< 21 April	23 April >

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. Requested by subject. No.objection. A7 and g11 appear to apply. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deep-Secure[edit]

This article was started before the requirements for company notability were enforced. External independent discussions about Deep Secure are cited in the current article, but there's really only one such report. The article has only ever been maintained by Deep Secure staff and this is unlikely to change, so the requirements for independence are unlikely to be met.

The article was tidied up recently, but that's the best that can be done and the view of the company is that the most appropriate action is to delete the article

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

.

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. MBisanz ^talk 23:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Winters (journalist)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG: This is an amazingly promotional article. The references include defunct gossip blogs, his own websites and (presumably) social media accounts, and even a letter to the editor of the student paper at his university. I looked for additional sources and didn't find anything useful.

I wouldn't expect that his nightlife personality award nominations and win count towards ANYBIO, since the awards are not well-known or significant (and I know the HX one is allegedly rigged/given to whoever buys more advertising in their magazine). I couldn't find him on IMDb, and I don't think that the roles described in this article make him a notable actor. Cheers, gnu 57 23:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. You beat me to this. I was planning on nominating this myself. A BEFORE yielded nothing besides (mostly defunct) gossip blogs and social media. Completely not notable. --Kbabej (talk) 00:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete When your listed "accomplishments" include reporting on 9/11 and being the first to cover Anna Nicole Smith's death...yeah, no. Article is one big pat on the back and awards are non-notable. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a huge failure of having reliable and notable sourcing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nomination. Article is simply WP:PROMOTIONAL. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all above. Not notable. Crossroads ^-talk- 21:55, 24 April 2020 (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 National Indoor Football League. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:31, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

San Antonio Steers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

No indication of meeting WP:GNG. I would suggest redirecting to National Indoor Football League, the league that this team played in. Searching online, I wasn't able to find any additional coverage. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restore the redirect to the league (was undone twice) - this has already been deleted once and doesn't pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 23:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This team played in the NIFL and has sources from www.oursportscentral.com.......why would it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmja5 (talk • contribs) 03:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC) Keep[reply]

Are you saying this team was not in the NIFL?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmja5 (talk • contribs) 03:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another reference from the Houston Chronicle added https://www.chron.com/neighborhood/woodlands-sports/article/Garza-pleased-to-be-part-of-Conroe-Storm-s-success-1836727.php — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmja5 (talk • contribs) 04:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article has been improved and new references included. Youtube videos included as well I again vote to keep.

FOX NEWS story on the San Antonio Steers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4cLieNtT6o

CBS NEWS story on the San Antonio Steers https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j4cLieNtT6o

Should suffice for additional coverage, along with other references to Keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmja5 (talk • contribs) 17:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not swayed by these additional sources. The Chron article barely even mentions the team other than to say that they have an upcoming game, and refers to them as "The San Antonio Steer". The Youtube videos are the same video twice, and are clearly marked as promotional. Also, while you are welcome to make additional comments, please refrain from voting more than once. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Indoor Football League. This was a very short-lived expansion team. According to this source, 12 of 13 games scheduled for 2007 were cancelled, and the one game played (against a team from Beaumont) resulted in a 62-0 loss. WP:GNG refers to significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, and I tend to agree with Rosguill that the sources furnished thus far are insufficient. The Fox News story is a start, but even it describes the 2007 game(s) as "exhibition games" (at the 1:24 mark here) with the plan to field a real team in 2008 (though that apparently never materialized). Appears this was more of a dream/aspiration than a real professional football organization. Also, a search of Newspapers.com turned up zero in coverage of the team. Cbl62 (talk) 23:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Indoor Football League, as a team that doesn't have notability but is a search term. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is the CBS story https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wADWzoCglWo&t=72s

I don't understand why it matters how many games the team played in this floundering league. The team played in the league before folding. 80% of the teams folded in 2007, the last year of the NIFL. The team did play in the league, why should the page be redirected as if it didn't exist?? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmja5 (talk • contribs) 19:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create Wikipedia articles just because something exists, we create them if enough independent, reliable coverage exists of the subject to be able to write a full-fledged article without relying on original research. This standard is codified at WP:GNG. If a team has barely played any games, the likelihood that independent sources have written significant coverage of them is really, really low. As for the CBS spot, that video is literally called "NIFL pro football San Antonio Steers CBS promo"––it's a promotional spot and not independent coverage that we can use. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 19:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tucson_Mirage — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmja5 (talk • contribs) 03:35, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF, but thanks for pointing out the article, it should be a redirect too. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 04:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Indoor Football League, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:45, 27 April 2020 (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. Bearcat is harshly admonished for colluding in secret plots without inviting the rest of us. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Krae[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a filmmaker, not properly sourced as having any strong claim to passage of WP:CREATIVE. The strongest notability claim here is that one of his films was screened at two minor film festivals and won an award at one of them, which is not an instant notability clincher all by itself in the absence of enough media coverage to clear WP:GNG. As always, our notability criteria are not automatically passed by just any film award that happens to exist -- they look for top-level national film awards like the Oscars, the BAFTAs or the Canadian Screen Awards, and internationally prominent megafestivals on the order of Cannes, Berlin or TIFF, but every award presented by every small film festival on the planet is not in and of itself an instant exemption from having to have solid sources. But other than the glancing namechecks of his existence in the news article about the Beverly Hills Film Festival awards and a non-notable blog's entry about the Canadian Filmmakers Festival's overall lineup, neither of which are about him strongly enough to clinch passage of GNG if they're the best sources that can be found, this is otherwise referenced entirely to directly affiliated primary sources (his own website, IMDB, the self-published website of the CFF, the Canadian Film and Television Producers Association and GoodReads) which are not support for notability at all. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much, much better than this.
Also conflict of interest, as the article was created by an editor whose username matched the name of the subject's own production shingle. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: despite having not otherwise edited Wikipedia since 2008, the subject/creator of the article sent me a private e-mail within an hour of my initiating this discussion, both trying to contradict my assessment of this article and alleging that I and Wikipedia are colluding with the Canadian film industry in a plot to slander him. Yeah, no, not what's happening here. Bearcat (talk) 23:52, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He simply doesn't appear to be notable. As stated above, we don't have the coverage by reliable sources that we need for a proper page. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. We ted to delete producers' articles, who are after all run of the mill. There's no reliable sources except for the Hollywood Reporter piece, which devotes a single sentence to him. Bearian (talk) 01:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Courrecx (talk) 05:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet WP:BIO. Ericfood (talk) 07:14, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough third-party RS coverage to justify a BLP. Fails WP:GNG. (Also, why was this relisted prior to the 7-day mark and with a seemingly apparent consensus?) --Kinu ^t/_c 08:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep I think it does meet WP:BIO. He is producer or executive producer of films which feature bonafied stars. It is not just one notable film he played a major role in producing and writing, there are multiple - A number of which have wikipedia articles of their own. Where there's a problem is in the amount of indepth coverage about him specifically. But don't producers of B movies generally receive less coverage after the films debut ? He started off strong but hasn't done much in a while. That doesn't take away from his earlier successes.Grmike (talk) 10:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[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. MBisanz ^talk 23:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Montreal Earthquake[edit]

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

This earthquake is lacking notability Wykx (talk) 22:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The second and third paragraphs have nothing to do with the incident and appear to be filler. The first paragraph merely states that a low-magnitude earthquake occurred, resulting in no damage or injury. The major result of the earthquake appears to be some startled residents. Such earthquakes are far too numerous and irrelevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. Mind matrix 00:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have notified the article's creator about this discussion. Mind matrix 00:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:15, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not really notable in any way; low magnitude, and didn't result in any damage or sustained news coverage. User:Zoozaz1 03:24, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete losing the article would be no great shakes. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 06:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Western Quebec Seismic Zone. Deletion is also sensible. Wikiacc (¶) 21:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Merge or merge into existing articles covering more general subject matter.Grmike (talk) 11:57, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[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. MBisanz ^talk 23:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Lago[edit]

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

No notability whatsoever. In a WP:BEFORE search, I found he used to have a MySpace page with 31 whole followers and a one-sentence mention in an article here. That's it. Kbabej (talk) 22:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 22:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - He simply isn't notable. I absolutely agree. Deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 22:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete Per nom. I looked for additional sources and found nothing significant. Cheers, gnu 57 23:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A vanity page, nothing more, of a run-of-the-mill club DJ ShelbyMarion (talk) 14:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet inclusion criteria for muscians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable per WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. Mixtapes were easy to make. Cf. Fred the Godson. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 26 April 2020 (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. Simply asserting that GNG is met is worthless without actually pointing to sources. Merely being a film director or producer does not automatically put one over the GNG line sans sources. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajeev Barnwal[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a film industry worker, not reliably sourced as passing any part of WP:CREATIVE. The only notability claim stated here at all is that he and the films he's worked on exist, which is not an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage in media to establish the significance of his work -- but of the eight citations here five are to IMDb, two are to other IMDb-like directories, and the only one that comes from an actual media outlet is a Q&A interview with somebody else in which Rajeev Barnwal is the interviewer -- which means even that source is not about him for the purposes of helping to establish his notability. People do not get over our inclusion rules just because you can show them as the bylined creator of media coverage about other things -- they require sources in which they're the subject of media coverage created by other people. And as for his filmography, he was a "set cashier", not a performer or filmmaker, in the first film listed, and an unnamed bit part actor in the second, so those two films have nothing whatsoever to do with establishing his notability -- and while the other two films listed are potentially more significant, simply having screenwriting and directing credits still isn't an automatic inclusion freebie in the absence of much better sourcing than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing proved beyond existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:17, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:GNG. --CheatBeat (talk) 06:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep(strongly) article is about film director and producer. Hence, passes WP:GNG --WikiBooyy (talk) 07:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDB cannot be taken as sources and he is not having significance in sources independent of the subject Covideditnerd (talk) 23:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC) — Covideditnerd (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Bistritz[edit]

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

The subject does not have any notability. Most of the sources are from a non-notable, defunct website he used to be editor-in-chief of, and the others aren't much better. He was nominated for a local award once, again in relation to the defunct website, and then wrote a book that didn't get press coverage. In a WP:BEFORE search, there's a blog with an interview, so not considered a RS, and then a NY Sun article where he once held a party on a subway car. Not enough to pass GNG. Kbabej (talk) 21:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for lack of citation of notability. The only sources are self-referential and/or generic links (such as the Amazon.com link for the book, since there don't appear to be any actual reviews or coverage of the book). -Markeer 01:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lack of significance in sources independent of the subject. lorstaking 02:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable blogger and journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:44, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as a denizen of the C-List gay life in NYC and Fire Island, I can attest that he and his blog are absolutely run of the mill. I never heard of him, it, or them. Bearian (talk) 01:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacks notability, credible sourcing Lorelai1335 (talk) 20:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)Lorelai1335[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. Not seeing anything in the keep votes to indicate GNG or nfooty pass. Fenix down (talk) 22:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Carty[edit]

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

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

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

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 20:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has now been amended to include reliable sources and citations. David Carty is a professional footballer on a full time professional contract. He is playing in the Irish Premiership, the top tier of professional football in the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogabonito1905 (talk • contribs)

Delete, as he has played for Institute F.C. while they were in the NIFL Premiership, which is considered a fully professional league per WP:FPL, meaning he passes WP:NFOOTY. Confusingly, Institute F.C. and a bunch of other teams in that league are described as semi-professional on their respective pages. As he has not played any matches for a team considered fully professional under WP:FPL, and therefore fails WP:NFOOTY. The coverage of him in the given sources is nothing more than passing mentions, unreliable sources, and run-of-the-mill coverage, meaning he fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FPL list the NIFL Premiership under the section: Top level leagues which are not fully professional. His appearances for Institute do not satisfy WP:NFOOTY. Sir Sputnik (talk) 22:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crap. Don't know how I messed up there Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does he meet WP:GNG though? SportingFlyer T·C 23:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are many examples of professional football players on Wikipedia who have only played in a league under the section: Top level leagues which are not fully professional. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.125.28 (talk) 02:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:33, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - David Carty is a full time professional footballer, professionally contracted in a nation’s top football league. The Irish Premiership is a professional league, and a professional player should be here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogabonito1905 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per the reasoning of the PROD, which still stands up. Playing in a top-flight league isn't good enough if that league isn't a WP:FPL. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 16:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - I would just ask then, why are there many other professional players on Wikipedia who have never played in a league which is a WP:FPL? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jogabonito1905 (talk • contribs) 17:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Those players have played for a senior national team and/or pass WP:GNG. Or nobody has noticed that the article should be deleted. BTW you only vote once in an AfD. Dougal18 (talk) 17:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may not vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 19:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

remembering, of course, that afd is not a vote. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Considering he’s only just broken into pro football for the first time at the age of 26, the article is well sourced; and he is a now a contracted professional player with the IFA (Irish Football Association). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.200.114 (talk) 20:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As a player of the NIFL Premiership, he clearly demonstrates professional status. Even the Wikipedia page for the league recognises it as the following: “the Irish League, is a professional association football league which operates as the highest division of the Northern Ireland Football League – the national league in Northern Ireland.” Munich1905 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - It’s professional football. Despite some newly promoted clubs needing more time to gain the funds required to become full-time, it is still a professional competition and the players participating should be treated as such. There are European competition places up for grabs for every club in the division. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.125.28 (talk) 21:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. User:Jogabonito1905 has worked on literally nothing but the page on David Carty, which forces me to suspect there may be an undisclosed COI here. User:Munich1905 has also worked on nothing but topics related to David Carty, and actually used to be called Cartiay before they changed their Username. I suspect that they might be David Carty, or someone close to him, as the odds of two new editors randomly deciding to put all of their editing work into creating a Draft and then an article for an obscure Irish footballer is rather low. 86.8.200.114 made two edits a few years ago, and just now returned to vote on this AfD. That is also suspicious, I think there might be socking at play here. And while I was typing this up, a new IP editor was founded just to comment on this AfD, making sockpuppeting even more likely. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - It doesn't seem justifiable that a league which offers a number of spots in Europe (the biggest association football club competitions in the world), can have its players not considered pro? The players of the Irish Premiership are contracted professionals and should be acknowledged as such. There is zero difference between them and their fellow professional counterparts in other European first tiers, who are fighting for Champions League and Europa League places each season. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.29.125.28 (talk) 22:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may not vote more than once. Sir Sputnik (talk) 23:02, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The player is simply not playing in a WP:FPL based league and a look at the sources are a bit weak to be satisified for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 23:29, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Hawk. --BlameRuiner (talk) 06:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NFOOTY failure. Probably needs to be an SPI into the Jogabonito1905/Munich1905 accounts too. Number 5 7 10:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly, let's firmly state that there are no sources that would confirm a GNG claim, at all. Secondly, pertaining to his NFOOTY claim, I think it's quite clear that the team he apparently plays for is not listed in that same guide. Therefore it can be quite clearly determined he's not notable according to Wikipedia's guidelines. PK650 (talk) 22:23, 27 April 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vicki Carpenter[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:NDIRECTOR. The one reference is just incidental coverage, cannot find SIGCOV, is really noted for one play that is not well known Rogermx (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 20:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sourcing to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: Despite the decent write-up in the source cited in the article, the subject likely fails WP:NACTOR, if she has only acted in and directed one seemingly non-notable play. However, there are a few people with the name "Vicki Carpenter" in the showbusiness industry, so I would suggest, to be safe, a "relist" to allow time to determine whether or not the subject has acted in any other productions. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The source article is about the play and the playwright. Frankly, she is mentioned only incidentally.Rogermx (talk) 14:17, 29 April 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Remsburg[edit]

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

I cannot find enough to support WP:GNG Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. Galatz גאליץ ^{שיחה Talk} 20:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's one of those cases where a SNG might be more helpful than GNG, in that it should denote where someone who is a referee might have additional print media. However, in this BLPs case, I doubt they would meet any SNG. Being a referee in CHIKARA is non-notable, as is having a year in AEW. Additional press coverage is required. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 10:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable professional wrestler.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the sources found Courrecx (talk) 05:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC) Courrecx is a checkuser-confirmed sockpuppet and has been blocked indefinitely. --Kinu ^t/_c 18:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a link to a Google query. Can you point out any specific reliable sources there are in the results? --Kinu ^t/_c 07:22, 28 April 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yo estaba ocupada encontrando respuestas, mientras tú simplemente seguías con la vida real[edit]

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

Article about a short film, not making or reliably sourcing any strong claim to passage of WP:NFILM. As always, every film is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because it exists -- the notability test for films requires some evidence of the film's significance, such as noteworthy film awards or demonstrable attention from film critics. But the only notability claim even being attempted here is that the film exists, and the only reference is a Q&A interview in which the filmmaker is talking about his own overall body of work in the first person, which briefly mentions this film without being about this film to any non-trivial degree. Simply put, a film requires better sourcing than this to clear the bar. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 20:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The movie simply isn't notable. As stated above, all that's really asserted here is that the film exists. We don't have the kind of reliable source coverage that we need to write a full article. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 20:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article content does not comply with the WP:NFILM policy, per no reliable sourcing and significant coverage. Kori (@) 22:42, 26 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kenny George(Actress)[edit]

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

promotional article that needs to be nuked from orbit, sourced entirely to gossipy, spammy unreliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 20:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Agreed. None of the sources appear to be particularly reliable. The actress simply doesn't seem to be that notable. This may also be a case of WP:TOOSOON since her career is just about getting started. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable sources. She does Yoruba movies and is not considered a Nollywood actress. She might be notable as a Yoruba actress but since the Yoruba movie industry doesn't have any dedicated media outlets, she will not meet our notability standards. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If not deleted, needs to be moved to Kenny George (actress) (space plus small "a"), and a hatnote added at Kenny George. PamD 09:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Basically what Praxidicae said. Promotional gossipy thrash that could have easily qualified under a CSD G11. More & more b.s pages like this would continue to grow exponentially as people begin to understand anyone with an internet connection can edit Wikipedia. Celestina007 (talk) 11:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007:, Can you at the very least be civil in discussions like this. And articles cannot be thrash. Regards, Mahveotm (talk) 18:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahveotm sources can be trash. Gossip, for example, is trash. It's a perfectly valid description. Praxidicae (talk) 19:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Good day... Kindly check that article you nominated for deletion,I think you should recheck and instead make corrections instead of just out rightly nominating for deletion. The writer did a lot of work you know! — Preceding unsigned comment added by B.Korlah (talk • contribs) 13:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment B.Korlah was the editor who created the article. PamD 09:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B.Korlah, that’s a really bold comment you know! In any AFD, the burden of proving if or not a subject of an article is notable or not, lies on the article author & not necessarily on the new page reviewer, but in any case I am positive Praxidicae did a before in bid to help your article but they invariably came up empty & had to perform their duty as a new page reviewer by correctly nominating your article for deletion because in all honesty, I can’t see WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR nor WP:ANYBIO being satisfied.

See WP:GNG, WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS & WP:NACTOR.

P.S I reside in Nigeria & have done so for 20+ years & also a part of Wiki Project Nigeria so if you need further clarification do leave a message on my TP. Celestina007 (talk) 19:53, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence she has ever performed in a notable production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm not going to vote on this one—not yet, anyway—because I don't feel that I can properly assess WP:NACTOR. Has anyone any opinions on the films she has appeared in—whether they are notable or not? Dflaw4 (talk) 03:06, 29 April 2020 (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 Maggie & Bianca: Fashion Friends. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giorgia Boni[edit]

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

non notable actress MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Maggie & Bianca: Fashion Friends for now, based on the lack of reliable coverage, I originally voted "Weak Keep" but I haven't been able to find better references in my research today. As a big fan of Maggie & Bianca I had a lot of sources to look through in my notes, but unfortunately there is nothing substantial on Giorgia. For reference, here are the sources that talk a bit about her: la Repubblica, Il Mattino, GG, PopcornTV. TheFallenPower (talk) 20:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – she absolutely does not meet WP:NACTOR which actually demands multiple significant roles (she has one). So only a strong WP:BASIC case would overcome that, and I doubt that benchmark will be met. BTW, this is a much clearer "fail" than Emanuela Rei, the latter of whom was at least was main cast on multiple TV series. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 06:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – The article does not mention that she has released two singles as a singer, which got her a basic entry at AllMusic but with no biography or reviews. I can find nothing else on her music that constitutes the significant and reliable coverage requirements at WP:NMUSICIAN. At the present time she also does not meet the requirements at WP:NACTOR because her endeavors in that realm also have no reliable coverage, and only basic industry listings and streaming entries can be found. She is only briefly mentioned by association in the newspaper articles linked by the "Weak Keep" voter above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep or Draftify or Redirect: While I agree with the other editors in terms of WP:NACTOR, the subject is getting coverage in reputable Italian sources, including this significant write-up in the Corriere della Sera: https://torino.corriere.it/cronaca/18_marzo_09/giorgia-boni-rai-gulp-regina-margherita-torino-88eb628e-238d-11e8-a79f-45565073a066.shtml?refresh_ce-cp. The subject appears to be very much in the public eye at the moment. I invite the above voters—TheFallenPower, doomsdayer520 and IJBall—to check out this source for the purposes of WP:GNG, and also to consider either "draftifying" or "redirecting" to Maggie & Bianca as opposed to downright deletion. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:12, 29 April 2020 (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 Mitre 10 Dream Home. MBisanz ^talk 23:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitre 10 Dream Home (series 11)[edit]

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

Season itself is not notable as the ten seasons before it aren't. Low level sourcing, definitely not substantial enough for its own article and series is already summarised on the parent article. This was a PROD and after the seven days was it up it redirected to Mitre 10 Dream Home only to be swifted reverted back. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I see no reason why this season needs to be its own page. This season does not seem to have particularly greater coverage than previous seasons. Delete and merge any useful content into the main show's page. Ikjbagl (talk) 20:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Mitre 10 Dream Home As all the seasons details are in it Covideditnerd (talk) 23:16, 29 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Woolfson[edit]

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

Non notable lawyer. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Searches find mentions relative to the firms involving the subject (e.g.[2]) plus occasional commentary items by the subject [3], but I am not finding the specific coverage needed to establish notability. AllyD (talk) 07:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED - his law firm is notable, but it has over five hundred attorneys. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nomination. Also, the article reads like a promotional blurb.TH1980 (talk) 02:54, 26 April 2020 (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. Non-notable and a COI product to boot. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:43, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SHESHA (musician)[edit]

