User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention

Below are the top 25 AfD discussions which are most urgently in need of attention from !voters. The urgency for each AfD is calculated based on various statistics, including current number of votes, time until closing date, number of times relisted, overall discussion length, etc. This page is updated by a bot roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 16:49, 25 February 2019 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
David Olshanetsky	5 years ago	0	4651	2	433.83
Manfredi Aliquò	5 years ago	0	2029	0	389.45
Preet Hundal	5 years ago	1	3313	2	388.4
Will Gray	5 years ago	1	6168	3	381.44
PriMedia Inc	5 years ago	0	3122	0	372.37
Peter Church	5 years ago	1	3765	1	371.29
North American Women's Baseball League	5 years ago	1	3143	0	359.7
The Fertility Chase	5 years ago	1	1951	0	356.27
Dinesh Vaswani	5 years ago	1	1619	0	355.28
Medical Officer (AYUSH)	5 years ago	0	1342	0	354.87
Christopher Forgues	5 years ago	1	3271	0	353.84
Amro Music	5 years ago	1	6278	1	353.33
Asgaard (PMC)	5 years ago	0	1746	0	349.8
1991 Whitby municipal election	5 years ago	1	4396	0	345.18
Technology company - Imposed Fines	5 years ago	1	3100	0	340.05
Archana Jois	5 years ago	1	2811	0	339.02
Traditional easy-swim styles	5 years ago	1	2336	0	335.07
Bongo Exclusive (2nd nomination)	5 years ago	0	2480	0	326.9
Kettle Restaurants	5 years ago	1	1964	0	325.42
Demo Castellon	5 years ago	1	1855	0	322.11
Chendooram	5 years ago	0	5354	0	318.78
Det 20. århundrede – De 100 mest betydningsfulde personer i Danmark	5 years ago	0	1634	0	318.31
Pop the Q	5 years ago	1	1727	0	313.81
Groww	5 years ago	0	3612	1	310.42
Omid 16B	5 years ago	0	6695	0	309.86

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against renomination. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:04, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

David Olshanetsky

David Olshanetsky (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 is a WP:BLP that contains 1 third party source. Quick google-fu only shows articles that talk about the same event as the bbc article and interviews with the subject. Additionally, the article is heavily promotional. Almost every sentence is non-encyclopedic and most of the claims are not backed up by even the unreliable sources. For example "He is the first Tumblr influencer to have approved for the new partner program with the campaign starting at V Festival with support from ASOS" is not backed up by any source at all and just links to a post from the concert on the subject's Tumblr page. If I were to remove all non-sourced content from the article, the only thing left would be a sentence based on the bbc article, and that is not nearly enough to qualify for WP:GNG. SWL36 (talk) 18:33, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 19:32, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 20:45, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:55, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Originally looking at the article, the sources are terrible. The only acceptable one is the BBC article. But with a search, there's coverage in Metro, V Magazine, Gay Times, Billboard, and Cosmo. Those sources talk about the anit-homophobia work, his tumblr, starting a podcast, signing a book deal, and being an influencer. --Kbabej (talk) 21:19, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:28, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:14, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Manfredi Aliquò

Manfredi Aliquò (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)

An Italian voice actor. No coverage other than lists of roles found. None of his film roles appear prominent enough to meet WP:ENT. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:17, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:24, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 00:06, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 06:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Preet Hundal

Preet Hundal (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)

Lacking sourced and it obviously fails WP:NACTOR. Sheldybett (talk) 04:22, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 05:55, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 06:26, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
• He is very popular Punjabi lyricst and singer. I updated more information. ਗੁਰਪ੍ਰੀਤ ਹੁੰਦਲ (talk) 13:53, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TonyBallioni (talk) 05:05, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I do not see any notability. Fails WP:NMG. --Hiwilms (talk) 17:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

I’m confused once again which are the three links that are mistakes and the list of magicians you mentioned are just a list of magicians on Wikipedia which he wouldn’t appear at the top of with his surname beginning with G — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vanishingrabbit (talk • contribs) 00:01, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Will Gray

Will Gray (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)

