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. Deleting based on it failing notability. WP:REFUND applies if the subject does pass the "test" in the future. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:39, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brewery District Pavilion[edit]

Brewery District Pavilion (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails notability guidelines at WP:NBUILDING. Mere existence doesn't prove notability nor does the fact that notable subjects once performed there. A Google news search has zero hits and, since it no longer exist, future notability is unlikely. Ifnord (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete as per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 03:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• keep a 4,000-capacity amphitheater that hosted the biggest acts in the music business is definitely notable. Evangp (talk) 04:10, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:NBUILD. Buildings are not automatically notable just because famous people have visited them, or because lots of people can fit inside. There is a lack of sources discussing this building itself in detail. The existing source, an article in The Lantern, a student publication with limited local circulation, appears to be promotional. ----Pontificalibus 11:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, this lacks evidence of notability. PKT(alk) 23:36, 18 January 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. Failed multiple notability "tests." Deleting. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:40, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Codd[edit]

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

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

Non-notable local politician. Google search shows no notability and basically unknown outside of his own county. Does not meet WP:NPOL. Article seems to have been created as the subject is running for office, which is not notable in itself. Also suspiciously WP:COI. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 22:34, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

• Delete - Aside from the fact that the content is so obviously and overtly promotional, the subject does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. On the latter, the subject has never held national or similar office (only very recently being elected to a local council). On the former, the only coverage of the subject is the run-of-the-mill coverage about his candidacy in the pending general election. The only material coverage is the relatively limited coverage that is already linked in the article. (Much of which, frankly, appears to have been copy/pasted into Wikipedia without consideration to WP:COPYVIO or WP:CLOP guidelines. To the extent that, in honesty, this could likely have been speedy deleted under WP:G11 (as unambiguous promotion) or WP:G12 (as clear copyvio of the few local news pieces upon which it is based).) Guliolopez (talk) 23:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Update - While I found it very odd that a new editor would give a barnstar/wikilove to an editor (with whom they had absolutely no overlap and who has been inactive on the project for a decade), I hadn't referred to the author's odd editing patterns or COI concerns (raised by the nominator) in my note above. That the author has since expressed a connection to the subject seems relevant to this thread. Certainly it has cemented my own concerns and recommendation. Which remains a firm "delete". Guliolopez (talk) 01:02, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Nothing against the subject, just to be clear, but serving on a county council is not in and of itself grounds for a Wikipedia article — in Ireland, unfortunately, the only politicians who get a guaranteed pass of WP:NPOL just for the fact of holding political office are actual Teachtaí Dála. For politicians at the local level of office, including county councillors, the notability test is not just the ability to verify that he exists, but the ability to write a really substantial article that reliably sources some genuine context for his political importance, e.g. by demonstrating that he has much more nationalized significance than the norm for county councillors. But the county council's own self-published website about itself, a piece of raw technical verification of election results and a tiny smattering of purely local campaign coverage in the local media is not enough sourcing to do that. Bearcat (talk) 01:59, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete No offense to the subject, but this article is wafer-thin and pure promo in tone and feel.TH1980 (talk) 04:15, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Fails WP:POLITICIAN and WP:BASIC.----Pontificalibus 12:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - a non notable county counillor, no sigcov, Fails WP:POLITICIAN. Spleodrach (talk) 12:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - could have been speedied. Deb (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - I would say clearly fails WP:POLITICIAN (and the WP position on county councillors in Ireland, who have very little real power, is well established) and also WP:GNG. I cannot comment without study on the inter-editor or CoI aspects, but I think we have a clear case of promo risk, especially in an election period. Basic searches do not suggest any easy improvement potential in the situation.SeoR (talk) 13:42, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Wexford County Councillor. County councilmembers are not afforded the presumption of notability under WP:NPOL. Bearcat says it best about when a local elected official is able to demonstrate an article is appropriate. --Enos733 (talk) 18:53, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:POLOUTCOMES, and as follows. We almost always delete local officials as run of the mill and failing our particular standards. It's extremely unlikely that this hard-fought consensus will change before the upcoming 2020 election, for which he's a third party candidate. Sure, it's possible he could win, although my intuition doesn't carry me that far. Finally, he fails the prof test as a teacher at a vocational school. Bearian (talk) 20:31, 22 January 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. Fails GNG and footy. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:41, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yevgeni Nosov (footballer)[edit]

Yevgeni Nosov (footballer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Article about footballer who made a single 74th-minute substitute's appearance in a Belarusian Premier League match, and otherwise has only played in amateur or semi-pro football leagues. There is no significant coverage of this footballer (not if you filter out Yevgeni Nosov (writer)) in online English- or Russian-language sources (just database entries, match reports and transfer announcements, e.g., [1]). There is long-standing consensus that a nominal amount of play in a fully-pro league doesn't justify the presumption of notability in WP:NFOOTBALL when there is a comprehensive WP:GNG failure - as there is here.Jogurney (talk) 22:28, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - fails GNG, more important than scraping by on NFOOTBALL for one appearance. GiantSnowman 10:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per both the above. Fails GNG. No Great Shaker (talk) 06:15, 21 January 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 No consensus. There is no consensus for any particular solution after extended time for discussion, and a reasonable argument for the subject having at some point been a distinct geographical location. BD2412 T 04:00, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevowhan[edit]

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

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

No evidence of notability. Cited only to "Ordnance Survey get-a-map SW4073635469" but WP:NGEO says "This guideline specifically excludes maps and census tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." Apparently you can stay there on vacation but that's not notable. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A hamlet, a populated place that passes WP:GEOLAND as I stated here. The current state of sourcing in the article is irrelevant.----Pontificalibus 17:51, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As Rusf10 notes, hamlet is a vague term that can just be a synonym for a homestead or farm, home to just a landowner and workers. "Legal recognition" is also vague but this isn't a town or village as geoland implies – I think a good WP:PRESERVE would be a merge to the civil parish of Morvah that it's in. Reywas92^Talk 19:48, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• DeleteFarms certainly do not auto-pass WP:GEOLAND. Even if it was a hamlet as claimed, this does not change anything as it would fall under "Populated places without legal recognition" which do not get auto-notability either. Also according to Hamlet (place), a hamlet in the UK could be nothing more than a house.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:24, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It obviously consists of more than one house in the present day, if anyone would think of looking around, so it's no surprise that sources claim it is a hamlet and/or village.----Pontificalibus 07:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Morvah. It's mentioned as a hamlet back in 1745. As such, I wouldn't classify this as a populated place under GEOLAND#1, but an informal populated place under GEOLAND#2. As such, there is not enough known info to meet GNG or develop and article. It should be mentioned in the article on the recognized populated place in which it is located. MB 02:22, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of "Populated places without legal recognition" are given as "subdivisions, business parks, housing developments, informal regions of a state, unofficial neighborhoods", which clearly is not intended to encompass discrete named settlements with hundreds of years of history of occupation.----Pontificalibus 07:56, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I equate "hamlet" with "informal region"; legally recognized means some formal legal standing, like having a local administration (government). A village usually has a governing body. But a hamlet is just a small grouping of houses. MB 20:05, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an unusual interpretation of "legally recognized". Normally it means "recognized in law", the test being a notional court case where a judge is asked whether this is a populated place in its own right, or merely a part of some other place. If the GEOLAND guidelines intended that notability required a local administration then they would state that (I would note that with the advent of unitary authorities of England there are even large cities in England that lack their own administration). Hamlets have long been recognised in common law as populated places in their own right, for example here where unlike villages they are not required to repair highways.---Pontificalibus 07:35, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - It was and is an actual and distinctive population population center and as such this falls under GEOLAND. That it's since been technically absorbed into the modern municipality of Movrah doesn't negate that. Oakshade (talk) 02:37, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Seems pretty clear from the sources and a quick search on Google Books that this is a place that is distinct from Morvah. Iffy on a merge, but absolutely not a delete. SportingFlyer T·C 13:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The OS classifies it as a settlement but the consensus appears that being an OS settlement isn't enough so if its not deemed notable then redirecting to Morvah seems reasonable as its CP. Crouch, Swale (talk) 11:00, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and redirect to Morvah. What I'm working with is in WP:GEOLAND: "Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low." Key word being legally recognized. The problem is that there doesn't seem to be a case for legal recognition, which means it falls under WP:GNG - and I'm afraid I'm not seeing enough to allow the article to stand on its own, but the content seems to be mergable into the root article for Morvah. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 21:20, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND criteria met Wm335td (talk) 20:21, 24 January 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. Keeping for now. If anyone wants to purpose merge, feel free to do on the article page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:42, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southgate Shopping Center[edit]

