closer can take that information for what it is worth. nableezy - 01:44, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Incident has received significant sustained international coverage in reliable sources.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:12, 9 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:41, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alwina (Mulawin)[edit]

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

Non-notable fantasy character, not to mention that there is no mention of the character's real-world background and cultural impact in order to establish its notability. I don't mind its inclusion as a separate article in Wikipedia, but unless OP provides anything to back up its notability, the deletion request still remains. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:04, 1 August 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 Encantadia. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ybarro[edit]

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

Non-notable fantasy character, not to mention that there is no mention of the character's real-world background and cultural impact in order to establish its notability. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:02, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Encantadia. --Jojit (talk) 07:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per WP:CHEAP. There's no evidence he's a major character. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encantadia. There does not appear to be enough coverage for an independent article, but it is a viable search term so I believe a redirect would be helpful for anyone interested in looking up this particular character. Aoba47 (talk) 02:26, 3 August 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 Ellipsis (narrative device). RL0919 (talk) 16:42, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Timeskip[edit]

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

This article has been PRODded 3 times, so I have procedurally brought this article to AfD. To quote the three PROD nominations:

We are not TV Tropes.
— User:Don Cuan 17:08, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Per WP:NOTDIC. Does not meet WP:GNG; no RS found in Google, Books, News Archive or Scholar searches.
— User:Miniapolis 18:19, 23 December 2017 (UTC)

Has had warning regarding sources for 12 years
— User:114.156.131.245 22:27, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Pinging all @Don Cuan, Miniapolis, and 114.156.131.245. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 06:10, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDICT. No sources for 12 years, and three PRODs (I thought 1 was the limit...). Most of the article consisted of an inappropriate and WP:UNDUE list of examples, basically all WP:OR and uncitable (maybe in some people's minds, a lot of bluelinks seem almost like evidence: nope), so I've removed it. I've had a check for available sources, and to be frank there aren't any that are usable, so (even if it wasn't a DICDEF) it's simply Not Notable. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Soft redirect to Wiktionary. Other than that, I agree with Chiswick Chap. Don Cuan (talk) 08:14, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDICT. Mccapra (talk) 10:26, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not TVTropes._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per WP:NOTDIC.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- This seems to have got lost on its way to TVTropes. Reyk _YO! 12:18, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
It may seem like original research because it's a name plucked from thin air by a Wikipedia editor 12 years ago, never fixed, and written in the cargo cult style. In the terminology of narratology, this type of anachrony is named ellipsis, and goes alongside prolepsis and analepsis. We actually had an article under the correct name half a year before this article was created. I notice that this slang name turns up in (inexpert) books now (e.g. ISBN 9781943149025 p.8). A prophylactic redirect to ellipsis (narrative device) seems the best answer, to redirect people who use this slang name to the correct name for the concept. Uncle G (talk) 14:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I agree with Uncle G, this article is essentially describing an ellipsis (narrative device), and the name should be redirected to that article. BluePankow ✉ 14:54, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ellipsis (narrative device) per Uncle G. In addition to all of the sourcing problems in this particular article, it is, as pointed out, merely a slang term for a narrative device that already has a proper article. Redirecting the slang to the proper article makes the most sense. As there is no referenced material here worth preserving, a merge is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 15:22, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ellipsis (narrative device), for which it is a colloquial term. XOR'easter (talk) 16:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. It is pretty clear that this article is not suited for Wikipedia (, but the case above for redirection to ellipsis (narrative device) is strong as it is possible someone could use timeskip as a search term. Dunarc (talk) 19:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Uncle G, and thanks for teaching me something today! Argento Surfer (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per the above discussion. Aoba47 (talk) 23:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Uncle G. That hadn’t occurred to me and if ‘timeskip’ is a likely search term this is the best outcome. Mccapra (talk) 20:19, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The Really Nasty Horse Racing Game[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this board game per WP:N. SL93 (talk) 04:04, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:33, 1 August 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) 09:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Red Giant (software company)[edit]

