Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 July 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 July	27 July >

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. Per the evidence of notability provided therein Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Tippett[edit]

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

Non-notable actor. Most significant role is 6th billed on a 10 episode series. No indication of GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 21:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actors are known for their work, and this one has had significant roles in television, and on Broadway. WP:NACTOR - Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. WP:RS exists in the Los Angeles Times. Coverage also in People magazine for his personal life. Other Ref Deadline, NBC and New York Times subject meets requirements for WP:NACTOR. I added references to the article. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:44, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Not a star, but certainly notable enough. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:09, 31 July 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. — CactusWriter ^(talk) 19:01, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tobiloba[edit]

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

Non-notable Romanian musician. Fails WP:NMG. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:29, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non notable musician Ceethekreator (talk) 17:03, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notable musician. Kojomo (talk) 14:32, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per nom. Non notable musicdian. Nikoo.Amini (talk) 18:40, 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) 09:29, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Zara Akbar[edit]

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

Non-notable Pakistani actress. Fails WP:BIO. Bbarmadillo (talk) 21:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only independent, reliable sources do not mention the subject in more than a passing manner. The sources about her specifically are not enough to meet WP:GNG. A website that says "she is pretty and attractive" does not work as an independent (or serious) source. Jmertel23 (talk) 23:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 29 July 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. Redirects can be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:28, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G.B.S.S.S. No.3, Palam Enclave[edit]

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

Article appears to have been written from personal knowledge of the subject. Reliable sources to verify material in the article are lacking. Fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

delete the school fails WP:ORG, as well as WP:GNG. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:33, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this school fails WP:ORG and WP:Notability. --Harshil169 (talk) 03:19, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Palam#Education. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:24, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass WP:GNG Alex-h (talk) 09:55, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 19:49, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Harrington[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a repository for plot information. That's what most of this article is. The subject does not appear to meet WP:GNG and this would be better contained on List of Stranger Things characters without so much plot bloat. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources in the article. Docor726 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)— Docor726 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are already sources that assert notability of the character in the Reception section, but I would say that's only a few of them that are out there. Google news gives 8,500 some hits, but I would venture to say a tiny fraction of them are usable - say 1% but that's still 80 usable sources. Fair enough concerns about plot summary overwhelming the reception but that's fixable by triming down. --Masem (t) 19:38, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Reluctant Keep. There are three reasonably reliable sources which discuss the character relatively in-depth. I don't like that WP is becoming Wikia in re to certain topics but I can't think of any good reason not to keep this. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 20:37, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep I question the utility of having any character-specific articles from TV shows on WP. However, unfortunately, this seems to meet the GNG based on the references in the article and the additional RS about the character that exist in the ether (e.g. [1], etc.). Chetsford (talk) 18:50, 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) 09:27, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Carey (rugby league)[edit]

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

Does not meet rugby SNG notability. No indication of meeting notability per GNG. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:39, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Local Yorkshire newspapers have seen fit to include Carey within their rugby league coverage, eg [2] and [3], but it does not go beyond routine sports coverage and doesn't tell us enough to write a proper biography. The subject does not meet the general notability guideline. Nor, as the nominator points out, does he meet the rugby-league-specific guideline, which is set at a more appropriate level than its soccer equivalent. --Mkativerata (talk) 20:37, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails both WP:GNG and WP:RLN.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:40, 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) 17:44, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nathan Pettijohn[edit]

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

Pettitjohn does not appear notable as either a talent manager or as an author. Sources are either poor quality (not RS, not significant coverage, or both of these things) or are about other notable people and not Pettijohn. No indication from BEFORE or from sources in the article (mostly to booksellers) that his book is notable and thus no claim to notability for NUATHOR. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 17:00, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wrote a book self-published on Amazon, but the book got ZERO attention in WP:RS so he fails WP:AUTHOR. The rest of his career fails WP:GNG for sheer death of sources. E.M.Gregory (talk) 18:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources cited in the article.Docor726 (talk) 19:16, 26 July 2019 (UTC)— Docor726 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

WP:DENY ——SerialNumber54129 12:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Docor726, which sources in the article do you feel establish notability? Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
the article has plenty of references so I voted keep. Docor726 (talk) 20:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)?[reply]

First welcome to Wikipedia. I hope you find your time here productive. If you haven't already you might want to read WP:RS as it talks about how to identify reliable sources. Reliable sources are required to identify notability - the standard wikipedia uses for what can have an article. While an article can have a lot of references, if those references aren't reliable sources they don't help show notability. That's why I asked which sources provide notability. If you have questions about reliable sources and/or notability feel free to ask me on my talk page. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:03, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to agree with nominator and E.M.Gregory. The people he represents as a talent manager may be notable (Howroyd certainly is), but that doesn't contribute to notability for him. There are no reliable sources in the article that offer significant coverage of Pettijohn, and I failed to find any to add. Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NAUTHOR. Schazjmd (talk) 16:18, 27 July 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) 17:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G0v[edit]

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

Notability concerns. Article is written as a first-person narrative and doesn't have independent references. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 15:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG with articles in Medium, Wired, MIT Technology Review and CityMetric discussing them, among many others. And that's just the English-language literature. Bondegezou (talk) 13:45, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Meets the GNG per a source review. In addition to those presented above, here is another news source, and here (pp. 31–37) is a source from what appears to be a reliable periodical (Taiwan Panorama). Concerns about the article's tone can be addressed by copy editing it, or tagging it as needing attention for tone issues. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:25, 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) 17:45, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lokesh Kumar[edit]

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

No signs of being WP:FILMMAKER no way to fulfill WP:GNG, only one significant movie. Except for a couple of news articles, nothing else is found to establish their notability. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 15:27, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~This is a terrible, lazy nomination as he is known as a film director not an actor and the coverage relates to his directing.~~ It probably is WP:TOOSOON Atlantic306 (talk) 22:17, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Atlantic306, thanks for pointing it, true I missed that and it's a horrible mistake QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 06:24, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306, Hope this works now, or shall I need to withdraw the nomination? QueerEcofeminist^{"cite! even if you fight"!!!} [they/them/their] 08:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- No problem, it's fine now, sorry I was harsh Atlantic306 (talk) 14:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TOOSOON with only one major work, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 14:44, 30 July 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. WP:SNOW keep (non-admin closure) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:33, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Solomon Eliezer Alfandari[edit]

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

Deletion request created on behalf of IP User 37.24.53.157.

