Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 June 10

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 9 June	11 June >

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. nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Viztor (talk) 14:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Chop Bar[edit]

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

It just seems to be a different name for "Restaurant and Bar" If so, we would have too many articles on different ways we call a restaurant. I'd rather have an article on the food of Ghana than this. Neologism is popular with the shop-owner so that they can sell a concert, but a restaurant is still a restaurant. Viztor (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Viztor (talk) 23:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but Rename as "Chop bar" (small b). The sources seem to show that it's a distinctive kind of restaurant in Ghana. PamD 23:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It's not a perfect article as it stands, but just looking at a google books search throws up an load of references. Nomination isn't really rooted in any policy . Hugsyrup (talk) 11:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hugsyrup:It already said Chop means Eat, so what's the difference between Chop Bar and Eatery & Bar/Food & Beer? The article doesn't give. And admittedly most local restaurant serve local food and local alcohol. What is the difference? I fail to see the value of including different variations of the same thing over and over again with no substantial difference as indicated in the article, until then, it should stay in a dictionary.

The article, brief and flawed as it is, already gives a few clear elements that are distinct: traditional food, earthenware bowls, being a cultural icon of Ghana, serving local alcoholic drinks, etc. I am fairly sure, given the sheer number of sources I found that placed Chop Bars as closely related to Ghana, we could find other information. And, at risk of making an WP:otherstuffexists argument, I'd point out that articles exist for restaurant, bar, brasserie, pub, bar, bistro, trattoria, caff, coffeehouse, greasy spoon, fast casual restaurant, and so on. Ultimately, though, that doesn't matter. What matters is that the concept and term appears to be notable, and that notability is established by reliable sources. Hugsyrup (talk) 13:11, 11 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ladislav pl. Kiš[edit]

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

1850 politician/official at the sub-county level in Croatia. I am unable to find evidence that he passes Notability guidelines. The article only has a single ref (I didn't evaluate whether it's RS), with only a passing mention that this person existed. I attempted to search for more info, and I was unable to find any sources with more than a passing mention. Maybe someone can dig up meaningful sourcing in Croatian, but that seems improbable given the date and sub-county position. Alsee (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Alsee (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Alsee (talk) 21:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Even among modern politicians whose press coverage Googles well, serving at the county (or below) level of political office is not an automatic WP:NPOL pass just because the person can be single-sourced as existing. If somebody could dig out enough archival sourcing to verify that this person is special somehow, then that might make a difference here — but one local history website namechecking his existence once in a historical timeline is not in and of itself enough. Bearcat (talk) 14:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bearcat. This minor politician with one minor source clearly does not meet WP:NPOL. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:27, 17 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:02, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SigniCASE[edit]

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

No external references. Not obviously notable. Rathfelder (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. -Zanhe (talk) 21:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this is clearly an ad. ♣♦ SmartGuy ♥♠ (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by SmartGuy (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete: The sole contribution from a WP:SPA was this primary-sourced article on an accessory provider firm. Searches show sporadic product mentions but no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 06:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per above, article fails notability. Alex-h (talk) 13:00, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:PROMO and WP:GNG. It's just an ad. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:34, 17 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Gyroxus[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2010. I can see a lot of customer reviews but not sure whether this is in fact notable or not. Mccapra (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG since I found almost no coverage regarding this product besides a few product reviews in a WP:BEFORE search I did. It's not notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:45, 17 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

FlannelJax's[edit]

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

Company fails WP:CORP. Dewritech (talk) 19:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As I noted when I proposed it for deletion: No indication of notability per WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. Citations provided are to the company's own site, franchise directories, PR pieces, local news, etc. but nothing that talks about it in a significant way. Google search for the name comes up with fewer than 70 results (either as FlannelJax's or Flannel Jax's). ... discospinster _talk 20:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, obviously just promotional - David Gerard (talk) 12:14, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Discospinster. The article clearly fails WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, and WP:PROMO. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:48, 17 June 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:48, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 New York City helicopter crash[edit]

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

Small aircraft or helicopter crashes are usually not notable UNLESS some person WP notable was involved/ WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indications this was a criminal act, per NYPD and city officials. One person did die, but it's no mass casualty event. No evidence this will be notable. If it turns out it was, recreate. Delete it now and recreate if we find out later that the man who died was Vladimir Putin and whatnot. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Add - does not pass WP:AIRCRASH, a non-binding but persuasive essay. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep You seem to violate WP:RAPID for this quick nomination. View WP:EVENTCRIT as well. The event just happened, I used 2018 New York City helicopter crash as a base, and this passed WP:AIRCRASH.— Preceding unsigned comment added by AmericanAir88 (talk • contribs)

Comment with respect, please look at WP:AIRCRASH again. It indicates "Accidents involving light aircraft and military aircraft are mostly non-prominent." It further indicates that standalone articles of light aircraft accidents only warrant a standalone article where the individual who died has their own WP article or the accident results in a significant change to aircraft design or operations. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ^ᐐT₳LKᐬ 18:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The event just happened. WP:RAPID still apply. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RAPID goes both ways. A event shouldn't have an article when it isn't notable yet....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 19:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

RAPID does not go both ways or else there would be explanation along the lines of what you are saying. The closest thing I could find is WP:DEADLINENOW. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:03, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Some examples of similar articles include: 2002 Tampa Cessna 172 crash, 2002 Pirelli Tower airplane crash, 2014 Wichita King Air crash, and 2015 Colombia helicopter crash. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see any reason why this should be deleted. As said with the above reply (not comment), you seem to be violating WP:RAPID. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.60.59.145 (talk)
Note Helicopter crashed into AXA Equitable Center. AmericanAir88^(talk) 19:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe the content of the article can be merged there? —C.Fred (talk) 19:31, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:RAPID. The article was already created so we should wait a little to see if it become notable Moreover it already meets WP:DIVERSE it was reported by news outlets all over the world [1],[2] --Shrike (talk) 20:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Event just occurred.___CAPTAIN MEDUSAtalk 21:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without prejudice. The article is here, and there's a good chance it would just get recreated in the short term if we delete it now. IMO, the best course of action is to wait a while and see if there is notability to the event beyond it being a current event. If there isn't, then we can delete after the immediate attention from users has gone down. —C.Fred (talk) 21:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Light helicopter accidents like this are very common globally, with many hundreds of them per year, stictly WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. This one only got press coverage due to the prominent location where the media could see it and the media's obsession with aircraft accidents being somehow special. If one person had died in a car accident in NYC it would not have got any press at all. - Ahunt (talk) 22:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Abstain: A minor one-person fatality crash, but notable location and coverage frenzy on news and social media. Definitely an interesting border case. My closest position on this would be "wait and see" per WP:RAPID and WP:RUSH.--~Sıgehelmus♗_(Tøk) 23:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now: There good questions being raised by this crash like why it was flying in less than ideal weather and allowed to go into or very near restricted airspace. After we get more info, we should revisit the issue as to whether or not to delete this article. Omega13a (talk) 00:33, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Fatal aviation crashes or crashes with a hull loss always meet WP:NOTE. - AEMoreira042281 (talk) 03:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A helicopter crashing into a building in New York City is a pretty important event. That's why it was national news. - WPGA2345 - ☛ 03:22, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Number of references available. Seems notable, at least for now. --Edcolins (talk) 11:36, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Normally I would say delete for things like these per a splash in the news. The reason I would keep this for now is that building crashes involving aircraft are uncommon if not rare. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
MergeWhile it was an important event I don't think its notable enough for it's own article, I'd recommend it be merged with the AXA building article. JustAnotherWikiUser0816 (talk) 14:19, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@JustAnotherWikiUser0816: What do you mean "I don't think"? Do you have reasoning to believe a merge is the way to go? Also, that building had its own article and its own purpose in the wikipedia. The building should not be known as "the building with the crash". AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This event is notable for the amount of coverage that it generated, along with the calls for reforms in Manhattan airspace. The number of fatalities should not be a factor in determining notability. Cocoaguy ここがいい 16:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE - not a notable aircrash as not Wikinotable person was involved. This can be adquately handled at the article on the building it crashed onto. Mjroots (talk) 18:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I do not want to argue with an admin, but there is more to the story than someone dying. The person who died may not have been notable, but the impact this crash will have on New York's policies is what makes thes stick out. Also, it received global coverage per WP:DIVERSE. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:37, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@AmericanAir88: Firstly, forget the admin bit. I'm here as an editor and not acting in any administrative capacity.