Primary sources only, except a few passing mentions. Searching did not find significant independent coverage in RS. Major contributor is a SPA, probably with a COI. MB 14:37, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The subject does appear to have been awarded membership of the very select Inner Magic Circle. It's just possible that that might be deemed suitable under WP:ANYBIO "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times." Nick Moyes (talk) 01:59, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:45, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Not sure if this is where I need to put this but there is now a photo and citation link to the magic circle public members list showing Will Gray holds MIMC with Gold Star which considering there's thousands of magicians in the magic circle theres only a select few with this award i.e. Dynamo, Paul Daniels, Tommy Cooper, Prince Charles, David Berglas.. Thank you for any help.--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 19:45, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:04, 4 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs participation
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:41, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Two of three incoming links were mistakes. The third is from List of magicians, no coverage of him there just a mention. Checking the top of the list of references, they do not even mention him. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:26, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I’m confused once again, which are the three links that are mistakes and the list of magicians you mentioned are just a list of magicians on Wikipedia which he wouldn’t appear at the top of with his surname beginning with G--Vanishingrabbit (talk) 12:19, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Vanishingrabbit, incoming links are found using the Special:WhatLinksHere tool. The two I removed were 1 and 2. —SmokeyJoe (talk) 23:05, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Could not find a single material article on the subject in any major UK RS newspaper. Not one, which is unusual for a media-type BLP. Being in the magic circle does not make you inherently notable, you have to be in "several significant independent sources". He is not in any. Britishfinance (talk) 10:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus defaulting to keep and w/o prejudice to a speedy renomination. Ad Orientem (talk) 01:33, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

PriMedia Inc

PriMedia Inc (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)

An unremarkable private business. Does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Created by Special:Contributions/LibraTech currently indef blocked for abusing multiple accounts. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:00, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I haven't searched yet for sources elsewhere, but, of the sources cited in the article, all but two were either written by one of the company's founders or obituaries for Barry Becher. Of the last two, one of them is behind a paywall and the other mentions neither PriMedia nor its original name, Dial Media (though it does mention the Dial-o-matic—wow, that takes me back). Largoplazo (talk) 02:50, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:56, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Move to Dial Media. There does seem to be significant coverage of this company under its earlier incarnation (Dial Media) which goes beyond what's covered in the Ginsu article. The Barry Belcher obituary reference (from ABC News/WaPo/LA Times) is solid in terms of establishing the company's significance to the history of infomercials, and in talking about products/endeavours other than Ginsu. Another interesting source (not currently cited) is this 1983 NYT piece reporting on Dial Media's involvement with the Democratic Presidential campaign. "Primedia" may technically be a new name for the same company, but it seems to be engaged in a substantially different business activity and its activities since the switch to media buying and rename have not attracted any coverage. The article should be rewritten to reflect a focus on the Dial Media era. Colin M (talk) 19:22, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 11:42, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:29, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 17:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I am unable to locate a single reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability, references are mainly Primary sources failing WP:ORGIND or mentions in passing failing WP:CORPDEPTH. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:16, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 01:33, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Peter Church

Peter Church (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:ANYBIO, I dont think Cosmopolitan magazine’s ‘Hot Read of the Month’ qualifies as a major award neither do "book of the week" by Sunday times. Also fails WP:AUTHOR, one of his works was of particular interest to a non-notable studio, and a movie was planned but never took off. All his works were only published by non-notable companies, and since he is still actively writing, could be notable in the future, But not now. Daiyusha (talk) 08:38, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 09:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DannyS712 (talk) 14:42, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• WP:G11 Is this self written or WP:PAIDEDITING? Also it was created by User:Rossychurch which seems a complete conflict of interested. Govvy (talk) 00:18, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Northamerica1000 normally stalks these parts, G11? Govvy (talk) 10:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Userfy Borderline notability for author of thriller/crime novels. His novels have been reviewed - I added reviews to page. I have not found profiles. Article is new, poorly written, and pretty obvious COI. He has just signed a 3-book deal and could become more clearly notable soon. He is close to passing WP:AUTHOR. I recommend that we userfy and urge the author of this page to take a closer look at how articles are written and how notability established for writers by reading and making improvements on other pages about books, writers, Capetown, or whatever topics interest. If some of the forthcoming novels get a little press attention (reviews, author profiles, interviews) this page can be brought back to mainspace. But unless someone can show more reviews and WP:SIGCOV , it looks as though it is WP:TOOSOON.E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:13, 21 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no material article on this subject in a major RS. Probably a COI issue here too. Britishfinance (talk) 10:05, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Just to be clear, it is not necessary for an WP:AUTHOR to have had a profile or article including bio details - I assume that this is what User:Britishfinance means by "material article" - Book reviews in major publications support notability for AUTHORS, and this write has had them in the Cape Argus, Cape Times (hometown) and Sydney Morning Herald (not hometown.)E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:57, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep (Blocked editor) The article does appear to be COI but the author seems worthy of a Wikipedia page. A lot of edits are needed thoughKleinEthan (talk) 11:58, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. If we needed any more evidence of COI activity. Britishfinance (talk) 15:01, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:28, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete At this time—unnotable. Trillfendi (talk) 21:36, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete both reasons apply 1. sourcing fails WP:N (likely TOOSOON) and 2. promo Widefox; talk 10:44, 28 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep If he's so non-notable, how come his pageviews are so high???? Johnbod (talk) 21:03, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  reply That's not very high at all! Govvy (talk) 23:18, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