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

non notable musician, could be speedy deleted in my opinion XFD to get the community's opinion. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the artist has rebranded his name from Sha Zovve to SHESHA, maybe thats y he is not notable. Would be great if can know ways to improve this article. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarveshvara99 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ User:Sarveshvara99, no, I have checked, no sources on that either. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ MistyGraceWhite The social media , instagram and twitter was changed from Sha Zovve to SHESHA, a new facebook page was created for SHESHA. Will also state spotify link for Sha Zovve's work. Regarding the rebranding part from Sha Zovve to SHESHA.. That will be actually announced soon. If you notice the article, the rebranding was done only this year(2020) and theres is an album will be released later this year titled BINTANG EP. Even the official website for SHESHA is in building process and the knowledge panel in google search for SHESHA is not up yet because the official website and the album is not released yet. But the knowledge panel for Sha Zovve is in google search. Will state all the related links below. Please do advise on this. Thank you. User:Sarveshvara99

https://www.google.com/search?gs_ssp=eJzj4tVP1zc0TLOsKsgqNkw3YPTiLM5IVKjKLytLBQBqbwhX&q=sha+zovve&oq=sha+zovve&aqs=chrome.1.69i57j46j69i61l2.3719j0j7&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8

https://open.spotify.com/artist/4lXFW8KajROcgbyce4m0Ix?si=icR_Lo9EQA6JLnm39RRSbg

https://www.instagram.com/officialshesha

https://www.facebook.com/officialSHESHA

https://twitter.com/OfficialSHESHA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarveshvara99 (talk • contribs) 08:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@User:Sarveshvara99 if you are correct, that he has no knowledge panel, no website, no mentions on news etc, then he is not notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MistyGraceWhite (talk • contribs) 09:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that a search under his given name reveals at least one other person, with the surname appearing as both Seshasahi and Seshasai, and there is also a figure from mythology named Shesha without the caps. All that can be found under a focused search on the musician are self-promotions in social media and various run-of-the-mill industry directories, and a few YouTube entries that were probably self-uploaded. The current state of the article, full of non-notable autobiographical details, has the earmarks of an attempted promotion by himself or a manager. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:20, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Follow-up - All that can be found under his previous stage name "Sha Zovve" is more of the same. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 19:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MistyGraceWhite & ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) Yes it is been created by his manager. How do i go about it. Please do advise me on this. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sarveshvara99 (talk • contribs) 06:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That violates Wikipedia's rules on conflicts of interest. That is another reason to delete the article, or at least to investigate its origins even further. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 12:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS. There's just terrible sources in the article and suggested above. In 2006, this might have been excused, but it's 2020, and anybody on Twitter can see this is the way it is. Bearian (talk) 02:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Wikipedia family, this whole article was created based on an independent musician. I was not aware or got a proper source over the internet saying that it was only for notable and with proper reference. If you look at the reference links in the article, it will explain the award shows were also independent and major mixed. So pls do advise me, if I need to delete the article or what should i do or Wikipedia team will delete this. Thank you. User:Sarveshvara99 —Preceding undated comment added 07:48, 28 April 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julian Gould[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - From a bit of searching, I can see that this artist achieved some notoriety, yet I'm not finding the kind of reliable source coverage that we need to build a proper page out of. I agree. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Lounge music has received some attention in recent years, so I was surprised how little I could find on the subject. Aside from the brief mention which I added as a reference, there is some further biographical information about him in the Essex Organ Museum Directory, but I am not seeing enough to meet WP:MUSICBIO. AllyD (talk) 09:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for coming to that conclusion, some people will consider you evil or stupid or both.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:43, 25 April 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Farnsworth (musician)[edit]

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

One album as a leader, a few as a sideman. Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 18:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unfortunately, sidemen generally don't get the recognition that they often deserve. There's nothing that we can really do on Wikipedia to remedy that. Our guidelines are based on notability, and Fransworth in particular doesn't appear to cross the line. We don't have the reliable source coverage that we need to build a proper page, and so deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 21:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I'm sorry but musicians are supposed to collaborate. That doesn't make them notable. Bearian (talk) 02:02, 26 April 2020 (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 Joanne Jordan (talent agent)#Central Talent Booking as an appropiate alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:03, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Talent Booking[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Not finding anything besides mentions-in-passing for this company. None of the existing citations are valid links; no searches of the relevant publications' archives brings up any hits. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 18:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not really finding much more than press releases. Plus the article was created, and over the years maintained by, users with obvious COIs. It's purely an advertising piece for the company and it's a miracle it's been here 10 years. Canterbury Tail talk 16:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- given the blatant COI editors in the edit history I think even if it is notable to delete per WP:TNT. Tknifton (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:NCORP. Three short mentions in articles does not make a company notable. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Joanne Jordan (talent agent)#Central Talent Booking ~~Keep and rename to Joanne Jordan (talent agent)~~ per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Viner, Brian (2002-05-13). "Pulling power". The Independent. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
2. Brockes, Emma (2002-01-14). "Be my guest. When David Letterman wanted 10 of the world's most beautiful women to appear on his show and recite 10 things they love about him, who did he turn to? Emma Brockes meets Jo Jordan, the chatshow fixer who can provide you with anyone from Goldie Hawn to Tom Cruise". The Guardian. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
3. Siegel, Tatiana (2005-12-06). "Niche-oriented". The Hollywood Reporter. Archived from the original on 2007-06-02. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
4. Siegel, Tatiana (2007-10-05). "Booking talkshows spawns rigid rules". Variety. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
5. Alexander, Zoë (2008-06-02). "She's Booking Ben Affleck!". TV Guide. Vol. 56, no. 22. ISSN 0039-8543.
  The abstract notes:
  The article focuses on the effort of Central Talent Booking owner Joanna Jordan to book a broad range of celebrities on television shows in the U.S. It relates that Jordan has been an in-house talent booker for the television show "Jimmy Kimmel Live." It offers information on her techniques in working such as reading the trades and watching the morning news shows at six in the morning and at 10a.m., she gathers her staff for a meeting.
  I do not have access to the full text of the source, which had already been used in the Wikipedia article.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Joanne Jordan to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I rewrote the article and reframed it to be about Joanne Jordan instead of Central Talent Booking, the company she founded and is the chief executive officer of. The sources primarily discuss Joanne Jordan and discuss Central Talent Booking in the context of Jordan's work on it. I support renaming to Joanne Jordan (talent agent) since Joanne Jordan already exists and is about an American actress and model who lived between 1920 and 2009.
Writing in The Independent, journalist Emma Brockes called Jordan "one of New York's most respected talent bookers".
Variety's Tatiana Siegel said Jordan "is considered one of the industry's premier bookers".
In a 2008 article, TV Guide referred to Jordan as the "force behind" the "I'm F-ing Ben Affleck" video.
Cunard (talk) 09:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If you want the article to be about Joanne Jordan, then create an article about Joanne Jordan. Don't co-opt an article about a different subject to be about something else. That's a just a WP:Coatrack. Canterbury Tail talk 11:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have reverted Cunards attempt to co-opt the article to be about Joanne Jordan. Tknifton (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment two of the account editors that had obvious COIs have been blocked for sockpuppetry. make of that what you will. Tknifton (talk) 13:51, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I had rewritten the article to focus on Joanne Jordan. This was reverted. I had used the original text as part of my rewrite so attribution is required. I found it cleaner to retain the history in the same article rather than create a separate page so that Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia#Attribution is required for copyright is not needed.
In this AfD, my position is to rename the article to be about the talent agent (Joanne Jordan) instead of to be about the talent agency (Central Talent Booking) as the sources are more about the person rather the company. Wikipedia:Notability (people) applies instead of Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). My rewrite provides the basis for the rename.
Cunard (talk) 21:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @Cunard: If you think Joanne Jordan merits an article, than write the Joanne Jordan (talent agent) article. But the existing Central Talent Booking article still doesn't merit inclusion. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 11:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created Joanne Jordan (talent agent) and revised my position to be "redirect to Joanne Jordan (talent agent)#Central Talent Booking". Since I had used some of the material in Central Talent Booking for Joanne Jordan (talent agent), the history of the article should be preserved under the redirect to comply with Wikipedia:Copying within Wikipedia.
Cunard (talk) 09:00, 28 April 2020 (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 Aziza Mustafa Zadeh. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jazziza[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 18:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not all albums are automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Aziza Mustafa Zadeh: Found a few sources which barely mention about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 28 April 2020 (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 per WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur's Tavern[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Difficult to find sources which are not promotional. Questionable notability. Vmavanti (talk) 18:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:17, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable tavern.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Putting aside the above serial hit and runner !vote, this is a jazz institution that is considered "legendary" and "historic"[4] that even had Charlie Parker as a regular performer. Other coverage exists too. [5][6]Oakshade (talk) 22:06, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Broder, Mitch (2013). Discovering Vintage New York: A Guide to the City's Timeless Shops, Bars, Delis & More. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 9–11. ISBN 978-0-7627-8454-7. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Frankel, David (1980-03-10). "Play It Again, Murray: The Classic Piano Bars". New York. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Reguly, Eric; Harverson, Patrick (1994-06-04). "Some top New York bars". Financial Post. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25 – via Newspapers.com.
Dollar, Steve (2008-09-26). "Eri Yamamoto Finds the Keys to the City". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Laermer, Richard (2002). Native's Guide to New York: Advice with Attitude for People who Live Here—and Visitors We Like (5 ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 315. ISBN 0-393-32288-2. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Silberstein, Joshua (2004). Kane, Colleen (ed.). How to Live BIG in Manhattan Without Going BROKE: The ultimate insider's guide to life and fun for less in NYC. New York: CityWise Guides. p. 180. ISBN 0-9729554-1-0. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Friedman, Jeanette (1989). Gallo, Marie; Gambrill, Sally (eds.). The Good Times Guide to NYC & Vicinity: The New Yorker's Guide to New York. Hackensack, New Jersey: The Broadway Book Company. p. 12. ISBN 0-9618829-13. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Biondi, Joann (1994). Hippocrene U.S.A guide to Black New York. New York: Hippocrene Books. p. 50. ISBN 0-7818-0172-9. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Grader, Rob (2002). The Cheap Bastard's Guide to New York City: A Native New Yorker's Secrets of Living the Good Life—for Free!. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 32. ISBN 0-7627-2352-1. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Davies, Gill (2003). The Timeline History of New York City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 68. ISBN 1-4039-6242-1. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Muñoz Molina, Antonio (2004). Ventanas de Manhattan [Windows of Manhattan] (in Spanish). Barcelona: Seix Barral. p. 47. ISBN 84-322-1178-8. Retrieved 2020-04-25.

Sources with quotes
Broder, Mitch (2013). Discovering Vintage New York: A Guide to the City's Timeless Shops, Bars, Delis & More. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 9–11. ISBN 978-0-7627-8454-7. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The book notes: They are the Grove Street Stompers, and they have a steady gig. They play every Monday night at Arthur's Tavern in the West Village. As the math reveals, to have played on more than 2,600 Mondays, they would have to have been playing for fifty years. Which they have. ... Arthur's is not the Café Carlyle, where Woody Allen plays on Monday nights. It is a dive, which can be charming as long as the lights are low. It has an old wooden bar with thirteen stools, a wall with ten tables and twenty chairs, and a path that leads to a stage that can't hold much more than six Stompers. ... Arthur's is said to have opened in 1937. No one seems to have any recollection of Arthur. The rusted neon sign outside says Arthur's Steak Chops. But in fifty years, Bill says, he's never seen a steak or a chop, though for a while he saw a popcorn machine. ... Whatever the tavern served, it was owned for decades by the Maisano family, members of which kept it into the eighties. Then Danny Bensusan, who had loved the place, bought the bar and its building. A couple of years earlier, he had founded the Blue Note jazz club. Frankel, David (1980-03-10). "Play It Again, Murray: The Classic Piano Bars". New York. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The article notes: No better starting point than Arthur's Tavern (77 Grove Street, near Seventh Avenue, 242-9468). It's a small, boozy, smoky joint, a cluttered, elongated room with the piano on a raised platform at the back, and a mob of regulars (at least one of whom is called Dutch) perched at the bar in the front. Décor is sparse—this is the kind of place where Christmas hangings seem to stay up all year, and the chairs are almost as hard as the floor—but uptowners come here as well as oldtime Villagers and young folks in denim. The attraction is the three pianists: Al Bundy plays Tuesdays and Wednesdays; Mable Godwin, Thursday through Saturday; and Verna Swindell solos on Sundays and plays in between Ms. Godwin's sets. Monday, there's Dixieland jazz. Ms. Godwin, a quiet, assured woman who has been at Arthur's for twenty years and who was playing in Harlem clubs in the thirties, is the star. ... Reguly, Eric; Harverson, Patrick (1994-06-04). "Some top New York bars". Financial Post. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25 – via Newspapers.com. The article notes: Arthur's Tavern, 57 Grove St. The man with white hair and thick black spectacles has been an Arthur's regular since the late 1940s. "No Cover/No Minimum" has little to do with his unfailing patronage; it is the music, played in a way and in a place that reminds him of his youth. Arthur's is a rare holdout from the Truman era — Greenwich Village unplugged. Although it is a jazz joint, you do not have to be a jazz buff to enjoy Arthur's. The music never overwhelms, even at the rickety counter that surrounds the musicians' podium at the back of the bar. The place is so unpretentious it never bothers to takes down its Christmas decorations. Dollar, Steve (2008-09-26). "Eri Yamamoto Finds the Keys to the City". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The article notes: Manhattan's landscape can change in a flash, yet even near the busiest thoroughfares, a half-forgotten pocket exists where time stands still and only the escalating beer prices alert a patron to the approximate decade. Straddle a barstool inside the musty, West Village cocoon that is Arthur's Tavern and marvel. Balloons dangle from the ceiling, slowly deflating, their candy-shop hues faded with the years. The tobacco-brown wall paneling is dotted with ratty decorations that celebrate every occasion: Cupid silhouettes for Valentine's Day, fake cobwebs for Halloween. If there's a ghost of Greenwich Village past, it probably abides here, harmonizing with the creaking furniture. Dump that it is, Arthur's makes a great bet for jazz fans. Almost every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday for the past nine years, the pianist Eri Yamamoto has led her trio through a couple of early evening sets at the Grove Street bar. It's the sort of open-ended residency that seems rare these days, a holdover from the era when Charlie Parker would drop by and jam. Ms. Yamamoto's focused, sensitive touch and the easy flow of her rhythm section sometimes mark a brave stand against the chatter that fills the bar. Laermer, Richard (2002). Native's Guide to New York: Advice with Attitude for People who Live Here—and Visitors We Like (5 ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 315. ISBN 0-393-32288-2. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The book notes: Arthur's Tavern My most jaded friend has the hots for this place: a great place for Village denizens to drink gin in. The story behind it: In the late 1940s to mid-1950s Arthur's was home to many of bebop's rising stars; even Charlie "Bird" Parker called this home. They feature jazz, blues, and Dixieland seven nights a week, always for free. They have been in biz for almost thirty-five years. Sundays and Mondays the music starts at 8 P.M.; the rest of the week it gets truly going at 7 P.M. Silberstein, Joshua (2004). Kane, Colleen (ed.). How to Live BIG in Manhattan Without Going BROKE: The ultimate insider's guide to life and fun for less in NYC. New York: CityWise Guides. p. 180. ISBN 0-9729554-1-0. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The article notes: Stepping into West Village stalwart Arthur's Tavern is like stepping back to a time when guys named Dizzy and Coltrane were blazing new trails. This tiny place is lit up in Christmas lights year-round, but the real shining is happening onstage. A small group plays every night, featuring everyone from hip newcomers on the latest keyboards to old stalwarts on their ancient trumpets. Get a seat near the entrance if you want to actually have a conversation, or if you want to be overwhelmed by the music, get right up in the guitarist's face at the bar surrounding the band to groove to the music. Friedman, Jeanette (1989). Gallo, Marie; Gambrill, Sally (eds.). The Good Times Guide to NYC & Vicinity: The New Yorker's Guide to New York. Hackensack, New Jersey: The Broadway Book Company. p. 12. ISBN 0-9618829-13. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The article notes: Arthur's Tavern They've got a quality open mike, a piano bar, literally, where the ever-wonderful Mabel Godwin does her thing on weekends and Al Bundy covers when she's not around. Much has been made of the antique Xmas decor, which was hung before God was born. The crowd is one that appreciates a good cry over Mable's blues. Biondi, Joann (1994). Hippocrene U.S.A guide to Black New York. New York: Hippocrene Books. p. 50. ISBN 0-7818-0172-9. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The book notes: Arthur's Tavern—57 Grove St., Greenwich Village, Manhattan. (212) 675-6879. A classic jazz joint with a well-worn wooden bar and twinkling Christmas lights. Arthur's is housed in a building that dates to the early 1800s. Featuring jazz since the 1940s, the cozy and dark club has two house bands that attract jazz lovers nightly. Grader, Rob (2002). The Cheap Bastard's Guide to New York City: A Native New Yorker's Secrets of Living the Good Life—for Free!. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 32. ISBN 0-7627-2352-1. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The book notes: Arthur's Tavern 57 Grove Street (off Seventh Avenue South) (212) 675-6879 www.arthurstavernnyc.com Since 1937, Arthur's Tavern has been serving up a variety of music for every taste: straight-ahead jazz, New Orleans-style jazz, real Chicago blues. On Monday night for more than thirty-five years, it's been home to the same Dixieland Jazz band. Stop by any time of night; there's always something going on. Never a cover of minimum. Davies, Gill (2003). The Timeline History of New York City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 68. ISBN 1-4039-6242-1. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The book notes: Arthur's Tavern On Grove Street since 1937, this is the longest continually run jazz club in the city. Muñoz Molina, Antonio (2004). Ventanas de Manhattan [Windows of Manhattan] (in Spanish). Barcelona: Seix Barral. p. 47. ISBN 84-322-1178-8. Retrieved 2020-04-25. The book notes: Pero hasta que llegara ese momento, el melancólico final de la noche —también para nosotros dos el tiempo se acababa, y no faltaba mucho para que tuviéramos que abandonar la habitación del hotel y la ciudad que nos había acogido como un santuario provisional para nuestra huida— aún nos quedaban varias horas por delante cuando por fin encontré la calle Grove y el modesto letrero luminoso de la Arthur's Tavern, brillando como la luz de una casa invitadora y aislada en lac noche de invierno. En Nueva York raramente hay correspondencia entre la temperatura de los lugares cerrados y la de los espeacios abiertos, y las diferencias climáticas artificiales son todavía más extremas que las de la naturaleza: si hace un calor irrespirable y húmedo en la calle nos transpasará el frío polar del aire acondicionado al entrar en una tienda, en un autobús o en un restaurante, y si escapamos del viento helado empujando con urgencia la puerta de un edificio en menos de un segundo nos sofocará el calor de horno de la calefacción. Ingresamos del golpe, después de habernos extraviado en el frío de las calles a oscuraras, casi desiertas en la noche laboral del invierno, en la pulsación del calor y de la música, en el olor a tabaco, a cerveza agria, a madera y a serrín mojado de las tabernas irlandesas, en la penumbra rumorosa de voces, tintineos de vasos y cubitos de hielo, risas de bebedores. En las avenidas sombrías batidas por el viento no había casi nadie, sólo algunos mendigos y lunáticos errantes, pero en el interior de la Arthur's Tavern, forrado de madera oscura, adornado con recortes de periódicos viejos, con reseñas enmarcadas de New Yorker y del New York Times, con adornos navideños y colgaduras de tréboles de San Patricio y de banderitas del Cuatro de Julio que llevan muchos años acumulando polvo y mugre, las camereras circulaban atareadamente entre las mesas y la barra llevando en alto bandejas con jarras de cerveza rubia, gin tonics y whiskies, y en el aire denseo de humo de tabaco la música sonaba por encima de un bajo continuo de conversaciones murmuradas. From Google Translate: But until that moment came, the melancholic end of the night - for both of us, time was running out, and it wasn't long before we had to leave the hotel room and the city that had welcomed us as a temporary sanctuary for our escape. - We still had several hours ahead when I finally found Grove Street and the modest Arthur's Tavern light sign, glowing like the light of a secluded and inviting house on a winter night. In New York there is rarely a correspondence between the temperature of closed places and that of open spaces, and the artificial climatic differences are even more extreme than those of nature: if it is an unbreathable and humid heat in the street, the polar cold will pass us from the air conditioning when entering a store, a bus or a restaurant, and if we escape from the freezing wind by urgently pushing the door of a building in less than a second we will suffocate the heat of the furnace of the heating. We entered at once, after having got lost in the cold of the dark streets, almost deserted in the winter working night, in the pulsation of the heat and of the music, in the smell of tobacco, sour beer, wood and sawdust. Wet from the Irish taverns, in the murmuring gloom of voices, clinking of glasses and ice cubes, laughter of drinkers. On the bleak windy avenues there was hardly anyone, just a few beggars and wandering lunatics, but inside the dark wood-lined Arthur's Tavern adorned with old newspaper clippings, with framed reviews of New Yorker ' 'and from the' 'New York Times, with Christmas decorations and hangings of Saint Patrick's shamrocks and Fourth of July flags that have accumulated dust and grime for many years, the waitresses circulated busy between the tables and the bar carrying high trays with mugs of blond beer, gin and tonic whiskeys, and in the thick smoke air the music played over a continuous bass of whispered conversations.