Reason provided: Unproper sources: Many links are dead. Websites like www.truetorahjews.org or nanach.org not independent from topic, but partisan. Printed publications do not meet WP:N. Streets of Jerusalem was published by Deborah Publishing (self-publishing). Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:15, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The individual is notable; the article needs work, particularly regarding sourcing. Finding reliable and verifiable references for someone who lived outside the mainstream and lived in an era (and part of the world) where sources are harder to find is a challenge, but one that can be met. Alansohn (talk) 15:43, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. Sourcing should be addressed with a tag on the article, not with an AFD. This individual is strongly notable as a Sephardic Hakham and Chief Rabbi of Damascus and of Safed. Yoninah (talk) 15:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I have removed the more dubious sources and added several legitimate ones. The subject is clearly notable, and I don't think it's appropriate to open AfDs for the sole purpose of fixing sourcing problems. Gilded Snail (talk) 17:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Improper nomination of notable historic figure, easily verified by simplest WP:BEFORE google - first page turns up encyclopedia entries, scholarly books + more. Many pages have some unacceptable sources added, the solution is to remove them, not to delete the page, for Pete's sake. E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep per all the above. Flawed IP nomination of notable historic figure that at least spurred article improvement. Havradim (talk) 22:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Sorry, but I also feel this is a ridiculous nomination. Govvy (talk) 13:39, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. In addition, I am surprised by this nomination from a veteran editor, who has been making quite a lot of deletion nominations recently. Debresser (talk) 18:27, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Debresser, well I was nominating on behalf of an IP. I assumed the IP did the before check and didn't perform one myself. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 19:33, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I see. Debresser (talk) 20:48, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject has more than passing treatments in indexed journals, and a basic BEFORE also finds at least a couple discussions in books by reputable publishers, (e.g. here [4]). This seems to meet WP:ANYBIO. Chetsford (talk) 03:28, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of sources. The user, I believe, was simply wrong in passing on this anonymous person's complaints as though they meant anything. BeenAroundAWhile (talk) 06:07, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:ANYBIO (in orthodox judaism) and WP:GNG, article now reflects this, and a big thanks to Tyw7for creating this afd on behalf of an ip, one of a number of wikitasks that are little appreciated. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:42, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly notable in even a cursory BEFORE - heck - he's still getting full length profiles in newspapers almost a century after death - [5]. Icewhiz (talk) 11:25, 30 July 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. Already deleted, just closing the AfD. Tone 13:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Compassites Software[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP by a long chalk the sources are 4 business listings and 1 press release. No indepth independent coverage in a RS at all. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 15:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - ACPERM gaming, likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for UPE. MER-C 15:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete: i completely agree with MER-C. Even their current username seems to be a name of some PR firm. Ironically, thats why they had to change the previous username. Anyways, subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and the creator(s) were most likely paid for creating the article. —usernamekiran(talk) 19:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the company fails WP:CORPDEPTH as I can find no substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. The article has been created by a single-purpose account with a likely conflict of interest and is just a free advertisement for the company. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:40, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah Roberts (accountant)[edit]

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

Being the victim of a particular disease does not meet the criteria for Wikipedia:Notability (people). This information is more appropriate for inclusion in the article for the disease itself, Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. — TAnthony^Talk 14:41, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 16:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - An unfortunate individual who contracted this disease, but does not meet WP:GNG. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:50, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. We do not create pages for people whose only claim to notoriety is having died of a disease regardless of how rare or notable the disease is. Dom from Paris (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete dieing of this disease does not make someone notable. Wikipedia really needs to make article creation harder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:51, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If dying of this disease leads to coverage in three national newspapers, it does seem to be pretty notable. --Andreas Philopater (talk) 19:21, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Per above does not meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 13:54, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 13:33, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rick DePiro[edit]

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

Not notable. Most of the sources in the article are self-published, including the albums. Vmavanti (talk) 13:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 13:55, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Both the nominator and I have engaged with others on this article's talk page to try to improve the sourcing. Improvements and proper sourcing have been promised for years, but have not appeared; instead, sourcing tags have been removed and the same problems repeated. The sources are a mix of not independent of the subject and simply wrong (they don't contain the information given in the article). Most of the text is unsourced. Some sources are valid but the information they support does nothing to establish notability. The only source that might help make a case for notability is the Art and Living one, but, again despite requests for clarification, information on its independence has not been provided. With this possible exception, the article, nine years after its creation, is supported by no sources that are both reliable and can help establish notability (WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG). EddieHugh (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - Fails WP:NMUSIC, WP:BIO and WP:GNG.

I read the lengthy entreaty above and searched the recommended magazine 'Music Trades' for 'Rick DePiro' and 'Ricky Dee'. Found three results total, all of which were trivial mentions (e.g. he performed at his employer's event). I'm at a complete loss as to what the 'colleges' link achieves but if I can be glib for a moment, I can guess why this reference wasn't provided previously (my apologies if the humour isn't appreciated). While there is much dissembling here, there is no notability.

Searching for 'Rick DePiro' on google news produced zero results for the subject (but two for a high school athlete who shares the same last name). Searching google generated 89 results but after going through them I did not see any which contributed to positive notability. Most are promotional, copies/excerpts of the wikipedia page, or auto-generated pages.

Searching for 'Ricky Dee' on google news generated numerous hits for an actor (as well as other people) but none in the first two pages for the subject. In a regular search, he was not among the first five entertainers listed. For what it's worth, even the comments at an online music store look fake (virtually the same fawning comments from multiple people, including one with his name). Given the length of the subject's career, the paucity of significant coverage is noteworthy (peoplemaven?).

So I looked at some of the sourcing within the page. Mensa sourcing is embarrassing and should be removed (along with what it allegedly supports in the text). Neither 'zoominfo' nor 'digesst' qualify as reliable and is this really something that belongs in an encyclopedia entry anyways? Leave it for his promo page.

The Art & Living piece is pure fluff, with the author being a public relations person, and the article's purpose being to hawk the lessons the subject sells.

Having read the article (and it isn't one that lacks for material), I don't really see anything that would meet notability. Essentially, it's one long dog bites man story. As such, none of the existing references I looked at contribute to a notability position. The subject seems to have a fine career but I don't see the notability to warrant a page here. As an aside, I'm concerned that the page's supporters (here and within the talk page) seem singularly obsessed with this page. ogenstein (talk) 12:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the bullying and bluster above is enough to convince one that this individual is not notable but let's actually put aside the puppet show and judge the subject. This is bloated promotion for a non notable individual. Nothing satisfying WP:MUSIC. He lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Refbombed with lots of duds. A few points worth looking at. I found nothing in Music Trades past a few passing mentions. A lot has been claimed above about Art and Living above, so let's look at that one. Reading the article it is obvious to anyone that this is an advertisement. For those that want to claim otherwise for whatever reason we can actually look at that page as it was here (I'm unable to access the site directly). Above the picture it show the location where this advert is filed on their website. It is Home > A and L > Arts > Artists > Entertainment Artists > Advertising > Rick DePiro – Art Heals Through Music. (emphasis added). There is the blue box that says "Advertising" just above the heading. So they clearly label it as Advertising. duffbeerforme (talk) 11:55, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Not to mention even the byline "Aal Admin" is a giveaway! ShelbyMarion (talk) 13:25, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I brought the "Advertising" matter up on the talk page. Steven2nash replied that he would contact the editor of artandliving to get it changed... which happened within hours. The current version categorises the piece as "Conscious Giving". It still reads like advertising, as Duffbeerforme mentions, regardless of what heading it has been given, so I still class it as not RS. EddieHugh (talk) 15:10, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete. Wikipedia notability is all about sources. Rather than take the time to rebut all the rationales given in the “Do Not Delete” arguments, I’ll offer this: 1) getting a subject’s name or company in print or mentioned/referenced in any kind of media—no matter how many times—is not automatically significant coverage. 2) It’s worth every editor’s time to thoroughly read and understand wikipedia’s consensus-driven criteria for reliable sources rather than one’s own. 3) On the article edit history, talk page and here many are SPA editors, some throwing around terms like “our” and “we.” It seems there are possibly WP:COI edits at play here, and possible sock puppets and canvasing. Has anyone put in for an investigation of this?