Southgate Shopping Center (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Non-notable strip mall. No useful sources other than local newspaper articles mentioning new or closing businesses. Article reads like a business directory with no useful information. —Notorious4life (talk) 18:22, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:30, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'd rather vote to move it to draft for further working. Still needs improvement to fulfill clauses of WP:NBUILD. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:23, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep According to this source, Southgate, Michigan was named after the shopping centre. I'd say that satisfies "historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" for WP:NBUILD.----Pontificalibus 12:37, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment: In my opinion, being the source of a name of something does not create notability for the original source itself. If that were the case, anyone and anything that ever lent its name to any settlement would inherently be notable in itself. —Notorious4life (talk) 19:17, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep this level of coverage has been deemed sufficient for the notability of shopping malls per WP:OUTCOMES. Article can stand to lose some weight, but the coverage is clearly long-lasting and non-trivial. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 03:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep I've found that most mall pages on Wikipedia remain, even those that are more anemic that this one. (See: Yuba Sutter Mall. KidAd (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Though perhaps a little more notability establishment will help in the long-run.TH1980 (talk) 04:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep Somewhat non notable shopping centre but does have some coverage, there are a lot of mall pages on Wikipedia though. Dellwood546 (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to the article on Southgate, Michigan. We have no good reason to cover with two articles what could all be lumped into the article on the place.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:41, 23 January 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. Fails to meet our artist inclusion guidelines, but more importantly, GNG. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:43, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ana Novella[edit]

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

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

completely (never) sourced article, likely paid/autobio and I can't find any sources to support it's inclusion. Praxidicae (talk) 21:42, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 January 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete a quick search turned up nothing. I trimmed the large sections of unsourced material. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• I've restored the list of exhibitions so that other AfD reviewers can assess the subject's notability. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK. I wonder if they are true or not, since there are no sources?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:06, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to tag them as lacking sources, although they're covered by the -- inaccurate -- tag atop the article, and some at least seem to be in the subject's CV, for what that's worth. Espresso Addict (talk) 23:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meh. I removed it because none of the claims are verified, and because they are exceedingly vague (group, solo?). In any case, items like "Museum of Modern Art Rental Gallery, San Francisco, U.S.A." are not going to help much.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found one source, for the fact that she did some paintings for the Maritime Pet Museum. Added.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Strong Delete Voicing ThatMontrealIP. A private BEFORE I conducted shows no evidence of true notability.Celestina007 (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment I've just been rewriting the article because I could find sources about her/her art. Kingsif (talk) 00:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

yes, and the Artepoli source you added is a magazine that offers paid critical reviews for 66 euros: "ARTEPOLI offers: The possibility of presenting a criticism, review or article about his work (maximum 800 words) for printing with at least 2 photographs of his paintings (or fragment, in the case of one of them, if it is beneficial for design). The article would occupy double page. If the text is smaller (600 words, for example) there is an opportunity to incorporate a third work or to increase its size."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removed, thanks! Kingsif (talk) 00:43, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Subject of this article does not meet WP:NARTIST nor GNG; no sigcov in RS. Netherzone (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - zero coverage in any reliable sources. The sources are terrible. Ping me if you find anything we can vet. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 22 January 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. Deleting this one - looks like it might be WP:TOOSOON. WP:REFUND applies. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhavesh Kumar[edit]

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

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

The previous AfD for this article was closed with unanimous consensus to delete, and I'm not seeing any improvement in notability. With only one role in an unreleased movie announced since the previous AfD, Kumar still fails WP:NACTOR and WP:TOOSOON still applies. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• delete and salt despite the interesting claims of being tallest actor in hollywood, He is a real sportsman Junior Discus thrower, and extraordinarily helpful for fellow sports persons, and my favourite: in 2019, being conferred with "Times Education Icons Award" for providing education to poor children since 1922. The subject was born in Nov 2000. Anyways. The subject fails WP:NACTOR, and WP:GNG as well. —usernamekiran(talk) 23:11, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak Keep: Doesn't give much of the depth in coverage. But I guess passes WP:THREE. Lunar Clock (talk) 12:30, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi. WP:THREE is an opinion of an individual editor. —usernamekiran(talk) 22:29, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete for now. 1 movie 1 yet to be released does not make him notable. Maybe in a few years' time when he has made an impact. PenulisHantu (talk)
• Weak Keep: He has starred in one film and has another two films coming out soon in which he will also be starring, it seems. The article may be WP:TOOSOON, but I'm hesitant to vote to "delete", especially since he's already got quite a few references (more than mere in-passing references). Dflaw4 (talk) 10:55, 22 January 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. Closing this one as a keep. If you wish to merge feel free to do so on the talk page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:44, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Australian corporate tax rate[edit]

Australian corporate tax rate (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Copylefted to Taxation in Australia. Therefore WP:OVERLAP applies. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 08:05, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:17, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Question May be I have missed something, but it seems you have essentially done a merge, but not included about 1/3 of the referenced material, and then asked for the original article to be deleted. Why did you not raise a merge proposal on the talk page first? Aoziwe (talk) 12:26, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think this suffices as a general redirect/delete/merge discussion as these outcomes can result from the following discussion. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 18:06, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry but I still do not follow you. "these outcomes" cannot follow if you have pre-empted the "outcome"? Aoziwe (talk) 11:39, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep at least as a redirect per WP:COPYWITHIN because a merge has taken place. Additionally the topic appears notable.----Pontificalibus 06:53, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Pontificalibus. Bookscale (talk) 08:40, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment. It is hard to keep tax articles updated on WP (I have done several); in most cases, it is better to consolidate into the larger "head articles" rather than have individual sub-artices (and also avoids WP:FORKING). However, for sufficiantly developed sub-articles, they are fine to keep. I would be interested to hear from the creator, Enthusiast01. Britishfinance (talk) 19:48, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - the Australian corporate tax rate hasn't changed for 19 years, so it should be easier than some others to maintain. Bookscale (talk) 23:26, 10 January 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. Going to keep this one with the rationale that Leutha says there are more sources - can you please add some? If all else fails, please propose a merge on the article talk page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:05, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social patriotism[edit]

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

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

More accurately described by Left-wing nationalism and Socialist patriotism, concurrently this page has had no references since 2006. - || RuleTheWiki || (talk) 07:36, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CptViraj (📧) 07:41, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: True the page needs references, dating from a period before this was the norm. However, whilst it is a specific form of Left-wing nationalism, it is completely distinct from the Marxist-leninist concept of Socialist patriotism, and thus is in no way accurately described by tither of these terms. It is notable as a specific term used in the debates which arose following the splits in the Socialist International during and following the First World war, and should not be reduced to more general terms such as social chauvinism.Leutha (talk) 12:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Better get some refs on it quick - it won't survive as is. Johnbod (talk) 23:00, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Socialist patriotism. Razer(talk) 08:01, 11 January 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. Missvain (talk) 15:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chong Ah Fatt[edit]

Chong Ah Fatt (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

It’s not clear to me why the subject of this article is notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:45, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Nice resume but a neighborhood council and the other jobs don't quite claim notability. Reywas92^Talk 23:36, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Though a "neighborhood council" chairman in Singapore is equivalent to a mayor due to the size of the country, the person is not a key political player with consequential impact to the country. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Singapore's status as a city-state does not reify its neighbourhood councils into "provincial/state" governments for the purposes of WP:NPOL #1 — it's still a local layer of government, where the notability test is the ability to write a substantive and very well sourced article that contextualizes the person's political importance. But that's not what this is doing: it's basically a prosified résumé, single-sourced to a glancing namecheck of his existence on one page of a book about somebody else. That's not how you show that a politician is notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Non-notable local politician. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 11:37, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no actual claim to notability. The fact that Singapore is a city state does not make community council members "first level sub-national legislators".John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:08, 20 January 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. Farewell Indian Pokémon. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:46, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pokémon in India[edit]