General aviation crashes are generally not notable enough to sustain articles on Wikipedia with a few exceptions. If a person who is notable enough to sustain a Wikipedia article is involved (e.g the 2019 Piper PA-46 Malibu crash which killed Emiliano Sala). A mid-air or ground collision involving a scheduled flight (Court Line Flight 95) or military aircraft (1974 Norfolk mid-air collision). Other accidents may be notable depending on circumstances (Vauxhall helicopter crash, 2013 Glasgow helicopter crash).

On the face of it, this accident does not meet the threshold at the moment. I haven't got a WP:CRYSTALBALL, but it is possible that once the investigation into the accident is complete, changes to procedures and/or policies will take place. If that happens, then the case for a stand-alone article has more strength. Until such time, the accident falls below the notability threshold for a stand-alone article. Mjroots (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Mjroots: I respect your opinion. However, this helicopter crashed into a building in New York City. A place where an aircraft hitting a building has history and a bigger impact. Governor Andrew Cuomo gave an interview yesterday on how this crash impacts New Yorkers. Donald Trump, The United States president, even talked about this helicopter crash. As cocoa guy said, this amount of coverage and call for reforms in the airspace make it notable.

Here are some examples of other incidents since you were bringing up some: 2002 Tampa Cessna 172 crash, 2002 Pirelli Tower airplane crash, 2014 Wichita King Air crash, and 2015 Colombia helicopter crash. AmericanAir88^(talk) 18:56, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I've said my 2p worth, and was happy to give you a more detailed rationale for my !vote. Let's let the closer decide the outcome. Mjroots (talk) 19:13, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into AXA Equitable Center. Mjroots's second comment is convincing for me, I think that we can merge for now and decide whether we can split this again later. epicgenius (talk) 20:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I would wait for a merge per WP:RAPID: As there is no deadline, it is recommended to delay the nomination for a few days to avoid the deletion debate dealing with a moving target and to allow time for a clearer picture of the notability of the event to emerge, which may make a deletion nomination unnecessary. It then goes into alternatives to deletion, but this isn't the place for that discussion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:06, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now. A merger discussion can be had on the article's talk page if the article stays this small. Dream Focus 23:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Incident happened recently, and more information may possibly appear in the next few days. If we delete the article, it will have to get recreated (likely). Foxnpichu (talk) 10:37, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for now - We should wait a week, see if it is still relevant, and then make a decision on whether we should delete the page. Calicodragon (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand, add images, expand with details. This event is notable enough to warrant its own page. Made international headlines, where aircraft was flying in a restricted zone; this rarely occurs, especially in a large city. Tinton5 (talk) 13:43, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:GNG entirely non notable but tragic accident. IF, a very BIG IF, there is a reason for notability in the future, then an article can be written then!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:36, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it we have this stupid battle every time some OCD editor thinks that every aircraft incident needs an article. Common sense MUST prevail or we will be supporting wikipedia which becomes awash with non-notable chaff!!--Petebutt (talk) 15:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Petebutt: Please be civil. AmericanAir88^(talk) 14:34, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That was me being VERY restrained!!--Petebutt (talk) 16:54, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:TOOSOON, i note that early on in this afd, article creator accuses nominator of WP:RAPID, sorry but crash ocurred on 10 June and when was article created? 10 June, also does not meet WP:EVENT as it does not have "lasting major consequences or affects a major geographical scope, or receives significant non-routine coverage that persists over a period of time.", also WP:NOTNEWS comes to mind as although a tragic crash in a major city this is a local event. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. May not be notable enough for its own article, but there are clearly enough sources to keep the content which can be merged elsewhere, and this is an editorial decision that should be made outside AfD. – filelakeshoe (t / c) 🐱 12:53, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No merge mainly due to the lack of a merge target, although the history of copyright violations by the article creator also strongly speaks in favour of deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Willis Ricketts[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a failed gubernatorial candidate with no significant coverage outside his campaign. GPL93 (talk) 17:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Merge is the best option as I see. For more explanation; I had looked the article and I found that the article subject could kept in Wikipedia by merging the article with a bigger article, such as it's political party article.Forest90 (talk) 18:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination, while also keeping in mind the creator's incessant copyvios. As for the merge vote above, I believe that, at most, the subject could serve as a passing mention in a political parties article. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 02:11, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nomination. I would also note that the articles creator, Billy Hawthorn, is a long discredited editor whose articles have a laundry list of problems ranging from copyvios to notability. This crud about a failed candidate doesn't belong on Wikipedia just because there is proof this guy existed. Best, Newshunter12 (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Merge where? I see nowhere clearly relevant. Maybe redirect at best. ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:45, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of meeting WP:BIO Charmk (talk) 04:18, 18 June 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) ––Redditaddict69 ^(talk) ^(contribs) 03:46, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Alexander (Marine)[edit]

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

Deprodded, with detailed rationale provided on the article's talk page. However, imho, my reasoning for deletion still stands: While brave, simply does not meet notability criteria, as per WP:BIO1E and WP:NSOLDIER. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 17:49, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article, it's notable and I think merging the article be my second offer after keeping the article. But deleting because article notability conditions is not fair partly.Forest90 (talk) 18:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to significant non-trivial coverage of the subject in numerous editorially-managed secondary sources. BBC, Independent, Daily Mirror, Telegraph and Times all produced articles in which Alexander is the primary subject. I can't see any possible argument of for deletion based on WP:N or it's focused guidelines regarding people and soldiers. The article is very poorly written and needs to be cleaned up, but that's a subject for it's talk page, not for AfD. -Markeer 19:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - yes, multiple sourcing, all having to do with the single event in Afghanistan, hence WP:BIO1E.Onel5969 ^{TT me} 20:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Actually the multiple sources are linked to two events in Afghanistan. 1. death of the subject and his officer, where Alexander is primary subject in numerous news articles. 2. 2011 Helmand Province incident, where deaths of Alexander and his officer are referenced extensively in connection with entry. Multiple sources where Alexander was primary subject could also be included that are linked to receiving of military award. That would create two events in Afghanistan (Award and Death) where Alexander is primary subject in numerous sources, and where second is linked to third event, i.e 2011 Helmand Province incident. However, that would require longer entry rather than stub, which might be moot given discussion about deletion based on policy/guidelines interpretation. -Justin Kirby 20:50, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:49, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NSOLDIER is not policy; it's just an essay and so "that's just like, your opinion, man". WP:BIO1E is about whether we should have an article about an event, a participant or both. As there doesn't seem to be a separate article about the event in question, then we should stick with what we have, per the policy WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:44, 17 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

David Sidoni[edit]

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

This bio for an actor / gameshow host lacks the significant coverage in independent reliable sources to establish notability. Whpq (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CThomas³ (talk) 09:51, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR because its subject has received nether sustained WP:SIGCOV nor had important roles in any major productions. There is also no evidence that he is any more notable now then when this article was deleted before in 2010. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 19:04, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Princella Smith[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Smith appears to be a career staffer who was an unsuccessful candidate for the GOP nomination for Arkansas 1st Congressional District. Most of the article reads like a resume as well. GPL93 (talk) 17:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:14, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:15, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails both GNG and NPOL. Montanabw^(talk) 19:52, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article about a failed Congressional candidate fails both WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Also, per WP:NOTINHERITED, she does not inherit the notability of the people she has worked/campaigned for. I agree that the article reads like a resume. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:13, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Codeko[edit]

