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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 01:01, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Rock Creek Free Press

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

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

I found no notability for this newspaper. SL93 ( talk) 23:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 05:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete No coverage except from conspiracy websites. The first Google Books result is an Anti-Semitic book. Another first-page result is another conspiracy-theory book. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 21:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• delete a non-notable publication. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 16:23, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:02, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Zeb Atlas

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

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

Fails WP:GNG: none of the article's current references constitute significant, external coverage in reliable sources. I looked for new ones and found only passing mentions, unreliable/user-generated sources, and short blurbs on gossip sites (e.g., Porn Star Zeb Atlas Makes a Music Video, from Queerty). I don't believe that Mr. Atlas' industry awards count towards anything either, now that PORNBIO has been deprecated. Cheers, gnu 57 22:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 22:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k ( talk) 00:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete for failing WP:BASIC and WP:ENT. Another won-an-award-but-the-sources-are-junk porn bio. The subject lacks significant coverage by reliable secondary sources. None cited in the article, just interviews and press releases. Nothing significant found in an independent search. • Gene93k ( talk) 01:08, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete I'm not confident that the sources available make for a viable BLP on here. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete a non-notable actor. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 23:20, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was nomination withdrawn. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Ashley Williams (footballer, born 2000)

Ashley Williams (footballer, born 2000) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Contested PROD. Concern was that the subject Fails WP:NFOOTY and has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable third-party sources. PROD was contested on the grounds that the subject Meets GNG per sources in the article. This assessment does not pass muster. Many of the sources do not mention Williams at all. Those that do, mention him only in passing. While there certainly is coverage, it is not significant. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik ( talk) 22:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 22:21, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:05, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Cleveland Kickers

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

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

Article for a team that fails WP:GNG, also fails WP:FOOTYN as there is no indication that the team has ever played in a national cup. Jay eyem ( talk) 21:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. Agree. Fails to fulfil WP:FOOTYN. Only sources I could find that even mentioned it were the club's website itself and that of the immediate league. No notable players to speak of. Evidently, no significant coverage, and no independent sources. The article provides little detail and that the little that is there is not referenced at all. ƒin ( talk) 22:20, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 14:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 14:22, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 ( talk) 00:06, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Yotsuba Project

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

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

No reliable sources available online and does not seem to be notable. Links no longer exist and page never seems to have been anything other than a promotion for one developer’s coding. Cardiffbear88 ( talk) 21:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Mccapra ( talk) 23:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Unless something significant emerges and article improves which is unlikely. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking independent references. A search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage. Dialectric ( talk) 15:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - it exists, but software, even if widely used, is not automatically notable if there's a lack of significant coverage. Bearian ( talk) 00:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Marginal tax rates in the United States (history)

Marginal tax rates in the United States (history) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Wikipedia is not a place to re-host data tables from other sources. This is simply nothing more than a tabulated data from IRS. Graywalls ( talk) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Graywalls ( talk) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 21:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

This is pure censorship they took down my reference right as they put it up to be deleted. https://taxfoundation.org/us-federal-individual-income-tax-rates-history-1913-2013-nominal-and-inflation-adjusted-brackets/ this is a continuation of the cancelation culture. I’m not donating to Wikipedia ever again because of this crap. (Redacted) -- Wikideas1 ( talk) 01:25, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

WP:NPA violation in above comment has been redacted. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 14:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. As is, this is nothing more than a no-context data dump. -- Kinu  ^t/ _c 14:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, this is just a list of data tables from another source. – Wallyfromdilbert ( talk) 14:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment, "Marginal tax rates in the United States (history)", mmmm, now if only it was "History of marginal tax rates in the United States", "no coola don't you dare....". Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom - the policy that it violates is WP:SYNTH. Bearian ( talk) 00:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus to delete, and research supports the view that there are few independent sources which are primarily promotional and/or press releases. SilkTork ( talk) 00:28, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

SafeAmerica Credit Union

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

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

SafeAmerica Credit Union does not meet Wikipedia's GNG. They are a small credit union with 4 branches and 63 full time employees. They have no press coverage from reliable third party sources. Their Wikipedia entry relies heavily on primary sources and reads like an advertisement. Sonstephen0 ( talk) 20:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:54, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete No independent source. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 21:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom, this falls below our radar. bd2412 T 12:19, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete sadly, per BD2412 and nom, whose word I'll take for it. Most credit unions, Canada and the U.S., fail WP:GNG and certainly WP:CORPDEPTH. -- Doug Mehus ( talk) 23:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 21:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The Holy Quran and Science Conference

The Holy Quran and Science Conference (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This WP:FRINGE conference does not seem to have generated any independent notice. I cannot find anybody who is not connected to the conference who has noticed it. Thus it fails to be notable enough for Wikipedia. jps ( talk) 20:45, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 20:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I looked for independent coverage and couldn't find anything substantial, either. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep [Article Author] The following are independent newspapers or online journals that carried the news or references of the Holy Qur'an and Science conference. These are referenced in the article as well:

1. [1]

2. [2]

3. Can Pak Voice Canada newspaper: [3]

4. [4]

5. [5], [6]

6. [7], [8]

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nabeelrana ( talk • contribs) 05:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

These are not, to my understanding, the high-quality independent notice we would require. You need people who are not connected to this conference to indicate the notability. jps ( talk) 12:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

1 and 4 are event listings. 2 is an announcement by a participant in the conference. 3 is not in-depth reporting, and it is from a publication whose editorial standards we have no information about. 5 appears to be from an organization sponsoring the event. 6 are the Muslim Times posting videos by the Chief Editor of the Muslim Times, who participated in the conference. These sources do not establish notability. XOR'easter ( talk) 15:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: The reports and coverage by media about the conference will always by by those who attended or participated in the conference. That is absolutely logical. How would someone report about it if he/she did not attend the conference in anyway. I am looking for more references as well testimonials of attendees and of scientists who presented research papers in the past conferences. I will post such references as well. Nabeelrana ( talk) 22:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: (yes, I worry about everything) Context/background indicating proper care is needed: Persecution of Ahmadis Shenme ( talk) 05:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete the sources found appear to be connected to the topic, not independent. From  AnUnnamedUser  ^{(open talk page)} 19:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete No independent source. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 21:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:24, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete no reliable independant sources. - Roxy, the dog. Esq. wooF 12:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - there is significant coverage in Can-Pak Voice, but that appears to be a monthly community newsletter. Other than that, there's very little to use to write more than a one-liner. Bearian ( talk) 00:26, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 21:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Alternative explanations of the "grandmother" cell

Alternative explanations of the "grandmother" cell (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

