User:Cyberbot I/AfD's requiring attention: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 18:58, 24 December 2019

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 18:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC).

AfD	Time to close	Votes	Size (bytes)	Relists	Score
Newton Earp (2nd nomination)	4 years ago	10	21370	0	740.61
Business Jet Traveler	4 years ago	0	1577	0	502.88
Bangla Tribune	4 years ago	0	2007	0	481.42
ICups	4 years ago	0	3429	2	462.94
Quidem	4 years ago	0	1994	0	451
Mr. lab!	4 years ago	0	1223	0	446.89
Lugyny Youth Centre	4 years ago	1	1669	0	426.96
BigPicture	4 years ago	0	1757	0	421.95
Second Hand Stories	4 years ago	0	1378	0	420.32
Interior Design Resource Agency	4 years ago	1	1993	0	418.72
Art Rock Circus	4 years ago	0	3137	0	415.39
Tim Wildsmith	4 years ago	1	2502	0	404.28
Hell's Bloody Devils	4 years ago	1	2281	0	398.56
Škoda 33Tr SOR	4 years ago	1	2465	0	398.5
Hypergiant Industries	4 years ago	0	3395	0	394.83
Ibrahim Olugbade	4 years ago	0	1381	0	392.8
Vivo V2	4 years ago	0	1935	0	390.71
Ubald Klug	4 years ago	0	1420	0	390.27
SPC XL	4 years ago	0	1502	0	387.92
Sue Dodge	4 years ago	0	2263	0	380.75
Garuda (Kannada film)	4 years ago	1	1555	0	379.78
Flow 187 (Rapper)	4 years ago	1	7102	0	379.03
Abu Rafi	4 years ago	0	1697	0	375.02
Nitrutsav	4 years ago	1	1948	0	366.11
Aashna Chopra	4 years ago	1	2669	0	365.06

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. Those advancing delete argue that evidence put forward of notability actually fails on several grounds including lack of significant coverage and notability not being inherited. Those advancing keep suggest that there are sources which can be pointed to now, and further that there is reasonable evidence to suggest sources exist that aren't present in the encyclopedia. In the end when properly weighing the policy and guideline based rationales offered there is simply no consensus here about notability and so it is closed as no consensus. While this is done without prejudice to a future renomination, I would suggest at least a few months elapse to give interested editors time to access sources which might not be readily available online. Barkeep49 (talk) 05:09, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Newton Earp

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

Non-notable person, per wp:Notability (people) guideline changes since the last discussion in 2006. Nothing remarkable here. Thanks. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 21:44, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:11, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:12, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:17, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER Mztourist (talk) 08:39, 26 November 2019 (UTC)
Delete per all of the above, and especially WP:NOTINHERITED. Please note: he was not a participant of the Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, which would have made him notable. Bearian (talk) 16:03, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
You are right, but he was identified as part of the Western culture by The San Francisco Examiner, so I guess in some way he was associated with the legend. Genium . 23:14, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)
Keep Not seeing any claim of notability, credible or otherwise. Being Wyatt Earp's half brother is not enough per WP:NOTINHERITED. Served in the Army, but does not meet WP:SOLDIER. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:40, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Has his entry in the Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography, where he is described as pioneer. Genium . 10:02, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Genium . 10:06, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Genium . 10:18, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)