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

Musician never charted nor received certification for sales. A majority of the sources used in the article are either unreliable or self published, and a news search only brings up more unreliable interviews and coverage of his music. Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Jalen D. Folf (talk) 17:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Musician has been featured on Billboard magazine ^[1]^[2]^[3] and other large outlets for the genre (YourEDM, Dancing Astronaut, EDM.COM) - all independent entities. Has been featured in print in the International Music Summit and Mixmag 'Industry Insider'^[4] (criterion 1 - WP:MUSICBIO). Has released an EP on both Astralwerks (part of Universal Music Group - major label) and 2 EPs on Empire Distribution (large independent label) criterion 5 - WP:MUSICBIO. Several tracks have been added to rotation on US national radio (SiriusXM BPM and Electric Area)^[5] criterion 11 - WP:MUSICBIO. Due to fulfilling multiple of said criteria believe artist passes WP:MUSICBIO. Suggest article is edited to remove improper sources. Berkeleys88 (talk) 18:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Berkeleys88 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Striking sockpuppet comments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment It should be noted that nearly 90% of all released music is to some degree or another owned by one of the "Big Three" Music Groups (Universal, Sony, or Warners). For a label to be under the ownership of one of these is not the same as being signed/or released by a major label, per WP:MUSICBIO notability criteria. The label Astralwerks needs to be judged on its own merits rather than be assumed to be a major label simply because of its parent ownership. Similarly, Empire is a distribution service that accounts for everything from major labels to Soundcloud and Spotify releases; association with this service needs to be assessed on it's own merits and not confused with recording for the Empire label. ShelbyMarion (talk) 17:05, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

* Comment "90% of all released music is owned by major labels" seems like a rather unsubstantiated claim; there are a lot of amateur musicians who self release their music (40,000 tracks are added to Spotify daily ^[6]), and it seems unlikely that the number of artists signing major label deals outnumbers this 10:1. I agree being part-owned by a major is not the same as being a major label; however Astralwerks is under direct UMG control, underwent corporate restructuring to be a sublabel of Capitol US, and works from the Capitol US building in Los Angeles (see Astralwerks). Indeed when researching a specific track (e.g. Codeko's Astralwerks tracks) they are is signed to Universal Music Group^[7] - showing Astralwerks/Capitol US is operating as part of UMG. With regards to Empire, it is not a service akin to one such as DistroKid where anyone can release their music. For Empire Distribution, the word 'Distribution' (vs Records) refers to the model Empire uses to assign track rights^[8] which is different to a typical major label (which takes all copyright), hence the difference in nomenclature. It is not a 'service' that works for other labels/platforms which above seems to imply; they sign & release between 6-10 tracks a week, same as any other large label. Berkeleys88 (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2019 (UTC) Striking sockpuppet comments. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Kygo & Selena Gomez's 'It Ain't Me' Gets a Shimmering, High-Energy Remix By Codeko". Billboard.
^ "Austin Mahone & Codeko Team Up to 'Say Hi' on Feel Good Jam". Billboard.
^ "Codeko Premieres Electric Zoo 2016 Anthem 'Walking With Lions'". Billboard.
^ "IMS Mixmag Industry Insider 2016-08-26". imsmixmagindustryinsider.
^ "Emerging Electro: New tracks from GRiZ, Codeko, Matoma + more (9/26/2016)". SiriusXM.
^ https://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/nearly-40000-tracks-are-now-being-added-to-spotify-every-single-day/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ "USA Public Record Copyright Catalog".
^ "Distribution Deal vs. Recording Deal".

Checkuser note: Berkeleys88 is a Confirmed sock puppet of Eajclark. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 06:16, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:26, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be the work of SPA editors--since identified as socks--with promotional intent. Services such as Soundcloud and Empire distribution are junk as far as backing notability, but an EP released by Astrelwerks might lead to something but its as the writer/producer for another artist so for right now it's not enough, especially with no independent RS to note it's impact/success. Overall, the sourcing is weak, trivial promotional coverage, user submitted sites. and member's promotional services like EDM and IMS MixMag. Even the Billboard links are run-of-the-mill "premieres" announcing new releases; it is "coverage" that originates with the an artist submission in hope of being selected rather than reporting on significant news or accomplishment. Still, at least the work is good enough to beat out the other artists soliciting coverage so in the most charitable assessment, this could be WP:TOOSOON. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Monkey[edit]

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

This is the poem. To me, it does not seem to be notable to have an article Titodutta (talk) 17:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Titodutta (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Titodutta (talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article because it's not notable.Forest90 (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks coverage both in popular and literary presss (at least as I can determine through my database searches). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. As an aside to the issue of notability, the original author has since been blocked for vandalism. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:56, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fail passed notability --MA Javadi (talk) 21:41, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, lacks any information, too short, only real information contained is very basic plot summary and publication date. Notice a very similar article on the Simple English Wikipedia, https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mr._Monkey → Non-monic (talk) 14:23, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 17:37, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Monroe Schwarzlose[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL. Subject was a perennial candidate in Arkansas and most coverage appears to be local coverage on the elections, his obituaries, election results, or works focused on the Clintons in relation to the fact that he ran against Bill Clinton in several elections. GPL93 (talk) 17:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they did not win — no, not even if they ran multiple times. But this makes no claim that he had any preexisting notability for other reasons besides the candidacies themselves, and is not referenced anywhere near well enough to make his candidacies special: apart from a single obituary, it is otherwise referenced almost entirely to primary sources and glancing namechecks of his existence in sources that are primarily about other people, not to substantive coverage about him — and, as always, the existence of one obituary in the person's local media is not an automatic GNG pass all by itself in the absence of any other notability-supporting sources either. Bearcat (talk) 14:11, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Only participated in elections and did not win does not make him notable. Alex-h (talk) 08:26, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Bearcat. This is just more Billy Hawthorn crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:41, 17 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magestore[edit]

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

This is a non-notable company. References are not anywhere near qualifying as significant coverage in independent sources. The article has a history of promotional editing by single-purpose accounts strongly suggesting undeclared paid editing. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources in this article are minor and do not at all constitute the sustained WP:SIGCOV needed to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. The history of editing by single purpose accounts and high risk there has been undisclosed paid editing also indicates this article should be deleted to uproot such corruption from the encyclopedia. Newshunter12 (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Questions like whether to cover any specific engine in detail, or whether to merge into a more generic article, can continue to be hashed out on the talk pages. My personal suggestion is to work on this for a while, and come back to AfD for another look at some point in the future, per WP:RENOM, if necessary. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:55, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aluminum internal combustion engine[edit]

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

I opened a discussion on RSN to see if the provided sources for this article were sufficiently reliable to contribute toward notability. While the discussion has not been closed, there is an overwhelming consensus that more reliable sources, preferably from actual engineering publications as opposed to general-interest news outlets. As such, I think it's appropriate to nominate this article for deletion. I searched online for additional sources prior to opening the RSN discussion, and while I did find some sources that are not cited by the article, they were in publications with similar issues vis-a-vis reliability. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

pinging people involved in the RSN discussion: Newslinger, Jan olieslagers, Steelpillow, Andy Dingley, TGCP _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article has been re-purposed to widen its scope since the original discussion was started and now covers all such high-aluminum content engines. While the sources inherited from the original narrow topic are clearly dubious in varying degrees, the current topic is equally obviously notable once a knowledgeable editor gets their teeth into it and provides some decent sources. For example aluminum crank cases, blocks and cylinder heads are common enough, while the BSA A10 was one that had aluminum con-rods[3] and at least one Skoda had an aluminum crankshaft[4]. Knowing that there is such material out there, for now that is enough to keep it as a stub. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 17:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
delete I have no confidence that WP can produce an article on this topic. Whichever that topic is, either this nameless Russian engine, or aluminium engines in general. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Nominator comment since I opened this AfD on the basis of another conversation, let me clarify my position on deletion: I think that an article specifically about the Russian engine mentioned in the sources does not meet notability guidelines. I feel like I don't have enough knowledge about internal combustion engines to effectively assess whether coverage of all-aluminum or mostly-aluminum engines should be combined with other articles about internal combustion engines, although I don't think the sources currently provided by Steelpillow are enough to justify having a separate article. Thus, my stance at this point would be weak delete _signed,Rosguill ^talk 18:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The worst thing we could do here would be an article on mostly aluminium engines. Those are extremely common: such an article might be justified, but it's emphatically not this article. Only if the crankshaft (which is almost never of aluminium) or possible the conrods (which are very rarely of aluminium) should it be covered here.