This is a non-neutral essay arguing in favour of a personal opinion. Although it appears adequately sourced, when you look at individual paragraphs many of them start with sourced sentences and then finish with an unsourced sentence arguing in favour of a specific interpretation, one that doesn't seem to be in the cited papers themselves. Reyk _YO! 19:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - this is not suitable for an encyclopedia. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• I was going to say merge to Grandmother cell, but after reading all the way through, I must go for delete. This is a very strongly POV-flavoured synthesis production which seems to take a number of flying interpretive leaps off of more or less distant research. -- Elmidae ( talk · contribs) 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Like Elmidae, I was initially going to say merge, but now agree with the nominator - delete. However, can I suggest that the references that are used in this article be posted to Talk:Grandmother cell if the article is deleted, in case they may be of use in the future? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete "Alternative explanations" in title of an article is never a good sign, and the content of this article doesn't inspire any more confidence. Lifted from POVFORK: However, a new article can be a POV fork even if its title is not a synonym of an existing article's title. If one has tried to include one's personal theory that heavier-than-air flight is impossible in an existing article about aviation, but the consensus of editors has rejected it as complete nonsense, that does not justify creating an article named "Unanswered questions about heavier-than-air flight" to expound the rejected personal theory. – John M Wolfson ( talk • contribs) 03:16, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:19, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete The content of this article is full of synthesis with references almost being a WP:COATRACK for the unjustified conclusions drawn. I think it would be OK to copy/merge just the references per DannyS712, but the prose is not salvageable. --{{u| Mark viking}} { Talk} 23:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Just piling on at this point, but I couldn't find anything in my read through either that would be worth even merging, and it does indeed look like a WP:COATRACK attempt. Kingofaces43 ( talk) 17:24, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:PROF. (non-admin closure) Rollidan ( talk) 20:28, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

William Gilly

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

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

WP:ACADEMIC doesn't appear to be satisfied. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I did a Google search to see if I could find reliable sources. The sources don't appear to be independent of the subject. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I think he passes WP:PROF#C1 for his well-cited research publications, and this in-depth profile in National Geographic also goes a long way towards GNG. — David Eppstein ( talk) 20:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. GS citations pass WP:Prof#1. Nominator is urged to carry out WP:Before in future. Xxanthippe ( talk) 23:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC). reply
• Keep per national geographic piece and WP:Prof#1 -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:01, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. In addition to what the others said above: The GoogleNews link [9] produces quite a few hits, with many examples of nontrivial coverage in national media, with several instances of in-depth coverage. Apart from the NatGeo profile mentioned by D.E., there was also an in-depth story about the subject and his research on NPR's Science Friday [10], [11], plus a story in Scientific American [12], at Live Science [13], etc. Taken together, IMO this coverage satisfies both WP:GNG and WP:PROF#C7. Nsk92 ( talk) 15:11, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Passes WP:PROF#C1 for research publications Lightburst ( talk) 19:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

*Keep at the risk of piling on. WP:Prof#1 is met. Lightburst ( talk) 02:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep based on what's found. I would invoke WP:HEY if all of that's added to at least the external links. Bearian ( talk) 00:29, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. A redirect was created to the new disambiguation page at Adult child. -- Ed ( Edgar181) 21:12, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Adult Child

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

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

This is original research for a neologism without demonstrated notability. power~enwiki ( π, ν) 17:33, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete – Original research, "adult child" does not mean "living with your parents". Adult child (lowercase) already redirects to Vulnerable adult. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Agree with above, definition is simply wrong. In my experience, 'adult child' simply refers to a child/offspring that is over eighteen. The term is self-explanatory and the article is far too focused on the baseless 'lives with parents idea', which is never cited. On top of this, its written really strangely and improperly referenced. ƒin ( talk) 23:25, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per power~enwiki, though if anyone wants a redirect that would be fine too - maybe recreate pointing to Adult/Child? -- DannyS712 ( talk) 05:04, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete — No sources. Can't even consider it as an article. The funny thing is that the Vulnerable adult doesn't have enough sources either. Unless the authors (@ Shroob12:@ Shroob12: @ Anupam:) provide it with a proper citation it must be completely destroyed. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 10:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Please note that I'm not an author. I simply categorized this article as I regularly volunteer in the Page Curation department. I hope this helps. With regards, Anupam ^Talk 16:41, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
    • @ Anupam: Thanks for your attention and clarification. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article. ... even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability.". Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:55, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Coolabahapple: Well yeah, thank your for quoting it here. That's why I said "unless" and pinged some users who contributed to the article. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 21:08, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

hi Alexander_Davronov, thanks for clarification. Coolabahapple ( talk) 00:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 06:59, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment, "Adult Child" is a recognised in various disciplines ie. here is a legal definition, they also may be entitled to financial support under family law ( here, here), and here), it is also a "syndrome" - see also Adult Children of Alcoholics, it is also been studied/discussed, usually concerning relationships, ie. Psychology Today - "Creating Boundaries with Your Adult Child", SBS - "The 'silent epidemic': When your adult child cuts you out of their life", The War Cry - "‘Friending‘ Your Adult Child", Psychology and Aging - "Tensions in the Parent and Adult Child Relationship: Links to Solidarity and Ambivalence", The Journals of Gerontology - "Close To You? How Parent–Adult Child Contact Is Influenced by Family Patterns", note: these all found in 1st couple of pages of a gsearch under "adult child", "adult child definition", "adult child research", so lots of stuff out there but will need quite a bit of work to turn into a coherent article if decided to retain. ps. there may also need some sort of disambiguation page and/or hatnotes as WP has Adult child - redirect to Vulnerable adult, Adult/Child - unreleased Beach Boys album, Adult Children - Soviet film, Adult Children of Divorce - USA film, Adult Children of Alcoholics (mentioned above), pps. do agree, however, with above editors that, as article stands, don't look good. Coolabahapple ( talk) 07:13, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

I've made Adult child into a disambiguation page. The meaning of adult child is just "an offspring that has reached the age of majority", which is both the legal and sociolocial meaning, and I don't think it warrants its own article here. ("Adult Child Syndrome" is not an an accepted syndrome, it seems to just be used by that author to discuss a pattern in family relationships). – Thjarkur (talk) 13:14, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete the naming of those living with their parents as "adult children" is just plain horrid. Just covering Japan and the United States is not an adequate coverage of the subject. Also the opening almost suggests this term may to some also cover parents who are under age 18. Then they mess the whole subject up, since adulthood leagally in the US starts at 18, so why are they bringing up 25. There is something here, but it covers huge numbers of things, and has a complex history connected to ups and dowsn in all sorts of job, housing and other social markets. There are at least 10 categories of people who live at home after the age of 18. To begin with, some census and other stats group those who live in university dorms with those who live at home. This is maybe reasonable, but in many ways groups two unlike groups. Then we have 1-singles who have never married and have no children, 2-single parents, never married, who live with their own parents, 3-divorced/widowed parents who live with their parents, 4-divorced/married non-parents who live with their parents, 5-married parents living with one (or in some rare cases both) of the spouses parents. Some of our stats on especially the last may get confused by the complexities of household heading and deeds. There is also the issue of people over 18 who live with their grandparents, who may have the issue of distingushing those who were raised by and still live with their grandparents, as opposed to those who live with their grandparents but were raised by their parents. There is no evidence that "adult child" is used normally for this. People elsewhere have either thought it more "vulnerable adult", who depaending on setting are as likely to live in group homes as with parents (and may marry more than some realize), and to others this is a term like saying "all So and sos children are adults". The article here is misnamed and inadequately sourced so not justified in its present form. John Pack Lambert ( talk) 21:22, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. The few "keep" votes here aren't very convincing, especially the "speedy keep" based on an AFD from 2008. Redirect seems plausible, but more commenters favored deletion. RL0919 ( talk) 01:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Motormaster