I’ll add one last thing: Being off-the-charts real world successful is not the same as being wikipedia worthy (and, yes, I am aware wikipedia criteria allows for some dubious entries—much less worthy than this subject, especially re: pop culture. I wish I could change these policies myself, but they are consensus driven) I have no doubt this subject is very accomplished and recognized among his peers. He makes for a fine entry in a “who’s who’s” listing and things of that ilk. So do the most successful realtors in Los Angeles county, or the finest K Street lawyers in Washington DC. But without non-promotional significant independent third party recognition a wikipedia article cannot be properly sourced. No prejudice against recreation of this article with RS’s if they can be found; assuming everything in this article is true, it’s surprising that they haven’t already been brought forward if they indeed exist. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:00, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, WP:BIO, and WP:MUSIC. Non notable musician Taewangkorea (talk) 01:40, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the article itself is a mess. It is obvious that editors closely associated with the subject have been working hard to establish notability. None of the sources cited establish any notability whatsoever, as far as I can gather. The 'title' of one of the citations is: "Freddie Ravel – DePiro shown and mentioned throughout website as partner and co-artist with Ravel. Artists signed and recorded with JaRic Records include both musical projects and music related projects." Basically grasping for straws. He may be a nice person but he is not noteworthy. Also incredibly obvious is that the people voting 'do not delete' are closely associated with the subject or at the very least, are associated with each other. No one has voted keep, everyone has voted 'do not delete'. This tells me they are associated with each other. The inexplicably long and detailed votes tell me that they are associated with the subject. This is not what WP is for. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add that all three users who voted keep are single purpose accounts focused around DePiro. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 12:58, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I had noted the similar “do not delete” usage as well. (One..well..okay, just not familiar with AfD conventions. Two? That’s odd. Perhaps aping the other one? Three..um, wait a minute…) Combined with an identical overly-loquacious writing style attached to SPA accounts, my suspicions are they are the same person. A little poking around edit history’s confirms it. The sole non-Rick DePiro-related edits for user Steven2Nash concern the article on the 1994 Northridge Earthquake, originating with a factual dispute edit on 2 April, 2014. 3 Days later, User:A&RBoss weighs in with their, only non-Rick DePiro related entry to “agree with Steve2Nash.” The sock puppetry does not get more obvious. I considered opening a formal investigation, but just as I was writing this post someone apparently beat me to it, as they have now all been blocked. ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:16, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence that subject meets WP:BIO or music-related notability criteria. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 16:05, 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. Tone 13:32, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

K. Johanna (Joana) Altmann[edit]

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

Heavily promotional BLP, with a lack of independent sources about the subject, rather than by the subject. COI issues too. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is blatantly promotional and entirely the work of single editor with a clear conflict of interest. I don't think it matters whether the subject meets Wikipedia's notability criteria because WP:TNT applies to this article. Just delete it and if she's notable, start again from scratch. Deli nk (talk) 13:11, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable. Was actually going through the process of WP:BEFORE for this article when the nomination was made. Unable to find any independent reliable sources which cover the article subject. - Ryk72 ^talk 13:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. PROMO. Agricola44 (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place for promotion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Can we perhaps set up a LuxuryWikipedia, where we'd empower and celebrate iconic luxury legends and legendary luxury icons? We could make strategic alliances to create exclusive content for such a luxury resort hideaway (with silver, gold, platinum and rhodium membership helping our revenue stream). Meanwhile, PlebsWikipedia is what we're stuck with, and this has a minimal appetite for bullshit; so delete. -- Hoary (talk) 00:20, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete copyvio — RHaworth (talk · contribs) 13:26, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Peace and Civil Society[edit]

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

No in-depth reliable source. Fails WP:NORG. Störm (talk) 12:17, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:22, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I just submitted it for speedy deletion. The entire article is a copyright violation, of material with a copyright notice dated 2010, the year before this content was posted. Largoplazo (talk) 12:28, 26 July 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. As has been pointed out in this discussion, an unique medical situation is not in and of itself evidence of notability and the concerns about WP:ONEEVENT have not been contested. A redirect may be added at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:13, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Grant Goodwin[edit]

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

I believe that this article should be merged with the main article Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease. Had he not contracted the illness it is unlikely that he would have had coverage. This article will certainly be a WP:PERMASTUB and nothing of importance that is said in this article could not be usefully integrated into the main article. The information about him is entirely linked to his disease and entirely negative. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Good grief. Why do we have pages for these people? Tragic of course, but not notable as individuals. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:32, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Necrothesp. Interested editors may also want to check out the current AfD for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Parker (teenager), created by the same editor.— TAnthony^Talk 14:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Good grief, Every other person who died from vCJD (at last count 177) has had a homozygous Methionine-Methionine form of prion gene. Goodwin differs from the norm, and hence is notable per wiki guidelines. Don't you read the articles which you propose to delete? It is shameful that wiki guidelines are grist for Dom's mill, but who am I to judge? ... The comment of Domdeparis about negativity make no sense and should be struck. I'm happy to hear his rebuttal... TAnthony is in high dudgeon because I demoted Sarah Roberts (character) from headline status. -- Magnoffiq (talk) 01:08, 28 July 2019 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Magnoffiq (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this XfD. [reply]

I'm sorry you didn't understand my comment I'll try and make myself clearer. The information that you wrote concerning his symptoms is entirely negative and has nothing to do with him but the effects of the disease and carries undue weight it is sensationalism and not encyclopedic. These are the kind of symptoms that all victims of vCJD suffer and simply because his father has chosen to share these details in the press does not mean that we should include it in an article. The inclusion of these details in the different articles you have created is IMHO distasteful and is aimed to shock. Please remember that as per WP:SHOCK Material that could be considered vulgar, obscene or offensive should not be included unless it is treated in an encyclopedic manner. I believe this was not done.

Just because a particular victim is the first to have died with a different form of prion gene does not make him automatically notable by any guideline I believe. I'd be interested to know which one you are referring to. What is important in all the sources is not Goodwin himself but the discovery that people with a different form of prion gene can be affected. This information has been reported and should be included in the main article. Also please stop making ad hominem comments about other editors as these can be seen as personal attacks and will always lessen the weight of any argument you are trying to make. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:04, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your reply, Dom. Goodwin is notable because more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years have been published on him. I'm just curious why there have been more than a dozen newspaper articles published on the same subject over more than 20 years. Your belief is irrelevant... I'm not making ad hominems. If I were, you would know it... The list of symptoms was in the newspapers; I simply digest what I read. The symptoms were intended to shock neither by the newspapers (the shock value is in the headline, not buried on page 6) nor by me. That construction is yours alone... Wiki has, literally 100's of articles "created, expanded or edited to some degree of significance" by User:TAnthony about the Dune (franchise). Some might feel this irrelevant and wasteful, but wiki is a big place with room for everyone's inanities. Does that not include real-life people that are notable because more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years have been published on them? -- Magnoffiq (talk) 04:30, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but you have not replied to my question which was very simple. You said Goodwin differs from the norm, and hence is notable per wiki guidelines and I asked I'd be interested to know which one you are referring to. You may not understand what wikipedia defines as an ad hominem comment but FYI when you talk about my "mill" you are clearly making an ad hominem comment, when you talk about TAnthony being in "high dudgeon" this is also an ad hominem comment and should be avoided in deletion discussions as per WP:ADHOM. Deletion discussions are about the article and its content only. You have tried to make this one about me and my "mill" and TAnthony's Dune contributions. Please stop at once and stay on topic or if you can't do so please do not reply. --Dom from Paris (talk) 12:34, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Finally! We are getting somewhere. The wiki guidelines which this article meets are at least as follows:

I'm interested in your contention about wiki definition of ad hominem argumentation. Do you have a link to a reference? There is a difference between mere behavioural observation and fallacious ad hominem argumentation. This is highlighted in the wiki Ad hominem#Non-fallacious_types. NB and for the record, I have never contributed to the Ad hominem wiki. -- Magnoffiq (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OK I'm clearly not getting through to you. WP:ADHOM is quite clear though "A deletion discussion is about the article in question itself...the debate is not about the creator or any other editors of the article, nor is it about the AfD nominator or anyone who has commented on the AfD." Keep the comments on track or please do not comment at all. As I have said the coverage is all about the disease and had Goodwin not died of the disease he would not have been mentioned this is a case of WP:BIO1E. I think we have both come in a full circle and we should just let discussion ride to see where it goes. I shall not reply again, unless there is more ad hom stuff and then that will be on your talk page. Cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:19, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Um yes, I read the article Magnoffiq. Goodwin may be notable enough for a paragraph in the Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease article, but he simply does not meet the criteria for an individual biographical article. And even if I researched the "more than a dozen newspaper articles over 20 years" written about him, I doubt it would change my opinion. He is only notable for being the first person with a certain gene to die of this disease; this is totally WP:ONEEVENT. I'm also rolling my eyes at your attempt to trivialize our opinions by identifying articles the rest of us worked on that you think are stupid or unimportant, but the argument that other stuff exists doesn't make Goodwin any more notable. And by the way, I had no problem with your Sarah Roberts article name change, as a matter of fact I changed the 50+ links in other articles that now pointed to the wrong article, which you didn't seem to give a sh*t about because you're obsessed with vCJD. It did, however, bring to my attention the fact that you created a handful of unnecessary bio articles about the victims of this disease, so thanks for that.— TAnthony^Talk 17:20, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless you get a huge amount of detailed medical research coverage being a victim of a disease almost never is enough to make one notable enough to justify a seperate encyclopedic article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, known for WP:ONEEVENT. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:36, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on his unique medical history. Bearian (talk) 14:30, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this info belongs in the article for the disease; this article is actually more about vCJD than Goodwin. And he simply does not meet the criteria for an individual article.— TAnthony^Talk 16:06, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to Variant Creutzfeldt–Jakob disease, but add any pertinent info there, per TAnthony's argument. The subject of the article may have decent coverage based on their medical status, however WP:BLP1E does apply here - from the sources that I've reviewed and been presented, the coverage on Goodwin is limited to his medical history. That he is the first person to suffer from a certain variant of the disease combined with the coverage in sources may be notable enough to be mentioned in the main article, but the criteria for a standalone article hasn't been met here. Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 09:26, 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 California Innocence Project. This one has been open for a few days past it's 7 day period and relisted twice, and I'm not seeing much benefit from relisting. Given this (and the nomination period lapsing more than a few days), I have decided to close this one myself. I have considered both this AFD and the previous one in 2015 to determine my reasoning.

AFD is not regarded as a substitute for cleanup, so I haven't given much weight to the fact the article has not been improved much in the last four years. I've given some, but not much weight to who has contributed to this article. What I have observed, is in the two discussions, those advocating for keeping the article have argued so weakly, based on barely meeting the GNG criteria as founder of the California Innocence Project.

Those over the two discussions that advocated deletion opined that most mentions of Brooks in the provided references were passing mentions only, and the references provided were mostly discussing the organisation, or clients of the organisation. Nonetheless, it has been opined that there may be mention specific to the subject of the article in reliable sources which may belong on Wikipedia, but not necessarily in a standalone article.

I have honestly considered closing this one as no consensus as well, but balancing both of these discussions, the outcome I have determined here is to redirect the article, and recommend that merging any relevant information from this into the main article the most appropriate outcome. (non-admin closure) Steven Crossin ^{Help resolve disputes!} 03:30, 5 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Justin Brooks[edit]

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

This is another article that was created by User:Dylanexpert as part of undisclosed paid editing for the California Innocence Project. Two articles from that batch of undisclosed paid editing have already been deleted. This article is supported primarily by self-published sources from the California Innocence Project, press releases by the CIP, and other such promotional material that ultimately had origins within the CIP. It is quite clearly a puff piece, which should be evident from a cursory reading of the article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:53, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

For those who are interested, the two other AfDs relating to Dylan's undisclosed paid editing can be found here: [[6]] and [[7]]. Cosmic Sans (talk) 13:55, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep seems to be too much use from California Innocence Project as a source, but it scrapes by WP:GNG in my opinion. Govvy (talk) 14:04, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I did some quick counting, and about half of the sources come from the California Innocence Project or were posted in some fashion by the CIP or the subject of the article. Some of the other sources do not even mention Justin Brooks. Example: [[8]]. Many others may include a passing mention of Justin Brooks, but do not cover Justin Brooks in any detail - this type of ancillary mention does not establish notability. Example: [[9]]. In short, there are really no reliable sources that discuss Justin Brooks in any detail. Cosmic Sans (talk) 14:16, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's more about the online articles like this one [10] or, [11] or, [12] that tells me he can pass GNG, Did you do WP:BEFORE? And there are a lot more news articles with Justin's Brooks name over them of you have a good look. Govvy (talk) 16:34, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I've checked them out. The first link you've provided is a column in a local paper that's more about Brooks client than Brooks. The second and third links have passing quotes by Brooks, on a topic which does not concern Brooks. Simply getting a two-sentence quote in an article does not confer notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There are lots more like that, that's why I said weak keep! :/ Govvy (talk) 16:59, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh don't get me wrong, I understand your reasoning. It's just that a bunch of little quotes here and there over the course of the last 20 years isn't enough, at least in my opinion, to establish notability. As far as the non-self-published sources go, they're almost all about people other than Justin Brooks. Sometimes he'll weigh in with a quick two-sentence soundbite, but that's not really sufficient. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

In order to generate more discussion, I am pinging every editor who was involved in the last two CIP undisclosed paid editing AfDs. List: User:Lubbad85, User:Bakazaka, User:Skirts89, User:Justlettersandnumbers, User:Cullen328, User:Lapablo, User:Grayfell, User:Dylanexpert — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cosmic Sans (talk • contribs) 15:56, 16 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I just happened upon an essay, WP:REFBOMB, that describes my problem with the sources in this article. A quote from the essay: "Another common form of citation overkill is to load an article up with as many sources as possible without regard to whether they actually support substantive or noteworthy content about the topic. The deceptive goal here is to boost the number of footnotes present in the article as high as possible, in the hope that it will fool other editors into accepting the topic's notability without properly vetting the degree to which any given source is or isn't actually substantive, reliable, and about the subject... Examples of this type of citation overkill include... citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree. An example of this is a source which quotes the subject giving a brief soundbite to a reporter in an article about something or someone else." That last bit - "a brief soundbite to a reporter" - describes quite a few of the sources used in this article. Cosmic Sans (talk) 15:30, 17 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - borderline WP:GNG but agree with Govvy that this probably just falls on the side of keeping. Article needs a good cleanup though. Bookscale (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: It appears there is a central question that needs to be answered: Does the fact that this topic scrapes by GNG override the current condition of the article, which seems to mostly promote the CIP. It appears all participants are aware of WP:NOTCLEANUP, but perhaps the promotional aspects of the current prose mean the article would be better off removed from Wikipedia entirely, since no one has volunteered to re-write the article. I don't feel consensus has been reached here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:58, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I think the need for deletion becomes evident when we consider what the article would look like if we stripped out the promotional elements, the citations to the CIP or to a CIP-controlled source, the subject's LinkedIn, and any press release material. You might be left with one paragraph talking about how he was sometimes quoted in passing by local news outlets. The fact remains that there's no significant, independent coverage of this subject. Just because he got a quote in an article saying "this case will be a hard one for the prosecution" or something along those lines will not confer notability. Cosmic Sans (talk) 17:37, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The subject is borderline notable as it is only referenced in passing, and most of the sources that deal with the subject in depth are from the CIP. If no more independent reliable sources are found then I think it would fail WP:GNG Taewangkorea (talk) 12:25, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, we're halfway thru the 2nd relist and there doesnt seem to be much interest amongst editors for this afd either way, the way this article is written it does appear to be mainly about the California Innocence Project (agree with 78.26 relisting comment), how about a redirect to CIP for which he appears to be known (and maybe change the sentence there - "by Director Justin Brooks and" to "criminal defense attorney and wrongful conviction advocate Justin Brooks, and..."? Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 30 July 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. Seems like consensus is now that the article meets inclusion criteria. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:21, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All-African People's Revolutionary Party[edit]