The sources here are all pretty obviously a recycling of the same press release. They are not enough to reach WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this is kept then it should be moved to "Aluminium internal combustion engine" per the MoS, as it deals mostly with chemistry and not the element's relevance in the United States. In any event I think it should be merged to Internal combustion engine. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 03:47, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Internal combustion engine under WP:OVERLAP. The 90% aluminum engine is not sufficiently distinct from other internal combustion engines made from different proportions of materials. I don't think this particular engine would be due a mention in the Internal combustion engine article, although a list entry might be due in the History of the internal combustion engine article if more independent sources emerge. The RSN discussion identified weaknesses in the Russian news sources, in that some of the articles appear to be dependent on press releases and that Russian news media is considered less reliable for controversial topics (such as the "first engine" claim).
Regarding the 1903 Wright engine, the cited Smithsonian page states: "The Wright engine, with its aluminum crankcase, marked the first time this breakthrough material was used in aircraft construction. Lightweight aluminum became essential in aircraft design development and remains a primary construction material for all types of aircraft." If aluminum became a mainstay in aircraft engines after it was used in the engine that powered the first flight, then aluminum engines should be covered in the Aircraft engine article instead of a separate article. — Newslinger talk 07:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: At this time. I have over 40 years experience as an automotive technician. I have owned shops, been multiple ASE certified, an on-board computer tech and trainer, and built and owned many high performance vehicles including race cars. I bought a 1976 Vega with a Twin-Cam Cosworth aluminum engine and began to beef it up and race it. The engine is touted as being "all aluminum" but it in fact had a steel crank. I have built engines using aluminum competition blocks that include the LT engines, the Bill Mitchell and Dart small block Ford aluminum engines, and even the Wankle engine. I notice that the Internal combustion engine article is rather large, dabbles in aluminum engines, but with a direction towards all aluminum internal combustion engines instead of the Russian direction, I think this can be a viable article. Otr500 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Improve: The article needs more improvements, but the topic is interesting.Charmk (talk) 04:22, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

We don't do interesting, we do notable. I agree it's interesting. But is that a hypothetical discussion of why it's hard? A review of when it was failed and rejected? Or, just maybe, this one new engine? And does that (which is questioned here) have adequate sourcing for WP:V? Because otherwise we're falling foul of WP:OR, and that's not our purpose. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:03, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. He is a screenwriter not an actor so the deletion rationale is completely wrong. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 13:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

YV Rajesh[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 16:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 10 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Hunter[edit]

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

{{{text}}} Does not meet notability requirements, article is largely being used as a campaign website Jp16103 15:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to have at least 20 secondary sources on the article. In what way does it not meet notability guidelines? -- Fyrael (talk) 16:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The notability test for people is not just "the article has sources" — lots of people have gotten their names into the media one or more times without becoming notable because of that. Getting a Wikipedia article is not just a matter of counting the footnotes: we also evaluate the depth of how substantively any source is or isn't about the person, the geographic range of where the coverage is coming from, and the context of what the person is getting coverage for. For instance, the existence of some local press coverage in the context of serving on the local school board is not notability-making sourcing; sources which briefly mention his name in the process of being fundamentally about somebody else do not bolster his notability; and on and so forth. Bearcat (talk) 14:18, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Your interesting use of italics has forced me to read your response in a Christopher Walken stress pattern. Thank you for the explanation though, as I'm admittedly not very familiar with notability guidelines specifically for BLP articles. I just happened upon this while patrolling recent changes. As I hadn't given an official "vote" anyway, I'll just leave it that way. -- Fyrael (talk) 14:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, only two sentences even mention Hunter's present campaign - and only in passing as a matter of fact (i.e. not as a campaign pitch). This history of this article goes back to 2012 when Hunter apparently gained media attention for being the first Muslim born person to be a rabbi. The French version of this article had a rousing discussion of the issue of his notability back then and decided then he was indeed notable enough. The article had ample mainstream media sources (it clearly has a few more now).

There's also an attempt to delete the article on Hunter's presidential campaign claiming it should be merged with this one. Seems a fishy attempt to erase Hunter - and timed with a political campaign, since this article was deemed notable for all the years its been up before now. (Hunter is arguably more notable now than then, based on the sources provided in the article.) 70.13.118.40 (talk) 16:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge

As I was saying in the correlating campaign article about Hunter, I think his Presidential Campaign article should be merged into one article with this one. The press coverage provided about his political activities is largely local, 7 secondary sources are linked, but 11 of the 18 citations in the article come from just three sources (Vindicator, WKBN, and WMFJ). Three sources are dead links. So the totals are 2 primary sources and four secondary sources (as I understand multiple articles from a single source count as one). Part of the criteria for notability for local politicians is as follows "A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I personally do not consider a few articles about a law-suit and a candidate biography to count as "significant press coverage". Hunter's current notability does not come from his actions on the school committee, or a single article claiming to be the first former Muslim becoming a Rabbi, rather, his current notability comes from his presidential campaign which is why I suggest this article being merged into a single article about his campaign which would include a section about his biography. Jp16103 17:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

But you're trying to delete both articles. (?!) If you think the Pres. article should be merged into this one, then the course of action would have been to request deletion of just that one and modify this one. But you're trying to delete both and claim they will merge. Merge into what? Thin air?

And you're not looking carefully at the sources. YNetNews is Israeli, Al-Arabiya is from the UAE and Tablet Magazine is a national, notable Jewish publication. So, not just local - international, actually. The Al-Arabiya dead link can be fixed with the Wayback Machine - here's the Wayback link - https://web.archive.org/web/20120708015639/https://english.alarabiya.net/articles/2012/07/07/225074.html

And what is "current notability"? Not a Wiki criteria, that's what. Descartes isn't being interviewed anymore, but he once 'thought therefore he is' (on Wikipedia that is).

107.26.6.239 (talk) 17:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

What. the. heck. dude. You just said "his current notability comes from his presidential campaign." That means he's notable and so is his campaign. (Agreed - plenty of sources for that.) But you want to delete the article on him and his campaign. That doesn't make sense. SMH. Did you just not want to do the editing to merge them? That's not what a delete request is for.

107.26.88.238 (talk) 18:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The existance of this AFD raises the question on the fate of the associated series template. FoxyGrampa75 (talk) 02:55, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - nomination is erroneous, article has existed well before Hunter nominated himself for the the Green party. Subject has gained a fair bit of coverage for being the first Muslim-born rabbi, see ynetnews, Moroccan World News, etc. Inter&anthro (talk) 05:01, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep cited sources meet WP:GNG. Additional coverage of subject over the period from 2012 to the present is easily found. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 15:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Subject meets notability requirements. As noted above, this article existed well before Hunter's current political campaign. Funcrunch (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BIO. As Inter&anthro notes, this article has existed with good sourcing for many years. Yoninah (talk) 19:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There have been no questions raised about subject's notability until just now. And the timing coincides with efforts to erase all candidates other than Howie Hawkins from 2020 Green Party presidential primaries. AlanAugustson (talk) 19:43, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject meets the standards of WP:BIO. Also, the notability pre-exists the presidential campaign (see the comments of Inter&anthro), despite claims above to the contrary.--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 20:12, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All the minor party Presidential candidates deserve their own articles, plus Hunter is notable as a Muslim who became a Jewish rabbi.Amyzex (talk) 22:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG Dream Focus 23:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG.Djflem (talk) 05:39, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Subject meets notability requirements. Also, Additional coverage of subject has existed with good sourcing for many years.--MA Javadi (talk) 20:08, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Request to closing editor: Is this a SNOW keep yet? Yoninah (talk) 20:41, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep he is notable enough that there are numerous secondary sources on him. -Capriaf
Keep per WP:SNOW easily passes GNG not sure why it was nominated Lubbad85 (☎) 19:00, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:45, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Cohee[edit]

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

Cohee served as chair or the Arkansas GOP for a total of nine months and never held an office that would grant notability per WP:NPOL. The only references used are untitled and unlinked local newspaper articles, his family-published obit, an obit in a local newspaper, election results, and an entry for someone with a tangential relation to Cohee in the Encyclopedia of Arkansas. GPL93 (talk) 15:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete More non-notable Bill Harthon nonsense. He likely plagiarized from the unlinked sources. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Money emoji: There's likely a lot more of these to come as I was unaware that in addition to random Louisiana and NW Texas politicians he also appears to have created a bunch for similar figures in Arkansas as well. I honestly don't know how he had the time to publish so many of these or how an academic with a PhD. in History would ever find this level of sourcing acceptable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:04, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable politician. This level of sourcing would be acceptable for some levels of historical papers, but an encyclopedia article is not meant to be a report of primary research but an agregate of published knowledge.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL, likely riddled with copyvios and is just more Billy Hawthorn crud. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:44, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgette Raes[edit]