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

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

Still non-notable fictional character TTN ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - the article appears to meet the general notability guideline. It is well referenced. Interstellarity ( talk) 17:11, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• I guess maybe if all you do is glance at the sources for three seconds. There's absolutely nothing good there, and I'm not confident the fan sites even count as reliable sources. TTN ( talk) 17:29, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Speedy Keep Disruptive repeat nomination per WP:DELAFD. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:38, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Did you take a look at the dates there? I know you have a knack for nonsensical wikilaywering instead of addressing actual issues, but the last one was over ten years ago. TTN ( talk) 17:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I don't see any more reliable secondary sources than any other Transfomers fancruft character article. Apparently some others think they exist, they must be hiding because I can't see them. A delete nomination 10 years later is not disruptive in the slightest. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 20:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment Can someone use the source assess table on the 13 sources so we can save time on this issue? ミラ P 23:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - the article passes WP:GNG. with WP:RSs. Lightburst ( talk) 20:23, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Where? Seriously, somebody show me these sources, because either I'm crazy or nobody knows the proper standard of required sources for fiction. TTN ( talk) 20:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete No reliable and independent source — neither website nor biblio. Most of the sources in the article are fan websites. Only one independent book is cited in the footnotes (The Official Overstreet Comic Book Companion by Overstreet), but I guess it barely mentions the topic since it is a single ref in the article. The article does not pass WP:GNG. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 21:50, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. Fails WP:NFICTION/ WP:GNG. "Well referenced?" To what? Primary sources like TV epidodes, comics, and press releases about toys? Some people may need a topic ban from AfD for repeated invalid keep votes... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Decepticons where there are mentions. You cant just throw out WP:GNG in a "keep" opinion without explaining why this subject passes it. I think that the references can be salvaged as primary for the character list. - Knowledgekid87 ( talk) 19:26, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to List of Decepticons#Combiner Teams. Fan sites are not reliable sources and TV episode listings do not establish notability. -- Whpq ( talk) 19:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - Actual reliable, secondary sources have not been provided regarding the character, nor have I been able to find any. Thus, this character utterly fails the WP:GNG. Rorshacma ( talk) 17:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 10:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Indus Refinery Limited

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

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

An abandoned project, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 16:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 16:18, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Simply being an abandoned project does not make something non-notable. In this case there has clearly been sustained coverage of this project in national media making it an easy pass for WP:CORP. See the following: 1 2 3 4. FOARP ( talk) 16:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The title should change to Indus Refinery Project and so its structure. The company is not notable. Störm (talk) 17:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Which is a great discussion to have on the article's talk page - or even a suitable basis for WP:BOLD edits - but not what AFD is for. FOARP ( talk) 19:53, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Störm - I've expanded the article based on the references I found in my WP:Before. The company is clearly notable as it, ultimately, is the correct topic of this article which was widely covered over a long period of time. FOARP ( talk) 08:58, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 ( talk) 14:13, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Eskimal

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

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

Some very minor awards, shown at a bunch of minor festivals. Does not meet either WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 12:30, 17 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Keep I don't mind either way, but since the reasoning is that it doesn't meet notability because the film festivals are "minor", I'd like to dispute that - TIFF and Giffoni Film Festival, and to a lesser extent Havana Film Festival, are not minor at all. Note also that there's less coverage, info, and sources on non-Anglo films in general, so being a Mexican animation should allow it some give, or these films are never going to be in the public eye at all. Kingsif ( talk) 14:50, 19 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple ( talk) 08:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 11:14, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Mobile infantry

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

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

Not a proper disambiguation page, just examples. Clarityfiend ( talk) 09:43, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep I am inclined to keep this as it sounds like a perfectly valid search term. I see nothing wrong with having this disambiguation page and I see no harm in keeping it. Govvy ( talk) 11:00, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Many years after its creation I still think it's a fine disambig. -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:25, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. I don't see any issue with the page. Jeb³ _{Talk at me here} ^{What I've Done} 14:26, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect to Starship Troopers per WP:PTM. Disambiguations are not supposted to be indexes of related topics. "A disambiguation page is not a search index." The only place where "mobile infantry" truly appears is Starship Troopers. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 15:53, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Incorrect on two counts. Firstly, these are not "related topics" but actual meanings of mobile infantry. Secondly, dead wrong that only Heinlein's fictional force takes this name; the Military Review uses the term, giving it some official credence; also in here, here and here. Much as I like Heinlein, he doesn't have a monopoly on the term. Spinning Spark 22:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Per WP:DABCONCEPT, "If the primary meaning of a term proposed for disambiguation is a broad concept or type of thing that is capable of being described in an article, and a substantial portion of the links asserted to be ambiguous are instances or examples of that concept or type, then the page located at that title should be an article describing it and not a disambiguation page." (bolding mine) Whether an article could be written about infantry that happens to be more mobile than "leg" infantry is a separate question, but what we have here is not "perfectly valid disambiguation". Clarityfiend ( talk) 05:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• You can't have it both ways. If it is questionable whether a broad concept article could be written then DABCONCEPT doesn't apply, and if DABCONCEPT does apply then the page should be converted to a stub. Either way, deletion is not the answer. Spinning Spark 08:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep, perfectly valid disambiguation. Spinning Spark 22:48, 29 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost ( talk) 12:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep as per above. ... GELongstreet ( talk) 12:57, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp ( talk) 13:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep Not a proper nomination as it states no policy-based reason to delete. Andrew D. ( talk) 14:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment The page has been converted from a dab page since the nomination was made, thus completely invalidating the original nomination rationale (although personally, I'm still inclinded to think it was better off as a dab). Spinning Spark 14:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Close The nominator has edited the article to make the nomination invalid. Poor conduct. Thincat ( talk) 16:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Thincat: To be fair, that happened after the AfD was closed, but before relisting per the DRV result. Spinning Spark 17:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I've struck and apologise. I hadn't realised that. Thincat ( talk) 17:16, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The recent changes don't seem significant. What's more relevant is the more discursive version in the page's history. Re-establishing this as a broad topic would be the most sensible outcome as this is a significant strand of military history. For example, the German blitzkrieg doctrine started with its revolutionary infantry tactics of WW1, using Stosstruppen to restore mobility to the battlefield. Andrew D. ( talk) 17:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