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

No significant coverage. Everything is sourced to its website. Fails WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 03:59, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:34, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:35, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - all of the other sources I can find are product announcements and PR in the industry press. Nothing substantial and independent. Hug^syrup 12:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hugsyrup. Even the publications at trusted sources like this Animation Magazine article look like press-releases. --Gprscrippers (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looks very promotional, and no secondary sources. Nixinova T C 22:39, 4 August 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. For a detailed explanation of the assessment of keep !votes, please read User talk:Lourdes. Post relisting, the only Keep !vote editor claims they heard the group on a show; and therefore the same should be kept. Again, nothing based on policy or notability guidelines. If any editor has an issue with the closure, they can contact me on my talk page. Thanks. Lourdes 08:19, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

JK! Studios[edit]

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

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

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Sources are not enough to show this company passes WP:NORG or WP:GNG or WP:WEBCRIT. Article speedied already once and prodded and deprodded. The sources include a puff piece of mostly interviews. It is difficult to know if this article is about the youtube production company or the group of comedians. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:57, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:10, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - While several of the sources do include interview snippets, they are from reliable sources. But I do agree that the article itself is not written very well, If someone were to edit it I would change my vote to "Keep". ---GingeBro (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:53, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note, quality isn't a reason for deletion unless it gets to the point where TNT is required. The real question here is whether the topic is notable. --Slashme (talk) 08:20, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't agree more. I never nominate for reasons linked to the quality of an article...a lot are so poorly written that it makes my eyes bleed just looking at them! Dom from Paris (talk) 09:53, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, per nom. Some sources reliable but snippets do not establish notability. WP:SIGCOV lists "significant coverage (which) addresses the topic directly and in detail," as a requirement. Ifnord (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I agree with all above points, but the notability may change given their recent activities (e.g. competing on Bring the Funny) that may lead to more significant coverage. I think the article, if kept, definitely requires cleanup, which can be added to the task list of Wikipedia's cleanup task force. However, should the article be deleted and more significant coverage emerges in the future, the article could be restored then. Rosalina2427 ^{(talk to me)} 03:30, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Your comment that "the notability may change given their recent activities" indicates that you are currently of the opinion that it is not notability but that you hope they will become notable in the future. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:03, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Just Chilling (talk) 18:59, 24 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I would contend that they have achieved notability, likely more than many in the List_of_YouTubers. Their members have appeared on various shows including Bring_the_Funny and Conan_(talk_show). They are all 10 original cast members of Studio_C having almost 2 billion YouTube views and collaborations with various other YouTube stars. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4898:80E8:2:40E2:667E:4E1D:BD4C (talk) 23:35, 24 July 2019 (UTC) — 2001:4898:80E8:2:40E2:667E:4E1D:BD4C (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep for reasons in the immediately preceding post. Meets WP:GNG and WP:Sigcov. No compliance with WP:Before, which sets forth a series of hurdles before a WP:Prod is filed. A quick search of the sources (listed at the top of this AFD) shows no compliance with WP:Before. While sourcing can be improved WP:NEXIST. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Creating a show that gains 2 billion YouTube views is impressive and the group is doing numerous other projects. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8801:1f05:da00:a8:c457:25fd:dfb7 (talk • contribs) — 2600:8801:1f05:da00:a8:c457:25fd:dfb7 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Their most popular video has 866 thousand views. [18] Dream Focus 21:23, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Deseret News [19] is a reliable source giving them significant coverage. [20] and the two Herald Extra articles, among others give ample coverage. Note the two IP addresses that made one edit ever, that being the KEEP statements in this AFD, you probably work for these guys so please ask around the office and see if you got coverage outside of Utah. Dream Focus 21:36, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes our general notability guide. Coverage exists WP:NEXIST. Doing a WP:BEFORE should have discovered the sources to show notability. Lightburst (talk) 22:40, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First of all, this topic is being examined under WP:NCORP since it is an organization. It would be impressive for any organization (founded in 2019 according to the website to meet the criteria for notability which requires at least two different sources providing significant (WP:SIGCOV) in-depth (WP:CORPDEPTH) coverage containing independent content (WP:ORGIND). Many of the Keep !voters above have stated that such coverage exists (which is not enough to meet the criteria for establishing notability) or that there is "ample coverage" (again, not one of the criteria for notability) but in my opinion, have no clue as to the rest of the criteria including the guidelines for independent content as per WP:ORGIND. Rather than stating the nom should have complied with WP:BEFORE, my advice would be for those very same editors to take a good long read of WP:NCORP and especially WP:ORGIND. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. An evaluation of the sources contained in the article and mentioned above are as follows:
- NBCUniveral reference is a mention-in-passing in the "Sketch Act Division" and contains no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV.
- The various YouTube references fail as they are not regarded as reliable sources
- The Deseret News reference (also mentioned by Dream Focus above) is based on an interview with Matt Meese and Stacey Harkey and contains no Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.
- The Salt Lake Tribune reference is also based on an interview, this time with Stacey Harkey and Whitney Call and contains no Independent Content and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. It also contains no in-depth information on the company and fails WP:CORPDEPTH.
- The second Deseret News reference is also based on an interview, this time with Natalie Madsen, Mallory Everton, Whitney Call and Stacey Harkey (and Michael Dunn, BYUtv's Managing Director). It mentions the company name in passing but contains no significant or in-depth information on the company, failing WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH. There is also no independent content on the company (clearly all information has been provided by the company or people connected with the company), failing WP:ORGIND. There is a review of the Loving Lyfe series but this is not coverage on the company but on one of their products.
- The BYU Magazine reference doesn't even mention the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- The KUTV reference is a review of one of the sketchs and contains no information whatsoever on the company, failing WP:CORPDEPTH