Sources with quotes

Broder, Mitch (2013). Discovering Vintage New York: A Guide to the City's Timeless Shops, Bars, Delis & More. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. pp. 9–11. ISBN 978-0-7627-8454-7. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The book notes:
They are the Grove Street Stompers, and they have a steady gig. They play every Monday night at Arthur's Tavern in the West Village. As the math reveals, to have played on more than 2,600 Mondays, they would have to have been playing for fifty years. Which they have.
...
Arthur's is not the Café Carlyle, where Woody Allen plays on Monday nights. It is a dive, which can be charming as long as the lights are low. It has an old wooden bar with thirteen stools, a wall with ten tables and twenty chairs, and a path that leads to a stage that can't hold much more than six Stompers.
...
Arthur's is said to have opened in 1937. No one seems to have any recollection of Arthur. The rusted neon sign outside says Arthur's Steak Chops. But in fifty years, Bill says, he's never seen a steak or a chop, though for a while he saw a popcorn machine.
...
Whatever the tavern served, it was owned for decades by the Maisano family, members of which kept it into the eighties. Then Danny Bensusan, who had loved the place, bought the bar and its building. A couple of years earlier, he had founded the Blue Note jazz club.
Frankel, David (1980-03-10). "Play It Again, Murray: The Classic Piano Bars". New York. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
No better starting point than Arthur's Tavern (77 Grove Street, near Seventh Avenue, 242-9468). It's a small, boozy, smoky joint, a cluttered, elongated room with the piano on a raised platform at the back, and a mob of regulars (at least one of whom is called Dutch) perched at the bar in the front. Décor is sparse—this is the kind of place where Christmas hangings seem to stay up all year, and the chairs are almost as hard as the floor—but uptowners come here as well as oldtime Villagers and young folks in denim.
The attraction is the three pianists: Al Bundy plays Tuesdays and Wednesdays; Mable Godwin, Thursday through Saturday; and Verna Swindell solos on Sundays and plays in between Ms. Godwin's sets. Monday, there's Dixieland jazz. Ms. Godwin, a quiet, assured woman who has been at Arthur's for twenty years and who was playing in Harlem clubs in the thirties, is the star. ...
Reguly, Eric; Harverson, Patrick (1994-06-04). "Some top New York bars". Financial Post. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Arthur's Tavern, 57 Grove St. The man with white hair and thick black spectacles has been an Arthur's regular since the late 1940s. "No Cover/No Minimum" has little to do with his unfailing patronage; it is the music, played in a way and in a place that reminds him of his youth. Arthur's is a rare holdout from the Truman era — Greenwich Village unplugged.
Although it is a jazz joint, you do not have to be a jazz buff to enjoy Arthur's. The music never overwhelms, even at the rickety counter that surrounds the musicians' podium at the back of the bar. The place is so unpretentious it never bothers to takes down its Christmas decorations.
Dollar, Steve (2008-09-26). "Eri Yamamoto Finds the Keys to the City". The New York Sun. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
Manhattan's landscape can change in a flash, yet even near the busiest thoroughfares, a half-forgotten pocket exists where time stands still and only the escalating beer prices alert a patron to the approximate decade. Straddle a barstool inside the musty, West Village cocoon that is Arthur's Tavern and marvel. Balloons dangle from the ceiling, slowly deflating, their candy-shop hues faded with the years. The tobacco-brown wall paneling is dotted with ratty decorations that celebrate every occasion: Cupid silhouettes for Valentine's Day, fake cobwebs for Halloween. If there's a ghost of Greenwich Village past, it probably abides here, harmonizing with the creaking furniture.
Dump that it is, Arthur's makes a great bet for jazz fans. Almost every Thursday, Friday, and Saturday for the past nine years, the pianist Eri Yamamoto has led her trio through a couple of early evening sets at the Grove Street bar. It's the sort of open-ended residency that seems rare these days, a holdover from the era when Charlie Parker would drop by and jam. Ms. Yamamoto's focused, sensitive touch and the easy flow of her rhythm section sometimes mark a brave stand against the chatter that fills the bar.
Laermer, Richard (2002). Native's Guide to New York: Advice with Attitude for People who Live Here—and Visitors We Like (5 ed.). New York: W. W. Norton & Company. p. 315. ISBN 0-393-32288-2. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The book notes:
Arthur's Tavern

My most jaded friend has the hots for this place: a great place for Village denizens to drink gin in. The story behind it: In the late 1940s to mid-1950s Arthur's was home to many of bebop's rising stars; even Charlie "Bird" Parker called this home. They feature jazz, blues, and Dixieland seven nights a week, always for free. They have been in biz for almost thirty-five years. Sundays and Mondays the music starts at 8 P.M.; the rest of the week it gets truly going at 7 P.M.
Silberstein, Joshua (2004). Kane, Colleen (ed.). How to Live BIG in Manhattan Without Going BROKE: The ultimate insider's guide to life and fun for less in NYC. New York: CityWise Guides. p. 180. ISBN 0-9729554-1-0. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
Stepping into West Village stalwart Arthur's Tavern is like stepping back to a time when guys named Dizzy and Coltrane were blazing new trails. This tiny place is lit up in Christmas lights year-round, but the real shining is happening onstage. A small group plays every night, featuring everyone from hip newcomers on the latest keyboards to old stalwarts on their ancient trumpets. Get a seat near the entrance if you want to actually have a conversation, or if you want to be overwhelmed by the music, get right up in the guitarist's face at the bar surrounding the band to groove to the music.
Friedman, Jeanette (1989). Gallo, Marie; Gambrill, Sally (eds.). The Good Times Guide to NYC & Vicinity: The New Yorker's Guide to New York. Hackensack, New Jersey: The Broadway Book Company. p. 12. ISBN 0-9618829-13. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
Arthur's Tavern

They've got a quality open mike, a piano bar, literally, where the ever-wonderful Mabel Godwin does her thing on weekends and Al Bundy covers when she's not around. Much has been made of the antique Xmas decor, which was hung before God was born. The crowd is one that appreciates a good cry over Mable's blues.
Biondi, Joann (1994). Hippocrene U.S.A guide to Black New York. New York: Hippocrene Books. p. 50. ISBN 0-7818-0172-9. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The book notes:
Arthur's Tavern—57 Grove St., Greenwich Village, Manhattan. (212) 675-6879. A classic jazz joint with a well-worn wooden bar and twinkling Christmas lights. Arthur's is housed in a building that dates to the early 1800s. Featuring jazz since the 1940s, the cozy and dark club has two house bands that attract jazz lovers nightly.
Grader, Rob (2002). The Cheap Bastard's Guide to New York City: A Native New Yorker's Secrets of Living the Good Life—for Free!. Guilford, Connecticut: Globe Pequot Press. p. 32. ISBN 0-7627-2352-1. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The book notes:
Arthur's Tavern

57 Grove Street (off Seventh Avenue South)
(212) 675-6879
www.arthurstavernnyc.com

Since 1937, Arthur's Tavern has been serving up a variety of music for every taste: straight-ahead jazz, New Orleans-style jazz, real Chicago blues. On Monday night for more than thirty-five years, it's been home to the same Dixieland Jazz band. Stop by any time of night; there's always something going on. Never a cover of minimum.
Davies, Gill (2003). The Timeline History of New York City. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 68. ISBN 1-4039-6242-1. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The book notes:
Arthur's Tavern
On Grove Street since 1937, this is the longest continually run jazz club in the city.
Muñoz Molina, Antonio (2004). Ventanas de Manhattan [Windows of Manhattan] (in Spanish). Barcelona: Seix Barral. p. 47. ISBN 84-322-1178-8. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The book notes:
Pero hasta que llegara ese momento, el melancólico final de la noche —también para nosotros dos el tiempo se acababa, y no faltaba mucho para que tuviéramos que abandonar la habitación del hotel y la ciudad que nos había acogido como un santuario provisional para nuestra huida— aún nos quedaban varias horas por delante cuando por fin encontré la calle Grove y el modesto letrero luminoso de la Arthur's Tavern, brillando como la luz de una casa invitadora y aislada en lac noche de invierno. En Nueva York raramente hay correspondencia entre la temperatura de los lugares cerrados y la de los espeacios abiertos, y las diferencias climáticas artificiales son todavía más extremas que las de la naturaleza: si hace un calor irrespirable y húmedo en la calle nos transpasará el frío polar del aire acondicionado al entrar en una tienda, en un autobús o en un restaurante, y si escapamos del viento helado empujando con urgencia la puerta de un edificio en menos de un segundo nos sofocará el calor de horno de la calefacción. Ingresamos del golpe, después de habernos extraviado en el frío de las calles a oscuraras, casi desiertas en la noche laboral del invierno, en la pulsación del calor y de la música, en el olor a tabaco, a cerveza agria, a madera y a serrín mojado de las tabernas irlandesas, en la penumbra rumorosa de voces, tintineos de vasos y cubitos de hielo, risas de bebedores. En las avenidas sombrías batidas por el viento no había casi nadie, sólo algunos mendigos y lunáticos errantes, pero en el interior de la Arthur's Tavern, forrado de madera oscura, adornado con recortes de periódicos viejos, con reseñas enmarcadas de New Yorker y del New York Times, con adornos navideños y colgaduras de tréboles de San Patricio y de banderitas del Cuatro de Julio que llevan muchos años acumulando polvo y mugre, las camereras circulaban atareadamente entre las mesas y la barra llevando en alto bandejas con jarras de cerveza rubia, gin tonics y whiskies, y en el aire denseo de humo de tabaco la música sonaba por encima de un bajo continuo de conversaciones murmuradas.
From Google Translate:
But until that moment came, the melancholic end of the night - for both of us, time was running out, and it wasn't long before we had to leave the hotel room and the city that had welcomed us as a temporary sanctuary for our escape. - We still had several hours ahead when I finally found Grove Street and the modest Arthur's Tavern light sign, glowing like the light of a secluded and inviting house on a winter night. In New York there is rarely a correspondence between the temperature of closed places and that of open spaces, and the artificial climatic differences are even more extreme than those of nature: if it is an unbreathable and humid heat in the street, the polar cold will pass us from the air conditioning when entering a store, a bus or a restaurant, and if we escape from the freezing wind by urgently pushing the door of a building in less than a second we will suffocate the heat of the furnace of the heating. We entered at once, after having got lost in the cold of the dark streets, almost deserted in the winter working night, in the pulsation of the heat and of the music, in the smell of tobacco, sour beer, wood and sawdust. Wet from the Irish taverns, in the murmuring gloom of voices, clinking of glasses and ice cubes, laughter of drinkers. On the bleak windy avenues there was hardly anyone, just a few beggars and wandering lunatics, but inside the dark wood-lined Arthur's Tavern adorned with old newspaper clippings, with framed reviews of New Yorker ' 'and from the' 'New York Times, with Christmas decorations and hangings of Saint Patrick's shamrocks and Fourth of July flags that have accumulated dust and grime for many years, the waitresses circulated busy between the tables and the bar carrying high trays with mugs of blond beer, gin and tonic whiskeys, and in the thick smoke air the music played over a continuous bass of whispered conversations.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Arthur's Tavern to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Editors, please refrain from language that compares other editors and contributors to killers, as in "serial hit and run". Death isn't being proposed here, merely the deletion of inert data on a computer screen. Let's save the melodramatic figurative language for poems and plays and try to be more literal, realistic, and practical on Wikipedia. Thanks. Your friend, Don Quixote. P.S. Some of us use colored syntax.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is claiming any editor is literally murdering anyone (see straw man). It is referring to the editor who has a history of dropping into AfD discussions and commenting without any regard to proper analysis or research of the topic and has a fundamental misunderstanding or willing disregard of our notability guidelines. Believe me, I'm not alone in this assessment. Oakshade (talk) 01:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a straw man. Figurative language is suggestive and makes a point and impression. I advise people to avoid using it on Wikipedia because Wikipedia is a place where we are supposed to discuss facts. We ought to be literal more often than not. I know nothing about this person, just as I know nothing about everyone else on the internet, but to say "serial hit and run" about anyone is lazy, false usage that ought to avoided. We can do better, and we usually do. If one disagrees with a point, prove it, which others have apparently done. Let's rise above the name-calling. There's enough of that in the world already.
Vmavanti (talk) 03:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won't repeat the stated facts about this editor, some of which has even been admitted by that editor. But I'll make it explicitly clear so you don't have any false impressions: To my knowledge, Johnpacklambert has never murdered anyone with their vehicle and driven from the scene without assisting the victim nor reporting the collision to authorities. Oakshade (talk) 21:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You missed the point. All of them.
Vmavanti (talk) 23:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a BLP issue. --Doncram (talk) 00:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doncram (talk · contribs), would you clarify how this is a BLP issue? Cunard (talk) 09:09, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Plenty of sources available. See, to start, the first page of Google Books and the sources listed above. I'm curious about what type of WP:BEFORE was performed that determined "Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance". This is not what AfD is for. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:12, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm curious about why accusations and insinuations of laziness immediately pop up whenever anyone stands against the Church of Indiscriminate Inclusion, Infinite Open-Endedness, and Passing Work Off to Anonymous Strangers on the Internet. There's an old saying that when you point the finger at someone else you have four fingers pointing back at yourself. I'm curious about whether people know how to use sources, despite apparently having one or more college degrees. I learned when I was thirteen in a lousy American public school. What's everyone else's excuse? According to the documentation, a passing mention DOES NOT qualify as a source. Common sense will tell you that. Why? Because there's not enough content to provide material for an article. If you have to hunt high and low for sources, there's a good chance the subject is NOT notable. Why? Because notable subjects have "significant coverage", according to documentation which few people read or understand or both.Vmavanti (talk) 15:07, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand - "It has been located in a designated historic building for more than 60 years" - in a downtown NYC venue that a number of bands launched from. Quality sources exist, many have already been mentioned above. Grmike (talk) 11:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[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 Beer bread. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corana bread[edit]

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

I can't find any sources for this. Possible neologism or hoax. CJK09 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This appears to be a misspelling of "corona bread", which is a neologism used online here and there for beer bread. The article as such thus only serves to duplicate information. It isn't appropriate and shouldn't be kept. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I guess technicaly this is a delete, but redirect corona bread to beer bread as per User:CoffeeWithMarkets. Zoozaz103:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - To beer bread as a plausible search term. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:20, 29 April 2020 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Endo G[edit]

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

non notable rapper with no coverage, only claim of significance is a non notable award. Praxidicae (talk) 18:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11, likely undisclosed paid editing. Author blocked. – bradv🍁 18:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Ross[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

another paid for spam article, sourced entirely to fake news outlets run by blackhat seo firms (which i've removed), littered with fake claims of notability that cannot be verified by independent sources. Praxidicae (talk) 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. MER-C 18:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 22 April 2020 (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 Aziza Mustafa Zadeh. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contrasts (Aziza Mustafa Zadeh album)[edit]

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

Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Unsourced since 2009. Not notable. Vmavanti (talk) 23:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vmavanti: Would you consider evaluating whether each of Aziza Mustafa Zadeh's works, as well as the biography on Aziza Mustafa Zadeh, is notable, and consolidating them all into one AfD (and withdrawing this AfD and any other AfDs you've submitted for the others)? The fragmented approach is a bit disorienting and it'd be easier to keep everything together. I think I'd be a delete on the AfD but I'd much prefer a consolidated AfD. For what it's worth I did find one mention of the album on page 233 of Music of Azerbaijan : From Mugham to Opera by Huseynova, Aida. (That's all I could find.) Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I propose deleting these Seventh Truth, Shamans (album), Contrasts II. Thanks! I wish I could propose deleting several articles at once more often. I didn't know I could do that. On the Jazz Project Cleanup Listing I have a list of about 15 "articles" about German jazz festivals. All the articles were created by the same person in 2011 and have rarely been touched. These subjects are rarely covered in the American press. I doubt they are covered often in the German press. There's little to nothing about them. Many of these articles are only one sentence long, and they have just been hanging around. If you could help me with that I would appreciate it v. much.
Vmavanti (talk) 13:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Aziza Mustafazadeh is notable beyond any doubt. I guess albums are notable as well but then someone needs to dig up references which are mainly in German and Azeri, and before somebody has done this it might be easier to merge these articles.--Ymblanter (talk) 21:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A person's notability doesn't automatically make their work notable. She is probably notable, but she gets very little to no coverage in English language sources.
Vmavanti (talk) 00:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage in English language sources is not a notability requirement. But we are not discussing her anyway.--Ymblanter (talk) 06:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read the first sentence of your last post. Second, coverage in English sources is preferred on the English wikipedia because that's the language readers speak. Anything else is pointless. Keep the readers in mind.
Vmavanti (talk) 17:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does not matter. If a person is not covered in English language sources, but extensively covered in Afghani sources, the person is notable. I however do not quite understand what we are debating about. I have an impression you simply want to have the last word. Please be my guest.--Ymblanter (talk) 17:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Thebiv19 (talk) 22:47, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aziza Mustafa Zadeh: Found a few sources which barely mention about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:02, 28 April 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oklahoma State–Texas Tech football rivalry[edit]

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

Are we sure this is a real rivalry? p b p 17:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While we've got one article that says it's a rivalry, it's not actually a "these are rivals" but instead is more of a puff/opinion piece. I can't find anything else which calls these two schools true rivals in the sense of the word. SportingFlyer T·C 18:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sports Illustrated refers to it as a rivalry [7], but that's a bit of a puff piece. That and the one-contributer's-ranking piece in the Dallas Morning News in the article aren't enough to verify that this is actually a significant rivalry. Hog Farm (talk) 21:55, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Just because the two teams are in the same conference, doesn't mean they're rivals. Sulfurboy (talk) 20:17, 29 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nami Rai Parekh[edit]

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

Biography of a person who doesn't appear to be the subject of significant coverage in independent sources. Fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 17:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this person is indeed notable to many young girls in India. How many young girls from India. Powerlifting is not as notable as sports like basketball, football, baseball. but indeed it's still a sport. Nami is not just a notable person but an extraordinary person in the eyes of young women in India. She is excelling in a sport that is usually dominated by men. Young girls in India inspire to be like her. Most of her write ups are in city newspapers and other sources such as instagram and facebook. This isn't because of her lack of notability but because powerlifting as a sport is neglected in the media. India focus is mainly on cricket other sports don'ty get the recognition they should. Name has done incredible things physically and in the unseen hearts of thousands of little girls in media she has shown them you don't have to be weak and insecure but you can be strong. She has shown them that deadlifting 300lbs isn't just a thing a guy can do but a girl can do too. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthonytownley333 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthonytownley333: Wikipedia measures "notability" by the amount of coverage in reliable sources a person/subject has received. When I look, I see this source, which looks quite good, and I see where it's been copied, but we'd probably need more than that. If you know of additional sources, the best thing you can do to argue for keeping would be to link to those sources here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:30, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete insufficiant relialbe, 3rd party secondary sources to show notability. Of course that applies to hundreds of actor and actress articles but I digress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why delete it, it does no good to the of motivating young women powerlifting in India, this may seem like a small decision but let it be known this could be costly to the next generation of women powerlifters in India :/ Anthonytownley333 (talk) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, as a tertiary source, Wikipedia is ultimately constrained by what reliable sources decide to write about. Giving that judgment to other sources is part of how we try to approach subjects neutrally. There are many inspiring, talented, important people who unfortunately have not yet been recognized by other papers, magazines, books, websites, etc. so they don't satisfy our notability requirements. These rules do contribute to systemic bias on Wikipedia. Even within sports, it is not even; nearly all professional footballers are considered notable, but most smaller sports are not (because footballers get more press coverage). It's disappointing sometimes... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will note that I have not argued that it should be deleted; I just don't see enough for me to support keeping, either. If there were another really good source that would be enough for me, but I just don't see it. :/ — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject has insufficient coverage by third party sources. Also did not compete in athletics at a notable level. SFB 22:30, 27 April 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chily[edit]

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

non notable musician, the only independent content about him is his escape from prison, which isn't notable. Praxidicae (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:BLP. I'm very suspicious of articles where a crime is the major reason for a musician or artist to be notable. We tend to demand much more for WP:CRIME. Bearian (talk) 02:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — non notable musician, criminal & fugitive. Celestina007 (talk) 13:16, 26 April 2020 (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Klein[edit]

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

No coverage except a few articles relating to the departure of Jennifer Morgan, where he's only briefly mentioned. No other evidence of meeting WP:GNG. Article appears to have been created as an SEO attempt. At best merge to company's article. JamesG5 (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: CEO of a 150bn DAX company with plenty of coverage in German news.-- Dewritech (talk) 18:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dewritech: Just asking for clarification, since I wasn't looking at German results, does the COMPANY have plenty of coverage, or is there coverage of Klein HIMSELF? I'm only seeing (at least in results in English) coverage for the company, which is why I suggested merging him. Thanks for the feedback. JamesG5 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesG5: There is enough coverage on the CEO.-- Dewritech (talk) 12:09, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dewritech: Ok. What I see there, first page, is 2 pages on company website, his Linkedin, his Twitter, another corporate page (Fieldglass), a few stories about Morgan departing where he's mentioned (as I noted in the nom that was the only time I was seeing him in the news), and a brief Bloomberg info listing. Going back a few more pages in Google, in English, anyway, turns up more of the same. Corp bios and the Morgan story. As the creator of the article says immediately below this "I tried to find some info except the official announcements, but seems that there is no much info and facts available" and that goes back to my reason for the nom. Not much independent 3rd party coverage. JamesG5 (talk) 15:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesG5: You may want to look at other Google pages also: Handelsblatt, WirtschaftsWoche, Frankfurter Allgemeine, Spiegel, n-tv, CNBC, Reuters, WSJ, Financial Times, etc.-- Dewritech (talk) 18:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dewritech: I mean, I hate to belabor a point but as far as I can tell between Google translate & paywalls on some of those only one of those (German source & I already said I was mostly looking at English results) is an actual interview with him. Other than that it's the same group of articles from late last year & early this year around the single incident of the beginning/ending of the co-CEO experiment. That's all as much about Jennifer Morgan & the experiment than him. JamesG5 (talk) 19:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@JamesG5: He is the CEO of the most valuable German DAX company, has an entry in Munzinger, the German equivalent to the Dictionary of National Biography, has interviews in Spiegel and Frankfurter plus plenty national and international press coverage - enough to meet WP:BIO and WP:N.-- Dewritech (talk) 19:58, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stong keep: I've created this page in order to start a page for the CEO of one of the biggest European software companies. It was really strange to enter the company article in English Wikipedia and to see the red link of the CEO's name. I tried to find some info except the official announcements, but seems that there is no much info and facts available - the guy graduated and started in SAP some 20 years ago and have grown to CEO position without switching to other companies. I hope in the future the community will help gather news, info, biography which might be useful for Wikipedia users searching for quality info about known companies and their people. If the article is not deleted I can try to spend some time to reach and get approval for use of photo and press release info about the CEO to be used in Wikipedia. @JamesG5: // Alexgs (talk) 08:06, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexgs: Press releases are almost never acceptable as sources on Wikipedia. Do you have a direct connection with this company? If so that needs to be noted per WP:COI and WP:PAID. Please note I didn't say he shouldn't be mentioned but my whole concern here was that generally bios require significant 3rd party coverage, and you yourself just admitted there is almost no such coverage. So a mention of him in the company article would seem like a good compromise. JamesG5 (talk) 16:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, a bit concerning that nominator admits to not looking for/at german sources considering klein is german and is ceo of a german multinational company. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, german wikipedia has an article on Klein see here that has some references, are any useable here? Coolabahapple (talk) 23:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above, also suggest nom looks at WP:CONFUSESTUB. Apollo825 ^{- talk to me baby -} 15:02, 24 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Loncar[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only source is IMDb which is not a reliable source. This has been the case for this article for over a decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST Atlantic306 (talk) 18:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom, JPL, and WP:NEXIST: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. The inundation of Wikipedia with only IMDb sourced content (we are probably that site's biggest supporter) does not give the presumption of notability. When Wikipedia was a fledgling encyclopedia we gave greater latitude. At a point it is responsible to back up content with reliable sources that support claims of notability, especially concerning BLP's. It is one thing to have a poorly sourced yet notable topic, but an unsourced career stub BLP, that is less than a dictionary entry with an embedded list of a filmography section, backed by a source "generally" considered unreliable (placed in an "External links section), presenting "less" than we would consider as a pseudo biography, fails our current notability guidelines as well as more than one policy. Asserting reliable sources exists is easy to state but we need significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources to advance notability. Otr500 (talk) 11:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to give the IMDb as the only citation issue some perspective this article was created on May 13, 2007. That is almost 13 years ago. This is not a rush job on an article created a few days ago, or even hours ago. Just to show how strong our deferrel is to IMDb, which we say is unreliable, on 15 August 2007 I created an article on Alexander Schreiner, who is arguably the most famous person to have ever been the organist for the Tabernacle on Temple Square in Salt Lake City and the Choir at that Tabernacle. I have since found a full-length biography of him published by a company that in no way could be said to be connected with him in any way, however even in the earliest drafts I included an admittedly not fully developed listing of J. Spencer Cornwall's book on the history of the Tabernacle Choir at Temple Square as a source. Yet it faced an immediate attempt to delete just after I created it. Since then I have always waited to do an initial save until I had at least some sourcing. No such front ending challenge was placed against this always less adequately sourced article. Actor and actress articles get way too much deference without any evidence of meeting notability guidelines. In this case since this is a living person our biography of living people rules mean we must delete anything not reliably sourced, which with no reliable source means we should delete all of it. BLP rules means we must include the sources to have anything, and the sources are not here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: The subject's main role in The Loop seems to be the only role which would go towards WP:ENT. There may be another role, too, perhaps in a play, but I was not able to access the full Hollywood Reporter article via "google books": here. So I think the subject probably falls shy of ENT. And while there are a lot of hits at newspapers.com, the coverage appears to be all quite minor. She also gets some coverage in Deadline and Digital Spy articles, but it's mainly limited to saying that she landed a role in the pilot, Lovelies, and then was replaced by another actress. Therefore, I don't think WP:GNG is quite met, either. If anyone is able to provide any insight as to the Hollywood Reporter article I cited above, and whether it contains significant coverage, please let me know. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, withdrawn. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry Broudy[edit]