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

Minor party that has never elected a candidate. Page currently is cited exclusively to self-published sources, and it does not appear to have achieved substantial, non-trivial coverage in multiple reliable independent secondary sources. Toa Nidhiki05 15:32, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:23, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep — In all the years I've participated in AfDs, this nomination is by far the worst nomination I have ever had the displeasure of partaking in. It is quite evident that the nominator failed to carry out wp:before. It took me two minutes to find several reliable sources. Please do not waste the community's time with foolish nominations. Article is notable with plenty of RS covering the subject in detail. Here are just some of them : Encyclopedia of Black Studies, American Political Parties in the 21st Century , Encyclopedia of the African Diaspora: Origins, Experiences, and Culture, Volume 2, Still Lifting, Still Climbing: African American Women's Contemporary Activism. Further, the article is notable because it was one of the first of its kind with a worldwide reach in the African diaspora - originally created by Kwame Nkrumah, the person who led Ghana to independence and one of the founding members of the Organisation of African Unity. The principles of this party were well detailed in his book which attracted a huge support among Pan-Africanists, not to mention written about by scholars. I would urge the nominator to withdraw this silly nomination and stop wasting the community's time. Failing that, I urge an admin to perform a snow closure and prevent anymore time wastage.Tamsier (talk) 07:54, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — I've added the references myself and expanded the article.Tamsier (talk) 10:28, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No need to be a dick here. My nomination did exactly what I hoped it would. Toa Nidhiki05 10:42, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is being a dick here. Your silly nomination is "dikish." And what exactly did you hope for your nomination to do?Tamsier (talk) 11:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Either delete the article, merge it, or at the very least get someone to make it not be a pathetic stub, like 99% of articles about minor, insignificant parties are here. I still don’t think this is notable, but at the very least it isn’t a completely embarrassing waste of space at the moment. Toa Nidhiki05 12:20, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

So you nominated this article in order to get someone else to expand it and source it just because you don't like stub articles! Well, we should save Toa Nidhiki0's reply for posterity. We do not use AfD for that. It is your responsibility to carry out WP:BEFORE prior to nominating anything. We do not use AfD for the reasons you have given above. And I do not believe you now or ever felt that the article fails GNG after the sources I've cited in the article and here. If you truly felt that, you would have debunked them. Therefore, based on your reply above, i believe you nominated this article exactly for the reason you have given above - i.e. to get someone else "to make it not be a pathetic stub" i.e. to expand it. Therefore, your original rationale for deletion was to deceive and manipulate the community. You used our AfD process for disingenuous reasons rather than for what it was designed for. If this is not a reason to SNOW CLOSE this AfD I don't know what is. Perhaps we can also ban the nominator for ever bringing another article to AfD, since he is using our process in contravention of what it was designed for.Tamsier (talk) 13:34, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have no clue why you are getting so offended I nominated this obscure minor party for deletion. Do you work for this party or something? I’m genuinely baffled here. This article had no citations and has no elected officers. I’ve nominated at least a dozen articles like for deletion, and almost all of them have been deleted because the vast majority of minor political parties aren’t notable.

I’ve looked at your sources as well and I think they seem lacking. Source 2 is just a list of political parties, which in and of itself does not provide notability (see WP:ORGDEPTH). Source 5 also fails ORGDEPTH - it is an encyclopedia entry written by Macheo Shabaka, a party member, which means it isn’t independent (see WP:ORGIND), and the book itself seems to just be a list of things relating to Africa. Source 1 is partially blocked but appears similar. This isn’t sufficient evidence of notability, it’s just acknowledging something exists. The party is not mentioned at all on the page for Kwame Nkrumah - given its close association with him, that would seem to be a good merge target. Toa Nidhiki05 13:52, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep trying in order to cover up your disingenuous nomination. You lack understanding of our policies (not to mention your disingenuous nomination) which is why you must be stopped from making any further nominations. I wouldn't even comment on your silly analysis of the sources as you clearly have no understanding of what constitutes a reliable source. I don't care that you nominated this article. What I care about is that you failed to do before, and also nominated this article for disingenuous reasons and wasting our time.Tamsier (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are going to keep randomly insulting me and putting words in my mouth that I did not say, you’re going to have to do it alone. I have no clue why you are so offended at the idea of deleting this stub page that fails our notability criteria, but whatever. Toa Nidhiki05 16:22, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Tamsier. Note that not getting a candidate elected does not disqualify a political organization for notability. --MarioGom (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's not an outright disqualifier, no, but a party with membership in only the hundreds which has no elected officers and no coverage outside of inclusion in lists of parties or things relating to Africa is generally not included. Per WP:ORGCRIT, an organization must have "significant coverage in multiple independent, reliable secondary sources". This coverage can't be trivial - per WP:ORGDEPTH, coverage has to be non-trivial - "inclusion in collections that have indiscriminate inclusion criteria (i.e. attempt to include every existing item instead of selecting the best, most notable examples), such as databases, archives, directories, dictionaries, bibliographies, certain almanacs" does not qualify. Moreover, per WP:ORGIND, coverage has to be independent - this disqualifies one of his sources, as it was written by a party member. Tamsier's sources don't establish notability - in fact, they actually undermine claims of notability. This party apparently isn't even notable enough to be on the page of the party's founder, which says a lot - wouldn't it be better suited for inclusion there? Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Right. There are quite a few references in Google Scholar, Google Books and Newspapers.com, and not merely listings. I have not checked in depth though. I have withdrawn my keep vote at the moment. It looks like the article has some facts wrong or distorted. In particular, it looks like the party was not founded by Kwame Nkrumah (see Talk:All-African People's Revolutionary Party#Founder). --MarioGom (talk) 19:24, 20 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Rather than repeating myself, I will copy and paste my reply on the article's talk page here. See below:

@MarioGom: Can you provide links to these American newspapers your are citing because they are not even in the article. Are you sure you have quoted the newspapers rights or understand what they are saying? If yes, then your American newspapers are wrong, because this is what the academic scholars / reliable sources cited are saying (see below). These include the works of Professor Henry Louis Gates, Jr. (who will touch on Stokeley Carmichael, below); Professor Molefi Kete Asante et. al.; ref author Dave Blevins and Professor Carole Boyce Davies (who went into depth about the female wing). I am limited in what I can copy and paste here for copyvio reasons, so here are what these RS sources are saying:

The All-African People's Revolutionary Party (A-APRP) is the brainchild of Ghana's first President, Kwame Nkrumah (1909-1972). The first published call for an A-APRP was in Nkrumah's Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare (1968).... p. 77
The All-African Peoples Revolutionary Party (A-APRP) was founded by Dr. Kwame Nkrumah, who introduced the party's concepts and philosophies in his book, Handbook of Revolutionary Warfare, which was released in 1968. p. 8
Carmichael remained with the Black Panthers for little more than a year, resigning because of the organization's refusal to disavow the participation of white radicals, and in 1969 left America for Africa, where he made his home in Conakry, capital of the People's Revolutionary Republic of Guinea. By then completely devoted to the cause of socialist world revolution emanating from a unified Africa, he became affiliated with the All-African People's Revolutionary Party, a Marxist political party founded by Kwame Nkrumah, the exiled leader of Ghana then living in Guinea as a guest of its president Sekou Touré. Carmichael changed his name, in honour of his two heroes, to Kwame Ture, and scoured U.S. colleges for several weeks each year speaking on behalf of the party... p. 142