In summary, I am unable to locate a single source that meets the criteria for establishing the notability of the company. Sure, some of their sketches are very popular and perhaps there's a really good argument for an article on the Series as opposed to the Company, but company fails GNG and WP:NCORP. I would ask any of the Keep !voters above to provide links below this comment (and stating reasons) to any references that they believe meet the criteria for notability of the company so that we can examine them and I'm very happy to change my mind if any can be found. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

An excellent review of the sources, and one that should be taken very seriously by the closing admin! --Slashme (talk) 08:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@HighKing: thank you for taking the time to write what I should have explained myself. This was exactly what I meant when I said it is difficult to know if we should be considering this as a WP:NCORP discussion. --Dom from Paris (talk) 14:23, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The applicable policy is more likely the policy that covers actors, artists and other entertainers WP:creative and or WP:ENT is applicable: and this troupe: Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. In any event reasonable people can disagree. The HighKing votes to delete at AfDs 89.2% of the time. WP:NCORP: Simply stated, an organization is a group of more than one person formed together for a purpose. This includes commercial and non-commercial activities, such as charitable organizations, political parties, hospitals, institutions, interest groups, social clubs, companies, partnerships, proprietorships, for-profit educational institutions or organizations, etc. NCORP is the wrong policy for entertainers IMO. Per NCORP: If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline. For example bands are covered by WP:MUSIC.Lightburst (talk) 14:36, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You should not be using High King's afd stats as a means of discounting his !vote as per WP:ADHOM but seeing as you insist please note that they are "Without considering "No Consensus" results, 94.4% of AfD's were matches and 5.6% of AfD's were not." Which shows that they master the criteria especially when you consider they have !voted in 1883 discussions and left 14 comments without voting. You might want to compare your stats to his, you have participated in 350 discussions of which 278 there was no discernable !vote so he has voted in more than 26 times more discussions and has a 94% record...I shan't give your voting stats because it is a pointless exercise as I think I have just proved. What is important is the quality of the !votes and please remember the advice for participating "Always try to make clear, solid arguments in deletion discussions, Avoid short one-liners or simple links (including to this page)" Simply stating that an article passes the criteria does not help. And whilst we're at the WP:ADHOM bit it states "As well, be very careful about flinging around accusations of a nominator's or commenter's perceived failure to follow WP:BEFORE. Not everybody has access to the same research tools, so the fact that you were able to access a database that provided more coverage than somebody else found in other databases is not, in and of itself, proof that the other editor was negligent in their duties. If you can salvage the article, then just salvage it and don't attack other editors for not finding what you found." And I would also point out that you have added no sources here or on the page. --Dom from Paris (talk) 15:38, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Good analysis and nice to know I vote with the consensus 94.4% of the time! HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a changed user name, so I voted in many more under my previous name. But lets keep it to the AfD. I added two sources a while ago, and reverted some IP potential vandalism.One, Two.