@ Andrew Davidson: You should probably open a discussion before doing that. The history you are looking at is the article deleted in the previous AfD. It was restored by User:BD2412, very probably in error during a history merge. Spinning Spark 17:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

There are multiple discussions currently – at least two AfDs and a DRV. Starting yet another discussion would be excessive per WP:LIGHTBULB. Andrew D. ( talk) 18:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I have no recollection of the circumstances at issue here. bd2412 T 18:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep The current version seems a perfectly valid article, although additional source citations would not come amiss. The previous version seemed to me to be a perfectly valid DAB page,if an unusual one. Which is batter can be discussed on the talk page after this is closed. A straight list article on this topic could also be done. The original nom did not list any policy-based reason for deletion, and I see none now. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 02:39, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment. As I stated before, it is not a valid dab page. Entries must be referred to as/synonymous with "mobile infantry", and none that are listed qualify. Examples are specifically excluded by WP:DABCONCEPT, as noted above. As for my reason for deletion, I question whether the term is officially recognized/defined, as opposed to something like "fast car", a term that crops all the time, but is just as unworthy of an article. Clarityfiend ( talk) 07:03, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• I don't take such a narrow view of what can be a valid DAB page in exceptional circumstances, and I think an argument could be made that each of the linked terms is sufficiently synonymous with "mobile infantry" that an unusual DAB page could be permitted to exist, and helps readers. As for WP:DABCONCEPT you can't have it both ways. As I belive was suggested above, if there is a potentially valid article about the concept of "mobile infantry" in general (not just in the RAH novel) then the current version is a start on such an article and should not be deleted. If that is not a valid article topic, then DABCONCEPT does not apply. In neither case is deletion the proper answer, as per WP:ATD. Even if it is decided that neither a DAB nor an article is appropriate, a redirect to the articel about the concept in teh RAH novel seems useful, and that does not need an AfD. I still see no policy-based reason to delete, and certainly none was mentioend in the original nomination. DES ^(talk) _{DESiegel Contribs} 15:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Each of the entries is a subset of "mobile infantry", not a synonym. A tank is a motor vehicle. Does that make them synonyms? Again, where is there anything more than passing uses of the phrase. No mentions at all (or anything even remotely close) in Infantry Branch (United States) or Infantry of the British Army, for example. Clarityfiend ( talk) 19:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment A WP:BEFORE search as to whether this could be a valid article topic brought up only Starship Trooper articles, but a newspapers.com search shows the term "mobile infantry" was in use a lot during World War II. I could not find any articles in the immediate which would denote any sort of notability to a larger article, but I don't think it's impossible. I generally agree with the nominator this is not a valid disambiguation page, looking at both the current version and the page originally nominated for deletion, but I also think it's possible that it could be. SportingFlyer T· C 13:59, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep The nominator does not present a rationale for deletion. And this is a perfectly valid disambiguation page. Lightburst ( talk) 19:31, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep seems like a valid disamb page to me. A valid search term would bring people here to see links to the various articles they could be looking for. Dream Focus 21:32, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that there are insufficient reliable sources to demonstrate notability Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Lina Caceres

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

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

Fluff article about a public speaker. The references are mostly are unreliable. This article is basically a CV. It fails WP:SIGCOV McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. McMatter ^{( talk)}/_{( contrib)} 13:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:47, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 13:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Leaning delete: it really does read like a CV, and the problem is that most of the details in the text are unverifiable using reliable sources. Produ is basically a networking website for professionals in the communications industry: I'm not sure it counts as an RS, but even so, the first reference is just Ms. Caceres using it to publicise upcoming work by artists under her management. Alo is a Hello!-style glossy celebrities magazine, and the reference is a primary source interview, so that would fail independent coverage. The Hispanicize, Socialmediaweek and Worldforumdisrupt are identical press release biographies supplied by Ms. Caceres, and the last reference is an event listing for a university talk. I suppose you could argue that she passes criterion 1 of WP:CREATIVE, but with almost nothing in the way of independent reliable sources to support this assertion, this article would have to be cut down to a couple of lines of text. Even the infobox would have to be almost entirely deleted. because nowhere in the sources is there any mention of Ms. Caceres' full name, birth date, birth place or dual nationality, so this article has clearly been created by the subject or someone who works closely with her. Richard3120 ( talk) 15:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 ( talk) 21:12, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete for lack of reliable sources and because it is just too much of a mess to fix. Bearian ( talk) 00:36, 7 November 2019 (UTC). reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 12:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ilocos Norte College of Arts and Trades

Ilocos Norte College of Arts and Trades (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

No indication of notability. Technical school, doesn't appear to pass WP:GNG. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 11:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 11:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - There seems by be sources that indicate that it is notable. Interstellarity ( talk) 19:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Sources include enabling legislation, a presidential decree, and accreditation reference info, in addition to information about additional educational services. Passes GNG. - Grand'mere Eugene ( talk) 06:26, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - per Grand'mere Eugene. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง ( talk) 08:52, 3 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - References are well-indicated as Interstellarity mentioned and Grand'mere Eugene mentioned that the sources are from the local government agencies. — Allenjambalaya ( talk) 11:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 07:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

SwissSign

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

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

IT company. The company (or more likely their service SwissID) is probably notable, but the text is entirely promotional, and was written by the now-blocked WP:COI account Ngis SSiws. Earlier, less promotional versions are fragmentary and outdated. Neets WP:TNTing and recreation by somebody neutral. Sandstein 09:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Sandstein 09:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete Doesn't meet editorial standards, sorry. Capt. Milokan ( talk) 10:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment: Not that really makes difference but believe actually created by Lancezh which was a WP:SPA there likely also had an COI. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: Totally inadequate referencing as stands. Probably would be best salted but likely insufficient grounds for doing so. Djm-leighpark ( talk) 08:29, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was merge to List of Babylon 5 characters. The most detailed source analysis indicates that the sources appear to be inadequate to satisfy notability criteria and has been uncontested, but apparently most participants see them as adequate for a section in a list. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:58, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Byron (Babylon 5)

Byron (Babylon 5) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

I prodded this with "No evidence of notability. Consider soft redirecting to List of Babylon 5 characters (nothing to merge as this is entirely unreferenced...)." Prod has been removed with no rationale by User:Andrew Davidson, so now we have to spend our time here... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as unreferenced cruft. Andrew D. has not stated any rationale for removing PROD, making it WP:POINTy and meritless behavior. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 09:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• WP:POINT is when you take an action on a basis that you don't actually believe. Examples would include:

1. Asserting that a deletion is uncontroversial when you are well aware of opposition
2. Nominating a topic for deletion when you actually want it redirected
3. Asserting that there is no evidence when there might well be but you haven't taken time to look
4. Complaining about the waste of our time, when you're the one who keeps initiating the pointy actions