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

I can't find any WP:SIGCOV or otherwise in depth coverage of her - it's mostly one liners "fashionista/expert Raes says wear this!" and interviews. Also fails NAUTHOR as her books don't seem to have any professional reviews or coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 15:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:06, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NAUTHOR. The sustained WP:SIGCOV of her or her literature is just not there. I would also add that this article was created by a single purpose account, which raises the specter of an undisclosed COI as the basis of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:12, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:43, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

GoalNepal.com[edit]

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

Promotional page for a non-notable sports website. Cites goalNepal website, and 2 blogs, one of them by an employee of goalNepal itself. No independent coverage to merit an article. Usedtobecool ^TALK 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 14:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:40, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 10:41, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:22, 17 June 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. OK, the consensus is clearly that this topic is solely notable for the manner of death as the sourcing of other aspects has been argued to be inadequate and the arguments only weakly rebutted. Thus WP:BLP1E or WP:1E would apply and as noted the BLP policy's applicability does not immediately cease upon the death of an individual (1E does not require the individual to be alive at all). Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:42, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ehud Arye Laniado[edit]

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

There are valid concerns as to whether or not this biography meets our requirements for biographies of living people: his apparent main claim to notability is dying in an apparently embarrassing way. That makes for good click bait, but is hardly what we expect when taking into account the BLP policy’s presumption in favour of privacy when things such as BLP1E come up. The other sources that claim to be about his business career don’t really focus on him and don’t pass GNG in my view. Regardless, as this is trying to be put on the main page, having the AfD discussion about it now that valid concerns have been raised should happen before that occurs, not after. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. TonyBallioni (talk) 13:47, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. One might expect that the death of someone like Laniado during supposedly low-risk surgery at a private clinic would make French regulators look closely at the standards of private clinics and what the doctors involved did or didn't do. I think his claim to notability is being a diamond merchant, not the way he died. He was not a run-of-the-mill diamond merchant. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 15:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and the article in its current version only mentions the manner of his death once at the end where it cannot be avoided. Philafrenzy (talk) 16:13, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep The nomination is absurd in its concern about our "requirements for biographies of living people" when the subject is so clearly dead. See also WP:CENSOR. Andrew D. (talk) 17:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
BLP applies to folks, who have recently expired. To quote from WP:BDP:- ... people who have recently died, in which case the policy can extend for an indeterminate period beyond the date of death—six months, one year, two years at the outside. Such extensions would apply particularly to contentious or questionable material about the dead that has implications for their living relatives and friends, such as in the case of a possible suicide or a particularly gruesome crime. Also, have you read my comments over the DYK page? ∯WBG^converse 18:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep The nomination seems to be based on an old version of the article and old (rejected) DYK hooks. The argument has been made and accepted that the original placed too much emphasis on the manner of his death and the article and DYK nom were revised accordingly. He's notable as a diamond dealer and billionaire and meets the GNG. Philafrenzy (talk) 18:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Not about the content, but the fact that the main reason he has any claim to notability is the manner of his death, which correctly has been removed for all but the references. Anyway, when good faith concerns have been raised about something like this, the correct response is to have a discussion at AfD so the community can decide, rather than posting it on the main page first. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and my comments over the DYK page. There's nil GNG level coverage barring those which cover his embarrassing death and we do a disservice, by sourcing from news that have since been taken down. ∯WBG^converse 18:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article because it's not meet [WP:GNG] as I see. Even the final paragraph in Career section linked to an YouTube video.Forest90 (talk) 18:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because BLP applies to the recently deceased (for excellent reasons,) and because that sourcing about his death is tabloid-style sensationalism, I think that we would need sourcing of his career as a diamond dealer that makes a persuasive that he is not a WP:MILL diamond dealer, but, rather, a dealer of clear notability. Notability that makes taking down the article ineligible. I have run searches with and without his middle name, and I'm just not seeing that degree of notability.E.M.Gregory (talk) 23:53, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Wikipedia is not a tabloid. His sole claim to notability is his macabre death; his career isn't appreciably different than thousands of other traders without Wikipedia articles. SnowFire (talk) 20:40, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. His bizarre death got some coverage, but that falls under WP:ONEEVENT. I agree that BLP restrictions apply to this recently deceased individual. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:31, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Regardless of how he died, he was never a BLP1E case. Laniado was/is notable for at least two other things. Firstly, he was the seller of the world's most expensive diamond, the Blue Moon of Josephine ($48.4 million). Reliable sources for this include the Australian Broadcasting Corporation and The Jewish Chronicle. Secondly, he was being pursued by the Belgian government for alleged tax evasion since 2013, and was due in court in March 2019, (11 days after his death) to respond to a suit for €4.6 billion ($5.27 billion). Sourcing for this is the Times of Israel, International Business Times and the International Consortium of Investigative Journalists. Of course, the manner of his death led to increased media attention, but he would have met our notability criteria anyway. As the article currently stands, the only mention of how he died is in the final sentence, under "Personal life". Edwardx (talk) 11:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of the non-death related references are trivial and passing mentions. Laniado shows up in a single sentence in this article with nothing directly attributed to him, merely his business group. The Australian Broadcasting Corporation article doesn't even mention Laniado at all, so it's not even a trivial mention, which is not shocking - the billionaire who buys the diamond is far more interesting than the middleman broker. These are the only two reliable, secondary source references that are not talking about his death, so... no, this is a textbook BLP1E, an "article" written with only pre-death sources would be 1 sentence long. SnowFire (talk) 14:51, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksandr Smolyar[edit]

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

Racing driver who does not appear to be notable per WP:NMOTORSPORTS. Article was created by a user blocked for creating articles on non-notable racing drivers, PRODed, then recreated by that user's sock. Putting up for discussion because I'm not sure if Formula Renault Northern European Cup qualifies as a professional championship. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:42, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:09, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails any notability standard. This article was deleted once before without controversy and he is no more notable now then he was then. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:34, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:41, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Guerrero[edit]

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

No evidence of WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG notability. Sources consist of (1) links to research or other primary sources (2) news articles about lawsuits. Article has become a battleground between editors intent to including or excluding articles about legal actions taken by and against the subject; WP:NOTNEWS. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics_and_educators-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 15:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Editors commenting on this case (especially those like me editing under identifiable names) should be aware that, according to one disputed version of the article and its two newspaper-article sources for this claim, Guerrero has already sued for libel 72 of his former colleagues at USC who signed an open letter concerning him. I note also that the IP editor who removed much of this material from the article explicitly used the word "libelous". In view of this history, I have no opinion on whether this article should be kept or in what state it should be kept. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:23, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NSCHOLAR, and runs afoul of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER. Given the contentious nature of this article on a non-notable WP:Run-of-the-mill professor, it seems best to uproot this article from the encyclopedia, as no one here needs to deal with potential lawsuits. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:49, 17 June 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) 14:03, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne H. Babbitt[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL as a failed senate candidate. Of the references used in this article 4 are regarding his 1972 Senate campaign (which he lost handily), 3 of which are just the same article formatted differently, another two are his family-published funeral home obituary, one are the results from the 1972 election, and another is his listing in the SSI death Index, which does nothing more than establish that Babbitt is, in fact, deceased. GPL93 (talk) 13:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete. CSD G5, another user:Billy Hathorn sock farm creation. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 13:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As Billy Hathorn crud. Once again, thank you for ridding wikipedia of his plague. 💵Money💵emoji💵^💸 15:02, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:10, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's rationale Fails WP:NPOL as a failed senate candidate Lubbad85 (☎) 19:37, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously fails WP:NPOL. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:22, 17 June 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. Materialscientist (talk) 23:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Adel (actor)[edit]

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

Apparently non-notable actor. I declined an WP:A7 nomination and moved it to draft space for the creator to work on and submit when ready, but it's been moved back to mainspace. The sourcing doesn't seem adequate to support a page on this person. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 12:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Autobiography of a non-notable actor. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS (talk|c|em) 13:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No depth of coverage from reliable sources to indicate notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 13:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A famous person, in the Iraqi Actors. Ali1jassim (talk) 15:44, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Ali1jassim (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep sources exist but meets WP:BASIC Yoyomolia (talk) 17:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Yoyomolia (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Comment Both accounts blocked as obvious WP:DUCK sockpuppets. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 19:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:39, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Algunos Sentimientos[edit]