  • No, actually, for an AFD candidate it is. Really. For example it is c. 60 times higher than the last AFD bio you voted Keep for! Johnbod (talk) 03:04, 3 March 2019 (UTC)
• striking my "userfy" iVote due to COI concerns. There should be no prejudice against re-creating a page in the event that future books are published and draw attention that carries him past WP:AUTHOR. With the caveat that a new article should be written sans COI.E.M.Gregory (talk) 17:01, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. After extended time for discussion, the trend towards preferring to keep this article is now clear. bd2412 T 03:25, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

North American Women's Baseball League

North American Women's Baseball League (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 longer notable: a metropolitan dues-paying baseball club that has not played a game in 9 years. Both independent baseball clubs that sponsored it no longer exist. Contact pages are inoperative. No citations, nor will there ever be. Spike-from-NH (talk) 13:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 February 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:56, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:35, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Amateur local leagues are not notable. Spanneraol (talk) 17:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Notability is not temporary; it doesn't matter whether it no longer exists. There are sources, including Encyclopedia of Women and Baseball [1], Chasing Baseball: Our Obsession with Its History, Numbers, People and Places [2], A Game of Their Own: Voices of Contemporary Women in Baseball [3], and some newspaper articles, including the Boston Globe, especially [4]. I have not yet checked academic and other journals. If it is not kept, it should be merged to an article about women's baseball. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:37, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Those sources are all behind pay walls so i can't verify if they mention this league in detail or it's just listed in some chart of amateur women's leagues. Spanneraol (talk) 17:22, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

The Google Books search results are not behind paywalls! Per WP:PAYWALL, subscription sources can be used to establish notability. RebeccaGreen (talk) 21:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

There is/was a women's baseball movement; it stemmed from the wartime women's league; its goal was to get more women and girls playing baseball (not softball); and some of the NAWBL people viewed their league as an important piece of that movement. During the NAWBL, more women in the area played baseball; afterwards, less, unless they found somewhere else to do it. Nine years later, I don't see evidence that the NAWBL led to anything, except in individual players' lives. I have run into two NAWBL players in the last few years when they came to a summer league to scout on behalf of Major League Baseball. Citations at this point ought not just prove that the NAWBL existed, but show how it was an evolution and that the evolution continued, as more than such personal anecdotes. Absent that, I think that notability of a private club can expire. Rebecca, are you voting on the page, or on the movement? Spike-from-NH (talk) 03:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

This page, which is what the AfD is about. Some of the sources I linked above do indeed show how the NAWBL was connected to earlier and other contemporary leagues. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:37, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. 3 articles about NAWLP in the Boston Globe and more in smaller newspapers should be enough to establish notability. Also, its inclusion in 3 books cited by RebeccaGreen above. Also, Notability is not temporary, so doubts about its present-day impact are irrelevant to its notability at the time it existed. PS. I have added 2 citations in the article now. Krubo (talk) 18:13, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Subject has sufficient coverage to ring the WP:N bell. -Ad Orientem (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:30, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

The Fertility Chase

The Fertility Chase (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)

There seems to be no lasting coverage beyond some routine mentions. Madness ^Darkness 19:43, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Neutral, as article creator. Mikael Häggström (talk) 20:25, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I can find no significant independent coverage establishing notability. Only current reference is to a press release, which is not appropriate for establishing notability. Colin M (talk) 23:12, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 14:00, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Dinesh Vaswani