Pokémon in India (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Earlier there were attempts to create a Page Pokemon anime in India ([2]) and now this. Each time no reliable sources are provided to establish the notability. Sid95Q (talk) 21:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:21, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Not sufficient and notable information to substantiate a stand-alone page. Information on this page could be part of the other Pokemon related topics. PenulisHantu (talk) 00:07, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there’s no reason or need to split off Pokémon pages like this. It can be covered at the parent article, or even a “Pokémon by region” type article if need be. But not one for each region. Sergecross73 msg me 01:16, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Non-notable spin-off article. Fails WP:GNG.  Spy-cicle💥  ^Talk? 13:33, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. ミラP 14:58, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - Spinout has not established notability in and of itself. Red Phoenix ^talk 05:38, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete no such distinct franchise for the India market. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 02:54, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• whoever commented delete here, are just jealous of the cuteness of pokemons, as there is nothing at all cute in the game of thrones (except maybe the girl who pretends to be boy, with huge success in fooling everybody). /end humour —usernamekiran (talk) 05:33, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - there's nothing specific about India in here that can't be done in existing pages as noted above. Ravensfire (talk) 14:40, 23 January 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 no consensus. Closing as no consensus. Between WP:LISTN and then citations, wiki links, etc. Feel free to work on improving the article and if that doesn't work out, or you see a strong deletion rationale, please revisit AfD or consider discussing options at the appropriate projects and talk page. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:48, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of REITs in Canada[edit]

List of REITs in Canada (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Unmaintained list of real estate investment trusts (REITs) in Canada with little to no context as to how this list of REITs is significant, what they own, when they were established, or really anything. Most of the list is just a copy+paste dump from the Toronto Stock Exchange indices' lists, including even the section headers. As such, per WP:NOTDIR, this unmaintained list seems rather CRUFTy and, though Wikipedia notionally has "no deadlines," the lack of maintenance in keeping the article up-to-date (or even of an encyclopedic quality) is problematic in that (a) it is dispensing inaccurate information which, in turn, (b) reflects poorly on the encyclopedia. I see no benefit to keeping this unmaintained list and, since consensus can change at any time, any deletion should be without prejudice to re-creating it in the future if someone wants to re-create it, preferably in a wikitable format, with added context, actual and better sourcing, and regular maintenance (at least quarterly).
Friendly pings: SMcCandlish and Piotrus Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Doug Mehus T·C 14:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:36, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Why am I being pinged to this? It doesn't relate to my editing habits/interests or topical expertise. As for the AfD, I would think we'd keep a list of this sort, but police it for WP:NOT#DIRECTORY entries and inaccurate ones, which might pare this down to a fraction of its size. One of the common (but not required) purposes of stand-alone list articles is providing a place to briefly cover things that are at least marginally encyclopedic (do not fail WP:NOT#INDISCRIMINATE) but which do not rise to the level of WP:Notabilty (worthy of a separate article). That said, commerce-oriented lists of this sort sometimes do not do well, and either need to be removed, or need to have inclusion criteria that raise the bar, e.g. only notable entries which aren't redlinks (that is, the list would not be serving a place-for-barely-encyclopedic-entries function). I would think we would try the clean-it-up approach first, then the only-notable-entries approach, then deletion as a last resort.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  18:24, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 16 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. As written, this fails WP:LISTN, no companies there appear notable, so also WP:GNG issues. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• KEEP 12 are blue links so its a valid list, it aiding in navigation. Any entry without its own article should be deleted unless there is a reference proving it is somehow notable enough to be included. Dream Focus 06:36, 17 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete I feel putting blue linked articles into Category:Real estate investment trusts of Canada would be sufficient. Not every category needs to have a list. Uhooep (talk) 21:51, 20 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Uhooep: Can you please clarify the meaning of your !vote, above? Its first sentence has a grammar error (at least one missing word), and it's uncertain how the second relates to the first. It's not even clear how either relates to "delete", since as Dream Focus points out, the list already has a dozen blue-linked (notable) entries, and everyone but the nominator appears to agree with reducing the list (if kept) to only notable entries.  — SMcCandlish ☏ ¢ 😼  21:51, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Piotrus: Similar to the above, can you also clarify what you mean by your argument above that, "no companies there appear notable, so also WP:GNG issues[,]" since WP:GNG does not apply (so much) with respect to navigational aids like lists, and also clarify or expand on how you feel that this article fails WP:LISTN? Doug Mehus T·C 21:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I'm struggling to see a delete rationale above, with the nomination apparently arguing for improvement. We have 12 articles about specific REITs in Canada and there are numerous books on the topic (e.g.[3], [4], [5]).----Pontificalibus 08:05, 20 January 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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:49, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MacvsWindows[edit]

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

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

Defunct website which does not appear to have attracted significant coverage when it exist. Previous AFD a long time ago in 2011 (under a different name) was closed as No Consensus largely on the basis of Keep votes that cited in a criteria in WP:WEB which no longer exists. It does not pass the WP:WEBCRIT as they stand today, nor does it pass WP:GNG. Hug^syrup 10:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Hug^syrup 10:04, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete If the site no longer exists, and not much notability has been established to boot, the article can be trimmed.TH1980 (talk) 04:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Site is now non existent and was never really notable which makes it a prime candidate for deletion. Another problem is that it may confuse users about the article being about a comparison of Mac and Windows. Dellwood546 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 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. Closing keep for now. If merge is of interest, please discuss on article talk page and relevant projects. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2[edit]

Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Nominated both Field Guide: Southern Vehicles 2 and Field Guide: Northern Vehicles 2, near-identical articles with identical problems: a total lack of notability. One very short review in a niche publication, and that's about it. Searching for more sources produces a handful of fan and forum pages[6], and nothing else. Both games supplements lack the required notability to have an article (separate or combined). Fram (talk) 09:50, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:00, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep if more sources can be found, otherwise merge the reviews into Heavy Gear#Publication history. BOZ (talk) 13:46, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As an admin, I would hope that you would know that "keep if more sources exist" is quite a useless vote? If the deletion nomination is because of lack of notability, then stating "keep if notable" is not really helpful at all. Yes, as the article creator you probably want it kept, that's a given, but keeping every piece of trivia and adding any minireview in specialized magazines to main articles violates WP:UNDUE and doesn't actually improve Wikipedia. Fram (talk) 08:48, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep or merge per BOZ. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 06:09, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why keep? What makes you think that these are notable? Fram (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge to Heavy Gear#Publication history. A single source just isn't enough to establish notability. Not a very active user (talk) 06:40, 18 January 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. Keeping. Feel free to discuss merge options on the talk page of the article. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:50, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Fruits (Southern Africa)[edit]