Andrew D. ( talk) 13:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep The character is a regular in Season Five of the show, appearing in 8 episodes, and was the major character of that season's arcs. I fully agree that the article as written is very cruft-y, but there are undoubtedly thousands of articles for characters of less prominence in other TV shows, movies, books and games. From what I remember at the time, there was a lot of backlash by fandom against the character, so I would expect that there should be a number of independent sources, but possibly in print, not online. Bluap ( talk) 11:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep This is a major character in a major series and so has naturally been noticed and covered in detail in sources such as The Essential Science Fiction Television Reader, From Starship Captains to Galactic Rebels: Leaders in Science Fiction Television and A Dream Given Form: The Unofficial Guide to the Universe of Babylon 5. The topic therefore passes WP:GNG and the following policies apply: WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:BITE; WP:CENSOR; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. Andrew D. ( talk) 13:09, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • No indication that you reviewed those sources. WP:GOOGLEHITS (in books) is not a valid keep arguments. My review of them suggests there is nothing there but an abbreviated in-universe biography and/or mentions of episode appearances.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge Has no notability outside of the context of the show. Andrew's books, as usual, establish Babylon 5's notability but do not establish the need for a separate article about a character appearing in a single season. Reywas92 ^Talk 18:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Redirect - I wouldn't say the above sources are useless, but I don't think they're strong enough to hold an entire article. TTN ( talk) 22:36, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge into List of Babylon 5 characters because WP:SUMMARY was not observed in that list, and it is extremely bare-bones for non-minor characters. @ Piotrus: I recommend to do the same with all the other prod-ed B5 characters. As a group, these characters generally do have some notability and provide a starting point for a legitimate LoC. – sgeureka ^{t• c} 11:33, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge to List of Babylon 5 characters. There are some sources that discuss the character, but most are brief and are more on the side of plot summary than any meaningful discussion or analysis. Not enough to support an independent article, but enough to add some sourced information on the character to the character list. Rorshacma ( talk) 00:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge per others and this really has only an in-universe perspective. @ Zxcvbnm: - Per WP:DEPROD, the deprodder is strongly encouraged to provide a reason but they are not mandated to do so. -- Whpq ( talk) 20:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• True, even though I can't fathom why it isn't required. Andrew D alone has succeeded in breaking the PROD system completely with his removals while continuing to ignore notability policy. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 23:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• @ Zxcvbnm: and @ Whpq: He is hardly the only one, there are similar notorious deprodders out there. Which is why the PROD system hardly works, and often many of us ignore it and go straight to here, because we are fed up with spurious prod declines for cases that we know will get deleted after AfD, wasting time of other editors because some inclusionist wanted to make WP:POINT, again... -- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:31, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 08:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Istishia

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

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

No indication this fictional character meets WP:NFICTION/ WP:GNG. BEFORE finds only mentions in passing in primary material/blogs/etc. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete. No independent source found. All sources in the article are accessories and manuals of the game. — Mathieudu68 ^talk 22:00, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. The topic of the article fails WP:GNG, as it has not received significant coverage in secondary sources. Not a very active user ( talk) 10:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was no consensus. As things currently stand, we have about 10 keep arguments stating that the topic meets notability guidelines and about 5 delete/merge arguments asserting either that notability is not established or at least not independently from Barisha raid thus creating WP:ONEEVENT concerns, and WP:NOTNEWS. All these are reasonable arguments based on applicable policy/guideline, and they indicate that there is at least no consensus in favour of deletion. The argument on a merge is more murky as most of the keep arguments have not addressed the arguments in favour of a merge/redirect - as noted in the last comment WP:ONEEVENT does apply to notable topics when the topic is notable mainly for its role in one particular event.

On balance this discussion, not having a consensus for deletion but also no clear cut consensus for keeping or merging, is a "no consensus" case although people can continue a merge discussion on the talk page if they so desire. There was also a bit of discussion about whether we know the name of the dog, but it seems like it resolved itself during the course of discussion. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Conan (dog)

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

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

Notability not established. His name being Conan is not even verified (Newsweek alone enough). JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 06:52, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Uhh, wouldn't receiving the Medal of Honor, [14], make Conan notable? Eostrix ( talk) 07:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• I can't tell if you're joking or not, but the dog did not receive the medal of Honor. , JDDJS ( talk to me • see what I've done) 08:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep for now - Worldwide coverage in national press (The Guardian, The Times, Newsweek, Time etc.) goes a long way towards establishing notability. We have two instances of notability (the raid, Trump's dumb joke) so this isn't a WP:1E situation (which is, strictly speaking, only a policy for people and not dogs). Conan is the name that the dog is known by at this point. Sure, there are reasons to be dubious about how likely this is to get sustained coverage, but this is also exactly the kind of dumb thing that people will talk about as an additional topic whenever they discuss the general topic of the raid that killed Baghdadi, which is something they're likely going to discuss for a long time so it's a pass for the ten year rule. Whilst WP:WAX is a bad argument, it is at least instructive to consider the various articles related to winners of the Dickin Medal. FOARP ( talk) 08:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep - Meets WP:GNG in that the dog has substantial coverage in reliable independent sources. Cwmhiraeth ( talk) 09:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete or merge - Entire article could be merged into Barisha raid, as this article will always be a stub. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 14:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Technical Keep Really IMHO this should be merged into the larger article. That's something though that should be discussed probably on one or both of the talk pages. It's not a clean delete though.-- Cube lurker ( talk) 17:01, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete/merge to Barisha raid. NOTNEWS, no notability independent of the event. Reywas92 ^Talk 19:13, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete/merge Not enough independent information know about her as of now to warrant her own wiki page independent of the Barisha Raid. Similar to the Death of Osama bin Laden page, it has a lot of information, including subsections with their own infoboxes, so merge the infobox as well. RopeTricks ( talk) 19:40, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Strong keep: I'll admit that when I first came across this article, I thought it was funny and I wasn't sure if the dog should have its own page. However, after some consideration, I'm convinced that we should keep this doggo: he was part of a high-profile military operation, the dog received national and international media attention, was repeatedly mentioned by the president, and is the subject of numerous memes online. The dog will visit the White House next week and it's likely that he'll receive some kind of award in the near future (the K-9 Medal of Courage, for example), so I'm sure we'll hear more about this dog. It's also worth considering that there are many articles for dogs which are not nearly as well-known, such as: Governor Moscow, Briergate Bright Beauty, Haymarket Faultless, etc. Johndavies837 ( talk) 21:23, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Comment: By the way, the dog's name was confirmed as Conan earlier today. Johndavies837 ( talk) 21:27, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Broad international coverage, although there isn't too much information available yet so many sources have the same details. Although we can't use a crystal ball, we are able to use some judgment in that the dog will be in the White House next week and certainly is likely to be given some awards because this was a very high-level military operation. Sadly WP:NOTABILITY does not give much guidance on individual animals, but per other stuff this dog would seem to be in line with many entries at List of individual dogs. -- Pudeo ( talk) 22:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Broad international coverage WP:GEOSCOPE. Also notable now notable forever WP:NTEMP Lightburst ( talk) 02:41, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep from Myanmar, Yes...this dog has significant coverage and reliable independent sources in many international news & media. Also appeared in my country's major newspaper [15]. So easily meets WP:GNG. No case was made for deletion and it will would hard to make one as well. What is the community value of these unresearched AfDs? I would like to say nominator to attention seeker. 103.200.134.151 ( talk) 15:33, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Just to add to all the elevated policy discussions a personal note: I wanted to check out the dog, and vaguely seemed to recall its name being Conan, so I came on Wikipedia, tried my luck by searching for 'Conan', and sure enough found this article. Now I know more about the said dog. Isn't that, in a nutshell, the point of Wikipedia? DoubleGrazing ( talk) 10:42, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Also covered on Zondag met Lubach. (which just goes to show how wide the press coverage is. have we figured out the gender yet btw, which Lubach mostly focused on? Lubach said he asked a vet, who said Conan is a female) I completely fail to see why Conan wouldn't be notable. - Alexis Jazz 12:32, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