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

Unambiguously fails to meet WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Coverage is both insignificant and unreliable. You can try to look for a single good source about this album – that is a source that even marginally advances notability; if you inexplicably succeed, I'll prominently display "[Your username] is my favorite editor" in a banner on my user page for a week. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 12:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. I was actually waiting until the AfD for the artist had closed, as it seems likely that it will be deleted, and then that would have made this EP more likely to fail AfD as well. Nevertheless, I agree with the nominator – apart from the reviews from online record stores, which do not qualify as reliable sources (however hard the article creator will argue for them), there are no sources for this record. Richard3120 (talk) 20:08, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The album was compared to the works of Larry Heard, Matthew Herbert and Ricardo Villalobos by the most reliable sources on contemporary underground electronic music Amoeba Music and Juno Records. Before releasing the album 'Algunos Sentimientos' Zûg released 2 EPs on the Italian record label Propersound Records as limited editions that are being sold for up to 6 times the price after being sold-out after a week of being released (See price history in here) [5]. There is not a lot of coverage because is underground music. But if you look in Amoeba Music website you will see that they only review a record in a 100. And they don't usually compare albums with the best works of a genre ever written. The music from Zûg is considered cult music, timeless music by the underground electronic music community [6]. Lagasta (talk) 20:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Lagasta (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

You've again made this same red herring argument about how good some people think the album is. That's very obviously not the problem, as I address on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zûg. I should note as well that the link you've left above attesting to Zûg's cult status leads to a personal website with no pretense of reliability that gives a passing mention to this album. Wikipedia is first and foremost an encyclopedia, not a platform for hyper-niche artists to get a fair shake. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 20:11, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are referring as "some people" to the people with more knowledge on the planet on the music subject. If you know of some more relevant sources for electronic music than Amoeba Music and Juno Records please let us know, but I know there isn't, they are the only ones to have all the music that comes out. Also, it is more than normal that when someone is interviewed they put a link to their website. And when a piece of art or a book or a piece of music is compared by the most expert voices in the world with the most important works of art or music on a specific genre ever existed, it only means that the piece of art or music deserves a place on an encyclopedia. Lagasta (talk) 10:15, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"If you know of some more relevant sources for electronic music than Amoeba Music and Juno Records please let us know"... Mixmag, DJ Mag, Dancing Astronaut, YourEDM, Billboard, NME, Electronic Musician, The Wire, Electronic Sound... Richard3120 (talk) 11:50, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That is all for electronic dance music, main-stream media, is commercial music, they hardly mention any underground electronic music ever. It is not relevant. The real authorities on the matter are the record stores, they are the third party, since you first have the artist, then the record label, then the distributor and then the record store. Lagasta (talk) 15:04, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I was simply answering your question. And The Wire and Electronic Sound most certainly do not cover mainstream electronic music – I'd think that in the techno genre, the likes Richie Hawtin or Sven Väth are about as mainstream as they've ever gone. Richard3120 (talk) 13:16, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I am glad you are researching. Now the point is, magazines are open for labels and agencies to send music for reviews and they certainly have deals with them. Record labels pay them for advertisement and so on. That is not the case with record stores. The record stores sell and recommend what they want with no external influence. So basically anyone with the money to be in all main-stream media could be accepted in Wikipedia. And not the real artists like Zûg that makes music for love and anyone can tell that. He does his music, design the cover, do the mastering and all to achieve a record that reaches people hearts and minds, art. And not only want to make money like all the main-stream media products that could easily be in Wikipedia for having the power, the contacts or the money to be on all the magazines you mention. Lagasta (talk) 17:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Magazines are like movies, movies of real life, they have all these characters to play with and tell the stories they want with them and what matters is how many cars they have or how much money or how cool they look. While the record stores like Amoeba Music only talk about the music, music for them is serious and is again the only thing that matters. What matters in the magazines is the pictures, cause is a print, there is no music on magazines. The music is in the record shops like Amoeba Music and they listen to music all day. Lagasta (talk) 13:53, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I will write the article talking about the electronic music culture in Berlin, I hope to find enough Reliable Sources to show that Berlin is the center in the world for underground electronic music. Is something it needs to be in Wikipedia for the world to know what's going on here in the capital of techno, and not written by some magazine but written by people that live and breath in the scene. Is like talking about the hip-hop in the Bronx back in the day. Is what's happening here, and is important for the history of electronic music. And of course, I will include Zûg and many other Producers DJs, record labels and independent distributors that are releasing all this cult music that is the electronic music of our times, 2019, 2002, and I am not talking about David Geta or all that commercial circus. I am talking about electronic music made by today's most talented electronic musicians creating music for cultured people. So if you want to delete Zûg's article now you can do it. But sooner or later the page will be here. So I want to propose to keep this article in Wikipedia until I finish writing the article on the electronic music scene in Berlin, capital of techno. Lagasta (talk) 23:56, 13 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lagasta: While I believe that other editors and I have made it reasonably clear why neither Zûg nor his works meet Wikipedia's criteria for notability, this doesn't mean that you can't share your passion for their music on other sites that have more lax standards for notability. For example, although I can't claim to speak for them, I believe the Electronic Music Wiki would appreciate the articles you've created here, as their goal is "to create a freely available and freely editable knowledgebase of electronic music and its many sub-genres", including artist biographies. I've saved the entirety of the article for Algunos Sentimientos in case you decide to create an entry there, as I believe you should. Best regards, TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 03:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article for the artist behind this record has now been deleted at AfD. Richard3120 (talk) 11:12, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (or Speedy Delete) per WP:A9. The above discussion has become moot because the musician was deemed non-notable at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Zûg and his article was deleted. Therefore, per WP:A9 the album is non-notable by extension. I will add that the text of A9 says it could be overcome if there is a claim that the album is important, but in this article such claims are from the record companies that are trying to promote it. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:08, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Doomsdayer520 and WP:A9. This album is not notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 05:57, 17 June 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) 14:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kawasaki Snowmobiles[edit]

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

Doing this per Lordtobi proposal on Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Data Design Interactive (2nd nomination). This game simply fails WP:GNG for lack of multiple significant coverage in reliable sources. Besides the cited IGN review (I will also note that IGN reviewed almost every game from the publisher in what seems to be a hate review mix, also what can be seen in cited sources in the AfD mentioned above). There is a MobyGames page which includes another 2 reviews: Video Game Critic and Cheat Code Central. However, both are deemed unreliable per WP:VG/RS. Hence the GNG failure. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 12:38, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as per my earlier statement, one source is not sufficient for significant coverage, and it does not appear that this game will ever gain any more sources than that. Thus, it fails various notability guidelines. The WikiProject Video games custom reliable sources search engine has just one hit that is neither GameFAQs, Metacritic, GameRankings, or a database-type overview site (as found on CNET/IGN), and that is the IGN review already included. The previous discussion ended in keep because one user argued that the non-notability of the company had no bearing on the notability of the game ... without addressing why the game, on its own, should be notable. Lordtobi (✉) 12:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I have a soft spot for articles about shovelware, but the only source I could find that advances notability is the IGN article. This is the only other mention of it I could find in a notable publication, which is just a passing mention. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 22:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Was hoping my methods of finding sources would help, but as is with everyone else, IGN was the only one I found. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 04:47, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 21:36, 16 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG because one good source is not enough to meet that bar. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Lopifalko (talk) 07:31, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Indian Air Force An-32 disappearance[edit]