First Fruits (Southern Africa) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Does not meet source requirements with only one source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Splinemath (talk • contribs) 04:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 05:25, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's keep this one as we wait on more sources to materialize.Ndołkah☆ (talk) 05:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:SOURCESEXIST for why this is not a good idea. We'd be better off getting those sources rather than simply waiting. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete. Only one source. I suppose it's a bit difficult to chronicle these traditions all considered, but if we don't have sources we had best not keep this. --Dennis The Tiger (Rawr and stuff) 06:26, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge to Nguni people per WP:PAGEDECIDE. First, let's remember that "the absence of sources or citations in an article (as distinct from the non-existence of sources) does not indicate that a subject is not notable." Second, here are some academic sources: [7] [8] [9] [10]. It's a notable subject. That said, even though the specific practice is notable on its own, WP:PAGEDECIDE suggests that if our readers will benefit from seeing the information in the broader context of a larger article, then we should put the information in the larger article rather than having a separate standalone article. In this case, readers would benefit from seeing why this particular practice is significant within the broader context of Nguni people. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 08:48, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and redirect to Nguni people; the text is fine, but there's not enough here for a stand-alone article. Preserve the text, but there doesn't need to be a stand-alone article with only this much detail. --Jayron32 16:42, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I agree with Indignant Flamingo except for merging. The article passes our notability test and has multiple independent reliable sources substantiating that notability. That is the test, and as such, the article deserves a stand alone just like any other article. Can it be improved? Absolutely! Can more RS be added? Absolutely! However, content issues are not ground for deletion. Senegambianamestudy (talk) 04:08, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Senegambianamestudy: A merge vote is a keep, not a delete, as the content is kept and the title is redirected to the new article. Nothing prevents improvement and expansion of the "First Fruits" section within the Nguni people article after merging, and if the material grew to require its own article based on size or disproportionate treatment, it could be spun back out. There's no good reason to force our readers to go between multiple articles to figure out context and significance, when one well-crafted article would do. As WP:PAGEDECIDE makes clear, having or not having a standalone article is a matter of serving the readers, not of the importance or notability of the subject. Most of us agree that the content is important. A standalone article is not a trophy that a subject "deserves", but one possible way to present information to readers, and in this case, not the best way. Indignant Flamingo (talk) 22:24, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Can we close this discussion? The results are very obviously keep and merge.-Splinemath (talk) 14:09, 18 January 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. Closing this as delete based on Natg_19's support of the nominator. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:51, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Jones (baseball)[edit]

Ryan Jones (baseball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails WP:NBASE and WP:GNG. The only article on him which might pass WP:GNG is the LA Times article from 1999, which is really just a recap of a former local prep sports star which many papers tend to do. There's really nothing indicating he's a notable baseball player whatsoever. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 03:25, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:23, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:52, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Run of the mill minor league baseball player. Fails GNG. Natg 19 (talk) 02:11, 24 January 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 no consensus. Please consider improving the article and if you're struggling to find sources etc, PROD or return to AfD. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:52, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wolftown Committee[edit]

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. This has been tagged as of dubious notability for over a decade and still has no references. Boleyn (talk) 16:57, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 3 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Article is certainly in terrible shape. However, if we consider members Tricksta and Late notable, the group meets WP:BAND #6. There are also a couple of paragraphs in Billboard [11] and this Vanguard review [12], as well as a few interviews. The Vanguard review appears significant, but I'm not sure the interviews or the Billboard blurb are, so I'm going to see what others make of the sources out there, as well as how the Late deletion discussion turns out. Skeletor3000 (talk) 06:21, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as the references found by Skeletor3000 together with passing criteria 6 of WP:NMUSIC make it a borderline keep in my view although the article certainly needs some help in rewriting and expanding, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:13, 8 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• WP:Articles for deletion/Late (rapper) has found him non-notable and it now redirects to Wolftown Committee. Boleyn (talk) 07:18, 13 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Atlantic306, it definitely doesn't meet WP:NMUSIC #6 as individual member s Late and Tricksta have been found non-notable at AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:55, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree, but still believe it is marginally notable with Vanguard and Billboard and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 18 January 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 Draftify.. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:41, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahnenblatt[edit]

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

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

Ahnenblatt is a commercial software. The page has zero independent sources that cover the topic. It is written as a blatant product description.

Source analysis:

1 https://www.ahnenblatt.de/abinfo.htm Company site. Not independent, and broken

2 https://github.com/matthiasbock/python-ahn No prose

3 https://www.ahnenblatt.com/why-is-it-called-ahnenblatt/ Company site. Not independent

In some places it is described as freeware, but it is a for-profit product. [13]

Searching, I can find some very thin reviewing, and no independent coverage. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:25, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• 17 October 2008, the article was PRODded by User:12.76.131.164 with

  "concern = This article was written and edited by the developer of this software. It is nothing but a billboard for his product."

  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:31, 1 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:16, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Weak Delete - Fails software notability because the article is about what its manufacturer says about it, and not what third parties say. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment: I found an independent source covering this.^[1] I don't know if it's reliable, but it's something. Glades12 (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Datormagazin is a RS, but few phrases certainly do not constitute broad enough coverage to establish notability. My search in German and Czech online sources was unsuccessful so far. Too bad, it is really a nice application - fast, with simple UI and powerful features. Pavlor (talk) 08:47, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep: I've added more references — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 14:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• None of the sources you cited (excluding Tech Advisor) seem independent and reliable; thus, they do not demonstrate notability. Glades12 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Tamura Jones is a world-wide recognized technology expert in the field of genealogy software and he annually publishes an online award called GeneAwards. A mention by name is a kind of major international award.^[1]
• Ahnenblatt is the only German software among four others who is asked for to integrate the search technology of MyHeritage (which is one of the big three international online genealogy services in the world)^[2]
• Ahnenblatt is the most popular genealogy software in Germany, is available in more than 20 languages and has users all over the world. Here is a link to an errata German pdf file with the result of a user poll in 2018 of Germans biggest computer genealogy society called 'Verein für Computergenealogie' (normally they publish the results only in a printed magazine - this is only an errata file): ^[3]
• Ahnenblatt has top ratings on online review portal GenSoftReviews, where over 1.000 genealogy software are listed and only a few get an user choice award. Ahnenblatt got this annually since 2012. ^{[4] [5]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 00:54, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Very popular in Germany: Most uploads in 2019 to biggest Germany-located family database (called GEDBAS) came from Ahnenblatt.^[6]
• Very popular in Poland: one of the most popular free genealogy programs in Poland.^[7]
• Yet another software review^[8]
• Some more information about Ahnenblatt's user choice award on GenSoftReviews^[9][10] — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 12:22, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @DiBase: None of those are reliable sources, and popularity is irrelevant to on-wiki notability. Please read the pages I linked here. Glades12 (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I can't see "pages you linked here". There is only one link to download page of (commercial) Datormagazin with only a small text. And this is a more reliable source than a software review of an independant blogger or techexpert? And to have a partnership with one of the biggest world-wide genealogy online services (MyHeritage) is not notable? Yes, I wrote "popular", but this means also a big number of users. Is a big market share not notable?

• I meant in my reply to your first post on this page. Glades12 (talk) 07:44, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Here are some (German) links similar to Datormagazine. Perhaps they can convince you ... ^{[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19]} — Preceding unsigned comment added by DiBase (talk • contribs) 19:14, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• And here are some links to scientific publications found with Google Scholar ^[20]: ^[21][22][23]

• This AfD is being WP:Reference bomb-ed. Some are not worthless (eg http://www.geneapress.com/search?q=Ahnenblatt showing that it is one of multiple similar programs being regularly reviewed, but it is arguable whether review data constitutes secondary source coverage), and others are very likely disallowed "Native advertising", the main sign being download links in the middle of the coverage. I also choke on sources that include hatnotes such as "Ahnenblatt is a free program for genealogy research, with which you can create your personal family tree." This is skirting around the fact that it is for-profit software using the freemium model.

Please, if you think it is notable, meeting WP:GNG, give the WP:THREE best notability-attesting sources, or point to specifics in WP:NSOFTWARE. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:07, 5 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Sorry for reference-bombing. This was not my intention. But I am unsure what you would see as notable or as a reliable source. So far I gave references to awards, blogs, reviews with/without download button, research and education publications. Nothing made you happy so far ...
  • Sorry? You are certainly reference bombing. It takes more effort to explain why each weak source doesn’t demonstrate than it takes for you to list it.

For notability, the source needs to be:

* Reliable, like any source. Not a blog.

* Independent. Independent of the software, it’s authors, distributors, associated company.

* Comment directly on the topic, say something qualitative about the topic.

A reliably published independent review of the software that compares it with similar software would be great.

Please list three (3), not more, that you think seriously meet the above.

Please sign your posts with four tildes (~), which auto converts into a linked dated signature.