  He's a good boy. At least that is what most sources say. Newsweek originally called the dog a "female", but issued a correction (which is rare for Newsweek) saying "[t]his story has been updated to correct Conan's gender". The Guardian, which attributed the gender to Newsweek, did not follow the correction. Politrukki ( talk) 14:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. There has been significant coverage, including international sources and even though notability is not temporary, it is very likely there will be even more coverage. Nominator's argument "[h]is name being Conan is not even verified" is irrelevant as if we did not know the dog's name, once the notability has been established – and it has – the article title might as well temporarily be "Dog that chased down an austere religious scholar at helm of Islamic State". Politrukki ( talk) 13:52, 4 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Merge into Barisha raid, where it's worth a paragraph or so. The usual rule for people notable for one event is that we cover the event rather than the person, unless the event is very high profile and the peron's role is very substantial. Admittedly this is about an animal but I think the same rule should apply. The raid is a fairly significant event but I don't think the dog's role is enough to justify a separate article. Furthermore the article is likely to remain a stub more or less indefinitely given that basically all public information about the subject in it (including the fact that he's a good dog). That further suggests a standalone article isn't needed. Hut 8.5 22:08, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:07, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Chris Chugunov

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

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

Subject is a gridiron footballer. Played in college league and not in pro matches - fails WP:NGRIDIRON CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete non-notable college footballer. SportingFlyer T· C 09:46, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• ✓ Delete Ordinary footballer. Doesn't meet general WP:GNG due to lack of general independent coverage & sources. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 10:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC) As per Cbl62 opinion below I have changed mine so please do not count this as viable one. DAVRONOVA.A. ✉ ⚑ 21:10, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Lean to keep. I'm a bit on the fence, initially leaning to "delete", but tipped the other way after seeing the extent of significant coverage. The nom overlooks long established precedent that college football players can qualify under WP:GNG. Chugunov has been a quarterback at two Power Five programs. He was the stating QB at West Virginia for part of the 2017 season, then became a graduate transfer to Ohio State where he is currently the backup QB behind Justin Fields. He has so far appeared in 7 of 8 games for the undefeated No. 3 Buckeyes, completing 12 of 16 passes for an impressive 195.2 QB rating. He has also received significant coverage in multiple, reliable sources and thus passes the GNG bar. Examples of the significant coverage include (1) this from The Columbus Dispatch, (2) this from NJ.com, (3) this from The Toledo Blade, (4) this from The Cleveland Plain Dealer, (5) this from the Courier News, and (6) this from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Cbl62 ( talk) 10:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep The claims that this article is for a non-notable who fails WP:NGRIDIRON are belied by the scope and breadth of coverage he has received as a college athlete. Alansohn ( talk) 17:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep coverage appears to pass WP:GNG and college quarterbacks (even sometimes primary backup quarterbacks like this one) generate enough press to generate press--especially those like this one who do have starts and five years of play in their history.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep passes WP:GNG RS exists for the subject as a college athlete. Lightburst ( talk) 02:07, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per Cbl62's sources. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 20:50, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Withdraw from nominator (non-admin closure) CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 13:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Sam Bowen (boxer)

Comment: Withdraw from nominator.13:58, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Subject is a boxer. He has won "intercontinental WBO super featherweight title"; however, that is not the world title of WBO and wining a British title do not pass WP:NBOX. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. He's British champion, and is ranked no. 9 by the WBO, hence satisfies the very ridiculously strict and very much disputed WP:NBOX criteria as well as common sense criteria for inclusion. -- Michig ( talk) 06:55, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. I’m still new to editing on Wikipedia and didn’t know of the WP:NBOX, but as User:Michig has pointed out, Bowen is ranked within the top of the WBO so does meet the outrageously strict criteria. ². O. ^Boxing 13:15, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

*Comment: Pls provide his WBO ranking link . CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 13:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: He’s currently ranked ninth in the WBO. [16] It looks like you will have to fill the search fields yourself, it doesn’t produce a direct link. ². O. ^Boxing 13:50, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment. Squared.Circle.Boxing. Thank you. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 13:57, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Zack Baun

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

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

Subject is a gridiron footballer. Played in college league and not in pro matches - fails WP:NGRIDIRON CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 06:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 06:59, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak Keep Baun is currently one of the top college pass-rushing outside linebackers and is graded as a late first round draft pick. That may be crystal balling it a bit so I'm not opposed to Draftifying. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 11:56, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

*Comment: Since it is WP:CRYSTAL which mean too early to tell then when the subject is notable then article can be recreated. CASSIOPEIA^{( talk)} 12:10, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

I said it might be CRYSTAL, that's the worst-case scenario but I do think Baun gets just past GNG. Also in all likelihood it's not really a matter of if Baun becomes notable but when he meets WP:NGRIDIRON'S requirements, as it is unlikely Baun won't be selected in the NFL draft. He could also pass WP:NCOLLATH before that as he has been named a midseason first team All-American by Sporting News and the AP and is a semifinalist for the Bednarik Award. He's had Profiles written about him by the Associated Press, and The Athletic and has received what I'd consider above-normal coverage as a college football player, more localized (but still from major media outlets) in-depth coverage includes The Milwaukee Journal Sentinel and the Wisconsin State Journal ( 1 2). To clarify my statement above, I'll draftify the article if other editors concur he doesn't pass WP:GNG in order to preserve the content until the NFL Draft rolls around. Best, GPL93 ( talk) 12:26, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in The Athletic and Associated Press, both extremely reputable sources, in addition to coverage around awards (multiple 247Sports profiles) and even some passing coverage on his NFL Draft prospects, which he looks to be a near-lock to be drafted. Willsome429 ( say hey or see my edits!) 13:24, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Meets GNG with coverage in RS. ~ EDDY ^{( talk/ contribs)}~ 16:41, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per Willsome429. Royal broil 02:45, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep several of the articles are feature articles that far surpass WP:GNG.-- Paul McDonald ( talk) 14:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per GPL93's sources. Ejgreen77 ( talk) 20:51, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