Dinesh Vaswani (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)

OK, I've tried, but I just can't see how this person meets our notability requirements. The first three refs don't mention him at all; others are primary documents – a certificate, a letter. I see no independent in-depth coverage that would either justify having an encyclopaedia article about hm, or enable us to write one. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 19:59, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. An extraordinary amount of detail, but unfortunately no reliable sources to back it up. I see no evidence of independent coverage establishing notability. Colin M (talk) 23:19, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Close to an A7 except that a COI has gone to great lengths to write a huge amount of non-notable detail on a non-notable person. If I started editing this article and removing the PROMO and unrefenced by indepdendant RS, it would be almost empty. Bio-spam. Britishfinance (talk) 09:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:SIGVOC.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:45, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Ministry of AYUSH. As WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 15:27, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Medical Officer (AYUSH)

Medical Officer (AYUSH) (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)

Routine administrative post. Routine mentions in media but not encyclopedic-ally notable. ∯WBG^converse 12:49, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I guess NDOCTOR is the only thing that applies here and this doesn’t meet it. Trillfendi (talk) 04:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:18, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to Ministry of AYUSH. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 09:02, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Christopher Forgues

Christopher Forgues (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 musician/artist; lacks significant coverage in independent reliable sources, failing WP:ENT / WP:GNG. The provided sources are either brief descriptions of the subject's work or interviews on blogs, not significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources. Puff Viceland interview does not satisfy GNG. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:27, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 15:33, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Delete - Did a search and found a few things, but not quite enough to meet ENT/GNG. Here's what I found, FWIW: short review in PW, short review in PW, CBR review, paragraph in a Paste list, interview in The Hooded Utilitarian (appears to be a group blog), Comicsreporter, Vice, and a few lines in this book. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:16, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Update: The sources found by Gilded Snail, in addition to the ones I linked, bring me to somewhere between neutral and weak keeping. Regardless, striking my earlier delete. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 23:51, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 18:03, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:23, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Found some decent references, which I have added to the article. It seems to me that C.F. meets GNG (perhaps barely), but part of the issue here is in finding reliable sources for a person with about 12 different aliases and who is mostly active in underground scenes. Gilded Snail (talk) 18:53, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:HEY, work by Gilded Snail. Bearian (talk) 23:41, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:59, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Amro Music

Amro Music (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)

Subject does not appear to meet relevant notability guidelines (WP:COMPANY) and lacks non-trivial coverage from independent reliable sources. Allied45 (talk) 02:39, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 02:43, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 11 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment in that there does seem to be good coverage online, at least enough for the general notability guideline. I would even say that a few focus enough on the company in detail to pass the corporate depth guideline. The article does also misrepresent the company as a single brick and mortar, when it looks to be a much larger company with several divisions with customers (mainly high school bands looks like) in several neighboring states. 24.84.14.158 (talk) 21:37, 12 February 2019 (UTC)
  • Sheffield, Christopher (April 11, 2010), Strike up the band, Memphis Business Journal
  • Meek, Andy (December 7, 2012), Google Enables Virtual Tour of Amro Music, Memphis Daily News
  • Van Dusen, Ray (April 28, 2015), Two Hamilton students selected for Amro Music Honor Band, Monroe Journal
  • Nichols, Meagan (September 20, 2016), Amro buys Agape building, Memphis Business Journal
  • Arnold, Ed (2016), In Memphis, music stays in the family (Video), Memphis Business Journal
  • Meet MBJ's 2018 Small Business Awards finalists: Large category, Memphis Business Journal, May 14, 2018
  • SBA 2018 finalist video spotlight: AMRO Music Stores Inc., Memphis Business Journal, June 6, 2018
  • Perkins, Tommy (January 21, 2001), Finalists named for MBJ Small Business Awards, Daily Journal
  • Meek, Andy (2013), Amro Milestone Attributed to Seasoned Staff, Memphis Daily News

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete while the coverage is extensive it all seems to be local. Mccapra (talk) 22:48, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:20, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Asgaard (PMC)