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

~~Unref article on recently deceased person. Succesful, but doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG.~~ Boleyn (talk) 17:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hundreds of citations on several books and articles in what I believe to be a low citation field looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. That's supported by a volume of the Journal of Aesthetic Education that was dedicated to him. His books are widely held by libraries according to WorldCat, and I expect that he'll also pass WP:NAUTHOR. I've added two reviews so far. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 22:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:ANYBIO, WP:PROF, and WP:AUTHOR as explained above. Great example of WP:HEYMANN. This is a terrible nomination. The subject is not recently deceased as claimed above (died in 1998). I'm curious, did the nominator do a WP:BEFORE? His bio is included in multiple encyclopedias [8][9]. Google scholar [10] reveals his works are highly cited. TJMSmith (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 23:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I can only assume BEFORE was not done, since it's not hard to find refs like the ones I just reformatted ([11]) which clearly suggest he is notable, having had other scholars write articles about him. He clearly meets WP:PROF. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per all above. Thanks for your hard work. Boleyn (talk) 06:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:G11, most likely undisclosed paid editing. – bradv🍁 18:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parasites Without Borders[edit]

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

This NGO is not notable enough and therefore fails GNG MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability is not an evenly calibrated bar. Some subjects/topics are more or less notable and this one is notable enough given the sources. This NGO is also notable enough for the medical world as it is the publisher for a major medical textbook on infectious diseases. They also host a number of popular podcasts and have a huge following from both lay and professional audiences. GeorgeTopouria
I have blocked GeorgeTopouria, who is the creator of the article, for WP:UPE. MER-C 18:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:44, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 18:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete straight up paid for spam, no coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2020 (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. MBisanz ^talk 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rangoli Chandel[edit]

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

Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. Apart from being Kangana Ranaut's sister, she is not known to media. Notability is not inherited. Brihaspati (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Brihaspati (talk) 17:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See User talk:Brihaspati#Blocked - undisclosed paid editing. Doug Weller talk 08:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sibling of a performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 07:13, 29 April 2020 (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. – bradv🍁 17:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irakli Jinjolava[edit]

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

This article or section may have been copied and pasted from (http://www.halkisummit.com/speakers/rev-dn-irakli-jinjolava), possibly in violation of Wikipedia's copyright policy. Please find the CopyVios report. Amkgp (talk) 10:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable theologian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to coverage in this foreign language newspaper, ipress.ge, another foreign news service, and netgazeti.ge, which also appears to be a foreign language news service. One of his scholarly works has been recommended in the Journal of Ecumenical Studies.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The person has enough data to stay on Wikipedia. ირაკლი ჯინჯოლავა (talk) 23:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC) ^[1][reply]
Keep the copyright problems seem to have been resolved now with any matches only concerning the titles of his articles. Also, the multiple reliable news sources identified above show a pass of WP:BASIC so deletion is no longer necessary, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 23:16, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to be notable enough. Some cleaning up could help to make it comply to copyright laws. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Would benefit from analysis of the reliability of sources identified.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 16:26, 22 April 2020 (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. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. – bradv🍁 17:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NIAT[edit]

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

I have just added a redirect for this page for an acronym, but the whole page looks a bit spammy (and the links to it). The only citation was a bare url to the home page of this person: https://enricomassetti.com/my-patents-enricos-inventions/ And Google finds absolutely nothing except copies of the Wikipedia article. Laterthanyouthink (talk) 07:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 16:25, 22 April 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny Li[edit]

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

Appear to be a non-notable pianist with no significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS ^💬 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:15, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concerns One of the sources mentions her year of birth but no mention of the month. Would be good to get some feedback from those who work in this area. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 16:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 曾玲靜 (2018-05-12). "李昀：不安分的鋼琴家" [Li Yun: restless pianist]. 每日頭條 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
2. "旅英青年钢琴家李昀登上国际舞台" [Li Yun, a young pianist, boarded the international stage in Britain] (in Chinese). Sina Corp. 2016-07-15. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
3. Butcher, Asa (2016-12-01). "Chinese pianist Sunny Li adds her own touch". GBTimes. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
4. MacKenzie, Amy (2017-03-21). "This pianist plays Liszt on four pianos and it's a full-on workout". Classic FM. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
5. Gardner, Gemma (2017-03-06). "Pianist Sunny Li to perform in Cambridge". Cambridge Independent. Iliffe Media. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
6. Foot, Tom (2018-06-01). "Classical music concert to restore historic St James's Church roofs: Concert pianist Sunny Li and violinist Laure Chan to perform at event". Camden New Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Sunny Li to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep agree per Cunard. 37.111.43.38 (talk) 20:19, 26 April 2020 (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. Sourcing requirements for companies are more stringent Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Workforce Software[edit]

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

The article is about a company that lacks depth of coverage and reliability of sourcing that is required to establish notability. The sources presented are either press releases or closely authored, broadly about the topic of workforce management without mentioning the company/product or just contain "workforce software" as phrase, again without being about the company. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 12:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:GNG, has in-depth coverage. Gritmem (talk) 20:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gritmem: Sourcing is essentially a melange of press-releases or entirely unrelated sources. There is not much "out there" that I could find that would establish WP:CORPDEPTH. Of course, if there are further sources, they may be useful to be considered._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 03:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has been cited in several magazines and journals such as[12], [13], [14], [15], [16] and more if you search using their tools' names or website url. Gritmem (talk) 08:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. The references you've included above are either directory-like entries for the company (and relying on information provided by the company) or mentions-in-passing with the company name included as a company that provides workforce solutions. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". Also, "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. While some of the references appear to include "in-depth content", this content is not "independent content". The topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sir, can you please check for its products as well? There are many links likeCrains Detroit Business where it has been reported. The books which cites this company are also independent. Gritmem (talk) 16:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be much easier to create an article about a product of this company (assuming there are several reviews in reliable sources) with a brief note about the company. Pavlor (talk) 07:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good suggestion but can we trim the content and expand with product which has adequate references? Gritmem (talk) 18:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 16:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any nontrivial reliable secondary independent coverage that qualifies under NCORP. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:05, 22 April 2020 (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 20:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ShowClix[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, seems WP:PEACOCKy. Majavah ^(t/c) 14:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Majavah ^(t/c) 14:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Majavah ^(t/c) 14:04, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage Found After a search, Added to the Reference List. Article needs improvement. twerk000 —Preceding undated comment added 14:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - [17] and [18] both pop up in addition to the !vote above. --MuZemike 23:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Extremely peacocky in a few places, but the links on the page as well as the link added by MuZemike seem to include some non-routine material and could fit with WP:CORPDEPTH. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 10:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For what it's worth, the "breaking burning man" incident last year is pretty funny. (I also cut out the peacocky text, on the fence on if the awards are worth keeping). 67.243.20.177 (talk) 11:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 16:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: "Seems peacocky" is solved by editing, not deleting. The Burning Man coverage gives the company enough RS to pass. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Field Marshal Haig's Own Pipes & Drums[edit]

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

non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 16:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP- The proposal for removal of this (and other) pipeband(s) demonstrates the existence of a main issue with a number of people in the world of pipebands: the tendency of part of the piping world to use the participation to competitions as a general reference of importance. The other (non-competition)bands are then, quite insulting, qualified as "non-notable", with even attempts to remove them from the public eye. That is a very discriminatory, elitarian, divisive and extremely snobby approach.

This negative attitude does not only affect Field Marshal Haig's Own Pipes & Drums (further: FMHOP&D), but also many other similar non-competition bands and is endangering the spirit of comradeship within the pîpeband world.

Furthermore, the person proposing the deletion has obviously no serious knowledge about the pipeband scene in Flanders(Belgium) in general and even less about the hard work the small number of specific remembrance pipebands in Flanders, the Netherlands and France are doing on this subject. This is not meant as a personal attack, but does question the authority on the subject and, as a result of that, the justification of the proposal.

In the case of FMHOP&D, the list of, often voluntary and unpaid, involvements and initiatives in the remembrance of the Great War, and, to a lesser extent, of WW2 and other conflicts, is long, especially during the Great War Centenary years Furthermore, the tradition of pipe bands in the Great War was an extremely strong one, trying to wipe out the importance of remembering the legacy of these men is rather ignorant.

One can only wonder what the real motivations behind such a move are. IMHO, it's not to an individual, or even part of the pipe band scene, to decide which aspects (i.e. competition bands) are important and which not. If there is a doubt if entries about pipebands should be included on Wikipedia, then all articles (including those about competition bands)should be removed. Wikipedia should not be shaped according to the interests of one person or faction, but has to be aimed about making (as complete as possible) information available to everyone. Obansinglemalt (talk) 23:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Summarizing: a) the argument "non-notable" is personal and non-rational (to put it mildly) b) not only the entry for "Field Marshal Haig's Own Pipes & Drums" should be maintained, but also these of the all the other pipebands, proposed for deletion on the list of Ostrichyearning3, mentioned as "non-notable", as this argument doesn't comply with the policy of Wikipedia, which is aiming for, neutral, non-biased articles c)the person who tries to initiate the deletion is not qualified on the specific subject of pipebands in Flanders/BelgiumObansinglemalt (talk) 19:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Obansinglemalt (talk • contribs) 19:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Comment: I fixed the keep message above, moving it below the OP's rationale and restored the ((REMOVE THIS TEMPLATE WHEN CLOSING THIS AfD)) template to this discussion. — MRD2014 (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. No indepth coverage, a few foreign language sources, but all of them seem to be "things to see this weekend" kind of stuff and not anything that would show the WP:SIGCOV. I do have to say though, the accusation of pipeband discrimination has to be a first here. (Edit: Particularly when that accusation is leveled against a user who seems to have an unhealthy obsession with promoting pipe bands on Wikipedia) Sulfurboy (talk) 03:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure what to say other than the organization simply doesn't appear to be notable. As stated above, we don't have the in depth coverage that we need for a proper article. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. And salt. Sandstein 21:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gisela Baurmann[edit]

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

Encountered this as a new page reviewer. This article was previously deleted and in recent months has been moved in and out of mainspace and draft space as its creator seems determined to run with it despite it not being accepted at AfC. It categorically fails WP: ARCHITECT in my view, and the sources are mainly to a single design competition that the subject entered and did not win. In view of the clear notability fail and the creator’s insistence I’d suggest delete and salt. Mccapra (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 15:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. No notability apparent. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. At best this could be a redirect to World Trade Center Site Memorial Competition per WP:BIO1E but it would need to be protected as a redirect to prevent the kind of abuse we have already seen. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:19, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of WP:ARCHITECT(2) regarding subject of publications and WP:ARCHITECT(4c) regarding competition finalist status, which holds true despite mention of WP:BIO1E. Quatern (talk) 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)— Quatern (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

@Quatern: WP:ARCHITECT(2) says ‘The person is known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique.’ What new concept, theory or technique do you claim Baurmann originated? WP:ARCHITECT(4c) says the subject’s work ‘has won significant critical attention’. Which of her buildings do you claim has received this? Mccapra (talk) 06:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Finn Melanson[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG without a sufficient number of independent and in-depth sources about the subject himself. User:Namiba 14:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. Ordinary political consultant and runner. Bearian (talk) 02:11, 26 April 2020 (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 14:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivid Seats[edit]

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

Does not meet current standard at WP:NCORP. The sources are mere notices. DGG ( talk ) 03:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To ensure the original submission would be appropriately written and sourced, I tried to follow other entries in the ticket resale category -- https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StubHub, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SeatGeek, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TicketsNow, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TicketIQ. The original submission followed StubHub and SeatGeek, including more robust citations, but those were deleted for being too promotional. Now there are fewer citations (similar to TicketsNow and TicketsIQ) which affects Notability. I am eager to fix the Vivid Seats entry to make it more appropriate for Wikipedia. I just need help better deciphering some of the edits and input, which sometimes conflict. It also would be helpful to know why this submission is being considered for deletion when no others the Ticket Sales Companies category are under similar consideration, including entries with similar citations. Please help me understand the best way to proceed.Jody Venturoni 17:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jventuroni (talk • contribs)

Jventuroni, a good starting point would be familiarizing yourself with the general notability guidelines so you know well the difference between in-depth versus trivial coverage, primary versus secondary sources, etc. Also WP:NCORP has a list of things that are considered trivial coverage for companies (which have higher notability standards then regular topics) under "Examples of trivial coverage." Unfortunately a lot of stuff in this article wouldn't count under either. Although, I don't feel the need to give a play by play analysis of each source. If you look at the StubHub article though, trivial coverage only constitutes a small amount of it. The other two articles have questionable notability and shouldn't be used as examples IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I believe this should be a notable company, as it is the 3rd largest online ticket reseller, with partnerships with ESPN and other numerous sports teams and university teams. However, I haven't been able to find much independent RS with significant coverage of the company. Most sources mention Vivid Seats in passing, or are "press release" type announcements. Natg 19 (talk) 17:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Teitel, Jonathan; Solomon, Russell (2017-06-14). "Rating Action: Moody's assigns B3 CFR to Vivid Seats; stable outlook". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Sohn, Stephen; Ajzenman, Lenny J. (2016-09-19). "Rating Action: Moody's affirms Vivid Seats' B3 CFR; outlook stable". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Sukhov, Dilara; Ajzenman, Lenny J. (2020-03-26). "Rating Action: Moody's reviews Hoya Midco's B3 CFR for downgrade; downgrades credit facility rating to B3 and places on review for further downgrade". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Snowden, David (2020-02-11). "ESG Industry Report Card: Media And Entertainment". S&P Global. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
"Vivid Seats LLC 'B' Rating Affirmed On Dividend Recapitalization; Outlook Stable; Debt Ratings Assigned". S&P Global. 2016-09-16. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via InfoQuest Limited.
Roof, Katie; Lawler, Ryan (2017-03-23). "Online ticket marketplace Vivid Seats is looking to sell for $1.5 billion". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Ecker, Danny (2017-02-16). "Vivid Seats unseats StubHub at ESPN". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Elahi, Amina (2017-03-24). "Could Vivid Seats, a Chicago-based online ticket site, sell for $1.5 billion?". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Pletz, John (2019-04-11). "Vivid Seats buys Toronto company, plans hiring spree". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Fisher, Eric (2018-01-15). "3. Vivid Seats' active dealmaking". Sports Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Fender, Millie (2020-01-02). "Vivid Seats review: Vivid Seats has some unique perks, but prices didn't impress when compared to other ticket sites we reviewed". Top Ten Reviews. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
Yoshitsugu, Sachiko (2012-06-02). "Fast Fifty No. 8: Vivid Seats Ltd". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

Sources with quotes
Teitel, Jonathan; Solomon, Russell (2017-06-14). "Rating Action: Moody's assigns B3 CFR to Vivid Seats; stable outlook". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The analyst report notes: Vivid Seats' B3 CFR reflects the company's high leverage, small scale and concentrated business profile relative to larger ticket sellers with greater financial resources but also its established and scalable position in a marketplace that has tended to support solid profitability. Pro forma for the transaction, Moody's adjusted Debt-to-EBITDA as of March 31, 2017, measures in the high 6 times area. This high level of leverage is supported by double-digit EBITA margins and good cash flow and liquidity. The vast number of events and highly fragmented market of secondary ticket sales enables network effects for large communities of buyers and sellers such as the one Vivid Seats maintains. Vivid Seats' conversion rates when combined with a growing audience has driven rapid growth in profits. Supporting this growth are steps taken by the company to further engage with the community of buyers and sellers including marketing initiatives, service extensions, and affiliate programs. Vivid Seats operates in an evolving market for ticket sales in which primary ticket issuers may seek to capture a higher portion of the final ticket price and the company has engaged this market via partnerships. The ticket sale industry faces regulatory scrutiny and the potential for legislation that could adversely impact the company's business model or that of professional sellers that supply the vast majority of tickets sold on the site. Over the next 12 to 18 months, Moody's anticipates that revenue will grow in the double-digits and that Debt-to-EBITDA will decline to under 6 times as the company continues to execute its strategies in a growing marketplace. Sohn, Stephen; Ajzenman, Lenny J. (2016-09-19). "Rating Action: Moody's affirms Vivid Seats' B3 CFR; outlook stable". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The analyst report notes: The B3 CFR reflects Vivid Seats' concentrated business profile and small scale relative to larger online ticket sellers with greater financial resources. In addition, Vivid Seats operates in an evolving online ticket exchange industry facing regulatory scrutiny and the potential that primary ticket issuers (e.g., artists, sports teams, and venues) may increasingly seek to capture a higher portion of the secondary market availability or the final ticket price, which could curb the volume of resale tickets or pressure industry fees. ... Moody's also considers into the ratings Vivid Seats' solid market position in the online secondary ticket market, operating as the number three player behind, StubHub, owned by eBay, Inc., and Ticketmaster, owned by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Vivid Seats benefits from a diverse base of sellers, including season ticket holders and professional brokers who purchase tickets in bulk from primary issuers, and then use Vivid Seats' marketplace platform to resell tickets to consumers. While Vivid Seats' market share continues to grow rapidly, its competitors' greater financial resources, which includes the ability to subsidize pricing with other lines of business, or the entry of other large e-commerce providers could pressure pricing or increase marketing costs. Sukhov, Dilara; Ajzenman, Lenny J. (2020-03-26). "Rating Action: Moody's reviews Hoya Midco's B3 CFR for downgrade; downgrades credit facility rating to B3 and places on review for further downgrade". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The analyst report notes: The review for downgrade reflects the impact of coronavirus outbreak on Vivid Seats, the breadth and severity of the shock, and the broad deterioration in credit quality it has triggered. The rapid and widening spread of the coronavirus outbreak, deteriorating global economic outlook, falling oil prices, and asset price declines are creating a severe and extensive credit shock across many sectors, regions and markets. The combined credit effects of these developments are unprecedented. The consumer services sector related to entertainment and leisure has been one of the sectors most significantly affected by the shock given its sensitivity to consumer demand and sentiment. More specifically, the weaknesses in Vivid Seats' credit profile have left it vulnerable to shifts in market sentiment in these unprecedented operating conditions and the company remains vulnerable to the outbreak continuing to spread. In response to the federal government's recommendation that public gatherings should be restricted to ten or fewer individuals and people should engage in social distancing due to the widespread coronavirus pandemic, major sports league, concert venues, Broadway shows have either cancelled or postponed their seasons/events, and there is no certainty as to when these entertainment activities will resume. The review for downgrade reflects the numerous uncertainties related to the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak on Vivid Seats' cash flows and liquidity, especially if the virus continues to spread forcing venues and sport leagues to keep its seasons/theatres cancelled/closed beyond June, halting revenue-generating activity on the ticket exchange market place. Moody's regards the coronavirus outbreak as a social risk under our ESG framework, given the substantial implications for public health and safety. ... Hoya Midco, LLC is the parent company of Vivid Seats LLC, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, which provides an online marketplace serving the secondary ticketing industry. The company is majority-owned by affiliates of GTCR, LLC and co-investors, with ownership stakes also held by affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Management LLC and the management team. Snowden, David (2020-02-11). "ESG Industry Report Card: Media And Entertainment". S&P Global. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The analyst report notes: Hoya Midco LLC(B/Stable/--) We believe that Hoya Midco (doing business as Vivid Seats) faces elevated social risks compared to the broader media sector stemming from regulatory scrutiny and brand risk as an online ticket reseller. As one of the larger players in the secondary ticketing market, Vivid Seats has significant customer interactions and occasionally faces criticism from perceived high fees and inadequate disclosures regarding ticket surcharges, which are a common source of customer backlash. We believe key industry risks, such as restrictions on the resale of tickets and variable pricing by primary ticket sellers, could reduce Vivid Seats' sales volume and compress its fees, which would also hurt conditions in the secondary ticket market over the longer term. Regulatory restrictions on ticket resale could adversely affect industry dynamics. For example, the BOTS Act was signed in 2016 making it illegal to use computer programs to bypass ticket sellers' online security systems. Additionally, a bill was introduced in June 2019 requiring ticket sellers to disclose all fees and make it clear that they are in possession of the ticket for resale. To date these regulatory and transparency issues have not materially affected operating performance, and we believe future industry standardization may benefit entrenched players like Vivid Seats. "Vivid Seats LLC 'B' Rating Affirmed On Dividend Recapitalization; Outlook Stable; Debt Ratings Assigned". S&P Global. 2016-09-16. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via InfoQuest Limited. The analyst report notes: We view Vivid Seats' business risk profile as weak. Our assessment is based on the competitive secondary ticket market; Vivid Seat's relatively weak brand awareness, despite the low brand loyalty featured in this market; and the company's lack of distinctive or differentiating products versus its main competitors. However, Vivid Seats benefits from strong relationships with professional ticket brokers, and it has been able to gain market shares from competitors while maintaining an EBITDA margin in the low-20% rate--in line with its closest peers. Our assessment also reflects the company's minimal international presence, limited diversity of products, and smaller scale relative to industry leader Stubhub. ... Key market risks, such as restriction on ticket resale and variable pricing by primary ticket sellers, could reduce sales volumes and compress fees, thus pressuring the secondary ticket market longer term. However, we believe the secondary ticket market will continue its solid growth during the next 12 months, notably due to the increased prevalence of mobile ticketing transactions. As one of the largest players in the secondary ticket market, Vivid Seats is well positioned to grow with the market and gain additional shares from players with suboptimal scale. Roof, Katie; Lawler, Ryan (2017-03-23). "Online ticket marketplace Vivid Seats is looking to sell for $1.5 billion". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The article notes: Vivid Seats might not have the same name recognition as Ticketmaster or StubHub, but the Chicago-based firm has been a force in selling seats at concerts, theaters and sports events. Founded in 2001, the company had grown to become the third-largest secondary ticket seller in the U.S. by the time it received its strategic investment from Vista early last year. ... One challenge for Vivid is that it gets a large portion of its traffic from misleading affiliate sites. Customers are sometimes lured to a destination that’s not actually associated with the team or artist, a controversial practice within the industry. Ecker, Danny (2017-02-16). "Vivid Seats unseats StubHub at ESPN". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The article notes: Secondary ticket marketplace Vivid Seats today announced it has signed with ESPN as the company's official ticketing partner, meaning it will have direct links to buy tickets to sporting events listed throughout ESPN.com and all other ESPN digital platforms. Vivid Seats supplants StubHub in the high-profile position, ending a partnership between ESPN and eBay-owned StubHub that dates to 2007. The deal will put the Vivid Seats brand in front of ESPN's 110 million unique users per month online. The network's various websites account for 29 percent of all sports usage across digital platforms, according to analytics company Comscore. ... Sixteen-year-old Vivid Seats has the third-largest market share of online event ticket resales, behind StubHub and Ticketmaster, according to a 2016 report from credit ratings agency Moody's. Elahi, Amina (2017-03-24). "Could Vivid Seats, a Chicago-based online ticket site, sell for $1.5 billion?". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The article notes: Vivid Seats started in 2001 and has grown into a major online marketplace for tickets to sporting events, concerts and stage shows. Last month, the company inked a deal to become ESPN's official ticketing partner, replacing eBay-owned competitor StubHub. The company also partners with the Big Ten Conference, CSN Chicago and the Chicago Bears, among others, according to its website. Pletz, John (2019-04-11). "Vivid Seats buys Toronto company, plans hiring spree". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The article notes: Vivid Seats, an online marketplace for sports and other tickets, bought Fanxchange, whose software is used by Groupon, Marriott, American Express and other companies to sell tickets. The total value of the deal depends on whether financial targets are reached in the future. ... It’s the first acquisition for Vivid Seats. Chicago private-equity fund GTCR bought a majority stake in the company in 2017, valuing it at more than $1 billion. Fanxchange, founded in 2009, has about 50 employees. Vivid Seats, launched in 2001 by Eric Vassilatos and Jerry Bednyak, has 500 employees. Fisher, Eric (2018-01-15). "3. Vivid Seats' active dealmaking". Sports Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The article notes: Vivid Seats doesn’t have the name recognition or industry stature of Ticketmaster or StubHub. But the Chicago-based company, founded in 2001 and now a significant player in secondary ticketing, over the past several years has steadily amassed a sizable stable of name-brand partners. In 2017, Vivid Seats inked partnerships with ESPN, Sports Illustrated, the universities of Tennessee and Rhode Island and the Preakness Stakes. The pacts added to existing ones Vivid Seats held with entities such as Notre Dame and Duke. A larger deal last spring saw Chicago-based private equity firm GTCR acquire a majority equity stake in Vivid Seats, with prior investor Vista Equity Partners and co-founders Jerry Bednyak and Eric Vassilatos maintaining equity positions. Terms were not disclosed, but various reports placed a $1.5 billion valuation on Vivid Seats. Fender, Millie (2020-01-02). "Vivid Seats review: Vivid Seats has some unique perks, but prices didn't impress when compared to other ticket sites we reviewed". Top Ten Reviews. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The review notes: Vivid Seats has a lot of advantages, most notably the reward scheme which rewards regular buyers with up to 8% credit when they buy through the Vivid Seats app. That's what puts it up there with the best concert ticket sites and best sport ticket sites. However, we’re not sure this can compensate for the hefty fees it adds on to your tickets, which were significantly higher than competitors and sometimes cost more than the ticket itself! This paired with the lack of transparency on fees makes Vivid Seats fall back in our ratings. However, it’s still a good choice for those looking to be rewarded for regular ticket-buying! Yoshitsugu, Sachiko (2012-06-02). "Fast Fifty No. 8: Vivid Seats Ltd". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19. The article notes: Vivid Seats is appearing for the first time on Crain's Fast Fifty list. The online marketplace for sports, concerts and theater tickets saw revenue rise more than 1,000 percent since 2006. The company acts as an intermediary between customers and ticket resellers, generating revenue from a 10 percent commission on sales. One key growth engine: higher-end tickets. Sales of Super Bowl tickets, typically priced from $2,000 to $10,000, rose 400 percent from 2009 to 2011.