DDT (zine)

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

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

This article is about a magazine is unsourced and my own attempts to find sources turns up very little. I found this Geocitis archive which appears to be a copy of a magazine that reviews small zines, but it;s not at all clear that this is a reliable source. In any case, all that is there is a capsule review. Fails WP:N. Whpq ( talk) 05:03, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I’m only seeing mirrors of Wikipedia. Mccapra ( talk) 23:28, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete - unsourced stub about a run of the mill zine. Bearian ( talk) 00:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Technical Psychotronics

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

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

Somewhere between a Neologism and an outright conspiracy theory. Per versions of the article "it is not yet sufficiently covered by mainstream science and therefore lacks sufficient number of published references" and "There are coordinated efforts by the users to keep it hidden from public view as long as possible". PROD was removed by the author. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 04:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. The Mirror Cracked ( talk) 04:35, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete as a WP:POVFORK of psychotronics that is pushing a fringe conspiracy view unsupported by independent sources. - LuckyLouie ( talk) 13:49, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete neologism + WP:SYNTH to fill this neologism Staszek Lem ( talk)

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. There are unopposed rationales for delete after listing for over seven days; however, as only three participants WP:REFUND applies. SilkTork ( talk) 03:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ric Hoeben

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

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

Cannot find WP:BASIC-satisfying sources. Although some of his work has been reviewed, I don't believe it's enough for WP:NAUTHOR #3 ("significant"/"well-known"). – Leviv ich 04:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Leviv ich 04:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. – Leviv ich 04:02, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only verifiable information apparent in the article or in searches is that he is an author and he's been published. This is not enough to satisfy either WP:NAUTHOR or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:15, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per nom. I am not seeing evidence of encyclopedic notability. bd2412 T 12:22, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus ( talk) 09:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Pulsar Stargrave

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

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

Non-notable topic TTN ( talk) 03:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 03:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN ( talk) 03:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete per nom. Non-notable. _{ZXCVBNM ( TALK)} 04:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. I hate to be pedantic, but the real reason it should be deleted is there's just zero coverage of this character outside of a single interview. Bearian ( talk) 00:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. Consensus that out of the sources that satisfy reliable/independent/sig cov/secondary, there are insufficient to meet NORG Nosebagbear ( talk) 16:22, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Real Vision

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

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

Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Some coverage but usual paid effort at promotion. scope_creep ^Talk 08:33, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 09:10, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 10:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Delete - Confirming my PROD rationale: "Fails WP:NCORP. Coverage fails WP:CORPDEPTH". One NYT article is not enough, the rest of the coverage is trivial. As best, this is WP:TOOSOON. shoy ( reactions) 13:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

KEEP - Don't agree with that it does't meet WP:ORGIND. NYT, Variety, Business Insider, TechCrunch are all quality sources. In addition, they have 20,000 subscribers, which is a significant amount in my opinion to be notable. I also removed one bad reference (Reuters, which did not mention the company at all). Expertwikiguy ( talk) 01:06, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The argument put forward above, that the websites mentioned are "all quality sources" has nothing to do with WP:ORGIND which deals with "Independence", including ensuring that the content is independent. So that rebuttal doesn't make sense. If a "quality source" relies entirely on an interview with the CEO/Founder for their article, it still fails WP:ORGIND and that source is not considered for the purposes of establishing notability. Adding the number of subscribers for the company also has no bearing on notability. HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Note to closing admin. This a barely used account that has not been editing since April 2018 and came in on the 26 October to vote on a large number of business Afds. scope_creep ^Talk 01:22, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment Looking at each reference in turn.

1.

2. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH capital transaction, such as raised capital

3. This is off of a press release. The text It's a real mix of things; it's somewhere between TED and Netflix and The Economist can be found several other sites indicating it is a press release, e.g. [17]

4. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH capital transaction, such as raised capital

5. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH Primary reference. standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage

6. Event listing for an event listing documentary. fails WP:EVENT

7. Event listing for an event listing documentary. fails WP:EVENT

8. Event listing for an event listing documentary. fails WP:EVENT

That leaves the New York Times article and I think that has been paid for. scope_creep ^Talk 01:43, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG/ WP:NCORP, HighKing ⁺⁺ 17:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ninzayi

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

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Fails WP:PW/N and WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:31, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 12:39, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Jordan (wrestler)

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

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Fails WP:PW/N and WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:18, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only sources apparent in the article or on searches are social media accounts. No demonstrated notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete no notable. Just two sources. One, his FB profile, the other, YouTube video about his moves... -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 12:35, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The Danny

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

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Fails WP:PW/N and WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete The only source in the article is a facebook page for a wrestling video and the only sources apparent on searches are social media accounts. No demonstrated notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:59, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete No notable. Just one source... and it's Facebook -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:05, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 ( talk) 12:42, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Raja Naveed

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

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

Non-notable professional wrestler. Fails WP:PW/N and WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 21:29, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:20, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete The sources offered in the article are suspiciously similar to the extent that they are transparently the same minimally-rewritten press release. There are no other apparent sources that are independent and significant. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 07:09, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete per Galatz and Eggishorn. -- HHH Pedrigree ( talk) 12:04, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was redirect to Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2017. After a re-list, view to Redirect was confirmed; article can always be revived if her career develops further GNG (non-admin closure) Britishfinance ( talk) 01:39, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Helena Meraai

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Onel5969 ^{TT me} 19:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood ( talk) 19:34, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect to Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2017: A separate article should have never been created. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 19:47, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment. @ Jjj1238: It looks like she has competed in some other notable competitions. Is redirection the best option given that she is known for more than one event? 4meter4 ( talk) 21:45, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • This article is copy/pasted from Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2017#Helena Meraai. Competing in Junior Eurovision is where any ounce of notability she has came from, since she did not even come close to winning The Voice Kids and New Wave Junior is non-notable and doesn't even have a Wikipedia page. It is WP:Eurovision policy to give the JESC competitors a subsection biography in their respective country articles, so maybe I should have worded it as merge, but the fact is the editor who made this page didn't even delete Meraai's subsection, so it should simply be redirected back to that. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 00:12, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Redirect as above to Belarus in the Junior Eurovision Song Contest 2017 as its WP:TOOSOON for a seperate article imv Atlantic306 ( talk) 23:18, 8 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. The nom was right, however, the consensus was that it was still a "notable sham" and should be chronicled as such. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance ( talk) 10:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization)