Asgaard (PMC) (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 indication of notability, misrepresented sources, almost incomprehensibly bad translation from German ("main field weaver"? I assume that's supposed to be Hauptfeldwebel). Practically every sentence either could do with a {{citation needed}} tag, or they misrepresent the lone cited source (no, Freitag doesn't say they had 100 employees in 2010). If the company is notable, which is not shown, it would be easier to rewrite the page from scratch than to salvage this version. Huon (talk) 14:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:36, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Non-notable company (if it really is that...). Trillfendi (talk) 04:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:23, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: the closest company I could find using the German Trade Register (link, mirror) is ASGAARD German Security Guards - Consulting GmbH, hardly a "mercenary" organisation, and it's based in Hamm, not Münster. Source searches in English and German turn up nothing about a mercenary group, and the sources for the aforementioned company (assuming this is a very bad translation) don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH anyway. SITH (talk) 21:41, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete No indication that it satisfies WP:ORG as a notable company. Edison (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete A7. Whilst Asgaard GSG [5] does indeed appear to be what might be described as a private military company, the article, at this awkward title, does not make it clear why it is notable. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 20:03, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:47, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

1991 Whitby municipal election

1991 Whitby municipal election (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)

1994 Whitby municipal election (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)

Two articles about municipal elections in a suburban town, not really offering any substantive content to make them worth maintaining. They both completely elide the mayoral race, the regional council seats and three of the four local wards, offering results tables only for one ward race -- and the 1991 table just says the winner was elected, without actually including the vote totals at all, while the 1994 table just says she was acclaimed. All of the sourcing in both articles, further, is parked entirely on followup mini-biographies of non-notable people: 1991's on Judi Longfield's non-notable competitor, and 1994's on the non-notable person who was selected to replace her after she resigned from the municipal council to run for Parliament. Which means neither of these actually has any real reason to exist: they're not offering any actual substance about the election, but both exist solely because Longfield won the parliamentary election and served as an MP — so in actual practice, they're really just functioning as a way to sneak minibios of non-notables into Wikipedia under the guise of event articles rather than as properly sourced or substantive articles about elections that are noteworthy in their own right.
WikiProject Canada's established consensus around Ontario municipal elections is to do one merged article per census division rather than separate articles about each individual town or city, so no prejudice against the creation of 1991 Durham Region municipal elections if somebody can actually find adequate sourcing to properly support more than just one town-level ward in Whitby -- but since these are missing eight of the nine offices that were actually up for election in Whitby, and are parking their sourcing entirely on overcovering non-notable people instead of on any actual substance about the election itself, they're not useful to maintain in the meantime. Bearcat (talk) 18:19, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:20, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:49, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Icewhiz (talk) 18:50, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I prodded this 13 year old article as it is woefully inadequate. Whether the subject is notable is highly doubtful, and no one in all this time has even attempted to make the article cover even the most basic aspects of the subject. Articles like this should be speedyable. Fram (talk) 22:05, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Whatever standards support the inclusion of articles on elections, they can not possibly be met by the content of these articles. bd2412 T 21:00, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Technology company - Imposed Fines

Technology company - Imposed Fines (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)

Subject does not appear to be an article. Ran it through CSD but did not have a suitable reason. Decliner suggested AfD. A loose noose (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 03:30, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete This is not an article. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yeah, I tried that, and DGG rejected it and told me to bring it to AfD. Which seems kinda weird to me, too, but there you have it. A loose necktie (talk) 01:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

if in any doubt, I suggest bringing it here. I've done that since I started 12 years ago; I was so advised by experienced editors then, and I so advise others. Even if it's deleted speedy at the afd, at least one additional person will have looked at it. DGG ( talk ) 15:03, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

(Okay, but didn't the "experienced" editors back then have less than two years of "experience" under their belts? And now that at least three of us have looked at it, can't we just speedy it as a non-article?) A loose necktie (talk) 03:34, 24 February 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete as a combination of IAR and A7. But it can be closed now anyway. J947 ^(c), at 03:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. A table is also an article, see the featured list Periodic table (detailed cells). This is also a notable topic, see [6], [7]. wumbolo ^^^ 08:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete WP:TNT case. Poorly formed title and content. Listing only a single small fine? Britishfinance (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:48, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Archana Jois