Sources with quotes

Teitel, Jonathan; Solomon, Russell (2017-06-14). "Rating Action: Moody's assigns B3 CFR to Vivid Seats; stable outlook". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The analyst report notes:
Vivid Seats' B3 CFR reflects the company's high leverage, small scale and concentrated business profile relative to larger ticket sellers with greater financial resources but also its established and scalable position in a marketplace that has tended to support solid profitability. Pro forma for the transaction, Moody's adjusted Debt-to-EBITDA as of March 31, 2017, measures in the high 6 times area. This high level of leverage is supported by double-digit EBITA margins and good cash flow and liquidity. The vast number of events and highly fragmented market of secondary ticket sales enables network effects for large communities of buyers and sellers such as the one Vivid Seats maintains. Vivid Seats' conversion rates when combined with a growing audience has driven rapid growth in profits. Supporting this growth are steps taken by the company to further engage with the community of buyers and sellers including marketing initiatives, service extensions, and affiliate programs. Vivid Seats operates in an evolving market for ticket sales in which primary ticket issuers may seek to capture a higher portion of the final ticket price and the company has engaged this market via partnerships. The ticket sale industry faces regulatory scrutiny and the potential for legislation that could adversely impact the company's business model or that of professional sellers that supply the vast majority of tickets sold on the site. Over the next 12 to 18 months, Moody's anticipates that revenue will grow in the double-digits and that Debt-to-EBITDA will decline to under 6 times as the company continues to execute its strategies in a growing marketplace.
Sohn, Stephen; Ajzenman, Lenny J. (2016-09-19). "Rating Action: Moody's affirms Vivid Seats' B3 CFR; outlook stable". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The analyst report notes:
The B3 CFR reflects Vivid Seats' concentrated business profile and small scale relative to larger online ticket sellers with greater financial resources. In addition, Vivid Seats operates in an evolving online ticket exchange industry facing regulatory scrutiny and the potential that primary ticket issuers (e.g., artists, sports teams, and venues) may increasingly seek to capture a higher portion of the secondary market availability or the final ticket price, which could curb the volume of resale tickets or pressure industry fees.
...
Moody's also considers into the ratings Vivid Seats' solid market position in the online secondary ticket market, operating as the number three player behind, StubHub, owned by eBay, Inc., and Ticketmaster, owned by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Vivid Seats benefits from a diverse base of sellers, including season ticket holders and professional brokers who purchase tickets in bulk from primary issuers, and then use Vivid Seats' marketplace platform to resell tickets to consumers. While Vivid Seats' market share continues to grow rapidly, its competitors' greater financial resources, which includes the ability to subsidize pricing with other lines of business, or the entry of other large e-commerce providers could pressure pricing or increase marketing costs.
Sukhov, Dilara; Ajzenman, Lenny J. (2020-03-26). "Rating Action: Moody's reviews Hoya Midco's B3 CFR for downgrade; downgrades credit facility rating to B3 and places on review for further downgrade". Moody's Investors Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The analyst report notes:
The review for downgrade reflects the impact of coronavirus outbreak on Vivid Seats, the breadth and severity of the shock, and the broad deterioration in credit quality it has triggered. The rapid and widening spread of the coronavirus outbreak, deteriorating global economic outlook, falling oil prices, and asset price declines are creating a severe and extensive credit shock across many sectors, regions and markets. The combined credit effects of these developments are unprecedented. The consumer services sector related to entertainment and leisure has been one of the sectors most significantly affected by the shock given its sensitivity to consumer demand and sentiment. More specifically, the weaknesses in Vivid Seats' credit profile have left it vulnerable to shifts in market sentiment in these unprecedented operating conditions and the company remains vulnerable to the outbreak continuing to spread. In response to the federal government's recommendation that public gatherings should be restricted to ten or fewer individuals and people should engage in social distancing due to the widespread coronavirus pandemic, major sports league, concert venues, Broadway shows have either cancelled or postponed their seasons/events, and there is no certainty as to when these entertainment activities will resume. The review for downgrade reflects the numerous uncertainties related to the economic impact of the coronavirus outbreak on Vivid Seats' cash flows and liquidity, especially if the virus continues to spread forcing venues and sport leagues to keep its seasons/theatres cancelled/closed beyond June, halting revenue-generating activity on the ticket exchange market place. Moody's regards the coronavirus outbreak as a social risk under our ESG framework, given the substantial implications for public health and safety.
...
Hoya Midco, LLC is the parent company of Vivid Seats LLC, headquartered in Chicago, Illinois, which provides an online marketplace serving the secondary ticketing industry. The company is majority-owned by affiliates of GTCR, LLC and co-investors, with ownership stakes also held by affiliates of Vista Equity Partners Management LLC and the management team.
Snowden, David (2020-02-11). "ESG Industry Report Card: Media And Entertainment". S&P Global. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The analyst report notes:
Hoya Midco LLC(B/Stable/--)

We believe that Hoya Midco (doing business as Vivid Seats) faces elevated social risks compared to the broader media sector stemming from regulatory scrutiny and brand risk as an online ticket reseller. As one of the larger players in the secondary ticketing market, Vivid Seats has significant customer interactions and occasionally faces criticism from perceived high fees and inadequate disclosures regarding ticket surcharges, which are a common source of customer backlash. We believe key industry risks, such as restrictions on the resale of tickets and variable pricing by primary ticket sellers, could reduce Vivid Seats' sales volume and compress its fees, which would also hurt conditions in the secondary ticket market over the longer term. Regulatory restrictions on ticket resale could adversely affect industry dynamics. For example, the BOTS Act was signed in 2016 making it illegal to use computer programs to bypass ticket sellers' online security systems. Additionally, a bill was introduced in June 2019 requiring ticket sellers to disclose all fees and make it clear that they are in possession of the ticket for resale. To date these regulatory and transparency issues have not materially affected operating performance, and we believe future industry standardization may benefit entrenched players like Vivid Seats.
"Vivid Seats LLC 'B' Rating Affirmed On Dividend Recapitalization; Outlook Stable; Debt Ratings Assigned". S&P Global. 2016-09-16. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19 – via InfoQuest Limited.
The analyst report notes:
We view Vivid Seats' business risk profile as weak. Our assessment is based on the competitive secondary ticket market; Vivid Seat's relatively weak brand awareness, despite the low brand loyalty featured in this market; and the company's lack of distinctive or differentiating products versus its main competitors. However, Vivid Seats benefits from strong relationships with professional ticket brokers, and it has been able to gain market shares from competitors while maintaining an EBITDA margin in the low-20% rate--in line with its closest peers. Our assessment also reflects the company's minimal international presence, limited diversity of products, and smaller scale relative to industry leader Stubhub.
...
Key market risks, such as restriction on ticket resale and variable pricing by primary ticket sellers, could reduce sales volumes and compress fees, thus pressuring the secondary ticket market longer term. However, we believe the secondary ticket market will continue its solid growth during the next 12 months, notably due to the increased prevalence of mobile ticketing transactions. As one of the largest players in the secondary ticket market, Vivid Seats is well positioned to grow with the market and gain additional shares from players with suboptimal scale.
Roof, Katie; Lawler, Ryan (2017-03-23). "Online ticket marketplace Vivid Seats is looking to sell for $1.5 billion". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
Vivid Seats might not have the same name recognition as Ticketmaster or StubHub, but the Chicago-based firm has been a force in selling seats at concerts, theaters and sports events. Founded in 2001, the company had grown to become the third-largest secondary ticket seller in the U.S. by the time it received its strategic investment from Vista early last year.
...
One challenge for Vivid is that it gets a large portion of its traffic from misleading affiliate sites. Customers are sometimes lured to a destination that’s not actually associated with the team or artist, a controversial practice within the industry.
Ecker, Danny (2017-02-16). "Vivid Seats unseats StubHub at ESPN". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
Secondary ticket marketplace Vivid Seats today announced it has signed with ESPN as the company's official ticketing partner, meaning it will have direct links to buy tickets to sporting events listed throughout ESPN.com and all other ESPN digital platforms.
Vivid Seats supplants StubHub in the high-profile position, ending a partnership between ESPN and eBay-owned StubHub that dates to 2007.
The deal will put the Vivid Seats brand in front of ESPN's 110 million unique users per month online. The network's various websites account for 29 percent of all sports usage across digital platforms, according to analytics company Comscore.
...
Sixteen-year-old Vivid Seats has the third-largest market share of online event ticket resales, behind StubHub and Ticketmaster, according to a 2016 report from credit ratings agency Moody's.
Elahi, Amina (2017-03-24). "Could Vivid Seats, a Chicago-based online ticket site, sell for $1.5 billion?". Chicago Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
Vivid Seats started in 2001 and has grown into a major online marketplace for tickets to sporting events, concerts and stage shows. Last month, the company inked a deal to become ESPN's official ticketing partner, replacing eBay-owned competitor StubHub. The company also partners with the Big Ten Conference, CSN Chicago and the Chicago Bears, among others, according to its website.
Pletz, John (2019-04-11). "Vivid Seats buys Toronto company, plans hiring spree". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
Vivid Seats, an online marketplace for sports and other tickets, bought Fanxchange, whose software is used by Groupon, Marriott, American Express and other companies to sell tickets. The total value of the deal depends on whether financial targets are reached in the future.
...
It’s the first acquisition for Vivid Seats. Chicago private-equity fund GTCR bought a majority stake in the company in 2017, valuing it at more than $1 billion. Fanxchange, founded in 2009, has about 50 employees. Vivid Seats, launched in 2001 by Eric Vassilatos and Jerry Bednyak, has 500 employees.
Fisher, Eric (2018-01-15). "3. Vivid Seats' active dealmaking". Sports Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
Vivid Seats doesn’t have the name recognition or industry stature of Ticketmaster or StubHub. But the Chicago-based company, founded in 2001 and now a significant player in secondary ticketing, over the past several years has steadily amassed a sizable stable of name-brand partners. In 2017, Vivid Seats inked partnerships with ESPN, Sports Illustrated, the universities of Tennessee and Rhode Island and the Preakness Stakes. The pacts added to existing ones Vivid Seats held with entities such as Notre Dame and Duke.
A larger deal last spring saw Chicago-based private equity firm GTCR acquire a majority equity stake in Vivid Seats, with prior investor Vista Equity Partners and co-founders Jerry Bednyak and Eric Vassilatos maintaining equity positions. Terms were not disclosed, but various reports placed a $1.5 billion valuation on Vivid Seats.
Fender, Millie (2020-01-02). "Vivid Seats review: Vivid Seats has some unique perks, but prices didn't impress when compared to other ticket sites we reviewed". Top Ten Reviews. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The review notes:
Vivid Seats has a lot of advantages, most notably the reward scheme which rewards regular buyers with up to 8% credit when they buy through the Vivid Seats app. That's what puts it up there with the best concert ticket sites and best sport ticket sites. However, we’re not sure this can compensate for the hefty fees it adds on to your tickets, which were significantly higher than competitors and sometimes cost more than the ticket itself! This paired with the lack of transparency on fees makes Vivid Seats fall back in our ratings. However, it’s still a good choice for those looking to be rewarded for regular ticket-buying!
Yoshitsugu, Sachiko (2012-06-02). "Fast Fifty No. 8: Vivid Seats Ltd". Crain's Chicago Business. Archived from the original on 2020-04-19. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
The article notes:
Vivid Seats is appearing for the first time on Crain's Fast Fifty list. The online marketplace for sports, concerts and theater tickets saw revenue rise more than 1,000 percent since 2006.
The company acts as an intermediary between customers and ticket resellers, generating revenue from a 10 percent commission on sales.
One key growth engine: higher-end tickets. Sales of Super Bowl tickets, typically priced from $2,000 to $10,000, rose 400 percent from 2009 to 2011.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Vivid Seats to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vivid Seats has received significant coverage in multiple analyst reports published by Moody's Investors Service and S&P Global. Although Vivid Seats is not a public corporation, the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations says "analyst reports" can be used to establish notability. Vivid Seats, a private company, has issued bonds similar to how public companies issue stocks and bonds. Research firms then issue analyst reports about the companies' business outlook.
From the guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations (my bolding):
sufficient independent sources almost always exist for such companies, so that notability can be established using the primary criterion discussed above. Examples of such sources include independent press coverage and analyst reports. Accordingly, article authors should make sure to seek out such coverage and add references to such articles to properly establish notability.
S&P Global noted in an analyst report in 2016: "We view Vivid Seats' business risk profile as weak. Our assessment is based on the competitive secondary ticket market; Vivid Seat's relatively weak brand awareness, despite the low brand loyalty featured in this market; and the company's lack of distinctive or differentiating products versus its main competitors. However, Vivid Seats benefits from strong relationships with professional ticket brokers, and it has been able to gain market shares from competitors while maintaining an EBITDA margin in the low-20% rate--in line with its closest peers. Our assessment also reflects the company's minimal international presence, limited diversity of products, and smaller scale relative to industry leader Stubhub."
Moody's Investor Service noted in an analyst report in 2016, "Moody's also considers into the ratings Vivid Seats' solid market position in the online secondary ticket market, operating as the number three player behind, StubHub, owned by eBay, Inc., and Ticketmaster, owned by Live Nation Entertainment, Inc. Vivid Seats benefits from a diverse base of sellers, including season ticket holders and professional brokers who purchase tickets in bulk from primary issuers, and then use Vivid Seats' marketplace platform to resell tickets to consumers. While Vivid Seats' market share continues to grow rapidly, its competitors' greater financial resources, which includes the ability to subsidize pricing with other lines of business, or the entry of other large e-commerce providers could pressure pricing or increase marketing costs."
Cunard (talk) 09:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's argument & significant coverage being identified. = paul2520 (talk) 16:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST and Cunard's sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are certainly many significant sources. — Zoozaz1 (talk)
Keep per above arguments and significant coverage. Mukedits (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2020 (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 Aziza Mustafa Zadeh. MBisanz ^talk 23:50, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inspiration (Aziza Mustafa Zadeh album)[edit]

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

Not notable. Unsourced since 2009. Not enough sources exist to write an article of substance. Vmavanti (talk) 23:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Aziza Mustafa Zadeh: Found a few sources which barely mention about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Singapore MRT station names[edit]

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

Non notable subject - majority of the content is unsourced and there's nothing on Google News, Fails NOTGUIDE, (to some extent NOTDIR) and GNG –Davey2010^Talk 13:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There's details on pages such as this. The worst case would be merger with List of Singapore MRT stations per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Andrew Davidson: I am not sure if that source is reliable and authoritative or is just a secondary source.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Working and proposed station names are trivia. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Whatever info that does not fail NOTGUIDE (Station name and code) is already included in the article List of Singapore MRT stations. 1.02 editor (T/C) 23:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To a certain extent I believe this falls under "Travel guide".... Generally speaking it's peoples interpretation of them. –Davey2010^Talk 09:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I had actually tried to find sources on this article, though I say isn't totally successful. Some sources:
- on DTL3
- On some circle line names
I suggest at most this list should be merged into their respective lines when talking about name votings, and just display their working names in the respective station articles.--ZKang123 (talk) 02:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Due to a lack of sourcing and therefore notability WP:LISTN. Proposed names, could possibly be included into individual station articles if properly sourced. Ajf773 (talk) 10:38, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 21:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2014 Illawarra Premier League[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSEASONS as it was the sixth tier of Australian football which is way too low to be deemed professional or even semi-professional. HawkAussie (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 12:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSEASONS is for teams, not leagues, and this league did get press coverage, albeit obviously local. SportingFlyer T·C 19:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rad Luck[edit]

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

non notable musician with 0 independent sources and no in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:19, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I attempted to draftify this article to allow it to prove itself, but it was moved back in and I'm not seeing anything to denote notability. Sulfurboy (talk) 13:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I am seeing no indication of coverage in any reliable sources. All of the references used are either self-published Soundcloud links or primary lyric links. -- LuK3 (Talk) 13:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator was given the chance to develop the article in draftspace but chose to move it back to mainspace without much, if any, improvement. Sourcing is not good – 'Soundcloud'and Youtube, Instagram and lyric listings. Does not demonstrate that the subject can pass NMUSIC or GNG Eagleash (talk) 18:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move into draft space, article is subject of WP:TOOSOON and I think more info should be added to it to before creation under WP:WOOD. Apollo825 ^{- talk to me baby -} 15:45, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't move spammy articles with fake sources to incubate in draft space. Toosoon only applies if there's a reasonable expectation of notability, we don't just assume everything is "too soon" to be notable. Praxidicae (talk) 16:25, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apollo825, This was already done and the page creator moved it back to mainspace. Draftifying is thus not an option. Sulfurboy (talk) 16:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Repeatedly moved out of draftspace by contributor despite being draftified, a clear attempt to WP:GAME the system. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:14, 25 April 2020 (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. There are multiple subsets of the notability criteria under which this individual could be assessed, but the consensus here seems to be that he doesn't meet any of them. Yunshui ^雲 _水 13:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Van Orden[edit]