Ukrainian Academy of Sciences (Non-Governmental organization) (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:GNG. Its only claim of "notability" is that it's a sham, but it doesn't even appear to be worthy of an article as a sham. Bbb23 ( talk) 18:45, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Delete: according to sources, including this one, it isn't an "Academy of Sciences" but a private undertaking selling academic diplomas to whoever is willing to pay for them. Changing my !vote to weak keep, so that we have something to link to when we need to show that it is a sham. - Tom |  Thomas.W ^talk 16:54, 27 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Yes, "notability" is that it's a sham. But about this organization there is also an independent journalistic investigation. And there is an opinion expressed by a real academician, a well-known scientist. Not delete. -- Wanderer777 ( talk) 19:41, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • Add. There are many publications related to the UAS, and in them this organization is described in 1-2 paragraphs. For example, about pseudo-historian that received a state award: Radio Free Europe - translated. Or about leader of a totalitarian sect Oleg Maltsev (psychologist): Russian Orthodox Church - translated -- Wanderer777 ( talk) 09:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 22:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep. Independent sourcing (of it being a sham) seems to be adequate for GNG. And it's useful to have this article as a target for links from articles like Vyacheslav Kalashnikov Polishchuk and Alexander Ivanovich Tikhonov so that readers can learn what the claims of recognition in those articles are worth. — David Eppstein ( talk) 00:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep Important to keep examples of dodgy institutions, even though its harder to find good references. Rathfelder ( talk) 18:23, 24 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter ( talk) 02:45, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Weak keep Based on the arguments above. Abhi88iisc ( talk) 14:55, 25 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete: sources were posted with an interval of one week( WP:NOTNEWS). 124Sanroque ( talk) 00:22, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply

If it is decided to keep the article, then it is necessary to take into account a possible violation of the WP:LIVE. In the future, this sources alone was replicated on other sites. I am not a fan of Ukrainian sources. They do not inspire confidence. I suppose that we are talking about a membership fee, which is present in non-governmental organizations. 124Sanroque ( talk) 14:32, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

There is a source in this edit that makes my assumptions sound. 124Sanroque ( talk) 16:17, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply

The source you complain about is an article on the website of the largest newspaper in Ukraine, while the link you provided above, and claim is more reliable, is a blog... - Tom |  Thomas.W ^talk 17:42, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

This source is an interview with the president of UAS. -- Wanderer777 ( talk) 20:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC) reply

• Week keep per David Eppstein. It's in the public interest that we document sham organizations. I do not see how WP:NOTNEWS is relevant; this is not original reporting or written in news style. XOR'easter ( talk) 16:58, 26 October 2019 (UTC) reply
  • I presume that NOTNEWS point #2 is meant Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. If all the reports were on Tuesday and nothing on Wednesday or any day thereafter, then it is just routine news coverage. Spinning Spark 00:16, 1 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep per David Eppstein. 4meter4 ( talk) 21:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep - Notable hoaxes are notable. This one has at least two instances of WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources, over a period of two years, so we can clearly see that this is not just a news article. FOARP ( talk) 14:07, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Keep we do not create the WP:SIGCOV that makes a subject notable. Even a sham or hoax with WP:RS and can be notable See Noah Raby. WP:NTEMP WP:PRESERVE Lightburst ( talk) 02:47, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. North America ¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Nomis Solutions

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

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

I am not seeing substantial coverage in reliable sources as required to meet WP:CORP - coverage is limited in scope or in specialist sources ( WP:AUD). SmartSE ( talk) 16:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SmartSE ( talk) 16:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU ^(T) 16:04, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete - I'm not a fan of WP:AUD, which I find to be one of those special rules written for corporations simply to counter-act corporate publicity, and which as written makes little sense (so coverage in Maltese - national - newspaper is OK but coverage in the London Evening Standard isn't?). In this case, even ignoring it I don't think this quite gets over the bar for WP:CORP, since the coverage in reliable sources appears to be entirely quotes of employees and bare mentions of the company. FOARP ( talk) 16:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) reply
• Delete. WP:AUD covers it exactly. decent coverage in money and business sources, not a single ref from a mainstream source. (I couldn't access the WSJ source which is an upload on revenueanalytics.com?). No real info either, reads like a promo. Hydromania ( talk) 22:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was soft delete. After listing for 24 days there is one support for deletion other than the nominator, and there is one support for keep. The rationale for keep has been rebutted, and a search for reliable sources finds the same promotional coverage as argued by the delete rationales, so I am closing as delete; however, as this is a close call a reasonable request for WP:REFUND will be allowed. SilkTork ( talk) 03:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Sri Sathya Sai Annapoorna Trust

Sri Sathya Sai Annapoorna Trust (  | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – ( View AfD · Stats)

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

NOTNEWS and NCORP failure ; part of a promotional ring around Sai Baba (an area that has been subject to two arbitration cases). ∯WBG ^converse 13:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 13:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 13:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG ^converse 13:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Keep. Article's subject meets WP:NGO. Independently notable with media coverage. No WP:ORGSIG & WP:INHERITORG inherit. --Gpkp  u • t • c 14:58, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

  Where are you seeing significant coverage of the NGO (rather than of the milk-program) over the 5 ^[1] reliable ^[2] news-pieces at this link? The NGO does not inherit notability for being one of the providers of the fortified milk-powder distributed among school students. ∯WBG ^converse 15:04, 16 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the *organization* and containing independent content, fails GNG/ WP:NCORP, HighKing ⁺⁺ 13:11, 2 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was delete. If additional sources can be found, it can be restored but at this point, it does not appear there are any to establish notability of the band but just its lead singer. So Why 18:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

Sefarad (band)

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

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NBAND. Only passable source I could find about this group specifically (there are lots of sources about Sepharadi music more generally) I could find in either English or Spanish was this, which, while it appears to be hosted on their own website, seems to be a reposting of a magazine article. One source is insufficient for notability. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 15:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 15:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 15:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 15:09, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Comment: I realized my obvious mistake in not including Turkish language sources in my original search. Here are the results of that: more sources, but nothing any more helpful. The Turkish Wikipedia article cites no sources. I had found the same promotional article about the band's lead singer on two different websites ( CNNTurk and Hurriyet Kelebek), and there's room to debate whether that article's coverage of the band proper is significant. There's this interview, which is of course not an independent source (because it's band members talking about the band). There's this press release. I can't run this through a translator, so input from someone who can read Turkish would be appreciated, but it looks like it's discussing the lead singer again. And then a couple other articles that discuss the lead singer without any significant coverage of the band. — Compassionate727 ^{( T· C)} 15:30, 23 October 2019 (UTC) reply

• Delete No evidence is apparent which demonstrates notability in any independent sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:55, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply
• Comment As this group is targeted toward a Jewish audience, it's possible sources may be found in Hebrew as well. I would like to hear from editors who speak/read Hebrew and/or Turkish before making a vote. RS will be in these languages and mere translation searches by non-fluent editors isn't a very reliable way of doing WP:BEFORE. 4meter4 ( talk) 13:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC) reply

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

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

The result was keep. RL0919 ( talk) 12:37, 7 November 2019 (UTC) reply

David Corenswet

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

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