Couldn't agree more, let's avoid the ad hom. I just looked at the 2 sources you added and one is a passing mention in a very short piece in a student publication with no byline and the other is a credit in an affiliated source. I do not think they help to meet the NCORP criteria. If we consider that this is not a production company but a youtube channel then we should use WP:WEBCRIT and I believe that the sources do not show it meets the criteria. There are too many WP:INTERVIEWS and affiliated sources to meet the 1st criteria and they have not won an award yet so fail the 2nd criteria. So still NN for me. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Reasonable editors can disagree. I added two sources to contribute to the article. Note: Actors and artists are known by their work, and by their audience and their reception. Just because there is not RS to show the artists in rehab, or getting arrested, it makes their work no less notable. The troupe passes WP:ENT and that seems clear enough. Also to your points about the web, and Youtube, they seem to have gone beyond Youtube: now on Network television - adding to their notability. I will bow out now to avoid WP:BLUDGEON Lightburst (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Actors and artists are individuals. And while a band or a singer is covered by WP:MUSIC, a record producer or publisher is not - they're covered by WP:NCORP. Also, you may describe these people as a "troupe" but in reality, that only recognises the artists in front of the camera. What about Stephen Walter, the CEO? I don't think troupes even have a CEO, or bands? Clearly this belongs under WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

By your estimation those with management must pass NCORP criteria. Bands, actors, artists all have management, agents, roadies, staff, executive assistants, drivers, camera people, web site developers, social media personell etc. Even if what you say is true that this is an NCORP situation, we can determine notability based on criteria set out on the NCORP guidelines. The actual policy states: If another subject-specific notability guideline applies to a group, it may be notable by passing either this or the more specific guideline." It is a stretch to say they we are only allowed to use NCORP: but it is not a stretch to say they are entertainers. In fact it is logical. Lightburst (talk) 19:07, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, I find myself in agreement with HighKing and Dom from Paris; ~~a majority~~ *several* of the references (of those that mention JK!) refer to it as a company, venture or business, and even the first sentence of the lead paragraph within the entry describes it this way. So it would seem to me that NCORP is the more specific criteria, and as such, it is the criteria we must apply. Interestingly, I did find notability criteria proposed for comedy-related subjects, alas it was abandoned in 2007 due to lack of support. Pegnawl (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pegnawl The reference for that sentence in this article, calls them a "troupe". Some WP editor wrote that language "company" in the opening sentence. In any event we wouldn't make the rock group Metalica meet WP:NCORP - we would use the :subject specific notability guideline. WP:MUSIC. We wouldn't judge Penn and Teller by WP:NCORP we would likely use WP:ENT. Even large groups of athletes or sports teams like the Green Bay Packers would be judged by the subject specific WP:NTEAM ....even though the Packers have a corporate structure and a CEO, a President, shareholders, etc. So it is NCORP or "subject specific" Lightburst (talk) 21:31, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Understood, but JK! isn't a musical act, nor a BLP about an entertainer or entertainers, nor a sports team. Because there is no comedy-group specific subject guidance, that leads me to believe that we stick with NCORP, the most specific category that can be used at present.

That said, I'm going to walk back my comment that a majority of refs call it a company; it's more of a mixed bag than that. Because I've now done the legwork, I'll leave this here in case it helps others come to a determination:

Publisher / Title: Qualifier(s) used
Deseret News / Original 'Studio C' cast members...: Comedy Network, Project
SLTRib / 'Former BYUtv ‘Studio C’ cast...': Troupe, Company (granted in this instance, 'company' might be used in the more Shakespearean sense)
Deseret News / Life after 'Studio C'...: Venture, Startup, comedy-focused media company
BYU Magazine / Last Laughs: online network
KUTV / JK! Studios impresses...: Group
Herald Extra / JK! Studios sketch wins ...: Comedy group