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

Even if it had any independent reliable sources (it currently has none) currently it falls under WP:NOTNEWS. Possibly some day the subject could become notable but not as the topic stands. Lopifalko (talk) 12:05, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the similar incident, and Wikipedia is news. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 05:23, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please do read WP:NOTNEWS. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's up for discussion. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 03:32, 12 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and move to 2019 Indian Air Force An-32 crash. No shortage of international news coverage of this event, a quick google search turns up many. I have added a few to the article. The plane wreckage has been found, it's no longer a disappearance. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Despite international news coverage, WP:NOTNEWS still applies. -Lopifalko (talk) 16:21, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RAPID also applies here. You nominated the article for deletion a mere 20 minutes after its creation and within 10 minutes of its most recent edit. Please give editors some time to flesh out new articles before jumping in with deletion tags. RecycledPixels (talk) 16:27, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am going by what I have seen others do in terms of swiftly tagging and removed news articles in the past. WP:NOTNEWS says "News reports. Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events." (my emphasis). I assumed that it didn't matter how quickly one jumped in if it could be determined from sources (whether used in the article or not) that WP:NOTNEWS applied. However I have now read WP:RAPID, and I take your point, and will allow the dust to settle in future. -Lopifalko (talk) 17:32, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable event and plenty of sources to improve the article.-Nizil (talk) 06:32, 14 June 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) 14:02, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alliye[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP that does not appear to be notable. Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Otr500 (talk) 11:01, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Subject survived a previous AFD because it was considered a "bad-faith nomination by a sockpuppet of banned user". Otr500 (talk) 11:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't seem to find anything notable on this musical artist. The article does not have any references, and the discography lists only one recording. Netherzone (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and any other notability standards. The article is unsourced and I found no sources on this individual in a WP:BEFORE search I did on her. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:20, 17 June 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Galandar Janbakhishov[edit]

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

Medical doctor and academic. The main award given to him, "Honored Physician" of Azerbaijan, does not seem sufficient to demonstrate the level of notability required by WP:BIO. – Fayenatic London 10:27, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: All the other pages created by User talk:Ramil Najafli have been deleted as promotional. – Fayenatic London 10:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Tough case, the article reads like promo piece, and he fails WP:NPROF as far as GScholar search for Galandar Janbakhishov, but GScholar also is not very good at indexing non-English scholarship; it is possible he made an impact in Azeri science. And his article has the section on "Publications about him", with several Azeri offline works. We would need someone fluent in Azeri to discuss their reliability. If he is a subject of in-depth academic monograph in Azeri, he would be notable. But since there is no quotation or English explanation of those offline sources, and nothing else in the article seems to warrant him passing NBIO, I vote weak delete for now. Please ping me if there are new sources or an explanation of the current ones. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:39, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:52, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As it stands now, this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NPROF as the sustained WP:SIGCOV or publications are not there to prove notability. That WP:SIGCOV may exist somewhere else is pure WP:CRYSTALBALL and should not be used to keep this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:28, 17 June 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) 14:01, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Waters[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NBIO. Some passing mention in sources, no in-depth coverage about him, no major awards, etc. Likely paid promo bio created by a WP:SPA. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with Piotrus' assessment - passing mentions, hasn't improved since creation by the SPA - David Gerard (talk) 11:24, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 13:30, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NBIO. The likely WP:SPA is a further reason to uproot this article because such corruption on Wikipedia should not be rewarded. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:37, 17 June 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 16:38, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arun Singhaniya[edit]

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

Per WP:GNG. Couldn't find SIGCOV. The notability of the subject can not be established. The amount of coverage indicates he deserves only passing mention in the page Janakpur Today (daily) and in Janakpur Today Communications Group if and when that article deserves creation. Additionally, the information in the article maybe suited for pages about Press freedom in Nepal, Security of journalists in Nepal, Journalism related murders in Nepal, High profile murder cases in Nepal and the like. I don't even see enough coverage to warrant a standalone page on Murder of Arun Singhaniya. So, NOPAGE for Arun Singhaniya. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 08:48, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Just found wikipedia jargon to describe this article: WP:WIDESPREAD, WP:COAT and Wikipedia:Masking the lack of notability#Building a biography. Usedtobecool ^TALK 14:09, 10 June 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. Information could be added to town's article, perhaps in a collapsible table, but there's no indication that the topic is independently notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:01, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Belchertown Board of Selectmen[edit]

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

WP:NOTDIR MB 16:36, 2 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as this article is not relevant. Steve Lux, Jr. (talk) 14:49, 3 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Boards of Selectmen are the executive authority in most towns in Massachusetts and in some other New England states. They perform the same functions as Mayors in Massachusetts cities: appointing department heads, offer a budget, supervise the Town Administrator or Town Manager. By comparison, the Wikipedia site https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Mayor_of_Boston lists Mayors of Boston since the 1800s. This site lists the equivalent officials in Belchertown since the 1800s. All of these officials were elected by voters. In almost every case, their election were contested.

It could be argued reasonably that it should be merged with or linked to https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Belchertown,_Massachusetts. However, I believe that it should not be deleted. Prosbus (talk) 17:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)Prosbus[reply]

Keep: It seems consistent with Category:Lists of mayors of places in Massachusetts, but List of mayors of Chicopee, Massachusetts says they didn't have a mayor until 1890 because they were still incorporated as a town; I don't know if Board of Selectmen deserves their own article per town, but there are 6 pages at https://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Special:Search/intitle:"board of selectmen". They should be named consistently. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 01:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 06:43, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:55, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge with Belchertown, Massachusetts. There is a big difference between having such a list for a major US city such as Boston and a significantly smaller municipality such as Belchertown. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:26, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Seriously? This is a small town we're talking about (ironically, I live in an adjacent town). This is a massive fail of WP:POLITICIAN, and that they were elected in competitive elections is utterly irrelevant, as is the absurd comparison between a small New England town and a large city of international recognition and repute. If there are similar "board of selectmen" articles based on municipalities of similar size, bring them to deletion as well. Ravenswing 15:33, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia should continue to be a collaborative effort to collect and preserve information. The important question is not size. Rather, for hundreds of years selectmen have had the full executive power that mayors have in other places. Under Massachusetts General Law, Belchertown could vote to become a full city with a mayor as executive authority instead of a board. (There are cities in Massachusetts which are smaller than Belchertown.) In this case, it is the Massachusetts legislature that decided Belchertown is large enough. But rather it is the powers of the board that make it worthy of inclusion. Establishing an arbitrary size rule within Wikipedia surely would lead to unintended consequences. Would there be different rules for different centuries? Would there be different rules for different countries? Where would the lines be drawn? Why would Wikipedia want to delete historical information that has already been posted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Prosbus (talk • contribs) 19:13, 16 June 2019 (UTC) *Note to closer Prosbus was the creator of this article. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: As it happens, the important question is size. The notability standards already in place for politicians make those distinctions, and those standards are determined by consensus of Wikipedia editors, not by the Massachusetts state legislature. (Indeed, there is a single city in Massachusetts smaller than Belchertown, but being a "city" by Massachusetts state law has zero impact on notability standards.) Are there different rules for different centuries or different countries? Nope. City councilors of internationally renowned metropolitan areas qualify regardless of the century or nation. Since Belchertown has never been one, the point is moot. Ravenswing 00:12, 18 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per Ravenswing. This article is indeed a massive failure of WP:NPOL and the comparison of this small town to a big city like Boston is ridiculous. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS is not a valid reason to keep an article and in this case, I agree that it would be a call for further AfD's. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:46, 17 June 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. Michig (talk) 07:16, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