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

Not notable. Candidates are not generally notable per WP:NPOL and not seeing anything else to make him notable. Should he be elected he would be notable Gbawden (talk) 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep He's been in movies and was cited in the Washington Examiner. Might need to be edited, not deleted. Dreamanderson (talk) 12:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG, creator should take it back to their sandbox, if he gets elected it can be recreated. Mztourist (talk) 13:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete His film role is no where near notable. His work as a soldier is not notable. His political candidacy is not yet notable, and any coverage of that is routine. We in almost all cases do not create articles until candidates get elected. I have no idea how likely he is to be elected, but until that happens he is not notable enough to have an article. We still have several articles on past failed candidates, many dating back over a decade, that should probably be removed due to our current guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Respectfully disagree, this Wikipedia entry is that of a military figure with acting and writing accolades. His political candidacy is discussed in one sentence. It is also not accurate that his film role is not significant as he is a main character in Act of Valor with lines throughout and extended screentime during his 1-1 interrogation of the villain - Christo. Even if we hypothetically conceded that his film, soldier, candidacy, and author work are all not notable alone the culmination together makes Van Orden a noteworthy individual. Is his political ambition causing this entry to be controversial? I am also not seeing how this fails WP:GNG. Could you please elaborate as to what sources lack "independence" or "reliability"? A standard web search produces numerous additional results including featured appearances in military podcast interviews and pre-political guest appearances on Fox News and Blaze Media to discuss special forces (I would be happy to link). Thank you for reviewing. User:Postalpresident
Delete Not seeing any credible claim of notability. Not notable under WP:SOLDIER or WP:AUTHOR. Has a significant role in one film, but WP:NACTOR requires significant roles in multiple films. My advice is: get elected. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 02:36, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ fits criteria 8 WP:SOLDIER "Were recognized by their peers as an authoritative source on military matters/writing." User:Postalpresident

hi Postalpresident, have struck out your 2nd "keep" as editors can make the same recommendation once only - see WP:AFDFORMAT. ps. you don't need to type your signature if you add 4 tildes (the "squiggle" on the left of the "1" on the keyboard) at the end of each statement as your signature and a date/timestamp will then appear, thanks. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable political candidate, not convinced by the WP:SOLDIER argument. SportingFlyer T·C 20:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per SportingFlyer. Royal broil 22:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article isn't actually claiming or sourcing anything that would get him over our notability standards for soldiers, authors or actors either, so the fact that he's done those things still doesn't controvert his lack of notability as a politician. Authors are not notable just because you can source the existence of their books to directories like the Library of Congress or GoodReads; making an author notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires you to reference the books to reliable source coverage about the books, such as news stories about his authorship of a book or critical reviews of the book in media. Actors are not notable just because you can source the fact that they had an acting role to IMDb; making an actor notable enough for a Wikipedia article requires reliable source coverage about his acting, such as news articles about his acting or critical reviews of his performance in media. And on and so forth: the notability test for a person isn't what the article says, it's how well the things it says are referenced to media coverage about him.
But the only sources here that represent any sort of media coverage about him are (a) a single article about his as yet non-winning electoral candidacy, which is not enough to make him more special than other non-winning electoral candidates because every candidate in every district can always show some of that, and (b) a single article in a smalltown community hyperlocal about him opening a smalltown café, which is not a notability claim at all. And appearances in media aren't notability boosters, either: people do not get over the notability bar by being the speaker in media coverage of other things, they get over the notability bar by being the subject that other people are speaking or writing about. (And also, The Blaze is not a reliable or notability-assisting source at all anyway.)
Obviously he'll qualify for an article in November if he wins the seat, since his notability claim will have changed from "candidate" to "officeholder", but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently fails WP:GNG as well as WP:SOLDIER, WP:NPOL, WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. If he wins we can always re-create the article. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:02, 27 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disappearance of Garrett Bardsley[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article curation / review process. No indication of wp:notability. The sources given are just listings on websites. I hate to say it but this is a missing person report rather than an encyclopedia article and am just trying to do my job properly bringing it to AFD. North8000 (talk) 11:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:02, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there's also a major copyvio issue pertaining to text copied from source 4. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:EVENT, though tragic, not seeing lasting wikisignificant coverage here. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:11, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sad, but there's no reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. CSD G11 as per previous versions of the article which had been extensively spammed across various titles. User also blocked now as a promotional only account. Nick (talk) 14:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajayi tolulope[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non notable musician that falls short of WP:MUSICBIO & general notability guidelines hence does not satisfy WP:GNG either. This article has been deleted & re-created almost three times now under different names. Celestina007 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:58, 22 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pop Idol finalists (series 1)[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE - The list of finalists is already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete per above and per established consensus in ~5 or so recent AfDs. Anything that is notable should be added to the season article, everything else, including bios should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Gonnym. Non-notable list. A lot of content supported by one source. Otr500 (talk) 14:26, 25 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Voice of Ireland finalists (series 1)[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE - The list of finalists is already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages:

Delete per above and per established consensus in ~5 or so recent AfDs. Anything that is notable should be added to the season article, everything else, including bios should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 12:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Gonnym. Non-notable lists. Every supposed "The Voice of Ireland. RTÉ" source I clicked on (showing to be archived but is not) returned a comical "Oh No, boys and girls! We can't find the page you are looking for." --- 404 error --- so is just ref bombing. Otr500 (talk) 14:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Spleodrach (talk) 17:25, 25 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Voice of Greece finalists (season 1)[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE - The list of finalists is already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per above and per established consensus in ~5 or so recent AfDs. Anything that is notable should be added to the season article, everything else, including bios should not be added. --Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom and Gonnym. Many links return a 404 error and the one I got to work was already a list so there is a lot of ref bombing to give the appearance of being well sourced. Otr500 (talk) 14:12, 25 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The Voice Kids (Philippine season 1) finalists[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE - The list of finalists is already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; redirect isn't plausible since the article title as currently worded isn't a search item. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Voice Kids (Philippine season 1): There's really no need for a separate page for a list of contestants since most (if not all) of the contents are in the main pages. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:27, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and per established consensus in ~5 or so recent AfDs. --Gonnym (talk) 12:18, 23 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darya Rose[edit]

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

I also think it should be deleted. She isn't noteworthy according to the Wikipedia guidelines. Nearly half the article is about the Portland home debacle, which is a word-for-word copy of the same section in Kevin Rose's article. I added a PROD, but it was removed by a moderator. I added a deletion nomination tag to the article. If a registered user could create the article's deletion discussion page, I'd appreciate it. 104.190.186.102 (talk) 08:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC) created for above signed IP user, using comment left on Talk:Darya Rose. ~ GB fan 09:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 09:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 09:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~ GB fan 09:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and blogger.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This little vanity article should go. Its subject isn't notable enough even for the Encyclopedia that Anyone May Edit. Chisme (talk) 17:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability to be found anywhere. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:07, 23 April 2020 (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 Christmas Island#Demographics. There seems to be notable content here but no firm argument this can't sit within the overarching article Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Women in Christmas Island[edit]

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

I can't find any sources about the women on Christmas Island specifically, and the article is referenced only to a now defunct website of a Christmas Island Women's Association, and to a news piece about an event celebrating 8 March on the island. But that's not surprising given that the island has fewer than 2,000 inhabitants altogether. – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Uanfala (talk) 00:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect~~Delete~~ I cannot find anything to indicate notability of either Women in Christmas Island or Christmas Island Women's Association. At the best redirect to Christmas Island#Demographics where it is covered already. Aoziwe (talk) 04:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to merge and redirect to possibly, a section in Women in Australia based on the couple of good finds by User:PamD. I see no evidence that the subject is notable in its own right. There are no other articles that I could readily find by state or island, etc. There is, however, solid material here now which deserves its due weight attention in the main Women in Australia article. An alternative merge and redirect target is obviously Territory of Christmas Island . Aoziwe (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compare Women in the Cocos (Keeling) Islands? PamD 09:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And the various links, both red and blue, in the "Women in Oceania" template at page footer and in Women in Oceania#See also. PamD 09:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, yes I did miss those. But, see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. I do not see how any of these small "territorial islands" will ever be notable in their own right for such a specific subject. I am not saying that the content is not important, just that it should, and now the other such articles too, in the case of Australia, be included in the main article, Women in Australia. Aoziwe (talk) 13:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I have found archived versions of both dead links, and a 2016 ACWW source about the Women's Association. PamD 09:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

... And have expanded the article. PamD 09:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And what do we end up with? More references to a women's organization in Christmas Island, which is tangential to the subject but not about the subject. Plus, census figures and a report about the social issues behind the low child-birth rates. -The Gnome (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 17:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Christmas Island has an interesting history among Australian territories and documenting how women fared through it is a great topic for an article. The Drover's Wife (talk) 20:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD discussions are not about what is "interesting" to have in Wikipedia but about verifiable notability. Christmas Island deserves an article in Wikipedia because it is easily a Wikinotable subject. Women in Christmas Island per se as a stand-alone subject does not because it is not. -The Gnome (talk) 00:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. None of the sources are of much use in establishing notability. A one-time celebration of International Women's Day is the best of a sorry lot. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd also support a merge and redirect (despite the poor title - the only women "in" Christmas Island are dead and buried) to Christmas Island since there seems to be a little info worth saving. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. Brilliant work by PamD. Bearian (talk) 14:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Christmas Island. The article is a hotchpotch of unrelated content, with no link but gender. The Women's Association might deserve a separate section in the target. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~. The subject itself of women in Christmas Island is as notable as are similar subjects, i.e. "women in Saudi Arabia" or "women in Mexico", "in Italy", etc: Not notable at all. They are not notable per se. There are many notable issues about women in various countries, such as women's rights in Saudi Arabia, violence against women in Mexico, or abortion in Italy. Which is why every such issue does have a separate, stand-alone Wikipedia entry. Lumping together under a single lemma all women of a country would be a serious encyclopaedic lapse, since it quashes peforce the diverse and numerous isseus concerning some individual women, or all women, or specific strata of women. The user desires to check entries generally about women in a country? We have categories for that. Therefore, I suggest we delete the article and manage the separate entries. -The Gnome (talk) 10:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christmas Island. Suggestion amended to facilitate consensus. -The Gnome (talk) 16:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still a bit of discussion going multiple ways towards the closing date.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 23:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Christmas Island. This article is short enough that the main Christmas Island article should be able to contain the information in it. Not a very active user (talk) 05:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the work PamD has done has made the article acceptable for Wikipdia standards. Deus et lex (talk) 05:27, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think this is notable enough as a standalone subject. Rubbish computer (Talk: Contribs) 10:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The proposal to delete the article is contrary to policy as there are sensible alternatives which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. The topic still has more scope for expansion as it seems easy to find more substantial sources such as Christmas Island: An Anthropological Study. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST. I think that Christmas Island: An Anthropological Study looks very promising. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Existence of a generic organization does not justify compilation of unrelated content. Can be covered at Christmas_Island#Demographics and Christmas_Island#Government. Nothing in the table of contents of above books suggests such a separate article is warranted. Build it in the main first then prove the need for a split. Reywas92^Talk 18:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, apologies for not being relevant to the afd but don't people live on an island not in one so an article title change may be required? Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - agree that "Women on Christmas Island" (or maybe "Women of Christmas Island") is more appropriate. Deus et lex (talk) 10:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. also - if I understand correctly this would be Christmas Island's only womem-based article. even nova scotia has [[19]]. I say keep.Grmike (talk) 12:18, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Keep Deadlinks are not a solid reason for deletion. PamD has made a pretty good improvement effort too, so I think a keep per WP:HEY is the right course. The Antropological study looks like it could be used to improve this greatly, its 200+ pages. I'd also be fine with a merge to Christmas Island#Demographics, but think that outright deletion is nonsensical. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 10:45, 29 April 2020 (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) b uidhe 00:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jibita o Mrita[edit]

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

No evidence of notability that warrants a separate article for every single work of the author. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author. Mopswade (talk) 09:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of works by Rabindranath Tagore, where it is mentioned with arguably more detail than at the current source. Not all short stories, even by prominent authors, needs permastub articles. Hog Farm (talk) 15:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to ~~Rabindranath Tagore~~List of works by Rabindranath Tagore~~; leave for possible later development.~~--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amend comment per Hog Farm.--Goldsztajn (talk) 21:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Amending !vote per sources provided by Coolabahapple.--Goldsztajn (talk) 07:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this short story is one of Tagore's well known stories, there are numerous translations of this story, a book that contains them is here, and these appear individually in editions of Tagore's short stories such as Hungry Stones and Other Stories (held by over 500 libraries), Selected Short Stories (story listing here) (held in around 375 libraries), looks as though it may be significant. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NBOOK ie. no. 5 "The book's author is so historically significant that any of the author's written works may be considered notable." Coolabahapple (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it also meets no. 1 of nbook has been studied/discussed in multiple sources such as South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies - Empathy, Liminality, and Narrative Imagination: Rabindranath Tagore's ‘The Living and the Dead’, White Saris and Sweet Mangoes: Aging, Gender, and Body in North India - Stories of Tagore: Widows Trapped between the Living and the Dead, International Journal of Research and Analytical Reviews - Gripping Death - A Psyche Overburdened, South Asia: Journal of South Asian Studies - Empathy, Liminality, and Narrative Imagination: Rabindranath Tagore's ‘The Living and the Dead’, it was also adapted into a teleplay. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand per Coolabahapple. James500 (talk) 15:11, 24 April 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:30, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Denapaona[edit]

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

No evidence of notability. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author. Mopswade (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rabindranath Tagore.--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my !vote, noticed that there is scatter gun deletion here with no evidence of BEFORE. --Goldsztajn (talk) 20:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for essentially the same reason I've just outlined at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prakritir Pratisodh: "Point #5 of WP:BK is clearly met: Tagore is a Nobel laureate and arguably the most significant figure in Indian literature. That criterion doesn't require that we have articles for every book he ever wrote, but those, such as this, where a measure of sourcing can be found should certainly be kept. The sources currently in the article, [both] of which are high-quality academic books, may well also be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and point #1 of WP:BK. It strikes me as likely that sources in Indian languages, which I'm not able to find as I only speak English, will also exist. Given Tagore's prolific career, it isn't reasonable, as the nominator seems to suggest, to discuss each of his works in his article." To which I'll add that redirecting this to an article where it isn't mentioned would also be unwise for obvious reasons. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:38, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As this is arguably one of the more famous of his works, there is scope for expansion. At the same time, the sources on the article only have a limited mention of the work (summary/transcribed work), and considering that it didn't even receive a passing mention in the article of the author and does not give any new content that doesn't exist in the list of his works. Not saying that it can't be developed, but there doesn't seem to be any meaning in creating one line articles of which the information is covered elsewhere. Mopswade (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AfD is not cleanup. WP:NEXIST.--Goldsztajn (talk) 09:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is a play with the same name Dena_Paona (Dena Paona/Dena-Paona etc. are names for the work as well) Mopswade (talk) 07:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. Satisfies criteria 5 of NBOOK. The author, Rabindranath Tagore won the Nobel Prize for Literature. James500 (talk) 14:58, 24 April 2020 (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Bollywood Muslim Actresses[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:V. Störm (talk) 08:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I do not think Wikipedia should be a rollodex by religion when religion is an insignificant part of a role's fame.--Hippeus (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIR. We generally do not cross-categorise by religious affiliation. Ajf773 (talk) 21:08, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Many Similar article exists in wikipedia, like: List of Muslims in entertainment and the media in non-Muslim countries and Khans of Bollywood, where religion is clearly the criteria for article noteworthiness. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 14:56, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am also sure that many of these names have never admitted their religion, thus the article probably violates WP:BLPCAT too. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:04, 25 April 2020 (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, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Montagu F.C.[edit]

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

No non-primary sources available as far as I see. The article has essentially no content and references. Mopswade (talk) 08:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 12:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete NN youth club -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. = paul2520 (talk) 16:02, 22 April 2020 (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) 09:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gáty Zoltán[edit]

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

Unreferenced BLP and the person described is not notable. Not to mention the poorly written content as well. Mopswade (talk) 08:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A bit of research confirms that this individual did indeed exist and write music that has attracted some notice. However, notability doesn't appear to really exist in terms of our guidelines. A lot of online discussion is out there, but I don't see reliable sources as a part of that. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 08:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been notified to WikiProject Classical music and WikiProject Composers. Voceditenore (talk) 11:38, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since they died 92 years ago, this in no way is a BLP. However the article lacks sources, and as Shellwood has said nothing exists to pass GNG, we should delete this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He is notable in Hungary. I've added two references, one from the Biographical Dictionary of Veszprém. The other is a lengthy and detailed article about his life from the Veszprém News Portal (VEOL). There are at least two further articles about him on that site. He is also the subject of a biography by Adrián Horváth. "Poorly written" and "no references" is not a reason to delete an article. It's a reason to improve it. This article was translated from the Hungarian Wikipedia (hence the somewhat clumsy prose) and simply needs copy-editing and expansion. I have also found dozens of articles about him in the various newspapers of Pápa in the early 20th Century. They're all in PDFs and in Hungarian. See [20]. I emphasise, it's pretty hard to say "nothing exists" about a person when you haven't properly looked for it. Voceditenore (talk) 10:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Voce, and additionally: even people who don't read Hungarian may look at the impressive list of his scores in IMSLP. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 11:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep perVoceditenore and Gerda Arendt.--Smerus (talk) 12:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Voceditenore (and move to Zoltán Gáty). -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 12:42, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Michael Bednarek - kosboot (talk) 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources from Hungary that show that he passes WP:BASIC and that deletion is unnecessary in my view. Also note that non English language sources are acceptable for WP:GNG, 00:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I agree with Fenix down towards the end of the discussion: the case for deletion seems to be stronger than the case for keeping, but it is with a few exceptions so poorly articulated here, with most "delete" opinions making no understandable argument, that I can't find a consensus for deletion. Sandstein 08:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American coaches of foreign national soccer teams[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Uh... Is nobody going to explain this? The previous discussion originally nominated by @GiantSnowman where he provided some valid and reasonable, albeit a little flawed, arguments that received a no consensus vote somehow because the creator of the article, who hasn't even edited in THREE YEARS!!! somehow argued that the article was meritable because it receives decent coverage by news sources (the reason why is obviously that there is a bunch of U.S.-centric soccer news sites that are more than happy to write articles about about American coaches who go abroad because most of them rarely coach outside the United States) and that it isn't a list, but a prose with a table, which is basically every single featured list ever.

As an American myself, I hate it when people unnecessarily fancruft or circlejerk about their or favorite club or country's footballing endeavors, especially the country of my origin. Plus, everything in this "prose and table" is already covered in each person's biography. Kinda surprising how there aren't any articles about English managers of foreign national football teams or French managers of foreign national football teams. This article obviously fails WP:GNG, WP:LISTCRUFT, and WP:ARTN. Do I need to go on any longer? KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 17:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and my (flawed?!) rationale at last AFD. GiantSnowman 17:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @GiantSnowman: Not flawed per se, but the more-a-less baseless arguments in the 1st AfD from people who wanted to keep the article seemed a little justifiable compared to yours, considering how they kinda deconstructed your reasoning because you kinda kept saying the same response. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It passes WP:GNG and the list has been discussed as a set by other secondary sources, see [21]. It clearly technically meets our inclusion guidelines. The nom reads like a WP:IDONTLIKEIT. SportingFlyer T·C 17:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: How? The topic is niche, unsubstantial, and not helpful at all for the encyclopedia. Nobody is outwardly looking to see how many Americans have coached non-U.S. national teams (which is a heck of a lot more than is implied on this list). Plus, the article you just referenced isn't even a paragraph long, very outdated, and comes from a niche U.S. soccer site like I just eluded to earlier. Just because some trivial topic has received coverage from multiple sources, doesn't make it merit an article. By that logic, we should have an article about Gareth Bale's injury record. If my argument is WP:IDONTLIKEIT, then your argument is WP:TRIVIAL and WP:ITSINTHENEWS. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Niche doesn't mean unencyclopaedic. This is within the criteria of a) covered by secondary sources, and b) secondary sources cover it as a list. I am NOT making a trivial/it's in the news argument - I don't actually care about the topic - I'm just noting that it firmly falls within our inclusion guidelines. SportingFlyer T·C 18:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - @SportingFlyer: If you don't have any interest in the topic (and honestly neither do many others), then why are you playing devil's advocate to try to justify why it should be included and only because it passes WP:GNG on a technicality? The coverage is biographical and trivial at best and irrelevant and opinionated at worst. Those articles talk more about the stigma that American coaches are bad compared to that of Europeans, South Americans or even Asians, and how those coaches want to break the notion rather than that the topic is notable and will end up growing U.S. soccer. Not only is the prose incredibly bad and incoherent and the list very debatable on who should and shouldn't be included, but the sources used are less than relevant to the subject matter as a whole. In fact, from sources [15], [20] and [21], the article uses trivial quotes from those sources that were just meant to give more context to the reader and instead rather tries to spin it around on how it explains the importance of the topic as whole. I honestly fail to see the notability of the subject matter of this article as a whole, and by your argument of "it follows the rules" and "it technically counts" I can tell that you can't either. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I vote at plenty of AfDs where I don't have interest in the specific topic. You've now spilled a lot of text at this AfD, which shows your argument regarding notability appears to be plainly subjective. Bad prose can be cleaned up, and the list is clearly defined. Whether we have an article or not has to do specifically with whether the topic has been treated as notable by secondary sources, which this one has, and in list form. SportingFlyer T·C 22:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @SportingFlyer: I'm not trying to be subjective. It's just that objectively, this article seems more like something mentioned in a football news site once every three to four years more than something that deserves to be covered in detail and will stand the test of time. The topic is interesting, but not notable enough to merit an article. In fact, this article was created three months after its first source. The source is not only short, but it does not explain the topic in detail. It would honestly be more reliable to go through the category and see which managers have coached a foreign team rather than a random list that doesn't even fill half a page. In fact, it seems that more likely than not, that the article creator could have been trying to promote Soccer America. In January 2017, another article similar to this one that Barryjjoyce had created got deleted and had several external links to that of Goal, SB Nation, Yanks Abroad, and Soccer America. Yes, this article has tons of sources but it fails WP:NOTEVERYTHING as the topic in hand is not particularly helpful or will stand the test of time for anyone except freelance soccer writers looking to make some easy, but very little pageviews. From your last sentence, it also fails WP:NOTNEWS as most newsworthy moments aren't sufficient enough to gain their own specific article, especially the hiring of American soccer coaches. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 15:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        WP:NOTNEWS doesn't apply because this is a list (and should probably be renamed), not an article dealing with a specific routine event, and you're quoting WP:NOTEVERYTHING on WP:USELESS grounds, not pointing to a specific WP:NOT. The way to rescue articles/lists at AfD is to provide sources, and oddly enough, you've actually done that. We're not going to agree with each other on this, so I don't really see any point in continuing this argument. I hope you agree with that at least :) SportingFlyer T·C 19:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        To be honest, I've ignored this article and have been thinking about salvaging it for a long time until I read through the entire prose and list and realized just how non-notable the topic really is. All of the "sources" are fairly WP:ROUTINE and WP:EMSC, which I should've stated earlier in this argument. At one point, this article had the USMNT navbox in it despite having no relation at all with the United States national team. For when, here for the template and here for the article. Both were from a random IP who also coincidentally has a history of adding external links instead of full citations. This article is trying to amplify the growth of U.S. soccer, which it fails at. That topic is already explained in detail in both Soccer in the United States and the history of soccer in the United States. So, to answer your question of why I'm not salvaging it, that is why. I will agree that we do disagree. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        The articles that I've seen, such as a feature story on the Philippines coach, aren't routine. The article shouldn't have had the USMNT navbox in it. Again, none of that has to do with the notability of the topic. SportingFlyer T·C 20:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I can see this inviting huge numbers of unneeded lists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you think that's happened over the past three years? --BDD (talk) 21:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer. I certainly understand the concern that this could be a precedent, but since the article is not new, that concern appears unfounded. I think the flip side of WP:RUNOFTHEMILL is that these sort of "man bites dog" topics are fair game if they pass GNG, which this one does. --BDD (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @BDD: Not exactly. This isn't a topic that is talked about ad nauseam or even that often. The sources used are fairly WP:ROUTINE and only random bits from interviews taken only at face value instead of descriptive essays about the subject matter and the influences of all of the coaches as a whole. The one source that SportingFlyer mentioned at the start of our argument isn't descriptive or insightful at all and should not be used as a reliable source. If anything, the article is just giving the managers arbitrary importance and glorification. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "The article is notable because it receives significant coverage by news sources." Yes, that's exactly how GNG works and exactly why this article is notable. Don't see how that's a flawed argument. Smartyllama (talk) 19:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Smartyllama: It's not significant coverage though. If anything, it's actually WP:ROUTINE. I said that the original creator of the article somehow argued that it was significant, even though it wasn't. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete among other things 2600:1700:F71:2890:6080:390A:453:B251 (talk) 14:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Extremely bizarre. PointComm (talk) 15:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - any information here can be contained elsewhere. Article title itself is confusing. Whole article has an air of misogyny about it. Nfitz (talk) 21:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? Is it because of the lack of women coaches? Seems odd to point out a needed expansion while arguing for the deletion of a page. --BDD (talk) 19:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this article is notable because US men's soccer and it's coaching has a long history of being disrespected and failing abroad and in it's own country (see US national soccer team and MLS), so it makes sense that any US coach that coaches a national team (a big achivement) is going to get media coverage here. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Swordman97: The fact that they were able to get a job coaching a foreign national team isn't a big achievement. Their success on the team however, is. By that measure, we should have Asian footballers who have played in Europe because no matter how objectively good or bad they are, they usually receive at least one mention in the news of their country of origin. The coverage and sources used are mostly WP:TRIVIAL and for the most part uses quotes from interviews and not all of the article. And those little sources that do tell an entire story and aren't interviews are just biographical (and already used in that specific person's biography) and not about the history of the perceived stereotype that "Americans are bad at soccer". The article frames itself about how Americans have been prejudiced in the football world and not about what each manager has contributed to the development of American soccer, which none can do since they are not coaching in the United States. And even in the terms of global soccer, their impact is almost insignificant, and only has any because they're from a nation with a large foreign influence and nothing else. This article is pure WP:CRUFT, plain and simple. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 23:06, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nfitz. Mysogynistic indeed. 71.153.245.192 (talk) 17:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This discussion is a bit of a mess, keep votes don't really show GNG for the subject as a whole, more a synthesis of sources about specific coaches. On the other hand the delete votes aren't great either with a number of strange comments that don't come close to discussing the article in the context of actual policies and guidelines.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article doesn't appear appropriate. Plenty of individual coaches seem notable in this context, but that notability doesn't automatically transfer over to the concept itself. I'm not that familiar with our guidelines in terms of sports-related topics. Yet a certain amount of common sense is in order. As stated above, it's not right to synthesize notability the way that the article does. Deletion appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 09:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In response to the relist discussing the fact "keep votes don't really show WP:GNG," it's based on a review of the sources in the article, are we now required to copy all of them over to the AfD? This article currently has 34 sources but I wouldn't consider it source-bombed, and the articles such as Soccer America, Yahoo Sports, and the Baltimore Sun article cover the group as a list (though sometimes only current coaches are covered.) Easily passes WP:NLIST. SportingFlyer T·C 04:45, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm not sure you have understood my point. Yes, there are plenty of sources in the article, but these are sources that deal with individual coaches. For a list to be notable per WP:LISTN (I'd recommend that you read this, NLIST notes that this is what needs to be used) the subject needs to show coverage as a group or a set. What we have in the article is reports covering individual coaches. I'm not saying these do or don't exist, but these are the sort of sources that need to be shown and I'm not seeing anything that shows that. For example, if this were about British coaches abroad I would expect to see mention of sources such as [22] or [23] for example amongst the many available with a simple Google search [24]. What we currently have as justification for notability is a synthesis. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly. The sources are mostly being used out of context to drive a narrative which fails WP:SYNTH. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Willie Hoaglin Place, California[edit]