—SmokeyJoe (talk) 21:12, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• OK, I give up ... you always will find a reason why a source is not good enough (e.g. Advertising what you forgot to mention in your last posting). DiBase (talk) 22:55, 6 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• DiBase (talk · contribs), don't give up. I have looked at your sources, and some of them are worth serious consideration. Did you read these sources? If yes, surely you had some idea about which included independent commentary. If no, are you admitting to robotically dumping search hits on this discussion? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 00:49, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Yes, I have read all the articles ... from the scientific papers only a few excerpts ...DiBase (talk) 20:07, 7 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• A review I forgot to reference (without any advertising or download button): ^[24]
• About license model: Ahnenblatt was initial released 2001 as freeware. In May 2019 (after 18 years being free) the new version 3 was published commercial, while the last free version 2.99 staid still available for download for free. If you find older references, Ahnenblatt is called freeware - and that was true at that time.

• Move to draft, pending addition of sources that meet the standards of AFC reviewers. BD2412 T 03:57, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree with this. Most of the offered sources won’t do, but I haven’t systematically reviewed all 24, and the proponent doesn’t seem to understand the request to nominate the best. It could be that in choosing the best, he agreed that the best aren’t good enough? —SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:12, 25 January 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. Deleting this one, the sources surely don't help the subject pass GNG. However, WP:REFUND applies if anyone can find the right "type" of sources. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:54, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frysk Puzelwurdboek[edit]

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

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

I can only find one, one-paragraph review of this book (see here). buidhe 13:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. buidhe 13:55, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 22:37, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:18, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Page creator added two sources. The first source has only two sentences about the subject:

  Yn 1992 is it Frysk Puzelwurdboek fan Douwe vander Meulen ferskynd. Dat wurdboek is út soarte ornearre foar puzelders, martrochdat it in soad synonimen jout en ek wurden oarderet neffens rubriken lyk-as fartugen, klean en lichemsdielen is it Puzelwurdboek in tige wolkommeoanfolling op ’e hânwurdboeken fan ’e FA

In 1992 is het Frysk Puzelwurdboek van Douwe van der Meulen versche-nen. Dat woordenboek is uiteraard bedoeld voor puzzelaars, maar door-dat het veel synoniemen geeft en ook woorden ordent volgens rubrie-ken als vaartuigen, kleding en lichaamsdelen, is het Puzelwurdboek een wel-kome aanvulling op de handwoordenboeken van de FA.

These are just passing mentions, not significant coverage in my opinion. buidhe 07:17, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• • Actually, they mean exactly the same thing, the first in Frisian and the second in Dutch. buidhe 07:42, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep more references have been made, based on the reliable source coverage. Meets WP:GNG. Kees Swart (talk) 07:39, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • All of the significant coverage combined makes three short paragraphs from two sources. Not enough for GNG imo. buidhe 07:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Two more references/sources are added.Kees Swart (talk) 06:30, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

      Unless I'm missing something, this looks like passing mention in a reliable source and this is a self-published website (not RS). buidhe 06:37, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Other sources exist, specifically the Netherlands Wikipedia article has fours sources available to verify the article. scope_creep^Talk 12:35, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  No, if you check you would see that the four sources are the same ones cited in this article. buidhe 13:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete Regrettably. Wikipedia is not a library catalogue, and this book does note meet GNG. -- Sirfurboy (talk) 17:34, 16 January 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. Keeping based on the rationale presented by Mark_viking. Feel free to improve. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:55, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Applied Logic Corporation[edit]

Applied Logic Corporation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Old declined prod. No evidence this company passes WP:GNG/WP:NCOMPANY. Few mentions in passing/old press releases and their rewrites along the 'business as usual' lines. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:31, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, I just added a couple of references in scholarly books plus extra material. Peter Flass (talk) 23:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Peter, from what I see here you've added 2 refs: [14]. And the only time it mentions the company is in the section "NEW DECUS MEMBERS". This is not even a mention in passing, but the worst possible google hit (that one or two employees of that company joined that mailing list or whatever that DECUS was). This is not helpful. Second is a bit better ([15]), as in, it's a full sentence... but it is still a far cry from requirement of in-depth coverage. One sentence is hardy anywhere close.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep – kind of stubby, but an important early computing company. Dicklyon (talk) 02:35, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:ITSIMPORTANT is right there on the list of bad AfD arguments. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Peter Flass' good faith attempts at adding scholarly journal references are useful, but scholarly journal references do not establish notability unless they are an at length and in-depth article about this company to write more than a stub- or start-class article, per WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:SIGCOV. No evidence notability is met here. Doug Mehus T·C 03:49, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Concur. The one-sentence mentions that a group at this company developed some novel tech or such is not sufficient to make the company notable, plus the focus of those sentences is about a group, not company, so WP:NOTINHERITED too. That said, does anyone has access to [16]? There is something about the company there, but I can't tell through the snippet view if it's a two sentence PR blurb or an actual in-depth analysis of sorts. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: Per Dicklyon ... (I think it was me who declined the prod).Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:KEEPPER for a bad argument... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:00, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak keep The company is defunct since 1975. I assume there are offline sources from the 60s and 70s. I found some short news in the Computerworld magazine, so there are at least some RS even for the lazy kids of the internet age. Pavlor (talk) 09:24, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pavlor, could you link said Computerworld issue/page? It has not been added to the article and my search fails to find anything substantial. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pavlor: We have to prove those offline sources exist. So, I look at it, how substantive is this article? Per the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James H. Stuart, a result of "delete" should be without prejudice to someone, presumably in California or wherever this company was based, going to their local library and looking up on microfilm/microfiche for sources and trying again. Failing that, a draftification or userification potentially could be a reasonable result; however, again, there's nothing in this article intellectually creative that's worthy of preserving attribution history here. Doug Mehus T·C 20:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Until someone goes to that library (I can´t as I´m on the other side of the Ocean), I assume there are sources (the few I saw indicate this is really plausible). As there is no harm in keeping this article, keep is my default stance. Pavlor (talk) 08:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES is not a good argument. The responsibility to go the library lies no the article's creator or those wanting to keep it, per WP:V. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep (edit conflict)Company meets our notability requirement WP:BARE. Pre-internet company so sources were hard to come by, however there is Computerworld magazine and some book entries. And notability is not temporary. Wm335td (talk) 20:55, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please explain how this meets notability, so far you offered just an assertion.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment. Closing admin is reminded that WP:NOTAVOTE, given that effectively all keep but the first one arguments so far seem to be taken straight from Wikipedia:Arguments to make in deletion discussions. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:44, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep Thoe company is known for its timesharing systems and its automated theorem provers. In the timesharing domain, Auerbach's guide to timesharing, p. 68-69 has about a page on the company and its timesharing services as well as mentions throught the book. Physics Today, SHOPPING FOR A TIME-SHARING SERVICE, p.42-43 also displays them as one of the major timesharing services. In the theorem proving field, [17] by Mackenzie has a few paragraphs about the SAM series of provers and notes the "SAM's lemma" was "was widely hailed as the first contribution of automated reasoning systems to mathematics." A Short Survey of Automated Reasoning (a few paragraphs) noted that the SAM series was one of the first interactive theorem provers and and had influence on subseequent theorem provers. An SEC newsletter p.2 from the time has some basics on the company financials and services. There was one other source, the book "Mathematical Software" by John R Rice, 1971, that looks like it may have some more coverage, but I don't have access. All the sources I had access to demonstrate notability and impact of the company, and I think add up to modest but sufficient notability to have an article per WP:GNG. Research was a part of this company's impact and independent sources noting that are excellent and on target for notability; in this I disagree with some of the above editors dismissive attitudes towards scholarly publications. The article itself is a well-referenced stub and has no problems. A notable topic and an article with no major problems suggests keeping the article. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 14:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's Mark, good stuff there and seems to have sorted Wikipedia:Don't bludgeon the process stuff that was going on. Re-enforce's my keep !vote above.Djm-leighpark (talk) 22:12, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep per Mark Viking. Toughpigs (talk) 17:14, 18 January 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. There is a fair consensus for keeping the article, after extended time for discussion. Advocates of deletion note that notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, but the extent to which this applies to the notability of a company that manufactures notable products is unclear. Examples suggest that the notability of the manufacturer does not render its product notable, but it does not appear to be as well-established that notability of the product is equally ineffective with regard to notability of its manufacturer. A rename has been proposed after other editors presented their opinions, and should be re-filed as a WP:RM. BD2412 T 03:52, 25 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypex Electronics[edit]