I hope this clarifies the issue. The Carmichael you are referring to changed his name in honour of his two heroes: Kwame (from kwame Nkrumah) and Ture (from Sekou Touré) giving Kwame Ture (i.e. Carmichael).Tamsier (talk) 02:49, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

AS for Toa Nidhiki05, I think he is trying to give me a migraine. He has wasted enough of my time already. He is throwing policies left, right, and centre but he does not even understand the policies he is citing nor what constitute a reliable source. And don't get me started on his disingenuous nomination as evident above. The very fact that you failed to notice that this subject has been raised in Kwame's article although not named or link shows that you do not understand the subject. if you go to his page and scroll down to where it says Political philosophy, and read it properly, you will notice that they are referring to to the same subject. The same for Nkrumaism - linked as the main article under that sub-heading. The very fact that you failed to grasp that shows that you have no understanding of the subject and do not want to understand it, but only interested in deleting. Also, just because something is not mention in someone's article does not mean delete or redirect. The UK Queen has to grant royal assent to every bill before it is passed into law. I doubt you will see her article mention anything about royal assent. sometimes common sense must kick in. I think Toa Nidhiki05 is here just to give me a heart attack.Tamsier (talk) 03:28, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tamsier: Please, remain civil, assume good faith and avoid personal attacks. --MarioGom (talk) 08:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It seems to me like you are very personally invested in keeping this page. I don't know if you have a conflict of interest or not but the fact you care so much about this stub article about a random minor party with like 100 members that you'd continually sling random insults and attacks at me is confounding.

If, as you say, Nkrumaism, Nkrumah, and this party are so closely connected that talking about one means you are talking about the other, it seems like a merge is the best option, either to Nkrumaism or to Kwame Nkrumah. My points still stand that none of these sources establish notability and that combined with your comments makes a very compelling case for a merge. Toa Nidhiki05 03:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Toa Nidhiki05:, so you are accusing me of WP:COI now? If you think you have any prove, take it to the appropriate noticeboard. I would love to see that crane crash. Seriously, this is getting funnier and funnier, not to mention sillier as the days go by. This is going to be my last comment here, because I have things to do than wasting anymore of my time on this. I have never edited this article until you brought this article to AfD. Had you looked at the contribution history you would have known that. I didn't even know this article existed until it showed up in Africa and politics related deletion discussions both of which I watch. Therefore, stop playing ruse.

@MarioGom:, there is no personal attack or assumption of bad faith. We all know or should know by now that this nomination was silly from the get go. Saying that a nomination is silly is not personal attack. I know quite a few editors who would have used even stronger language for such a silly nominations that serves no purpose than to waste the community's time. Believe me! I've used a lot of restrain with my language compared to what some editors would have used for bringing this to AfD, and to be honest, I would not have blamed them. Saying that all this back and forth with the nom who does not even understand the policies they are citing nor what constitutes RS is beginning to give me a migraine or heart attack is not personal attack / bad faith. In fact, him accusing me of COI when I have never edited this article before its AfD nomination (and even if I did so what?) is worst. Further, it was much later when I began to use the word "disingenuous" to describe this nomination, after the nom mention that he nominated this article so that other people can expand it because he does not like stub articles - which was a silly reason for nominating anyway because we don't bring articles to AfD on those grounds, but even worst, a disingenuous nomination because that was not the rationale given initially. Him accusing me of COI without proof however, is more problematic.Tamsier (talk) 09:58, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RS and general notability guidelines are two different things. Just saying “RS” over is meaningless because I’m not taking about RS. Toa Nidhiki05 12:19, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Tamsier. @MarioGom: I noticed you stroked off you keep vote but seems to agree with Tamsier in the talk page link you've provided above. Is there a reason? Just curious. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 06:18, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Senegambianamestudy: I still see most sources are unclear about the facts there and find it highly suspicious that Kwame Nkrumah is sometimes mentioned as the party founder in a few sources about A-APRP but A-APRP doesn't get mentioned in other sources about Kwame Nkrumah. Cross-posted it on the Kwame Nkrumah talk page to try getting other interested editors involved. That discussion can continue here: Talk:All-African People's Revolutionary Party#Founder. --MarioGom (talk) 10:20, 23 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I am disregarding Tamsier's comments because of their personal attacks. This means more input is needed.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:23, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Admin note: I've blocked Tamsier for six months because of their conduct in this AfD. The long block duration is because they have a long block log for personal attacks and similar misconduct, most recently for three months, as well as a conditionally lifted WP:NOTHERE indefinite block. Sandstein 08:28, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The entries in the Encyclopedia of the African Diaspora and Encyclopedia of Black Studies demonstrate notability. See WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTCLEANUP, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew D. (talk) 09:42, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RS subject is notable. WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 13:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Subject meets WP:GNG as is shown by the new content and referencing, and Tamsier is to be congratulated on the improvements. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 13:08, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Tamsier did an amazing job improving the article. Did he deserve to be blocked? No, in my opinion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 00:06, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I did not look at this article when it was first nominated but in its current state I don’t think there’s any doubt it meets notability requirements. Mccapra (talk) 07:15, 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. Sandstein 11:33, 4 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Time To Know[edit]

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

WP:CORPDEPTH not met - no independent references about this company. I'm not convinced the article isn't a chimera of two (non-notable) companies of the same name. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:57, 18 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:08, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In seconds I found two solid references to the company. I am sure there is much more that can be added. In my opinion, a start-up financed by one of the richest investors in Israel, founder of Amdocs is inherently notable.--Geewhiz (talk) 05:43, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, because notability is not inherited. Hug^syrup 08:19, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:as WP:NOTADVOCACY said, Wikipedia is not a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing.Hispring (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification Under what criteria is this rated as "a soapbox, a battleground, or a vehicle for propaganda, advertising and showcasing"? We have purposely removed all words which could be construed as "promotional", sticking to the facts of the matter only. I would welcome clarification.--Larryesbee (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We can add many more references to this company, founded by one of Israel's major industrialists, and the main investor behind the "Be'reshit" moon landing project. Please clarify the comment: "I'm not convinced the article isn't a chimera of two (non-notable) companies of the same name." Thank you. --Larryesbee (talk) 14:36, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seeking clarification Under what authority can an independent editor make changes to an article that are totally inaccurate and actually misleading? What remedy do we have against this? Can we appeal or request this editor to revoke his/her comments? --Larryesbee (talk) 04:57, 22 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All editors act under the same 'authority', which is that Wikipedia is open for anyone to edit. Your first remedy is to follow the cycle of reverting changes once with a clear explanation, and then discussing any further dispute on the talk page. Yes you can request the editor to change their edits, the best place is on the talk page of the article in question, although you could also speak to them on their own talk page. If that fails, there are other options including an WP:RFC Hug^syrup 08:18, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Worth a relist - are the sources on the article sufficient for CORPDEPTH, and therfore for NCORP?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it comes down to whether the sources available are sufficient to meet WP:ORGCRIT. They must be significant, multiple, reliable, independent, secondary. Of the three sources currently in the article, two are actually about the founder and mention this company only in passing, so I argue they fail on depth and significance. The third is significant, probably reliable (I'm always a bit unsure how reliable these business puff-pieces are despite being in a reliable paper), independent and secondary. But what I'm not seeing is multiple sources to this level of quality, and my own search shows little else beyond what is already in the article. The article was also clearly, and openly, edited by the organisation's marketing team in the past, and I rather suspect continued WP:COI and possible WP:UPE editing, although that doesn't in itself make the article non-notable. Hug^syrup 08:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hugsyrup's analysis of the sources. Number 5 7 18:02, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ Haaretz, Forbes, The Marker and Globes are all reliable sources, and I am certain more can be found if anyone spent some time on it. No hype or advertising that I can see. Only simple statements of fact.--Geewhiz (talk) 18:12, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- - So with a bit of work, I have just added several more references and reorganized the entry. STEM is a global trend these days, so why delete information about a company that is addressing it? --Geewhiz (talk) 06:37, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- !Vote struck as you have already !voted above. Number 5 7 18:17, 31 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP / WP:CORPDEPTH. Sourcing is in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:48, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

color:#FFE">Hug]]^syrup 08:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 21:30, 3 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Clarification I don't understand how this article fails in this respect. All the sources are reliable, independent, well-know publicly respected publications. Please explain further.