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

A set of "Place"s, all in the forests of northern California, all of them single (or no) buildings, all of them GNIS dumps, and none of which has any evidence of being an actual settlement. These are rather difficult to search since they crank out false hits for several reasons, but I got nothing for any of them except for one "cemetery" reference on Find-a-Grave for a single burial. There are a lot of "Place"s in California, and nominating the lot in a single shot is too likely to get procedural resistance, but I really don't want to crank through fifty or so single nominations that are all the same. Mangoe (talk) 02:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other nominees in this group are:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This PDF contains information about Willie Hoaglin Place, more than any other source I could find. MarkZusab (talk) 02:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Fails WP:V, not communities, not notable ranches; also candidates for prod or redirect per WP:BURDEN. Website above has documents about several homesteads in Trinity County and in Mendocino National Forest, though I don't see how any warrant encyclopedia entries. Reywas92^Talk 05:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all GNIS dumps, not communities. The Willie Hoaglin place solararch.org PDF is fascinating and would probably be well included somewhere, but having done searches on all of them, none of these are notable. Also demonstrates how these places were added to topo maps and then digitised into the GNIS. I also don't mind procedural nominations if the nominator "shows their work" - what was searched, what was found, why what was found isn't notable. SportingFlyer T·C 05:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Ranches do not meet GEOLAND or GNG criteria. –dlthewave ☎ 12:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seem to be merely ranches, no independent notability. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moreland Mill, California[edit]

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

No evidence of a settlement here. Appears to be a mine-related mill. –dlthewave ☎ 01:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:46, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a place with no notability or reliable sourcing. Kori (@) 17:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not seem to be an actual community. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:10, 27 April 2020 (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. czar 00:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brooks DeCillia[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a journalist, not reliably sourced as passing our notability standards for journalists. As always, journalists are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers offer technical verification that they exist -- to be notable enough for inclusion here, a journalist has to be the subject of coverage in sources other than his own employer. But as is so often the case, this is written more like a thinly veiled rewrite of his staff profile than like an encyclopedia article, is referenced entirely to primary sources (an academic scholarship's own self-published list of its own recipients, his academic dissertation referenced to its presence in his alma mater's directory of its own students' academic dissertations, and the staff profile) with no evidence of any coverage about him in any reliable or independent sources, and says nothing about him that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to be referenced much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE = a couple of quick searches online reveal a lot of possible sources about this Canadian journalist. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please show the best three sources you're seeing, because I'm finding absolutely nothing that would count as a reliable or notability-making source — all I'm getting is staff profiles on the self-published websites of his own employer and other affiliated organizations, blogs and pieces of his own bylined writing about other subjects, with not a shred of evidence of any reliable sources in which he's the subject. Bearcat (talk) 19:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly doesn’t meet GNG. I’m with Bearcat, unable to find reliable secondary sources to establish notability. Woerich (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable with no independent third-party coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 06:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are sources, but they might not be secondary and/or reliable. (Change from keep). Bearian (talk) 02:18, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against redirection. czar 00:27, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

StackMat timer[edit]

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

Entirely unreferenced article that fails to demonstrate any notability, and contains nothing but a description of the product and what it does - nothing that might be considered to be encyclopedic content. In its current form it serves only to promote or publicise the product, and would require a fundamental rewrite in order to become encyclopedic. Dorsetonian (talk) 06:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete maybe there’s a prize for going 16 years without sources? Mccapra (talk) 09:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - Have now added some sources. Gazamp (talk) 09:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment thanks but these are passing mentions. None of them is about the subject. Some just namecheck it and others just briefly mention what it is. Mccapra (talk) 12:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, this appears to be essential equipment for Speedcubing (see Speedcubing#Competitions), so not sure that it is actually "promotional" (ie. no links to/promotional words on any specific brand/type of timer), at the very least, a Redirect may be in order, as a wikireader lookup? ps. as an aside, yes, its interesting that it has remained unsourced for so long (more editors should join Wikipedia:WikiProject Unreferenced articles, now this is some blatant promotion:)), but that isn't really a reason to delete, i note that other "essential" sports equipment articles are also un/underreferenced, for example, the hockey stick article, although being around 1400 words long, has unreferenced sections and a total of 3 references, yes i know the "other things" argument is a no no, nevertheless.... Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (second choice would be a redirect to Speedcubing#Competitions but to be honest I'd prefer to delete the StackMat reference, which is an odd brand reference in the middle of an article, there too). The sources in the article fall well short of anything that would convey notability (it's all trivial coverage, passing mentions of StackMat in articles all about other things) and I didn't find much else through my search. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:40, 23 April 2020 (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) b uidhe 04:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ivoclar Vivadent[edit]

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

This dental company fails WP:CORP notability standards. All the sources in the article are trivial coverage and that's all that comes up in a Google search. Adamant1 (talk) 05:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Jansen, Norbert; Aligäuer, Robert, eds. (1978). Liechtenstein 1938–1978 (in German). Vaduz: Fürstliche Regierung. OCLC 883522421. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Liechtenstein State Library.
"8 Company profile: 8.19 Ivoclar Vivadent AG". Medical Devices Market Research Report. Markets and Markets. 2010-01-04. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Gale.
Willatt, Norriss (1970-06-25). "Tiny Liechtenstein Is Dental Giant". Albuquerque Journal. United Press International. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Newspapers.com.
Engelmeir, Robert L.; Phoenix, Rodney D. (2017-04-19). "The Development of Lingualized Occlusion". Journal of Prosthodontics. 28 (1). Wiley: e129–e130. doi:10.1111/jopr.12624. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
"Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations: Liechtenstein". Cengage. 2020-03-16. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Encyclopedia.com.
Pfanner, Eric (2008-02-24). "Called a tax haven, Liechtenstein cringes". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
Mitchener, Brandon (1995-06-23). "Liechtenstein Strikes a Balance Between Isolation and EU Integration". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
Wray, John (2009-03-22). "The Royal Wee". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
Nullis, Clare (1994-12-04). "Making molar hills out in the mountains". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Newspapers.com.
De Vries, David (March 2013). "From Porcelain to Plastic: Politics and Business in a Relocated False Teeth Company, 1880s–1950". Enterprise & Society. 14 (1). Cambridge University Press: 163. doi:10.1093/es/khs029.
"Dental echo: international Monatsschrift fuer dental-industrie und -handel". Dental Echo. 38: 98. 1968. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
Ratliff, Steven T.; Barry, Kawsu (August 2018). "Characterization of Ivoclar Vivadent Dental Restoration Material for 137CS Retrospective Radiation Dosimetry". Health Physics. 115 (2): 212–220. doi:10.1097/HP.0000000000000806. PMID 29889699. Retrieved 2020-04-13.

Sources with quotes
Jansen, Norbert; Aligäuer, Robert, eds. (1978). Liechtenstein 1938–1978 (in German). Vaduz: Fürstliche Regierung. OCLC 883522421. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Liechtenstein State Library. The book notes: Die Ivoclar-Vivadent-Gruppe feierte ein dreifaches Jubiläum . .. Was den ausgezeichneten Ruf der liechtensteinischen Dentalindustrie heute begründet, begann im Jahre 1923 — in Zürich. Dort wurde die Zahnfabrik Ramco damals gegründet. 10 Jahre später siedelte der Betrieb nach Liechtenstein über und brachte sich bis nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg mehr schlecht als recht durch das Wirtschafts- leben. Im Jahre 1948 übernahm der frühere Quandt-Manager Dr. Alfons Schneider, ein gebürtiger Schwabe aus Ellenberg (Ellwangen), die Restbestände der Ramco, . . . taufte das Unternehmen im Jahre 1951 in Ivoclar um und führte es innerhalb von 25 Jahren zu Weltbedeutung. Künstliche Zähne (aus Porzellan und Kunststoff) sind heute lediglich nur noch ein Teil des Ivoclar-Produktions- programms. Zusammen mit dem Vivadent-Zweig innerhalb der Gruppe, der im Jahre 1956 gegründet wurde und sich auf die Herstellung von Materialien für die konser- vierende und präventive Zahnheilkunde spezialisierte, bietet Ivoclar-Vivadent heute ein umfassendes, systematisch aufgebautes Programm der prothetischen, konservierenden und präventiven Zahnheilkunde an, das in 108 Ländern dieser Welt vertrieben wird. Die Ivoclar- Vivadent Gruppe beschäftigt rund 1500 Mitarbeiter, über 600 davon in den liechtensteinischen Produktions- stätten, dem Schaaner Mutterbetrieb und den Zweig- betrieben in Triesenberg und Schellenberg. Weitere, wichtigere Ivoclar-Produktionsbetriebe arbeiten heute in Deutschland, Frankreich. Italien, Österreich und Spanien. Dreifachjubiläum Dieses Jahr kann die Ivoclar-Vivadent ein dreifaches Jubiläum feiern: die Gründung der Firma vor 50 Jahren, ihre Ansiedlung in Liechtenstein vor 40 Jahren und das 25jährige Jubiläum Dr. Adolf Schneiders als Chef des Hauses Liechtensteiner Volksblatt, 19. September 1973 From Google Translate: The Ivoclar Vivadent Group celebrated a triple anniversary . .. What established the excellent reputation of the Liechtenstein dental industry today began in 1923 - in Zurich. The Ramco tooth factory was founded at that time. 10 years later, the company moved to Liechtenstein and, after the Second World War, did more or less get through economic life. In 1948, the former Quandt manager Dr. Alfons Schneider, a Swabian from Ellenberg (Ellwangen), the remaining stocks of Ramco,. . . christened the company Ivoclar in 1951 and made it world famous within 25 years. Artificial teeth (made of porcelain and plastic) are now only part of the Ivoclar production program. Together with the Vivadent branch within the group, which was founded in 1956 and specializes in the production of materials for conservative and preventive dentistry, Ivoclar-Vivadent now offers a comprehensive, systematically structured program of prosthetic, preservative and preventive Dentistry, which is distributed in 108 countries around the world. The Ivoclar-Vivadent Group employs around 1,500 people, over 600 of whom work in Liechtenstein's production facilities, the Schaan parent company and the branches in Triesenberg and Schellenberg. Other, more important Ivoclar production companies now work in Germany, France. Italy, Austria and Spain. Triple anniversary This year Ivoclar-Vivadent can celebrate a triple anniversary: the foundation of the company 50 years ago, its establishment in Liechtenstein 40 years ago and the 25th anniversary of Dr. Adolf Schneiders as head of the house Liechtensteiner Volksblatt, 19. September 1973 "8 Company profile: 8.19 Ivoclar Vivadent AG". Medical Devices Market Research Report. Markets and Markets. 2010-01-04. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Gale. The article notes: 8.19 IVOCLAR VIVADENT AG Liechtenstein-Ivoclar Vivadent was founded in 1933 and named Ramco AG. The company was renamed as Ivoclar AG in 1951, and finally Ivoclar Vivadent AG in 2001. The company is a dental materials and equipment manufacturer that designs, develops, and sells a broad range of products for preventive, restorative, and prosthetic dentistry. The company recorded sales of $632.5 million in 2008. They have 50 U.S., 103 European, and 99 Japanese patents They operate through its subsidiaries in Australia, Brazil, Spain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Mexico, France, New Zealand, Poland, the U.S., and the UK. It has manufacturing units in Liechtenstein, Austria, Italy, the U.S., and Philippines. The company's marketing and sales offices are located in China, Colombia, India, Turkey, Sweden, Singapore, and Russia. The subsidiaries of Ivoclar Vivadent are: [names of subsidiaries in Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, US, UK, and Japan] Ivoclar Vivadent's product categories include restorative therapy products, metal-ceramics, cementation products, equipment, all-ceramics, restoration products, teeth, endodontics, temporary, clinical accessories, prevention and care products, tooth whitening products or tooth jewellery, impression materials, metal supported veneering composites, materials for dentures, and alloys. The alloys available are implant alloys, crown and bridge alloys, ceramic alloys, BioUniversal. The company also has Tetric EvoCeram restorative material and Empress Direct. ... In March 2009, Ivoclar Vivadent and Straumann entered into a partnership agreement for development of esthetic solutions for tooth replacement and restoration. As per the agreement, Ivoclar Vivadent will supply the proprietary IPS e.max ceramic technology to Straumann for their implant and tooth borne dental prosthetic solutions. They also introduced 2 new versions of classic bluephase polymerization light called bluephase 20i and bluephase C8; and launched VivaPenand a universal primer named Monobond Plus to create a reliable bond to all restorative materials, and Multilink Implant, an adhesive luting composite. Willatt, Norriss (1970-06-25). "Tiny Liechtenstein Is Dental Giant". Albuquerque Journal. United Press International. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Newspapers.com. This link is a copy of the same article (but truncated) in The Indianapolis Star and provides information about the author and the wire service, which the Albuquerque Journal link does not provide. The article notes: And one of its local industries, the Ivoclar-Vivadent of companies, has achieved a sensational prominence in its own field. It is the largest producer of acrylic plastic teeth in the world, and the second largest of artificial teeth made from the other principal raw material, porcelain. Only the Dentists Supply Co. in the United States outranks it. Ivoclar-Vivant has the largest tooth factory in all Europe. Output is about 50 million teeth a year. The founding firm, Zahn-fabrik Ramco AG, moved from Zurich to Schaan, just down the road from the principality's capital of Vaduz. This was acquired as a going concern in 1951 by the present owners, Ivoclar, a private concern which is owned outside the principality; it declined to say by whom, or where. The new owners, in the course of a mere 20 years, have raised it to its present pre-eminent position in the world of artificial teeth, and related products of dentistry. ... Two important breakthroughts have contributed most to this remarkable success story. In the first place, Ivoclar was a pioneer in the adaptation of acrylic resin to tooth fabrication, to supplement the traditional porcelain product. This innovation, about 20 years ago, has proved immensely popular both with dentists and their clients. Engelmeir, Robert L.; Phoenix, Rodney D. (2017-04-19). "The Development of Lingualized Occlusion". Journal of Prosthodontics. 28 (1). Wiley: e129–e130. doi:10.1111/jopr.12624. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13. The article notes: Ivoclar/Vivadent Ivoclar AG was originally founded in 1933 as the Ramco AG (tooth factory) of Schaan, Liechtenstein. Ramco was renamed Ivoclar in 1951, and in 1979, Ivoclar U.S.A. was established in San Marcos, CA. By 1987, Ivoclar AG, Williams Gold Refining Company of Buffalo, and Vivadent of Schaan, Liechtenstein had merged to form Ivoclar of North America, Incorporated, headquartered in Amherst, NY. The corporate name was changed to Ivoclar Vivadent, Incorporated in 2001.⁵⁸ Arguably, Ivoclar manufactured some of the most esthetic teeth of the late 20th century. Through the end of the century they offered their “Orthotyp” cross-linked acrylic and porcelain posteriors in three semi-anatomic configurations. The “N” molds were meant for a normal (Angles Class I) bite. They had a cusp angle near 20°. The “T” molds were intended for patients with a “deep bite.” The cusps were steeper to accommodate the increased incisal guidance and vertical overlap. “K” molds were designed for use in cross-bite situations. Around the turn of the 21st century, Ivoclar introduced three new lines of teeth. The “Orthoplane” molds were very esthetic, 0° posteriors with excellent sluiceways. “Ortholingual” molds were specifically designed for a lingualized occlusion. Their maxillary lingual functional cusps were exaggerated and articulated in mandibular fossae with 15° inclines. The “Postaris” anatomical teeth had 33° cuspal inclines. All three new mold lines were offered in double cross-linked polymethylmethacrylate. Shortly after the introduction of the Orthoplane and Ortholingual molds, Ivoclar embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign centered on complete denture esthetics, occlusion, and wear resistance. They revised and greatly simplified their mold guide, which only offered 0° Orthoplane, 33° Postaris, 15° Ortholingual, and new 22° Orthotyp semi-anatomic posteriors^4,59 (Fig 37). The company recommended that a lingualized occlusion be developed by setting maxillary and mandibular Ortholingual teeth or by setting maxillary Ortholingual teeth against mandibular Orthoplane teeth. "Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations: Liechtenstein". Cengage. 2020-03-16. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Encyclopedia.com. The article notes: Among the most important domestic manufacturers are the Hilti Corporation, a large international supplier of rail anchors and anchor installation services to the rail transport industry, and electrical equipment; Ivoclar-Vivadent, developer and distributor of well-regarded products for prosthetic, restorative, and preventive dentistry; Balzers-Bal-Tec AG, manufacturers of electron microscopy preparation products for biological specimens; Fancoldi R.T., gem industry specialists, producing colored diamonds; and Aqualine, a major Austrian Alps mineral water bottling company. Pfanner, Eric (2008-02-24). "Called a tax haven, Liechtenstein cringes". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13. The article notes: Liechtenstein has large industrial companies like Hilti, a maker of power tools, Hilcona, a provider of microwavable meals, and Ivoclar Vivadent, the world's largest manufacturer of false teeth. Mitchener, Brandon (1995-06-23). "Liechtenstein Strikes a Balance Between Isolation and EU Integration". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13. The article notes: Among the principality's better-known manufacturers are Hilti AG, which makes nails, staples and glues for use in construction; Ivoclar, a manufacturer of dentures; and Balzers AG, a specialist in vacuum technology and ultra-thin coatings used in optics and electronics. Wray, John (2009-03-22). "The Royal Wee". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2020-04-13. The article notes: Over the course of my stay, I found myself keeping a mental list of other possible Liechtensteinian claims to fame: No. 1 in cowbells (every cow on every mountain meadow seems to have one, making it surprisingly noisy above the tree line), and in the production of dental ceramics (Ivoclar Vivadent, in the industrial region of Schaan, is the world’s top producer). Nullis, Clare (1994-12-04). "Making molar hills out in the mountains". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Newspapers.com. The article notes: Schaan, Liechtenstein — Tucked in a valley surrounded by majestic, snow-capped mountains is a dentist's dream. There are mounds of amalgams, alloys, bleachers, colorants, cavity cleaners, inlays, onlays — and about 60 million teeth. All of it rolls off the production lines of Ivoclar-Vivadent, which is a major player in the $4 billion global market for dentistry supplies. The company, whose name is derived from "clear ivory," had sales of $400 million last year. It is an example of highly specialized businesses that have made tiny Liechtenstein one of the world's most industrialized nations. De Vries, David (March 2013). "From Porcelain to Plastic: Politics and Business in a Relocated False Teeth Company, 1880s–1950". Enterprise & Society. 14 (1). Cambridge University Press: 163. doi:10.1093/es/khs029. The article notes: Palestine's greatest competitor in Europe was Zahnfabrik Ramsperger & Co. AG established in Zurich in 1923 and turned in 1933 into RAMCO AG, based in Schaan, Lichtenstein (later turned into Ivoclar Vivadent AG). See Blevi and Sween, Complete Book of Beauty, 200. Blevi, Viktor, and Gretchen Sween. Complete Book of Beauty. New York: Avon Books, 1993. "Dental echo: international Monatsschrift fuer dental-industrie und -handel". Dental Echo. 38: 98. 1968. Retrieved 2020-04-13. The article notes: Portrait of a company Ivoclar Inc. THE BEGINNING: 1923 Ramsberger & Co., Zurich Situated in Schaan, Prinzipality of Liechtenstein, Ivoclar originated in Ramsberger & Co. of Zurich, which was founded 25 years ago, and moved to Schaan as "Ramco AG" in 1933. In 1951 the company was registered as " IVOCLAR AG" — as in the years before the enterprise continued the production of artificial teeth. A close co-operation with the American Williams-Justi Corporation, Buffalo, Philadelphia, (which is well known in the dental market of North and South America) was established in the early 1950's. The outcome of this association has been beneficial for both Ivoclar and Williams-Justi. The broadening and expansion of SR range of acrylic products can be attributed to Ivoclar Schaan and its subsidiaries. Ratliff, Steven T.; Barry, Kawsu (August 2018). "Characterization of Ivoclar Vivadent Dental Restoration Material for 137CS Retrospective Radiation Dosimetry". Health Physics. 115 (2): 212–220. doi:10.1097/HP.0000000000000806. PMID 29889699. Retrieved 2020-04-13.