Given the above, and the content they purport to serve across various channels, I'm leaning towards media company/network and therefore still NCORP (but not strongly enough to cast a !vote quite yet). Pegnawl (talk) 23:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good points both. My 2c = unless there are guidelines for specific topics (like bands, sports teams, etc) which are special types of organizations, the default is WP:NCORP. It isn't a perfect system - there has been a lot of debate here in relation to a requirement for specific guidelines for specialist record publishers or specialist book publishers. I believe there is also a case to be made for entertainers on social media or streaming channels although it doesn't get around the problem of deciding the criteria for notability. The best we have right now is to find (at least) two references from reliable independent publishers that contains Independent Content which is in-depth. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing: Thanks for those comments. I think this was a healthy debate and you provided a sober and rational assessment. Lightburst (talk) 15:34, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would have gone ahead and deleted the article given the evident consensus, but just on the side of caution as someone might find a couple of reliable sources (as suggested by multiple editors), relisting this
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lourdes 03:29, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Whether they are writing about them, or doing interviews with them, its significant coverage either way. The news source felt them notable enough to take the time to interview, not just write something about. Dream Focus 14:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The !vote here currently is 5 6 Keeps and 53 Deletes. This is not even close to a "Delete" WP:consensus. I recognize it isn't just 'voting" but the voices of those who visit this page and express their opinions means something, unless it is just supposed to be the closer's whim. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:25, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There's a reason why it isn't a simple !vote count and why the closer reads the discussion. It is to place appropriate weight on the arguments and especially with an eye on those arguments that are grounded in our policies and guidelines as opposed to more simplistic "agree with op" type !votes. For example, we have two Keep !votes from anon IPv6 addresses which fail to identify any reasons which are based/grounded in our policies and guidelines. We have another "Weak Keep" !voter who says that they agree with all of the above (reasons to delete) but basically says "lets give this a chance" because "notability may change" - again, no grounding whatsoever in any of our policies/guidelines. Your own !vote provides as a reason an agreement with one of the anon IPv6 !votes based on have lots of YouTube views - which also isn't grounded in any of our policies/guidelines (and in fact is specifically stated as *not* being a reason for Keep) as well as providing a google search list of mentions (again, specifically stated as not a reason to Keep in the guidelines). The only real engagement was from Lightburst who I believe understands what is required and has providing some reasoning for why WP:NCORP may/should not be the guidelines applicable to this topic but appears to accept that NCORP is the applicable guidelines and appears to be unable to provide any sources that meet the criteria for notability.

So by a count of arguments based on policy/guidelines, I'd say there's a clear consensus to delete as they're the only !votes that have provided any arguments based on our actual policies and guidelines rather than pulling reasons our of thin air which amount to no more than "but I like it" or "that's my opinion". HighKing⁺⁺ 20:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The “clear consensus” for deletion is clearly biased against this group for some reason. My reason is not based on thin air per prior argument but is rather based on my actual experience as a wiki user (with very limited editing experience) who found this site when looking up JK Studios on Wikipedia; I was surprised to see the potential deletion note which has led me to this page. I had heard of this group via the NBC show, and my kids who know them from YouTube. Deleting this page would be a disservice to the credibility and reliability of this site. Please keep. Thank you. Elocone07 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elocone07 (talk • contribs) 22:09, August 2, 2019 (UTC) Elocone07 (talk) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. ...hi this is Elocone07...going to defend myself against the passive aggressive attack on my credibility ...I’ve used Wikipedia since it’s inception and to your point I’ve made few edits as I represent the POV of a reader, not a editor. On that note I as a reader would be very disappointed if this were deleted. Per my keep vote I came to Wikipedia looking for info on this comedy group, which I found; I only chimed in because the possible deletion note on the top of the page encouraged me to do so. It would be foolish to ignore the POV of users like me simply because I am not an elite editor who likes to police the site and delete helpful articles by others. (Elocone07)
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:46, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: There is definitely WP:NOCONSENSUS. The arguments are logical on both sides - I think more logical in my interpretation. High King made an argument for calling this comedy group a corporation, and I made an argument to say they are entertainers WP:ENT. I think if we polled the ivoters 6 would agree with me and the WP:ENT rationale and 3 or 4 would agree with the High King and the WP:NCORP rational. That is a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS and if anything, leaning Keep. I went to the relister's page to question the relisting comments, and I got a very condescending response. I only hope that a different uninvolved admin closes with a fair reading of this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 00:29, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment – I am sorry if my response sounded condescending. I was pointing out to your apparent lack of understanding of our reliable sources/verifiability guideline/policy and misunderstanding of what consensus means. I listed out exactly why none of the keeps were worth consideration. While you may continue believing that consensus is equivalent to voting, it is actually not. If you find even two reliable, independent non-primary sources that have covered the subject significantly (please don't include interviews or press releases; read WP:RS), there's no number of delete !voters who would be able to get the article deleted.... And vice versa. On your other query, there's no hard and fast rule on my closing this AfD; any other admin can too. Or I will, if I reach here first, when the re-listing period is over. Thanks, Lourdes 07:18, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Evidently, you don't understand WP:RS. We will have to agree to disagree. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:31, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