DELETE as nom. I could be OK with a merge/mention in the Nicholas Porter Earp's (his father) article, and the rename of that article to Earp family or similar, as he seems to lack notability also. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:17, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Comment. The 1962 Brand book of the Denver Posse of The Westerners published in 1963 included Some notes on Newton Earp, by Gary L. Roberts. Was also the subject of a dedicated article in The 1,001 most-asked questions about the American West. Genium . 23:14, Nov 28, 2019 (UTC)
Keep historical figures don't necessarily show up in "google" searches well, but even checking Google Scholar and Google Books above shows a good number of mentions and details of the individual--including a fairly contemporary mention of him in the Wichita Eagle. I think there seems to be an assumption that this person does not meet WP:GNG but in my view does indeed clearly and abundantly pass. Since I found this collection simply by clicking two of the links above, I wonder if WP:BEFORE was completed prior to the nomination of this article.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:47, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly not by anyone involved in writing the article, who failed to find anything that he'd done that was in any way noteworthy. Is it too much to ask that someone's claim to fame is clearly stated? Your source has a tantalising bit about "an account of a late 19th century shooting at Garden City’s railroad depot involving Marshal Newton Earp, half-bother of Wyatt Earp", and on that basis I have stricken my !vote. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 03:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly you are not saying that everyone ever written about in a newspaper or two is notable. Even if he was a sheriff somewhere, and a soldier, this guy's life was un-extraordinary, and he is really not notable for anything. Sorry. Wonder no more, because even after BEFORE, there is nothing here to show notability. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
Like I posted above, a good amount of research and data is easily found in Google Scholar and Google Books. As for a "claim to fame" that is not a requirement for notability, because "notability" and "famous" are not the same thing. Notability is determined by the coverage and it is not a matter of opinion.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Not sure what you consider "...a good amount of research and data is easily found in Google Scholar and Google Books..." as even the few references used in the article illustrate the glaring lack of notability:
- - - - 7) "Missouri Marriages, 1750-1920" is a Family Search webpage which refers to a primary source verifying he was indeed married;
        
        6) Newton Earp card is a genealogy page referencing a primary source document verifying he indeed enlisted in the army;
        
        5) Gatto, Steve. "Marriage to Urilla Sutherland" another genealogy page referencing a primary source document indicating that he was justice of the peace at Wyatt's wedding;
        
        4) Newton Earp ; picture archival webpage is a self-published, blog-genealogical site (Shinaberry Family tree) with no editorial oversight besides the author; this is the most used reference in the article and does not pass Reliable;
        
        2) Chrisman, Harry E. (1982). The 1,001 most asked questions about the American West only mentions the town of Newton, Texas; and as such is a non-sequitur;
        
        1 & #3) Thrapp, Dan L. (1991). Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F mentions Wyatt beating him in an election, hardly what anyone would consider notable.
Do you perhaps have additional information and sources that just don't verify that he was born, was married, and a soldier but actually shows some notability for this guy? I see nothing that is "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention" about him. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 23:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Please click on the Google Books link above. Here's the key results from the first of 10 pages:
Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F - Page 447, Dan L. Thrapp - 1991 "He may have hunted buffalo briefly the winter of 1873 near Peace, Kansas. Newton Earp was a Mason. He died near Sacramento, California, where he had removed from Kansas in the 1890s. Ed Bartholomew, Wyatt Earp: The Untold Story, ..."

Wyatt Earp: A Vigilante Life - Page 58, Andrew C. Isenberg - 2013 "In an era when divorce was difficult to obtain, spousal abandonment was a common way out of an unhappy marriage.46 In contrast to Virgil, four years in the army seem to have inspired rather than inhibited Newton Earp's marriage plans."

A Wyatt Earp Anthology: Long May His Story Be Told - Page 739, Roy B. Young, ‎Gary L. Roberts, ‎Casey Tefertiller - 2019 "Even a casual review of “Legendary American” and the endless array of photographs that should credit to others. In Earp Facts, Volume Three, p. 32, Boyer, in describing the flap over the Newton Earp family photograph published in the San ..."

Wyatt Earp's Cowboy Campaign: The Bloody Restoration of Law ... - Page 292, Chuck Hornung - 2016 "Western-Outlaw Lawman History Association Journal, Summer 2001. Cubbison, Douglas R. “Newton Earp: The Forgotten Fighting Earp Brother.” Western-Outlaw Lawman History Association Journal, Fall 2000. _____. “The Service of James ..."

The Denver Westerners Brand Book - Page 43, Westerners. Denver Posse - 1962 - "Newton Earp lived such an obscure life, while his half-brothers attained fame as gunfighting marshals. Until the publication of Wyatt Earp: Frontier Marshal by Stuart N. Lake in 1931, few people had ever heard of Newton Earp, and indeed Mr."

Suppressed murder of Wyatt Earp - Page 77, Glenn G. Boyer - 1967 "Newton Earp moved from Sterling to Garden City, Kansas, sometime in the late 70's or early 80's, as well as I can remember and reckon the dates. I went to Garden City in the early 80's and was with him there at times in the early 80's. I believe ..."