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

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

Prod removed with some new references, but I am afraid they are still not in-depth about the company and/or press releases or based on such (WP:ROUTINE business as usual). So I am still concerned this fails WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. Let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:38, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:39, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep A Google News search for "hypex ucd" brings back many detailed sources that can be used to expand the article. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 13:05, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Ritchie333: You should now better that WP:GOOGLETEST is not sufficient. Which sources are good? "AVHub (press release)"? "AVHub (press release)"? Also, those are reviews of a product (Hypex UcD). A product can be notable while its parent company is not, per WP:NOTINHERITED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep I think the IEEE Spectrum article has quite substantial coverage. The wiki article had some marketing language, but that is now removed, and the wiki article has been here since 2005. Apoc2400 (talk) 14:54, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Apoc2400: You know that WP:NOTINHERITED? The article is about a specific product (Philips UcD Audio Amplifier) which may be notable. That article contains about one and a half sentences about Hypex: "One of those early licensees was an audio startup called Hypex Electronics. Hypex soon began producing a version of the UcD...". This is not in-depth, significant coverage as required by GNG and like. Seriously, how can you argue that one and a half sentences represent "quite substantial coverage" coverage? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:46, 10 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The article is about a specific product (Philips UcD Audio Amplifier) which may be notable" - As you can see, I have expanded the article to include other products mentioned in audio specialist magazines. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:22, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep for now the company products gets reviewed in the places where one would expect, like Guitar World Magazine, Audio Express, their components used in other products like this one at Sterophile Magazine. Wm335td (talk) 21:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep and rename to Hypex UcD. The article is currently mostly about the company's UcD products and the reliable sources noted above by other editors are also mostly about the company's products, so morphing this article via a rename to focus on the notable content and available sourcing seems a reasonable way to preserve, rather than delete, verifiable information per our policy WP:ATD. --((u|Mark viking)) {Talk} 01:49, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete There are no references that provide significant coverage with in-depth information on the *company* and containing independent content on the *company* and while a lot has been written about the products (as noted by the Keep !voters above), this does not translate as notability for the company. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:05, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There are no references that provide significant coverage" .... "while a lot has been written about the products" - surely without the former, the latter would be impossible. The review of the Hypex NCore 400 kit (that I just added to the article) would certainly seem to be "significant coverage", and neutral, giving it criticised the lack of inputs other than XLR on the module. The assertion that writing about the products cannot be done in an article about the parent company seems incorrect based on other articles I have improved to rescue from AfD, including Kelly's of Cornwall and Lees of Scotland. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 12:06, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the guidelines, there's nothing specific that says a review of a product/service/etc cannot be used to establish notability of the company but in my opinion, for that to occur, the review must provide information on the company itself that meets the criteria (significant, in-depth, independent content). WP:PRODUCT makes it clear that information on a product may be included in the article about the company but that if the product is notable in its own right it may also have its own separate article. In summary, while we have references that discuss the products of this company, we have still not found any references *about the company* that meet the criteria for establishing notability. As such, the company fails the criteria for notability and articles about their products (that do not provide coverage on the company) do not confer notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:01, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I concur, with stress on WP:YELLOWPAGES/WP:NOTINHERITED. A product can be notable while its producer is not, just like a notable book does not make its author notable automatically, etc. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:03, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a good example? Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 15:18, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most architects firms (who worked on famous buildings), record labels (who have famous artists), art galleries (who exhibited a famous art work), some manufacturers of popular consumer goods such as the Rubik's Cube ... there's loads of examples. Hang around AfD long enough and you'll see for yourself. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have separate articles on Ernő Rubik, Rubik's Cube and Ideal Toy Company (manufacturers of the cube). Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 19:25, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I saw a lot of articles about video games (or board games) that are notable but their publishers are not. Of course, sometimes it may mean the article needs to be created, but for most small companies, it's rather hard. For example, Scythe (board game) is a major board game title, but I doubt its publisher is notable, ditto for the designer. Or consider GMT Games. A bunch of titles it publishes are notable, but frankly, that article does not suggest the company is (but I haven't researched it yet). Or Polanie (video game), a cult Polish video game, whose publisher is certainly no notable... Or the publisher of Bleach: Brave Souls that I recently stubbed, through again, I haven't researched the company yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 20:23, 23 January 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. Closing based on weak notability case. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:58, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jules Larson[edit]

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

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

I spent some time searching for sources here and I can't find anything in the way of coverage about this Jules Larson. I had expected to find something but alas, here we are. She has never charted and aside from "heard on xxxxxx" sites, I can't find anything that even verifies her music having appeared on the shows, which while an indicator of possibly being notable, doesn't actually make someone notable. Praxidicae (talk) 19:33, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She obviously fails all of the WP:SINGER criteria except for the 10: Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. But as it's the only claim, it leads us to WP:1E. Now - are the movies and TV-shows she wrote songs for notable enough to secure her an article? Less Unless (talk) 20:32, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She didn't write the theme for any of them, she just had a song appear (supposedly) in an episode of each. So I'm not sure it even makes the mark of 10. Praxidicae (talk) 20:38, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete nothing even close to showing notability. No reliable sources at all. I am familiar with Switched at Birth, and this was not a musical production. I doubt having a song that appeared in an episode somewhere is a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:41, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Weak delete per WP:MUSICBIO. I found some coverage - Taylor Swift is a fan - but not much. Bearian (talk) 20:42, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete. Her transient claim to notability under criterion 10 of MUSICBIO is not enough to trump her blatant lack of SIGCOV per GNG. Anyone with a formidable manager can have a soundbite played on any TV show, not to mention all coverage (except some 2017 article about her marching for trans health) is from almost a decade ago, and there's been nothing since. Therefore I support its deletion. PK650 (talk) 22:36, 22 January 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 deleted (written by banned/blocked) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:34, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Reina Shaw[edit]

La Reina Shaw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Notability is derived from relationship with Cam Newton and this subject likely should redirect to that page. News results for this subject almost invariably relate to subject's relationship with Cam Newton.

If this article IS retained, it has major problems with sourcing (absent and deprecated) and tone (decidedly non-encyclopedic, more like an attack piece) and likely requires a complete rewrite.

For what it's worth, the article's creator User:Greentiger1122 is indeffed as one of dozens of sockpuppets of also-indeffed User:New Editor 121. Damon Killian (talk) 19:03, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:23, 17 January 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. WP:SNOW close. Obviously unencyclopedic WP:LISTCRUFT that should be speedily deleted. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 20:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usa cities favorite nfl teams[edit]

Usa cities favorite nfl teams (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Pure WP:LISTCRUFT GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Completely unencyclopedic. WP:LISTCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 18:20, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy delete Dude, why did you think "Usa cities favorite nfl teams" needed a discussion?!? Reywas92^Talk 19:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: Because it doesn't meet any specific CSD criteria and I figured it would be quicker for it to be WP:SNOW deleted than wait for a PROD to expire or for someone to remove the PROD and trigger an AfD. GPL93 (talk) 19:39, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. The only thing that could make this any worse is if it included Minas Tirith's preferences. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:45, 17 January 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. Keeping as passing GNG based on sources presented. Please improve. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 15:59, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Shetler[edit]

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

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

This article lacks independent sources, and the first two pages of Google hits provide only more of the same kind of thing it currently has: artist-provided bios, directories and listings. Created by a likely PR account. Guy (help!) 17:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Soft Keep Keep. This is what I've found on him. The mentions, however, are not significant in terms of Wikipedia. But I think it's enough to keep it. Maybe there are more I couldn't find. PS. Changed to keep after studying the subject more precise and adding refs to the article.