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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Duquennoy[edit]

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

Not much there, and even less notable. I previously nominated it for WP:PROD which was removed, quoting criteria which seem not to be important. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cycling-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. — Arthur Rubin (talk) 04:50, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly notable, not just for his death. Maybe help expand the page instead of just deleting it? Look at the article on the French edition, there is a lot of information on it. Rode and finished multiple major World Tour races, including Paris-Roubaix, Gent-Wevelgem, and the Tour of Flanders. If you were to look, this clearly satisfies the guidelines and notability criteria.--Seacactus 13 (talk) 15:47, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Aside from coverage of his death ([13], [14]), he rode in races such as Paris-Roubaix, Flanders, etc, passing WP:NCYC. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:44, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NCYC Subject has competed in three UCI World Tour events; Dwars door Vlaanderen, Paris–Roubaix and the Record Bank E3 Harelbeke. Many UCI Europe tour races including the Great War Remembrance Race. Lightburst (talk) 00:56, 29 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep Meets WP:NCYC even though he fails to meet the GNG. Highest world ranking of 1180 doesn't seem to show notability but he does meet the SNG.Sandals1 (talk) 15:34, 30 July 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 06:26, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Business Casual (vocal group)[edit]

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

Well I went to their website and they sound pretty awesome but I don't think they quite meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Now I may have missed something because "business casual" is a common phrase but I was unable to find in-depth coverage in reliable third-party sources. Pichpich (talk) 03:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:04, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 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, Rollidan (talk) 04:45, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:50, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Vs Joy[edit]

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

There still aren't any in-depth references for this person besides his own website / advocacy. The mentions in the paper are just passing / voting results, positional announcements in MPCC (political party branch). He's involved in the political parties and was president of its state student union branch when he was a student, but I don't see any WP:GNG sources on him to meet notability for politician. I've tried to push this back to draft but it keeps getting pushed into mainspace by the originating author. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 04:37, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the requirements for politician. DGG ( talk ) 15:49, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Note: VS Joy is a redirect to Kerala Students Union § Former presidents, so it should probably be handled however this discussion decides to handle this title. Retro (talk | contribs) 23:10, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I redirected it there when I pushed it back to draft, but the editor changed the name to Vs in order to put it into mainspace. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 01:21, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a member of a political party's youth wing is not an WP:NPOL pass, but this article makes no other claim that this person is notable for any other reason and cites nowhere close to enough reliable source coverage to get him over WP:GNG: of the five footnotes here, one is an invalid WP:CIRCULAR reference to another Wikipedia article, two are primary sources that do not count as support for notability at all, and one is a glancing namecheck of his existence in a blurb that isn't about him, and the only source that is both reliable and about him in any non-trivial way is still just a short blurb. This is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 23:15, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete sources found do not support notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 10:34, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:20, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Absinthe (2012 film)[edit]

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

Initially flagged as a CSD, but does not appear to meet any criteria. A trailer for the film was released, but I can find no confirmation online that the film itself was ever released, even as direct-to-video. Does not appear to meet notability requirements. Risker (talk) 04:25, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: Article appears to have been created by an editor with a username that is a close match with the supposed director/producer of the film. Thus, it is quite possible this is an article written by someone with a significant COI. Risker (talk) 04:31, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Risker (talk) 04:25, 26 July 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 South Shields#Rugby. Sandstein 14:14, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

South Shields RFC[edit]

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

Amateur rugby team that doesn't appear to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 12:50, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:40, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to South Shields#Rugby. Plenty of local and routine sources that mention the team, but I wasn't able to find anything that was sufficiently in-depth to meet the requirements of WP:GNG. However, it is a plausible search term, and we do have some information about the team at South Shields#Rugby, so a redirect seems a good alternative to deletion. Probably not worth a merge given that the article is entirely unsourced. Lowercaserho (talk) 16:51, 12 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:57, 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 04:19, 26 July 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 Cornish pilot gig. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:51, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Pilot gig club[edit]

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

I don'tthink this isappropriate for a separate article -- the references are insufficiento suport the notability of this sort of club in general. DGG ( talk ) 04:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cornish pilot gig. Not because we couldn't have an article here, but because we would have a stronger article with both in one place. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:12, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cornish pilot gig for reasoning above as references are not enough for a standalone. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:46, 30 July 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:04, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Charity Reuben[edit]

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

fails WP:NFOOTY; fails WP:GNG Joeykai (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Joeykai (talk) 03:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:14, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:40, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I thought scoring for a national team equals notability for a footballer? Love’s gonna get you killed (talk) 06:48, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. @Trillfendi: playing for a senior national team does confer notability per NFOOTBALL, but there is no evidence this applies here. Giant Snowman 08:02, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think these count as SIGCOV, but others might. [15] [16] – Levivich 06:47, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I believe she meets WP:ANYBIO for being nominated as 2017 "Woman Player of the Year" by Nigeria Football Federation, which is the highest footballing organization in the country. This was an apex recognition, not an underage category. The third best woman footballer in an entire country! Its just like English FA saying Harry Kane, Jordan Henderson and Harry Maguire are the best English players for the year, and we are saying one of them is not notable. I believe this is exactly why WP:ANYBIO was created, to cut the excesses of such situations. Going through the references, for a female footballer in a third world country to have references such as 1 2,3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 shows diverse multiple coverage that I interpret as passing GNG. HandsomeBoy (talk) 00:44, 30 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep – I'm pretty conflicted on this one because the sources really lack depth, and are almost entirely interviews, so they lack independence, too. For example: [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23]. On the other hand, the coverage is sustained (three years), in multiple countries, and I think the volume is higher than average for a woman footballer playing in Nigeria and Kazakhstan (as opposed to, say, a man in England). The multiple award nominations (but no wins) also maybe barely meets ANYBIO. Put it all together, plus the fact that this player is young and still active, and it just gets me over the line to say we have enough to meet GNG and write a (short) article. – Levivich 15:51, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:ANYBIO Woman Player of the Year. Levich has made a good case for keeping. WP:NOTPAPER Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fails WP:NFOOTY but scrapes thorugh WP:GNG Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:22, 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:48, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Odinia International[edit]