User:Lourdes That is not correct. WP:CLOSEAFD The AfD needs to be closed by an uninvolved admin or editor. And I think I had excellent arguments that you have summarily dismissed: even the High King acknowledged the validity of the arguments, and I acknowledged the High King's argument as well. This is a clear WP:NOCONSENSUS so far. Lightburst (talk) 19:57, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Administrative comment – Sure Lightburst. Any uninvolved admin including I can close this AfD. My reply to you above is an administrative comment; and so is this. For your benefit, I have marked them so. Thanks, Lourdes 00:28, 5 August 2019 (UTC))[reply]

I am saddened by your display of power - it does not benefit the project. Retroactively marking your very involved comments to pretend you are not involved is not appropriate. I am out of this AfD now. Lightburst (talk) 03:47, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clear up your misunderstanding. An uninvolved admin is one that has not edited the article or !voted in the discussion. Lourdes did neither. They simply analysed the discussion and the different !votes and explained their analysis and despite the result they gave the discussion a bit more time. If anyone should complain it is certainly not the keep !voters. You tried to get them involved by complaining on their talk page but this doesn't make them involved. Just because someone doesn't agree with your arguments that you consider excellent (we shall agree to disagree on that point) doesn't make them involved either. From what I can gather an "uninvolved admin" is one that agrees with you? It just doesn't work like that.Dom from Paris (talk) 06:21, 5 August 2019 (UTC) p.s. To further understand what uninvolved means please read WP:UNINVOLVED. Dom from Paris (talk) 06:39, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the summary provided by Lightburst above. I agree that there was an attempt to examine this topic under a different set of guidelines than WP:NCORP but a suitable set of guidelines could not be found. I agree WP:ENT is applicable for a comedy troupe but I disagree that "JK! Studios" is a comedy troupe - it is a media production company. It is incorporated and has a CEO and President named Stephen Walter. One of the founders (who is not one of the comedians), Alex Madsen, describes it as a "media company".

I also don't see any point in conducting a poll on this page - either we have guidelines that we apply consistently or the alternative is that every topic will have a poll that becomes nothing more than a popularity contest.

I agree with the summary provided by Lourdes on their Talk page and above but I feel I have to voice my opinion on some of the commentary on this page. I am dismayed at the lack of understanding demonstrated by editors on this page on how this community decides which guideline(s) to apply, which policies/guidelines are applicable for particular topics, how to respond at AfD pages, how a closing admin weighs up the various points of view, etc. But I am most dismayed at the ad hominen commentary. Nobody here that has !voted to Delete has any particular axe to grind with this topic and yet various Keep !voters have taken potshots at various editors who have voiced an opposing view. Please stop.