• | The New York Times
• | BBC Music
• | The Guardian
• | Der Standard
• | Book "Art Song: Linking poetry and Music
• | New York Magazine

Less Unless (talk) 20:48, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Less Unless: can you please correct some of the links above that are 404s Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic306 , thank you. Now it seems to work fine. Less Unless (talk) 08:24, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep the links work in the article including reviews of his performances in The Guardian and The New York Times and other coverage in The New Yorker and German newspapers so he seems to be notable at an international level and deserves to be included, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:12, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per above; enough coverage to satisfy the WP:GNG. But also - and not that this is an argument to keep this article - Shetler accompanied such renowned musicians as Fischer-Dieskau, Schreier, Rothenberger, Milstein, etc. Zingarese talk · contribs 15:52, 18 January 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. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:00, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twist & Shout Records[edit]

Twist & Shout Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Lack of significant coverage by reliable third party sources. Most coverage I found was either mentioning that a concert or event was happening there, not actual coverage of the business. Other mere mentions don't get it past WP:CORPDEPTH. May be notable some day, but not yet. Niteshift36 (talk) 17:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:23, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete - There are lots of record stores across the world, and almost none of them have pages. I don't think this one is nearly notable enough. Poydoo (talk) 18:09, 17 January 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. Missvain (talk) 16:01, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Studatour[edit]

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

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

Out of the current five sources in the article, three were written by the company's CEO, one appears to be a press release, and one is a 'company profile'. None of this meets WP:CORPDEPTH. I'm cognizant that reliable sources for African subjects can be difficult to come by, so I looked carefully for anything that could support this article meeting WP:NCORP, but I didn't find anything better. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:44, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete: A listing-type article describing a company's wares. The sources are a mix of promotional postings and a first-person-voice description of a tour trip, so falling under primary sources. The firm is mentioned in a brief profile piece about the founder and his wider career (Inter-News Network, December 2018) but that too falls short of WP:CORPDEPTH as a source. A firm which has provided small-group tours over the past decade, but falls short of demonstrable notability. AllyD (talk) 12:37, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. A non-notable agency that lacks coverage in reliable sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 10:45, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Voicing rationale put forward by Versace1608 as without coverage in reliable sources this collaborative project is doomed. Celestina007 (talk) 15:57, 24 January 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. Keeping. Please consider improving with French language (Google Translate, baby!) sources. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:02, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alana Filippi[edit]

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

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

Per WP:SBST Routine reporting, such as these covering her death, do not constitute substantial coverage. If that were true then anyone who died would have an article. However the PROD was challenged on the idea that a single obituary would be enough. We do however now have enough references to use on wikidata to give her the writing credits. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Comment Her name brings a number of hits in Google Books, but they're in French, so I can't comment on their content. Nothing in the Proquest Entertainment Industry Magazine Archive. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:10, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• The nomination statement misrepresents my reasons for contesting the WP:PROD template, and I don't know where the nominator gets the ideas that an obituary is the same as a news report of a death, and that "anyone who died" gets an obituary in a major national newspaper. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:22, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed that it isn't a typical obituary... I can't even read French and I can see it's not some list of survivors, charity, fate of the remains. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:27, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The examples that you give are what you see in a typical death notice, not what you see in a typical obituary. They are very different things, and I don't understand why so many Wikipedia editors don't understand the difference. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:31, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not quite it. Death notices are typically names, ages; times and locations of interment; they are unpaid and are therefore basic as can be to communicate the death to the public. Obituaries have more information {as I listed above}, possibly with more of a write-up on the person's life and accomplishments, often but not always because someone paid. Full, feature obituaries on prominent persons are less likely to be generated from content given by the family. The write up on Filippi appears to be a feature obituary or news item, which is a stronger case for notability than a sponsored obituary or a death notice. Most editors on here don't use either frequently enough to notice a difference. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 17:43, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but you have obituaries and death notices the wrong way round. Obituaries (at least in serious major national newspapers like Le Figaro) are descriptions of the life of someone who has died written by a journalist or someone independently commissioned by a newspaper's editorial staff. Death notices are what are written and paid for by families, and are clearly marked as classified ads. One of the things that has amazed me since I started editing Wikipedia is that there are people who don't understand this simple difference. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now how can I have it the wrong way around when I say there are 3 different types and I've agreed with you so much? ;) Perhaps things are different in France, but in the US, we have death notices, lengthier paid pieces called obituaries written about ordinary people, and then longer obituaries about well-known people that focus on their accomplishments. Wikipedia's article on obituaries may shed some light. I've paid for (the writing of and access to) enough to know a death notice is good for little but that obituaries have broken down many a research brick wall. And that full or feature obituaries in major publications indicate notability... Good luck with the AfD and conveying notability. I'm out.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Getting back on topic, she was very well known to the general public in France, and her obituary was widely published. She wrote a significant number of hit songs for artists who are themselves notable, such as Jenifer, Calogero, Grégory Lemarchal and Jean-Jacques Daran (who was apparently her husband/companion at some point; no article in English, but a long a detailed one in French). She also seems to have won a number of awards for her songwriting. See for example: [18], [19], [20], [21], [22] etc. Obviously all the sources are in French, but that doesn't impinge on her notability. --Xuxl (talk) 21:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as has reliable sources coverage such as Le Figaro and the multiple sources identified above that show the many awards she won, so there is no need for deletion imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:04, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:14, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep several sources indicate notability per above. —Jonny Nixon (talk) 03:01, 22 January 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. Appears to be WP:TOOSOON WP:REFUND applies of subject makes the big time. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:03, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Sammak[edit]

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

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

Non-notable writer who fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. The subject has songwriting credits with some notable artists, but I was not able to find any significant coverage of him in independent sources. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Wikipedia:Notability states that and i quote The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums.. The subjects contribution the Justin bieber's Song Yummy is verifiable on Billboard, point (A) being met when the lyrics that the subject wrote for the Song mentioned above Rose to number 2 on Billboard's charts, and point (B) is validated by the fact that the song Yummy has a huge following (over 80 millions views on Youtube/has it's own Wikipedia article that links back to the subject that is being deleted. As far as notability goes, according to General notability guideline, the second point covers editorial integrity, i cited Billboard and kkbox which are reputable sources of information in the music world and i quote :Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability. I do not believe we need tens or hundreds of sources to make a subject notable , just one or two reliable ones are enough--Nimroftem (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, per nom. The whole question of notability is the contribution to one song. This falls under WP:ONEEVENT, there needs to be evidence of sustained coverage, and that's not present. Ifnord (talk) 23:13, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep The question of notability is not just the contribution to one song, in fact few songs, also in the article there is a mention of a book written by the subject and reference to it, so i disagree that it falls under WP:ONEEVENT--Nimroftem (talk) 01:22, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete After I had removed tumblr, instagram, and the cowriting of yummy with two other people, there was almost nothing left at all, and certainly nothing that I could see that contributes to notability. There is only one copy in total of one book by the subject held across all major libraries in Australia, and looks like for the purposes of notability a non event, so the cowriting is a single event. Perhaps TOOSOON? Aoziwe (talk) 10:09, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Insufficient independent sources and at this point, does not meet WP:GNG. PenulisHantu (talk) 16:28, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• the sources are independent enough ( google books, Billboard..) i did not fabricate those. Aoziwe what are you talking about? removing tumblr, instagram? how is that related to this subject?--Nimroftem (talk) 17:42, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When I did seaches I discounted all the self published and dubious reliabilty or non reliable sites that come up referrring to the subject. Aoziwe (talk) 03:29, 23 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Per arguments above and because the subject has (very likely) promoted themselves various times in the past on Wikipedia without any valid secondary sources to back them up.--DovahDuck (talk) 18:15, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• I wanted to add that I removed the KKbox references from the article due to information in this link: https://help.kkbox.com/sg/en/function/playing-setting/1936 The company gets it lyrics and credits via member submittions, thus making its usage as a secondary source unreliable. I'm pretty sure that Billboard just copied down the lyrics and credits from a lyrics site (possibly the aforementioned one) due them having gotten credits wrong in the past and due to literally no other reliable secondary sources mentioning Noah as a writer in any of the songs that he has been claimed to write on. They have also contradicted themselves multiple times in the past in articles, so they're reliability is questionable on occasion.--DovahDuck (talk) 18:49, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - Charitably it is too soon under Wikipedia's rules for notability. Yes, he has gotten some real co-writing credits for songs by Bieber and a few others, and that is accurately reflected in the media, but nobody has done any "who is this guy?" investigation on him specifically, in order to provide reliable and significant media coverage to confer notability. I also concur with the previous voters on the status of his book, which is probably a self-promoted vanity publication and it if it wasn't, it still has not received any reliable media coverage either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:37, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:SIGCOV. I found nothing in Google newspapers, nothing relevant/reliable on books, and two unreliable sources on news. Bearian (talk) 20:47, 22 January 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. Darn, I guess my hope for finding sugar daddy or momma is going to have to be delayed yet again. I kid, I kid... deleting based on the fine rationales presented below. The World's Billionaires already exists. Thanks everyone for contributing and assuming good faith! Missvain (talk) 16:04, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of richest people in the world[edit]