Archana Jois (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 concerns for this actress. Appears to have appeared in only one film K.G.F: Chapter 1. Refs are all broken even after an attempt to fix them, [8] contradicts the article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:23, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 21:30, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Nothing to show that WP:NACTOR is met, it's just WP:TOOSOON for an article. Ravensfire (talk) 15:31, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Not much to look here. Dheerajmpai23 (talk)
• Delete. PROMO article that fails NACTOR. Britishfinance (talk) 09:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete fails WP:ACTOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 15:46, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Traditional easy-swim styles

Traditional easy-swim styles (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)

Slightly too complicated for CSD; I won't object if someone speedy-deletes this G3 before a week. Appears to be original research/invention by Lepota (talk · contribs). The only Google search result for "Inverted Bat Stroke" is an e-book written by "Lepota Luba Cosmo". Material is copied from there, but so long as the same person has authored both, it's not a G12 copyvio. power~enwiki (π, ν) 21:48, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:09, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: Regarding the Traditional_easy-swim_styles#Historical_and_easy_swim_techniques, we already have Swimming_stroke#Swimming_styles which would be the proper place to add any properly sourced material. The Traditional_easy-swim_styles#Easy-swim_techniques section appears to be original research involving machine translation ("Technique was convenient having implied easy swim drills relaying on float and glide phase that was custom and is repeatedly proved in literature of old as well as new age.", "Those English, French or German writers of Celtic areal are of somewhat same procédé.") which would require substantial clean-up even were its claims to be referenced. AllyD (talk) 10:21, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:32, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:15, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Bongo Exclusive

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Bongo Exclusive
• Articles for deletion/Bongo Exclusive (2nd nomination)

Bongo Exclusive (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)

Still no evidence of notability for this company/blog. Only ref is Crunchbase - WP:CORPDEPTH clearly not met. power~enwiki (π, ν) 17:06, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:47, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Agree with above. Actaudio (talk) 06:55, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:24, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: source searches turn up little non-affiliated sources other than the cited one, and that alone isn't enough to satisfy the depth of coverage required for companies. SITH (talk) 21:29, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nom and SITH. A Google search of the website doesn't show it being discussed in reliable sources.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) J947 ^(c), at 04:06, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Kettle Restaurants

Kettle Restaurants (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)

Unable to find multiple reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 05:57, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:14, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I added some references. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 06:46, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. J947 ^(c), at 04:15, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: I'd say the newly added sources are enough. GN-z11 ^{☎ ★} 07:44, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 22:27, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Demo Castellon

Demo Castellon (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)

Invalid criteria for inclusion in Wikipedia (see WP:INVALIDBIO). Claim to notability is through the subject's relationship with Nelly Furtado. Subject is not notable in his own right. UnkleFester (talk) 07:02, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:35, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Falls shy of WP:NBIO criteria. The Sound on Sound interview is promising, but I can't find any other sources that deal with the subject beyond his relationship with Nelly Furtado or his association with Timbaland. Colin M (talk) 20:16, 19 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Not notable per WP:SUBNOT. He should be a mention on Nelly Furtado's page Actaudio (talk) 06:52, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. A search shows most of his notability is from his marraige, with a few references to his work with Timbaland (only passing references). Britishfinance (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^{(talk) (cont)} 17:09, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

Chendooram

Chendooram (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)

A Siddha medicine but fails GNG comprehensively. Also, see WP:MEDRS. ∯WBG^converse 13:08, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:27, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, Zoom! some possible sources: "Standarization of Kantha Chendooram" from Ancient Science of Life, "Chendooram" (brief summation of what it is) from Complementary and Alternative Medicines in Prostate Cancer: A Comprehensive Approach, "Acute and Sub acute Toxicity Study on Siddha Drug Rasa Chendooram" from International Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences and Research, "Physico-chemical analysis of Arumuga chendooram" from International Journal of Research in Ayurveda and Pharmacy, "Toxicological Studies of Lingha Chendooram-1; a Siddha Drug" from Indian Journal of Pharmaceutical Sciences (plenty more out there). Zoom! Coolabahapple (talk) 02:27, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

  Coolabahapple, please re-read WP:MEDRS (and esp. this section) which is very very necessary whilst maneuvering in these areas.....