The point made in relation WP:RS should be read in conjunction with the guidelines on which sources/references meet the criteria for establishing notability (e.g. WP:ORGIND). In summary, there's a difference between how we treat RS depending on the context of use. While RS (even RS that includes interviews/quotations or based on press releases) can be used to support an assertion or facts within an article, these RS may not be used to establish notability. Editors here who participate regularly at AfD and who are familiar with the various applicable policies/guidelines will have seen this point raised many times previously. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You choose to ignore the many sources, a number of which were added after theinital WP:PROD. Thiere is an evidencet violation of WP:BEFOREand a disergard of WP:NEXISTT. You apparently believe that Ipse dixit gives you a Liberum veto over the existenced of articles. You seem think that your voice outweighs consensus on this page. There is nothing more to discuss. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:09, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

More ad hominen comments... Tell you what - why don't you post a link here to any two references (or the two best ones) you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? I'll provide an analysis using policies/guidelines and that way you can be 100% sure that nothing is being ignored. The only advice I will freely give you (and those other Delete !voters) is to be absolutely sure you have read and understood WP:NCORP, especially the sections on WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:39, 4 August 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:18, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of emigrants from Upstate New York[edit]

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

Pretty clear WP:LISTCRUFT GPL93 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:17, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is one weird set of criteria. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:43, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, it's very unusual to call someone moving from one American state to another an "emigrant". Clarityfiend (talk) 07:36, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Some of them didn't even leave the state, they just moved to New York City. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment We have long agreed that Upstate New York is a notable region, and the same editor seems to have created or significantly developed a series of list articles including List of physicians and scientists of Upstate New York, List of political figures of Upstate New York and List of educators and librarians of Upstate New York. I imagine that most regions in the world won't ever have list articles like these, but I'm not sure that's really a deletion reason. We have lists of bluelinked (i.e. notable) people connected with a notable region, so other than just being odd, what's wrong with it? Mccapra (talk) 10:44, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not aware of any other "List of emigrants", this is purely listcruft especially owing to the significant fraction of biographies in general that do not live where they were born. Delete or merge the other lists too; List of people from New York (state) will always be massive even if limited to upstate. Reywas92^Talk 21:20, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - mildly interesting, but not a proper list as we have come to determine. Bearian (talk)
Delete - weird criteria and not written in an encyclopedic tone at all. Nixinova T C 22:42, 4 August 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:16, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Dinero[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria of WP:GNG or WP:NMUSIC. Sources cited are merely places to download or stream music. Google search brings up about 100 results, mostly of the same type. Article is also written in a promotional manner. ... discospinster _talk 01:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:46, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charitably, it is too soon for an article on this rapper. His side project FREEWIFI has gotten a few media mentions, and as an individual he has been listed briefly in a few reliable articles about SXSW and his local scene. Unfortunately there is not enough specifically about him and his music beyond brief mentions, and all else found is the typical streaming and social media stuff. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:50, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There are a lot of reliable sources that mention Daddy Dinero and FREEWIFI. Also, FREEWIFI is a popular Hip Hop group in Minnesota. The article has been edited and sourced with more credible articles. Spotifeyed (talk) 16:03, 1 August 2019 (UTC)— Spotifeyed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete Per WP:TOOSOON. Source deficiencies noted so far are spot on, including “coverage” in sources of the like of upcominghiphop.net (just to pluck one out of the batch) that are not reliable, per this [21] on how to use their site "so that you look professional on line". FWIW, musician appearances at South by Southwest is not the significant thing it was perhaps 10 or more years ago. These days it is a sprawling, region-wide event with hundreds—if not thousands—of musicians (among others), and unless you are an invited featured guest, coverage at such is less significant towards notability and more towards WP:ROUTINE. It’s the notability equivalent of being an exhibitor at a trade show. A redirect to FREEWIFI might be appropriate, but no such article yet exits, providing it, too, can pass notability criteria beyond the sorts here. ShelbyMarion (talk) 19:27, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@ShelbyMarion: Thank you for the clarification to help me improve this article. So by creating an article about "FREEWIFI" and redirecting it back to the members "Daddy Dinero" and "J. Plaza" Wikipedia articles, it would improve the credibility of the current "Daddy Dinero" article? (Similar to the Migos and members Quavo, Offset (rapper), and Takeoff (rapper)) Spotifeyed (talk) 21:28, 1 August 2019 (UTC)— Spotifeyed (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Actually, what I mean is that an article on FREEWIFI, providing it has good references, would probably suffice as the proper place on Wikipedia for both its members if it turns out that neither Daddy Dinero or J.Plaza can be proven to have stand alone notability. As it is right now, this article, Daddy Dinero, is coming up short unless better sources can be produced. Good luck, and maybe it's just a matter of this artists career growing a bit more for such sources to materialize. That's what is meant by WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 23:47, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a startling lack of unreliable sources here. Trillfendi (talk) 00:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Good example showing that just because an article has a lot of sources, doesn't mean it's well-sourced. At best, too soon. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 00:28, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:54, 6 August 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:12, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Varolii[edit]