List of richest people in the world (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

I don't know that I expect this will be uncontroversial, but I don't really see the point in this list. The Manual of Style discourages us from using these types of time specifications at all, and we're not really in the business of providing "real time" lists that need to be updated by the minute.

The scope of the article is entirely confined to the report of Forbes, and from what I can tell, this content is already better covered in The World's Billionaires about the Forbes source itself. That article does a much better job of structuring pretty much the same information in a stable encyclopedic format, reporting each year rather than trying to have a "real time" ticker maintained of who is what at this very second.

As it stands, this article just straddles the line between excessive listings of unexplained statistics with little to no encyclopedic context, and timely news on who's who. GMG^talk 16:14, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Redundant to The World's Billionaires. Not even a newspaper carries a day-by-day ranking. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:50, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Clarityfiend: When there are changes at the top of the rankings there are some articles published like the original ^[1] and this other one republished by newspapers ^[2] Wykx (talk)

• Delete. because The World's Billionaires article does it better so this WP:REDUNDANT. Wm335td (talk) 21:16, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CAPTAIN RAJU: Perhaps better but not completely the same, since my subsequent merger proposal. Wykx (talk)

• Comment When one's nomination for deletion of a page title contains the phrase, "As it stands," it should be a clue that one should be posting comments or an RFC on the article's Talk page instead. AfD is not for cleanup. With the obvious exceptions of copyvio or BLP vio or some other clear and present danger, of course. Anarchangel (talk) 02:19, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  @Anarchangel: "As it stands" refers to the scope of the article. GMG^talk 11:35, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge The The World's Billionaires starts with "List of richest people" redirects here. For a real-time list, see List of richest people in the world. Maybe we could integrate the content of real time rankings in one section of 'The World's Billionaires' knowing that for example the richest man in the world is now Bernard Arnault but this information is not anywhere else than in the current article. Thus this information is of value when looking information of 'richest people in the world'. Wykx (talk)

• I can't think of any statistic we keep track of in realtime. That's not something an encyclopedia does. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:12, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is the richest people in the world's name a statistic? Wykx (talk)

• Okay, ranking then. No day-by-day, week-by-week or even month-by-month rankings. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:07, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• The problem is that there are multiple overlapping problems in scope all at the same time.

• WP:NOTNEWS - This is essentially a running news ticker, that is fundamentally transient has no enduring value to any revision of the page.
• WP:REALTIME - The list is both ambiguous to readers, at least to any reader who doesn't know how to check the article history, because it's not really real time, nothing on Wikipedia truly is, and is only current as of the last good revision. As is inherently the problem with real time content, it simply cannot ever reach any version that is both stable and educationally useful.
• WP:INDISCRIMINATE - There is almost no encyclopedic prose that can ever be useful here, and what is here is fairly arbitrary. We highlight richest woman, while Forbes themselves highlight people by gender, by country, by newcomers, by age, and by sector. We've chosen to limit the article to 20 for no apparent objective reason. Forbes has only 20 on the first page, but they don't limit it to only 20. It's not clear why we choose to highlight a few companies in particular, when Forbes doesn't seem to do this at all.
• WP:ARTICLESABOUTONESOURCE - This is such a rare problem that we don't even have any guidance for it at all, though it probably also falls under INDISCRIMINATE in principle. We simply don't have articles where the scope is limited to a single source unless the article is about that source. We already have an article about the source at The World's Billionaires, and this isn't actually a list of the richest people, it's a list of the richest people according to Forbes, for no apparent objective reason preferring Forbes to any other source where they may disagree. We have similar articles, like 100 Women (BBC), but that is again about the source itself. The analogous article there would be something like List of most important women, where when you get into the fine print, it's actually List of important women according to the BBC.

• Merging this with the article on the source may solve some of those problems, but it doesn't solve the remainder. GMG^talk 13:22, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Trying to maintain this in real time is like having an article that tries to keep track of the current Dow Jones average: Impossible and not very useful. WQUlrich (talk) 04:23, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete', since as Wm335td points out :"The World's Billionaires article does it better so this WP:REDUNDANT". Net worth of these individuals fluctuates with every stock market move and a dynamic real time list is a maintenance issue.--Eostrix (talk) 07:04, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per WP:FORK, although if you insist, redirect instead. Bearian (talk) 20:49, 22 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete A list of the richest people according to one source, with figures that change literally every day and therefore will always potentially be out of date, isn't a particularly useful article, and isn't what Wikipedia is for. Neiltonks (talk) 14:51, 24 January 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. Article deleted by User:Deb per WP:G4. (non-admin closure) _{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 15:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MADELA[edit]

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

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

This is a recreation of an article previously deleted at AfD. However, I don't think that G4 applies here, and the subject still fails WP:NVG. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GeoffreyT2000 (talk) 15:54, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Indeed G4 does not apply here. ​Please do not reference WP:NVG as it is an essay, not a guideline or policy. The lack of existence of reliable sources covering the topic in-depth, as in the WP:GNG, is sufficient to call for deletion. (See [23] the WP:VGSE.) --Izno (talk) 15:59, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Small indie games need definitive secondary, third-party sourcing to pass the GNG, and this doesn't appear to have any. --Masem (t) 21:58, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Delete and Salt per WP:G4. The original rationale for deletion has not been addressed, and cannot be addressed. This title obviously does not qualify for GNG and never will. Recreating it after an AFD was an abuse of process, and a sad attempt at PROMO editing. (Notice that the original article was also salted with the comment "Repeatedly recreated".) ApLundell (talk) 23:34, 17 January 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 Glossary of association football terms. Missvain (talk) 16:07, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International A Match[edit]

International A Match (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Delete. This is an obscure, anachronistic term that is not worth an article. At best, it could be included in a glossary. I believe the correct term for an official international match is Tier One – involving any match between the full representative teams of two FIFA member countries. The sources given are primary and one of them is unobtainable while the other does not provide any useful verification. Fails both WP:V and WP:Notability. No Great Shaker (talk) 15:11, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete. Article in its current form contributes nothing to the encylopedia and doesn't demonstrate why an article is needed on this topic. --LukeSurl ^{t c} 15:49, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment - alternatives to deletion should be considered here. if Tier One is the proper name, the article should be renamed. If the article doesn't contain useful data, improve the article. ~Kvng (talk) 16:18, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect to Glossary of association football terms as possible search term, creating an entry there for this (or 'Tier 1' or however you want to word it). GiantSnowman 10:12, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete Not enough people are looking at this page to require a redirect. Govvy (talk) 10:18, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CHEAP. GiantSnowman 10:57, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Redirect as per GS, both their !vote and comment right above. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 14:46, 18 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Redirect - no need for a standalone article -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:13, 23 January 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 Already speedy deleted by User:Jimfbleak per WP:G12. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 02:22, 19 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idin Samimi Mofakham[edit]

Idin Samimi Mofakham (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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