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

A website that is mentioned briefly in one Vice article. All other references are to the site itself, private blogs or web tools like Alexa. Couldn't find any other reliable sources. Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. Ffranc (talk) 07:48, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:57, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:09, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The targeting of this organization, its website, and its founder has recently become the subject of a congressional inquiry involving the FCC. It does not fall into the category of not being notable by any means. Another notable point is that the editor of this website it not a Neo Nazi and is an Oxford educated scholar. I have confirmed her credentials and have determined that this organization has no political affiliation and is not a neo Nazi organization. I have tried to edit this article and make it factual once or twice but my edits were deleted replaced with libel. I would not mind trying to make this into an unbiased and accurate article, since, after all, that is the stated goal of this online encyclopedia. User User talk :Wotanswarriors — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotanswarriors (talk • contribs) 00:14, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- If you can do this with sources that fit WP:RS and which focus on Odinia International (not just mention it briefly) that would be excellent. If your sources are of the same kind as those currently in the article (blogs, database entries etc), then it's better to delete the article. Ffranc (talk) 08:48, 21 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Here is the section in the article in Vice, "One of the nation’s most notorious alt-right reconstructionist Pagans, Seana Fenner, explained to me that, “A few years ago, there wasn’t as much interest or knowledge about Odinism or Asatru.” In 2006, McNallen estimated that Asatruars or Odinists numbered between 10,000 to 20,000 in the United States. But along with the rise of Donald Trump and emboldened racists across the nation, Fenner claimed to me that her brand of racial Paganism is “becoming wildly popular.” White supremacist Asatruars and Odinists are especially thriving in US prisons. Fenner identifies as an Odinist. She also believes that the Holocaust was a lie and has an entire page on her website dedicated to “white genocide” where she claims, “It is only white nations that are being targeted for genocide by immigration.” In an especially chilling post on Memorial Day in 2017, she wrote of hoping to avenge all those soldiers who had died for “Jewish wars.” Fenner also told me that she believes that non-white people cannot participate in Heathenry or Odinism because that would “[make the] religion into a joke.” The 74-year-old is the founder of Odinia International, a group with more than 5,000 followers on Facebook that advocates for the restoration of “native European religion.” Fenner sees Christianity as a violent, foreign, Jewish religion that was forced onto European peoples. On the other hand, “Odinism is the final stage of deprogramming,” she told me. And it helped her enhance her “tribal identity.” Her main goal as an Odinist leader today is to “restore the native religion [of Europeans]” and she believes “white nationalism, or white identity, is central to” that mission. To Fenner, the reason her task of converting Christians and “eclectic” Paganists to racist Odinism has gotten easier is simple: “It’s something people are drawn to because they wish to have this connection to their ancestors and their own native spirituality.” She finds there are two kinds of people drawn to her faith: those who “want to practice [their] own religion as part of [their] identity,” and those who feel they are being “marginalized and blamed for things they didn’t do.” The latter reason embodies the myth of reverse racism against whites that has helped fuel the rise of the alt-right in general. This concept of “white genocide” has had a similar impact internationally in terms of mobilizing and energizing racists. On November 11, 2017, more than 60,000 white nationalists marched in the streets of Poland, rallying around this notion of a “Pure Poland, white Poland!” and demanding that the “Refugees get out!” For Fenner, this was a “wonderful” development she’d love to see happen in the US. “The only thing that would have been better would be if the Poles had bodily removed the non-Europeans from their nation, and sent the antifa protesters to a black nation in Africa where they could get all the diversity they need. But perhaps that will come.” Fenner and her extremist group Odinia International are not isolated bad apples. Instead, they stand alongside ill-famed names like Stephen McNallen and his Asatru Folk Assembly, Jack Donovan and The Wolves of Vinland, and countless others who intertwine hate with Paganism. This hate has been trickling down, infecting Pagan communities across the nation, which has been especially disconcerting for practitioners of colour."
Merge Fenner's name and a couple of sentences about this FRINGE group to Heathenry (new religious movement)#Racial issues. The Vice source is solid, but it is the only WP:RS we have on this vile ORG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

E.M.Gregory: There's only really one sentence in that quote about Odinia International. There is more about the founder and her views, but not the website. The Heathenry article is FA rated and already has substantial coverage with better sources. I don't see how it would be improved by anything from this article. Ffranc (talk) 11:40, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:53, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is demonstrably not a fringe movement. Its founder has far better, more relevant credentials than any other Neo-Pagan group's leader I know of, its membership is apparently in every US state, as well as the U.K., and rapidly growing, and there are other sources, particularly radio shows, such as Red Ice, which cover it. In addition to this, the founder of this group has done substantial scholarly work in regard to the restoration of native European religion in the form of a series of documentaries. Encyclopedias are meant to be unbiased so I would like to make changes which present accurate facts and all view points rather than obvious defamation of character, if no one minds particularly! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wotanswarriors (talk • contribs)
Delete We still have only 1 source. and it's on the founder of this tiny, fringe cult, not the cult itself. which does make it a delete. If anyone finds WP:SIGCOV, feel free too ping me to reconsider. But teh sourcing we have at this point does not cut the mustard.E.M.Gregory (talk) 11:46, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per E.M.Gregory, the sourcing isn't substantial enough to establish that Odinia passes notability standards. Best, GPL93 (talk) 04:12, 29 July 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Button[edit]

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

Non notable musician. Claimed charting is BADCHARTS. Touring lacks coverage. Running three non notable businesses does not make one notable. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Bombarded with shops, listings, PR and interviews, nothing good for GNG. PR complete with official portrait from his label. (Soft delete restoration). duffbeerforme (talk) 03:38, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:52, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notable DJ. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:54, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete apart from the notability issue such as no bio on AllMusic, this atticle is so promotional it reads like an advert and could well qualify for G11, thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 28 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:47, 2 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Graham Jules[edit]

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

This BLP is primarily about an individual whot was involved in a news event, A lawsuit regarding the use of the word superhero.
The only bit unconnected to this one event is sourced to his own website (404), a listing and two other sources. First to a promo piece on My Cherry Pop who according to their about page [24] is . Well, nothing. There front page when i looked. Head up by "4 POPULAR HOLLYWOOD SEX TAPES" from January 24, 2018 By admin. High quality journalism. Latest breaking News "What does a Film Director Do?", May 15, 2019 By admin. Not a reliable source. Second to a promo piece on Backstage Longue. A wordpress blog run by ? Their most recent post "The Responsibilities of a Film Producer", May 15, 2019. Hmm, sounds familiar, [25] [26]. Not a reliable source
Since the only other part of the BLP lacks any independent reliable sourcing this comes back to that one news event. WP:BLP1E tells us we should avoid having such articles. A search found nothing better so I believe this article should be deleted.
Note also that this is likely to be the creation of undeclared paid editing. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:36, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BIO1E. the lawsuit is the claim to notability, so if someone can show that it had impact, or set a precedent, or was notable qua lawsuit, that might be persuasive. But all I see is news coverage at the time of the suit, which was filed in 2014, judgment handed down in 2016, with no ongoing. Do please ping me if you can demonstrate such impact, since that would be an argument for turning this into an article about a notable legal precedent.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:04, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for UPE. MER-C 08:49, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete (G5). MER-C 09:13, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jordy Zak[edit]

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

Promotion for non notable musician/model. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. The first three and the last is the same press release found at four different location. The fourth is clearly labelled as a press release. The fifth is just a listing (and does not verify the claim made, Wikipedia:Fictitious references). Pure spam from a shill. duffbeerforme (talk) 03:34, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:56, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:58, 26 July 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. Also eligible for G5 speedy deletion per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Vasu1206. MER-C 08:49, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RentSeeker Inc[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation. Nothing aside from press releases and glancing mentions on due diligence. Does not otherwise meet GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 19 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Rentseeker is a notable company in Canada. The notability is justified on various trusted news websites such as Huffpost, Daily Hive, CTV News, Global News, RenX, Torontostoreys and others. These resources are reliable and independent of the subject and not the press releases. It is also listed on BBB. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JPKSingh (talk • contribs) 11:43, 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 02:46, 26 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not notable at all and clearly WP:PROMO, with Alexa rank 9,056 in Canada which is very low and the website has no traffic at all plus no news coverage other than being just mentioned in a few. The only in-depth article about the website is a press release paid article. Clearly does not meet WP:GNG. Best - Blake44 (talk) 18:42, 27 July 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT (filled with typos), WP:RS (weak on the sourcing) and WP:GNG (it's local to Toronto). It's badly written WP:SPAM. It's possible that a decent stub could be written, but it's not worth the effort. Bearian (talk) 14:23, 30 July 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.