1. maj, Podgorica[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. Occurs in an estate agency list, but that is about all. Would normally be spelled with a capital 'M' of course. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montenegro-related deletion discussions. Imaginatorium (talk) 05:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability. Reywas92^Talk 06:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with List of Podgorica neighbourhoods and suburbs - this article is only a sentence long, and does not need its own article. Vorbee (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:56, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non notable locality. Ajf773 (talk) 19:45, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The two sources in the article do not even confirm existence. SpinningSpark 20:21, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does this place even exist? Who knows, since the article's sources sure don't say. Newshunter12 (talk) 06:57, 17 June 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) 09:23, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan M. Parisen[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Subject is not notable per WP:BASIC or WP:FILMMAKER. When you search his name, you will see him in several news articles, but all but one of these pertain to this local incident from 2012, which falls under the purview of WP:BLP1E. Other than that specific, isolated incident, the only three mentions of him I could find are this brief article from the Staten Island Advance about his accidental filming of the 2003 Staten Island Ferry crash, this mention from People Magazine (the South African one, not People) stating he's Danny DeVito's cousin, and this passing mention in a book about zombie films as a credit for I Sell the Dead. The original nomination of this article was, for whatever reason, almost immediately withdrawn with no discussion taking place. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 06:36, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:57, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I had actually been planning on starting an AFD on this individual myself. I had recently started an AFD on one of his supposed films, and on looking for sources on that, found very little on the artist himself. None of his films or art projects ever garnered any notability, and as stated, the only sources that actually do discuss him in any way greater than a brief mention are about his involvement in the train accident. As stated in the nomination, this kind of coverage falls squarely into WP:BLP1E, thus this individual does not meet the notability requirements for a biographical article. Rorshacma (talk) 19:25, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Rorshacma. The article clearly fails WP:NFILMMAKER and WP:ONEEVENT. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:01, 17 June 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. And tagging as "cleanup needed" Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:52, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WalkAway campaign[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page's topic isn't notable, and as written appears to be little more than a political screed. --Good Damon 02:12, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 05:20, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning keep and improve. The campaign was notable enough to receive at least some coverage in wide-reaching news outlets from across the political spectrum. However, it appears to have been largely forgotten since the election, so if there are sources evaluating the effectiveness of this movement, those would be useful to add. bd2412 T 03:19, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article has some issues with WP:OR and primary sources, but includes plenty of WP:RS as well. I've already made a few quick improvements to address some of these issues. WookieInHeat (talk) 03:35, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and improve: The original revision, while it has some more minor issues, seems to have less obviously biased coverage of the campaign... Not that that's a difficult goal given the current article. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Good Favour[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFILM. No third party source listed beyond IMDB and Rotten tomato, which have no reviews. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:BEFORE in seconds, I was able to find multiple reviews of the film: Moveable Fest, The Times, RTE, Screendaily, The Irish Times, Variety. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. 30 seconds and two pages in on DuckDuckGo yielded all (most?) of the sources above. That in itself is enough, but I would be thoroughly unsurprised if there are more. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 06:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP - While not very notable, per the links above it has multiple reviews from both its festival premiere (TIFF 2017) as well as its Irish market release (Nov 2018). I'm not sure about the Movable Fest review (blog post) but Variety is RS, Screen Daily maybe RS, RTE and Irish Times seem RS. RTE has both a review and an interview so they're treating it seriously. The above reviews are not 'capsules' even if they're not extensive (e.g. half the length of a typical Ebert review). In addition to being screened at the Irish Film Institute when released there, it obviously was at TIFF as well. I guess TIFF is a big deal for small movies such as this.

That all said, it's a weak keep for me because it is a small movie, was a 'world cinema' entry at TIFF (who don't offer their own review of it) and I don't think there will be much to write about it (an Irish Examiner interview with the director suggests that it was a co-production with some other countries so maybe that's a thread to unravel a bit). I would be mildly surprised if it ever meets any of the 'enduring' WP:NFILM guidelines but I haven't seen it so that's not meaningful. ogenstein (talk) 09:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:58, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Improve If you think the film deserves its own page fine, then there should be one worthy of it. Add plot, development, filming, reception, etc. MaskedSinger (talk) 16:54, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Rotten Tomatoes here shows eleven critics reviews such as Variety, RTE, Sunday Times, Irish Independent, Screen Daily so passes WP:GNG. Nominator please check Rotten Tomatoes before nominating film articles, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 19:53, 15 June 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) 09:24, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Wild Ripperz Crew[edit]

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

Subject is a dance crew that came in second place in a national competition (though in the rather small country of Nepal). I doubt that is sufficient to establish encyclopedic notability bd2412 T 00:22, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Snowycats (talk) 00:29, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 00:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 00:40, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:59, 10 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Comment/Correction: Although I am skeptical of their notability as well and would have to look into it further before casting a "vote", I think the dance competition was Indian. I doubt it was national but probably more significant than one is liable to think, considering the size and population of South Asia (maybe just India with exceptions for Nepalese brethren) and the popularity of Star Plus in South Asia and elsewhere. Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:46, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, with apologies, I don't think AfDs should be used as testing grounds for resolving one's doubts, especially not as a substitute for in-depth look at the article/subject that the AfD is about; unless you are testing novice editors like me, in which case, what do I win? :D Usedtobecool ^TALK 04:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

You are correct, the competition was in India. The dance crew is from Nepal. As for WP:BEFORE, to which you allude, there is not much there. A handful of mentions in the media, but I see nothing in-depth in any highly reliable source. bd2412 T 23:37, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The only coverage that comes anywhere close to independent RS is this. But it's not nearly enough. It doesn't meet WP:GNG. Unless there's exceptions for dance crews, I don't see how it can stay. For a dance crew, they seem to be fairly accomplished, and the WP:NOTEBOMB in the article attests to that, it's a shame there's no SIGCOV. The page creator seems to have joined about a month ago, solely to work on this article. Since they've got a zillion refs for notebombing, I think we can be fairly certain, this is the best coverage even the most diligent digging could recover. Usedtobecool ^TALK 05:14, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG due to only very poor sources existing aside from one decent source. Would need sustained WP:SIGCOV to keep, but we are nowhere near there. This dance group just isn't notable. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:14, 17 June 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. While "it existed" is indeed not a sufficient argument for keeping a page, some other source-based arguments have gone uncontested. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 06:50, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Freelandia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Only 1 reliable source. Hardly the requirements to pass WP:NCORP. The previous AFD doesn't offer any strong reason to Keep other than WP:ITEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:03, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a list of low-cost airline travel charter companies to which we could merge/redirect this? If so, do that. If not, delete. bd2412 T 00:23, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possibly List of low-cost airlines? Snowycats (talk) 00:41, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Snowycats, that's just a list of airlines and they all have individual articles. Don't think this is suitable for it. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 01:28, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7 - Yeah, I felt like it was a stretch. Just putting what is there for reference. Snowycats (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wouldn't be surprised if there isn't much on the internet about this company, but a search through newspapers.com turns up a lot of non-trivial coverage about this company in the 1970s, coverage picked up by wire services and printed throughout the country. Therefore, meets WP:GNG. When I get a chance over the next few days I'll add some sources to the article and additional content. RecycledPixels (talk) 19:34, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I've added some sources now. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:51, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on news sources provided by RecycledPixels. While I can't access them, the sources' titles alone suggest that significant coverage is given. Comment: An article of this length could be split into sections for readability purposes. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 23:17, 10 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It existed. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 05:25, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, So? WP:ITEXISTS isn't a good reason to keep. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:20, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: It does not exist, so WP:ITEXISTS is irrelevant. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 10:38, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, same difference. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:10, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Tyw7: No it isn't; you should spend more time learning English, or edit an alternative version of Wikipedia. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 11:17, 11 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, WP:ITEXISTS does indeed apply to subjects that have existed at any point in time; specifically, it applies to any subject that is not a hoax, and it is an extremely weak argument. TheTechnician27 (Talk page) 05:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

There is a rather significant difference between something currently existing, and something previously existing; exempli gratia, si tacuisses, philosophus mansisses. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 05:56, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated, not in the eyes of Wikipedia. If it exists or had existed and you argued notability based on that, WP:ITEXISTS applies. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 12:01, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am Wikipedia. -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 12:49, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Create WP:ITEXISTED, and add my offending vote to the page; as this is an examples of this happening. If this website still exists after we're all long dead, don't expect it to be the same as it is today; if it is, then I'll be immortalised!!! :D -- Shyam Has Your Anomaly Mitigated (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourced added by RecycledPixels show that this airline received substantial coverage in newspapers across the United States for at least a few years. I think WP:GNG has been met. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 01:00, 17 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] "Kygo & Selena Gomez's 'It Ain't Me' Gets a Shimmering, High-Energy Remix By Codeko". Billboard.

[2] "Austin Mahone & Codeko Team Up to 'Say Hi' on Feel Good Jam". Billboard.

[3] "Codeko Premieres Electric Zoo 2016 Anthem 'Walking With Lions'". Billboard.

[4] "IMS Mixmag Industry Insider 2016-08-26". imsmixmagindustryinsider.

[5] "Emerging Electro: New tracks from GRiZ, Codeko, Matoma + more (9/26/2016)". SiriusXM.

[6] ttps://www.musicbusinessworldwide.com/nearly-40000-tracks-are-now-being-added-to-spotify-every-single-day/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[7] "USA Public Record Copyright Catalog".

[8] "Distribution Deal vs. Recording Deal".

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]