Wyatt Earp, 1848 to 1880 - Page 44, Ed Ellsworth Bartholomew - 1963 "Perhaps Newton Earp had reason to feel cool toward his young half brother Wyatt, but he was still Newton “the Good,” a patient man. There are those who believe that Wyatt lived with Newton when things went wrong for the young man."

Like I said, just some of the first of ten pages. This is starting to clutter up the discussion--in the future please click on the links yourself rather than forcing editors to re-post here a duplication of large amounts of content.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
All mere mentions, not significant; and, per #5 above, he's notable for how obscure a life he led? Not changing anyone's mind here. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 15:19, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
An individual can indeed be notable for attempting to live an obscure life, as the VOLUME of third party independent reliable sources in Google Books would support. We as editors don't decide if someone is notable based on whether or not we think they did something noteworthy, we compile what others have already decided. And a number of others have already decided that--for whatever reason does not matter.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:30, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Probably Delete -- So what did he do to make him notable? Even if related to Wyatt Earp, notability is not inherited. It is a pity that Genium is providing links to a database not the actual articles. I am not questioning verifiability, but notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:44, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Whatever the subject may be, its notability comes from its presence in encyclopedias, for me at least. This is the case here. Genium . 02:11, Nov 30, 2019 (UTC)
There must me "significant" independent coverage for notability. Mere mentions, even in an encyclopedia, is way below that threshold. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 05:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:GNG defines: "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. That threshold has been met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:01, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Notability (people): For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note"—that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded". Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:58, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
That measure has also been exceeded. This is indicated by the coverage and that other third parties have found incidents in his life "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" in third party works. Whether or not you or I think it is interesting or not does not matter, for that is just WP:IDONTLIKEIT or a derivative of that argument. What matters is that others (apparently a good number of historians) thought it was interesting and they recorded it in third party works. Then we in the never-ending process of building an encyclopedia recognize that they thought that and take the multiple works together to create an article. The books, the historical documents, and even the modern-day references of items held to this day in museum all point to the undeniable conclusion that independent third party researchers have concluded that his life and incidents that surround it is worth recording.--Paul McDonald (talk) 01:24, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete - only significant non-trivial more-than-passing-mention coverage is self-published web page. Agricolae (talk) 20:25, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
- Question to what do you refer? Newton Earp died in 1928, he didn't self-publish any web page.--Paul McDonald (talk) 21:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
See WP:SELFPUBLISH. 'Someone's personal website', such as this page's heavily-used ref #6, is not WP:RS and does not indicate notability, just the personal whims of the compiler. Agricolae (talk) 05:18, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Which sources do you believe are self-published?--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:02, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
. . . such as this page's heavily-used ref #6 (now changed to #7 - part of some Shinaberry Family web history site). That is the most-used source, cited 6 times. (Same with the ". "Marriage to Urilla Sutherland" citation - a personal web page.) The next most used is Roberts, which I can only see snippets of, but begins with "It often happens that deserving people go through life unnoticed," which you apparently take to mean he is deserving, but I take to mean he has been largely unnoticed. I can't tell if it is self-published or not, but given the topic I doubt it underwent serious editorial review. Chrisman again only snippet view for me, but it returns two disconnected hits (neither of which show his actual name), and that is not what I would expect if he was given more than trivial coverage. The pension index card is an unpublished primary record, its use being original research, plus it is an index card and not even the record, so it isn't even well-done original research (indexes aren't sources, they are a way to find sources). The Missouri Marriages ref isn't working, but seems to be a database search result, so again badly-done original research. That leaves the Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography, which gives him a brief blurb - he was born, he fought in war, he ran for office and lost, he went west, he had a family, maybe he hunted once, he died. It would be the strongest argument in favor of notability, but given the esoteric title and the pedestrian nature of entry, I don't exactly count this as significant coverage. You clearly disagree, so be it - I am done here. Agricolae (talk) 16:31, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