Sources with quotes

Jansen, Norbert; Aligäuer, Robert, eds. (1978). Liechtenstein 1938–1978 (in German). Vaduz: Fürstliche Regierung. OCLC 883522421. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Liechtenstein State Library.
The book notes:
Die Ivoclar-Vivadent-Gruppe feierte ein dreifaches Jubiläum

. .. Was den ausgezeichneten Ruf der liechtensteinischen Dentalindustrie heute begründet, begann im Jahre 1923 — in Zürich. Dort wurde die Zahnfabrik Ramco damals gegründet. 10 Jahre später siedelte der Betrieb nach Liechtenstein über und brachte sich bis nach dem Zweiten Weltkrieg mehr schlecht als recht durch das Wirtschafts- leben.
Im Jahre 1948 übernahm der frühere Quandt-Manager Dr. Alfons Schneider, ein gebürtiger Schwabe aus Ellenberg (Ellwangen), die Restbestände der Ramco, . . . taufte das Unternehmen im Jahre 1951 in Ivoclar um und führte es innerhalb von 25 Jahren zu Weltbedeutung. Künstliche Zähne (aus Porzellan und Kunststoff) sind heute lediglich nur noch ein Teil des Ivoclar-Produktions- programms. Zusammen mit dem Vivadent-Zweig innerhalb der Gruppe, der im Jahre 1956 gegründet wurde und sich auf die Herstellung von Materialien für die konser- vierende und präventive Zahnheilkunde spezialisierte, bietet Ivoclar-Vivadent heute ein umfassendes, systematisch aufgebautes Programm der prothetischen, konservierenden und präventiven Zahnheilkunde an, das in 108 Ländern dieser Welt vertrieben wird. Die Ivoclar- Vivadent Gruppe beschäftigt rund 1500 Mitarbeiter, über 600 davon in den liechtensteinischen Produktions- stätten, dem Schaaner Mutterbetrieb und den Zweig- betrieben in Triesenberg und Schellenberg. Weitere, wichtigere Ivoclar-Produktionsbetriebe arbeiten heute in Deutschland, Frankreich. Italien, Österreich und Spanien.
Dreifachjubiläum
Dieses Jahr kann die Ivoclar-Vivadent ein dreifaches Jubiläum feiern: die Gründung der Firma vor 50 Jahren, ihre Ansiedlung in Liechtenstein vor 40 Jahren und das 25jährige Jubiläum Dr. Adolf Schneiders als Chef des Hauses
Liechtensteiner Volksblatt, 19. September 1973
From Google Translate:
The Ivoclar Vivadent Group celebrated a triple anniversary

. .. What established the excellent reputation of the Liechtenstein dental industry today began in 1923 - in Zurich. The Ramco tooth factory was founded at that time. 10 years later, the company moved to Liechtenstein and, after the Second World War, did more or less get through economic life.
In 1948, the former Quandt manager Dr. Alfons Schneider, a Swabian from Ellenberg (Ellwangen), the remaining stocks of Ramco,. . . christened the company Ivoclar in 1951 and made it world famous within 25 years. Artificial teeth (made of porcelain and plastic) are now only part of the Ivoclar production program. Together with the Vivadent branch within the group, which was founded in 1956 and specializes in the production of materials for conservative and preventive dentistry, Ivoclar-Vivadent now offers a comprehensive, systematically structured program of prosthetic, preservative and preventive Dentistry, which is distributed in 108 countries around the world. The Ivoclar-Vivadent Group employs around 1,500 people, over 600 of whom work in Liechtenstein's production facilities, the Schaan parent company and the branches in Triesenberg and Schellenberg. Other, more important Ivoclar production companies now work in Germany, France. Italy, Austria and Spain.
Triple anniversary
This year Ivoclar-Vivadent can celebrate a triple anniversary: the foundation of the company 50 years ago, its establishment in Liechtenstein 40 years ago and the 25th anniversary of Dr. Adolf Schneiders as head of the house
Liechtensteiner Volksblatt, 19. September 1973
"8 Company profile: 8.19 Ivoclar Vivadent AG". Medical Devices Market Research Report. Markets and Markets. 2010-01-04. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Gale.
The article notes:
8.19 IVOCLAR VIVADENT AG

Liechtenstein-Ivoclar Vivadent was founded in 1933 and named Ramco AG. The company was renamed as Ivoclar AG in 1951, and finally Ivoclar Vivadent AG in 2001. The company is a dental materials and equipment manufacturer that designs, develops, and sells a broad range of products for preventive, restorative, and prosthetic dentistry. The company recorded sales of $632.5 million in 2008. They have 50 U.S., 103 European, and 99 Japanese patents
They operate through its subsidiaries in Australia, Brazil, Spain, Canada, Germany, Japan, Italy, Mexico, France, New Zealand, Poland, the U.S., and the UK. It has manufacturing units in Liechtenstein, Austria, Italy, the U.S., and Philippines. The company's marketing and sales offices are located in China, Colombia, India, Turkey, Sweden, Singapore, and Russia. The subsidiaries of Ivoclar Vivadent are:
[names of subsidiaries in Italy, Mexico, New Zealand, Poland, US, UK, and Japan]
Ivoclar Vivadent's product categories include restorative therapy products, metal-ceramics, cementation products, equipment, all-ceramics, restoration products, teeth, endodontics, temporary, clinical accessories, prevention and care products, tooth whitening products or tooth jewellery, impression materials, metal supported veneering composites, materials for dentures, and alloys. The alloys available are implant alloys, crown and bridge alloys, ceramic alloys, BioUniversal. The company also has Tetric EvoCeram restorative material and Empress Direct.
...
In March 2009, Ivoclar Vivadent and Straumann entered into a partnership agreement for development of esthetic solutions for tooth replacement and restoration. As per the agreement, Ivoclar Vivadent will supply the proprietary IPS e.max ceramic technology to Straumann for their implant and tooth borne dental prosthetic solutions. They also introduced 2 new versions of classic bluephase polymerization light called bluephase 20i and bluephase C8; and launched VivaPenand a universal primer named Monobond Plus to create a reliable bond to all restorative materials, and Multilink Implant, an adhesive luting composite.
Willatt, Norriss (1970-06-25). "Tiny Liechtenstein Is Dental Giant". Albuquerque Journal. United Press International. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Newspapers.com.
This link is a copy of the same article (but truncated) in The Indianapolis Star and provides information about the author and the wire service, which the Albuquerque Journal link does not provide.
The article notes:
And one of its local industries, the Ivoclar-Vivadent of companies, has achieved a sensational prominence in its own field.
It is the largest producer of acrylic plastic teeth in the world, and the second largest of artificial teeth made from the other principal raw material, porcelain. Only the Dentists Supply Co. in the United States outranks it. Ivoclar-Vivant has the largest tooth factory in all Europe. Output is about 50 million teeth a year.
The founding firm, Zahn-fabrik Ramco AG, moved from Zurich to Schaan, just down the road from the principality's capital of Vaduz. This was acquired as a going concern in 1951 by the present owners, Ivoclar, a private concern which is owned outside the principality; it declined to say by whom, or where. The new owners, in the course of a mere 20 years, have raised it to its present pre-eminent position in the world of artificial teeth, and related products of dentistry.
...
Two important breakthroughts have contributed most to this remarkable success story. In the first place, Ivoclar was a pioneer in the adaptation of acrylic resin to tooth fabrication, to supplement the traditional porcelain product. This innovation, about 20 years ago, has proved immensely popular both with dentists and their clients.
Engelmeir, Robert L.; Phoenix, Rodney D. (2017-04-19). "The Development of Lingualized Occlusion". Journal of Prosthodontics. 28 (1). Wiley: e129–e130. doi:10.1111/jopr.12624. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
The article notes:
Ivoclar/Vivadent

Ivoclar AG was originally founded in 1933 as the Ramco AG (tooth factory) of Schaan, Liechtenstein. Ramco was renamed Ivoclar in 1951, and in 1979, Ivoclar U.S.A. was established in San Marcos, CA. By 1987, Ivoclar AG, Williams Gold Refining Company of Buffalo, and Vivadent of Schaan, Liechtenstein had merged to form Ivoclar of North America, Incorporated, headquartered in Amherst, NY. The corporate name was changed to Ivoclar Vivadent, Incorporated in 2001.⁵⁸
Arguably, Ivoclar manufactured some of the most esthetic teeth of the late 20th century. Through the end of the century they offered their “Orthotyp” cross-linked acrylic and porcelain posteriors in three semi-anatomic configurations. The “N” molds were meant for a normal (Angles Class I) bite. They had a cusp angle near 20°. The “T” molds were intended for patients with a “deep bite.” The cusps were steeper to accommodate the increased incisal guidance and vertical overlap. “K” molds were designed for use in cross-bite situations. Around the turn of the 21st century, Ivoclar introduced three new lines of teeth. The “Orthoplane” molds were very esthetic, 0° posteriors with excellent sluiceways. “Ortholingual” molds were specifically designed for a lingualized occlusion. Their maxillary lingual functional cusps were exaggerated and articulated in mandibular fossae with 15° inclines. The “Postaris” anatomical teeth had 33° cuspal inclines. All three new mold lines were offered in double cross-linked polymethylmethacrylate. Shortly after the introduction of the Orthoplane and Ortholingual molds, Ivoclar embarked on an aggressive marketing campaign centered on complete denture esthetics, occlusion, and wear resistance. They revised and greatly simplified their mold guide, which only offered 0° Orthoplane, 33° Postaris, 15° Ortholingual, and new 22° Orthotyp semi-anatomic posteriors^4,59 (Fig 37). The company recommended that a lingualized occlusion be developed by setting maxillary and mandibular Ortholingual teeth or by setting maxillary Ortholingual teeth against mandibular Orthoplane teeth.
"Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations: Liechtenstein". Cengage. 2020-03-16. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Encyclopedia.com.
The article notes:
Among the most important domestic manufacturers are the Hilti Corporation, a large international supplier of rail anchors and anchor installation services to the rail transport industry, and electrical equipment; Ivoclar-Vivadent, developer and distributor of well-regarded products for prosthetic, restorative, and preventive dentistry; Balzers-Bal-Tec AG, manufacturers of electron microscopy preparation products for biological specimens; Fancoldi R.T., gem industry specialists, producing colored diamonds; and Aqualine, a major Austrian Alps mineral water bottling company.
Pfanner, Eric (2008-02-24). "Called a tax haven, Liechtenstein cringes". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
The article notes:
Liechtenstein has large industrial companies like Hilti, a maker of power tools, Hilcona, a provider of microwavable meals, and Ivoclar Vivadent, the world's largest manufacturer of false teeth.
Mitchener, Brandon (1995-06-23). "Liechtenstein Strikes a Balance Between Isolation and EU Integration". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
The article notes:
Among the principality's better-known manufacturers are Hilti AG, which makes nails, staples and glues for use in construction; Ivoclar, a manufacturer of dentures; and Balzers AG, a specialist in vacuum technology and ultra-thin coatings used in optics and electronics.
Wray, John (2009-03-22). "The Royal Wee". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2015-09-23. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
The article notes:
Over the course of my stay, I found myself keeping a mental list of other possible Liechtensteinian claims to fame: No. 1 in cowbells (every cow on every mountain meadow seems to have one, making it surprisingly noisy above the tree line), and in the production of dental ceramics (Ivoclar Vivadent, in the industrial region of Schaan, is the world’s top producer).
Nullis, Clare (1994-12-04). "Making molar hills out in the mountains". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Associated Press. Archived from the original on 2020-04-13. Retrieved 2020-04-13 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Schaan, Liechtenstein — Tucked in a valley surrounded by majestic, snow-capped mountains is a dentist's dream.
There are mounds of amalgams, alloys, bleachers, colorants, cavity cleaners, inlays, onlays — and about 60 million teeth.
All of it rolls off the production lines of Ivoclar-Vivadent, which is a major player in the $4 billion global market for dentistry supplies.
The company, whose name is derived from "clear ivory," had sales of $400 million last year. It is an example of highly specialized businesses that have made tiny Liechtenstein one of the world's most industrialized nations.
De Vries, David (March 2013). "From Porcelain to Plastic: Politics and Business in a Relocated False Teeth Company, 1880s–1950". Enterprise & Society. 14 (1). Cambridge University Press: 163. doi:10.1093/es/khs029.
The article notes:
Palestine's greatest competitor in Europe was Zahnfabrik Ramsperger & Co. AG established in Zurich in 1923 and turned in 1933 into RAMCO AG, based in Schaan, Lichtenstein (later turned into Ivoclar Vivadent AG). See Blevi and Sween, Complete Book of Beauty, 200.
Blevi, Viktor, and Gretchen Sween. Complete Book of Beauty. New York: Avon Books, 1993.
"Dental echo: international Monatsschrift fuer dental-industrie und -handel". Dental Echo. 38: 98. 1968. Retrieved 2020-04-13.
The article notes:
Portrait of a company Ivoclar Inc.

THE BEGINNING: 1923 Ramsberger & Co., Zurich Situated in Schaan, Prinzipality of Liechtenstein, Ivoclar originated in Ramsberger & Co. of Zurich, which was founded 25 years ago, and moved to Schaan as "Ramco AG" in 1933. In 1951 the company was registered as " IVOCLAR AG" — as in the years before the enterprise continued the production of artificial teeth. A close co-operation with the American Williams-Justi Corporation, Buffalo, Philadelphia, (which is well known in the dental market of North and South America) was established in the early 1950's. The outcome of this association has been beneficial for both Ivoclar and Williams-Justi. The broadening and expansion of SR range of acrylic products can be attributed to Ivoclar Schaan and its subsidiaries.
Ratliff, Steven T.; Barry, Kawsu (August 2018). "Characterization of Ivoclar Vivadent Dental Restoration Material for 137CS Retrospective Radiation Dosimetry". Health Physics. 115 (2): 212–220. doi:10.1097/HP.0000000000000806. PMID 29889699. Retrieved 2020-04-13.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Ivoclar Vivadent to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A 1970 article published by United Press International said, "It is the largest producer of acrylic plastic teeth in the world, and the second largest of artificial teeth made from the other principal raw material, porcelain. Only the Dentists Supply Co. in the United States outranks it. Ivoclar-Vivant has the largest tooth factory in all Europe. Output is about 50 million teeth a year."
Ivoclar Vivadent received a page of coverage in the 1978 book Liechtenstein 1938–1978.
A 1994 article in the Associated Press said Ivoclar Vivadent is "a major player in the $4 billion global market for dentistry supplies", had sales of $400 million in 1993, and is "an example of highly specialized businesses that have made tiny Liechtenstein one of the world's most industrialized nations".
In 2008, The New York Times called Ivoclar Vivadent "the world's largest manufacturer of false teeth". A 2009 article in The New York Times said "in the production of dental ceramics (Ivoclar Vivadent, in the industrial region of Schaan, is the world’s top producer)".
A 2017 article in the Journal of Prosthodontics said, "Arguably, Ivoclar manufactured some of the most esthetic teeth of the late 20th century."
The "Liechtenstein" entry of the Worldmark Encyclopedia of Nations book published by Cengage said in Liechtenstein, "Among the most important domestic manufacturers are Hilti Corporation ...; Ivoclar-Vivadent, developer and distributor of well-regarded products for prosthetic, restorative, and preventive dentistry; ..."
Cunard (talk) 09:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the additional sources found by Cunard showing that the article meets WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. MarkZusab (talk) 02:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep while the article in its current form needs significant improvements and additional sourcing, there do seem to be sources (above, and in my own search) showing the company meets WP:GNG. Mukedits (talk) 03:16, 22 April 2020 (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) Sulfurboy (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2011 FIBA Europe Under-18 Championship Division C[edit]

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

An WP:INDISCRIMINATE list of how an sporting event went. DarthFlappy (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy (talk) 14:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The tournament is notable as it was an official FIBA tournament that was played during this time. Needs improving and not deleting. HawkAussie (talk) 23:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This isn't technically an "indiscriminate list". It's a clearly defined topic, and part of a series of articles. It is a rather obscure and minor tournament, in the grand scheme of things. But I did at least find this article about it, which was more than I expected. Zagalejo^^^ 23:18, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:39, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Neither indiscriminate nor a list, this is in fact a notable tournament. Smartyllama (talk) 21:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 06:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terry Owens (executive)[edit]

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

Non-notable businessperson; fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. KidAd (talk) 17:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-existent coverage of the individual, does not meet gng. Mallardsfan19 (talk) 21:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets gng based off of his fellowship with the RSA/List of fellows of the Royal Society of Arts. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 21:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- An FRSA does not make one notable. One pays for it. It's not an honour, merely puffery. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: @Epluribusunumyall: could you please list the independent reliable coverage that you think makes this meet GNG?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. @Buidhe: I would have preferred if you had allowed an administrator to close this AfD instead of relisting it. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:46, 23 April 2020 (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Britani Bateman[edit]

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

I cannot find secondary coverage of her. I actually am the person who created the article back in 2009. I have since come to feel that we some of those past decisions were unwise. In this case Bateman had a second role in Mobsters and Mormons but I have not come up with any reliable source coverage so I think we are best off with scrapping the article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The earliest version of this article did have additional sources. I am not sure why they were removed. I am also not sure how much they would qualify as reliable or third party in some cases. It did give us a lot more information on her than the current version. I am unconvinced though that there were ever enough sources on the article to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete When even the creator regrets shining a light, it's time to fade back into the shadows. InedibleHulk (talk) 07:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I am voting "Weak Keep" pending some clippings from WP:RX. The subject has had a number of supporting roles in moderately notable films, so an argument could be made for WP:NACTOR. My vote will ultimately depend on the sourcing and whether it meets WP:GNG. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 00:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the sources I mentioned above: here, here, here, here and here. Please note that the third and last source are mere mentions. The other three sources do provide some coverage—but is that coverage in-depth enough for the purposes of WP:GNG? Personally, I'd let the article stand and am satisfied with voting "Weak Keep", but I encourage feedback from others on the sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The only one of these sources that might be enough is the Salt Lake Tribune one, and that is a very passing mention. The other sources are routine local coverage of local stage productions, that is not the stuff notability is made of. One source is not enough to pass GNG, which requires multiple sources. I am also unconvinced any other role besides her role in the RM is enough to count as a significant role in a major production.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, what you say regarding GNG may be true, but I'm going to keep my vote as it is and see what others have to say. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:34, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as A7. ⌚️ (talk) 19:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I restored it back to how it was before stubefied.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:42, 26 April 2020 (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. There is a narrow but policy-supported consensus that the sources provided do not suffice to support notability for this subject. No prejudice against restoring to draft if further improvements can be made to overcome these objections. BD2412 T 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristel Kruustük[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Kristel Kruustük

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

Non-notable person, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, even the mentioned company is not on Wikipedia. The business person is only locally "known", the Stanford link is a generic set of interviews done in Estonia to record and archive local lives of locals (notable and non-notable people). One startup person among dozens of thousands. Article wrote by only one editor with an excessive promoting tone. Userland12 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is the youngest Estonian female millionaire and definitely notable enough for English Wikipedia. There is nothing do debate about. Anyone who claims something else has not looked into the topic. Ivo (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - notability has already been proven in the article, which is well sourced. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Some other sources I found in a quick search: [25] in Forbes, [26] in VentureBeat, [27] in Äripäev. Pelmeen10 (talk) 13:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 05:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I cannot fully access the sources, as most of them are in Estonian. But I just wanted to note that the Forbes article linked above by Pelmeen10 is a "contributor article" which is more like a blog than a magazine article; it does not suffice for notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not only it fails WP:PROMOTION but also fails WP:GNG. "Millionaire" is not enough to describe notability. According to List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires there are 10'000 millionaires in the country of the subject. Let's be honest, the company is nothing special (there are much bigger and notable companies that are not on Wikipedia). A local wood factory in Siberia can easily earn 1 million USD and may even have interviews in local newspapers or mentions in international websites but it doesn't mean it's worth for inclusion so the argument of money is pointless. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. On the outside sources, what we can see is PR organized by the subject's own company. Yes money can buy that, and you can pay to get articles written for you, but it doesn't make you notable. It's very visible by the promotional tone. For example the main source of the Wikipedia article is "Estonian World (press release) (blog)-Oct 27, 2016". No offense if but an article based on press releases and promotional interviews and guests posts, well that's PR and marketing, not encyclopedia content and therefore should be deleted if we don't want Wikipedia to become a PR garbage (especially when the notability is not established by repeated and independent sources). - Userland12 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. PR and self-promotion are certainly valid concerns here, but I think this article just makes it over the GNG bar. I view the Forbes and VentureBeat sources more favorably than some of the other commentators above. The overall sourcing is not ideal, but I see it as just reliable and independent enough to meet our criteria.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. How can she be a millionaire when she's in debt for $7M? Bearian (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable person whose company doesn't even have a page. Kori (@) 00:04, 2 May 2020 (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.