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

Article lacks reliable independent sourcing and I’ve not been able to find any to improve it. Does not pass WP:ORGCRIT. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC) Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The acquisition itself is notable, however I also failed to find any source in respect to other aspects of the company. Viztor (talk) 05:59, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:42, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:49, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 08:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability - most are based on company announcements or quotations/interviews, fails WP:ORGIND. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP HighKing⁺⁺ 12:07, 6 August 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. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:11, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Inkerpor[edit]

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

Non-notable, google search doesn't turns out any significant news sources, clearly fails general notability. Meeanaya (talk) 05:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree that it is non-notable. It has a local singificance. That company took over the factory, workforce and brand dating back from 1953.^[1] In 2010. Croatian Museum of Arts and Crafts even held the exhibition called "Sjaj i bijeda Jugokeramike" (Gloss and Misery of Jugokeramika)^[2] dedicated to products manufactured there during the socialist Yugoslavia. The factory used to employ several thousand people during that period and it was a first major factory opened in Zaprešić after World War II. Its products can be found all over the world (as the Net.hr article says, they export products to: Italy, Germany, Austria, USA, Canada, Great Britain, Australia etc.). Their web page also says that they are nowadays: "the only Croatian manufacturer of high temperature porcelain tableware."^[3]. In order to understand the significance, I would say that one needs to know the local historical context. Franjo Tahy (talk) 20:31, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "U dvije godine od četvero do 200 zaposlenih".
^ "Sjaj i bijeda Jugokeramike". {{cite web}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help)
^ "Company".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 08:49, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:40, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure what the criteria regarding this situation are, but Inkerpor appears to be the successor to Inker and Jugokeramika, which were definitely notable companies. Daß Wölf 03:04, 1 August 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 Ed Mangano. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:10, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tax Revolt Party[edit]

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

Dead political party that never elected any candidates to any office. Does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 12:52, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:11, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ed Mangano. A good deal of coverage over several years in the regional press Newsday [22] and other papers, I added some New York Times coverage to the page. ThinkProgress : Long Island Tax Cut Debacle A ‘Black Eye For The Tea Party’. This Party did get Magnano elected. And then there was a legal case. E.M.Gregory (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:29, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Merging might be the best choice. I don't see any other independent notability. Trillfendi (talk) 22:24, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. -- Scott Burley (talk) 02:07, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahimsa Wickrematunge[edit]

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

Daughter of an assassinated politician who filed a lawsuit about that assassination. No claim of notability, nor coverage of her apart from her father's death. power~enwiki (π, ν) 16:24, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Been following this person closely and the case filed has become very high profile Dhananjaya82 (talk) 08:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:19, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, at this stage it appears that this is a case of WP:ONEEVENT, recognising notability is not inherited. Dan arndt (talk) 11:05, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't see anything in English that suffices to demonstrate notability, but would like to hear from someone who reads Sinhala in case there are sources I can't see/understand.

Mccapra (talk) 11:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Been following this case and person closely for a while and it’s very high profile here in Sri Lanka.

You need to provide verifiable evidence that is the case.Dan arndt (talk) 04:52, 5 August 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.

[1] "U dvije godine od četvero do 200 zaposlenih".

[2] "Sjaj i bijeda Jugokeramike". {{cite web}}: |first1= missing |last1= (help)

[3] "Company".

[1]

[2]

[3]