  Thus; let's zoom a bit more (5x-?!):--

  • Published in a journal of dubious quality; not indexed by MEDLINE. I note that a Pubmed search for the string outputs a few entries over this journal, alone. N

  • IJPSR is a predatorial journal. N

  • IJRAP is a predatorial journal. N

  • IJPS is published by OMICS; which is prob. the most pathetic predatory publisher out there. N

  • Now; all that is left is the CRC book and I ask you to seek and read it's reviews (or rather of that series of publications)......:-) ∯WBG^converse 14:14, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Can be redirected to Siddha (which's a mess) or somewhere like that. ∯WBG^converse 14:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• thanks for letting us know about the predatory journals (i didnt do any checking on these sources hence the "zoom zoom":)), so it doesnt look good. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Sourceless for almost 5 years. Bye Chendooram! Trillfendi (talk) 04:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, per the absence of substantive coverage in reliable, intellectually independent sources. Vanamonde (Talk) 03:59, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. This is unreferernced/unsupported material that could be anything from OR to junk (or a hoax). Even if the topic was notable, the content is WP:TNT material. There is no point trying to slap a few refs onto contrived cases to get them through AfD, when nobody is going to touch them after and they have no long-term future in WP. Britishfinance (talk) 15:50, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was redirect to Connie Hedegaard. Sandstein 15:00, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Det 20. århundrede – De 100 mest betydningsfulde personer i Danmark

Det 20. århundrede – De 100 mest betydningsfulde personer i Danmark (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)

Appears to me to fail WP:NBOOK/WP:GNG. Madness ^Darkness 00:58, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 01:38, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:48, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect (to Connie Hedegaard) - Nom is correct as regards WP:NBOOK. As the primary author, it's legitimate to redirect to her. Nosebagbear (talk) 23:15, 6 March 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Connie Hedegaard, since subject lacks verifiable evidence of independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 13:01, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:31, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Pop the Q

Pop the Q (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)

Short-lived, non-notable tv gameshow. Article is completely unreferenced and has had no substantial edits in over ten years. Google search finds nothing of value, nothing that amounts to "significant coverage". PC78 (talk) 09:51, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:29, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Wholly non-notable; the article is a relic of Wikipedia's worst years. RobinCarmody (talk) 20:26, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sheldybett (talk) 15:08, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Without a single source to demonstrate notability it can't pass WP:GNG, and I can't find any. Novusuna ^talk 22:21, 26 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete As per nomination.TH1980 (talk) 05:44, 3 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 14:58, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

Groww

Groww (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 company. All the news I can find (and pretty much all the sources provided here) are routine funding news (string: "groww"), and nothing more substantial than that. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^Bori! 06:11, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~Ruyaba~ {talk} 06:24, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Mhhossein ^talk 03:37, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~SS49~ {talk} 02:46, 27 February 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. WP:CORPSPAM. Sad it took 3 weeks for such an obvious case to get a first vote... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 27 February 2019 (UTC)
• Delete on account of subject failing WP:NCORP. The AfD process is getting to be a very busy affair. -The Gnome (talk) 12:57, 7 March 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus is keep now that the article has been improved and properly referenced to reliable sources. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:36, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

Omid 16B

Omid 16B (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)

Deleted after expired PROD in 2017. Subject's PA has appeared on my talk page requesting restoration. I'm of the opinion that the numerous sources linked on my talk page don't indicate notability (too narrow of an audience, mostly interviews, etc) but I think it would be best if it was looked at by people with interest/experience in the area. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 16:10, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Bakazaka (talk) 17:45, 19 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment for now: I'll chip in here, as this is my area. ;-) If Omid 16B's PA who posted on PMC's talk page is reading this, I was a regular attendee at John Digweed's Bedrock night at Heaven and Red Jerry's Elements club at Elektrowerkz, among others during the late 90s/early 2000s... I mention this because you will therefore know that I will be familiar with Omid's style of deep/progressive house and I have seen Omid play at various nights in London, so there is at least one Wikipedia editor here who is not speaking from a position of ignorance.

The issue Wikipedia has with DJs who were big names before the internet era took off is that most of the reliable sources are not available online – Mixmag, DJ Mag and Ministry have no online archives, which means Wikipedia's coverage of DJs and producers is very biased towards those who have appeared in the last decade, where websites like Dancing Astronaut and YourEDM now cover them regularly. Reviews of Omid's records on Resident Advisor and the like aren't reliable sources for Wikipedia, because they are written by users and fans, rather than professional journalists. And I know he's produced a lot of records, but that doesn't make him notable, just prolific.

So the lack of easily available sources online has resulted in the deletion of article for Omid's erstwhile partners in SOS, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Demi (DJ) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Desyn Masiello, as well as DJs I certainly consider notable enough (and that reliable sources exist for them) for Wikipedia articles, such as Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Zabiela and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Saiz. From a personal point of view it's frustrating, but there's little that I can do unless the sources can be located and cited (and I live in South America these days, so it's even harder for me to get hold of back copies of the UK dance magazines). If you want to keep the article, you will need to provide the full sources from DJ Mag etc. to be able to provide a basic biographical article – I don't just mean he has appeared on the front cover, but proper articles inside the magazine that say something about Omid, e.g. place and maybe year of birth, any details of his early life, how he got his break, major clubs and events that he has played... not quotes about his own views on his records, or the scene, or his influences, or anything like that. Richard3120 (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. Hi guys & thanks for getting involved Richard3120, good to hear from someone that knows Omid! Wikipedia can be a little complicated for someone who hasn't dealt with it before so excuse me for sending unsuitable links. Wikipedia has been a main source for so many websites for years and I just found so many 'dead' links directing to wikipedia for Omids biography so I'm keen to sort this out. As I mentioned in talk with Premeditated Chaos Omid also has been known under his alias 'Phaser', search for "Omid 16B' and google knowledge graph displays incorrect bio belonging to other band called "Phaser' simply because his biography on wikipedia is not available anymore, ofcourse thats the issue we have to take up with google.

I have found some articles from magazines and took quick snaps. There is much more but it needs a little more digging. Excuse me for quality but with some zooming in it should be possible to read, if not let me know, I might have to scan it. I'll go trough some more over the weekend, flyers or adverts about major events work too?. [9] PA to Omid16b (talk) 01:05, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Sources need to be independent and in-depth. Flyers and ads are neither independent (since they are associated with the subject) nor in-depth. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:10, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• This is correct – many of my friends have been DJs and have flyers of the nights they have played, but it doesn't make them notable... unless it was a major club event that got significant coverage in a music magazine or newspaper, and Omid's name is prominently mentioned in the coverage, it's not going to count. Richard3120 (talk) 14:14, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• So the link I included with shots from magazines with articles does not work? PA to Omid16b (talk) 15:48, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes they do – I'll have a look through them and see if they can be used for the article. Have you got the date/issue number for the Future Music magazine (last four scans)? Richard3120 (talk) 17:06, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

• Yes , here is the link to discogs, image shot has front cover with issue/date [10] PA to Omid16b (talk) 16:38, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:54, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

Should I try to update Omid 16B's wiki page with up to date biography? Possibly then it would be easier to find and include missing sources if any more is required? PA toOmid16b (talk) 22:07, 26 February 2019 (UTC)

@Omid16b: I've tidied up the page and added a basic biography based on the scans of the magazines. I'd like to know though, what are the magazines that are the two-page spread between The Face and Future Music, and also the last short article at the bottom? If you have the magazine names and the issue dates that would be a big help, I can't cite them at the moment because I don't know their origins. Richard3120 (talk) 17:08, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Richard! I have included scan with issue number for the short article next to it. The other one is Dj mag but we having problem sourcing front cover with issue number (still on the case). I have added some other scans there too if it helps (few more I add later). I also have links to interviews which contains a paragraph or two about Omid coming from a journalist. I've noticed some other dj's have included interviews as their sources on wikipedia. A lot of his discography can also be confirmed via discogs. Let me know if you need anything else. http://omid16b.com/gallery/omid-16b-magazine-covers/ PA to Omid16b (talk) 13:45, 4 March 2019 (UTC)

• Obviously I'm going to say keep now – there's plenty of reliable independent sources in the article now, and although it's short it still has scope for expansion. But I'm an involved editor now, so it would be good to get some more editors to give their unbiased opinions. Richard3120 (talk) 18:18, 4 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The sterling work by Richard3120 shows that there are enough sources to meet WP:NMUSIC, and I agree that it's likely that more sources exist offline in the 'old' dance music press. I think there's enough here for an article. — sparklism ^hey! 05:45, 5 March 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Fair challenge to bring this to AfD; and Richard3120's input now makes it a Keep. Britishfinance (talk) 18:28, 6 March 2019 (UTC)

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