The addition of better sourcing can be achieved through editing. Some of the sources in the article would not stand up to a notability test (although they are good for verifiability), there are many others even online in Google Books that meet or exceed notability standards. The issue of deletion should be about the notability of the individual, not the current state of the article. While I agree that sometimes an article can be so bad that we're better off deleting it (policy violations are an example) that's not the case here. The subject matter is notable as referenced by sources found through searches: and that's the question we are here to address. Editing of article content can be handled on the article talk page. AFD is WP:NOTCLEANUP.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Has entry in Dan L. Thrapp (1 June 1991). Encyclopedia of Frontier Biography: A-F. U of Nebraska Press. pp. 446–447. ISBN 0-8032-9418-2. . --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 14:39, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. There are many such articles of individuals made famous by association with their famous families, who of themselves may not done anything particularly noteworthy, but have generated some interest in the media and the public eye. Consider the English royal family, for example, princess Margaret's grandson Charles Armstrong-Jones, Viscount Linley. — btphelps ^{(talk to me) (what I've done)} 17:48, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Clearly, OTHERSTUFF exists on wikipedia. Although I respect the great deal of time and effort you have devoted to the Earp family member articles, I have to disagree when it comes to this guy. I would also draw your attention to wp:Family. As to European royalty, members of royal families hold titles, which bestows upon them more deference regarding notability. What title did Newt hold again? :-) Regards, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 08:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Notability guide states "If, for instance, there is enough information in reliable sources to include details about a person's birth, personal life, education and military career, then they most likely warrant a stand-alone article." Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia's own guidelines for notability of military personnel, the page on Newton Earp clearly discusses his birth, personal life, and military career. There is no mention of education although that is most likely because he had little to no formal education as he was a farmer and carpenter. GenQuest notes that Newton Earp's life was rather non-descript and ordinary and we know of him primarily due to his famous siblings; however, given that there is enough information about Newton Earp to meet the minimum guidelines set by Wikipedia in relation to the notability of "military people" then the page should be kept. Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Deletion policy states: "The deletion of a page based on a deletion discussion should only be done when there is consensus to do so." Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Using Wikipedia's own guidelines for the deletion of a page, the page Newton Earp should not be deleted since there seems to be an ideological divide between the "keep" or "delete" points of view in relation to the page on Newton Earp. Boston1775 (talk) 15:48, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Except, your reference is to a (non-binding) essay at Military History, NOT a policy at MoS. Respectfully, GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 00:01, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Correct, the discussion on the Military History page is non-binding; however the "Deletion Policy" is just that a "policy". Given that this is the second thread that is attempting to remove the page on Newton Earp it should be crystal clear to anyone reading this thread that there is no consensus for removal of the page and thus the page should stay as per policy. What makes this forum great is the freedom of speech everyone has and the right to an opinion. However, at the end of the day, it looks like we will just have to agree to disagree on if Newton Earp is notable or not. Boston1775 (talk) 04:23, 29 December 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. — Newslinger talk 09:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Business Jet Traveler

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

Completing nomination on behalf of User:TheLongTone, who offered no rationale. My read is that the article has no sources to indicate notability, and none are apparent in my searches. Further, the tone of the article suggests an attempt at promotion, which would fall afoul of several of our guidelines. I'll message TheLongTone to come here and provide additional commentary on their rationale. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 13:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, fat finger syndrome. Notability (both sources self published).TheLongTone (talk) 00:08, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

All good - that's why we have WP:BADAFD. No worries. UltraExactZZ ^Said~ Did 16:28, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:30, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:46, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete No evidence of notability. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:25, 31 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:37, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Bangla Tribune

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

Non-notable online news portal per WP:NMEDIA. First source is owned by the same group, Second is an unrelated piece written by its publisher and the forth one is just a passing mention. Usual searches are also ended up falling WP:WEBCRIT and WP:GNG. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 15:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:51, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:25, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep reliable sources exist. Wm335td (talk) 21:10, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Spartaz ^Humbug! 23:25, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

ICups

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

An advert of a nonnotable practical joke prodict, which made a minor blip in the media in Fall 2014. Noted merely by association with iPhone. Notability not inherited. No lasting importance, hence no encyclopedic value Staszek Lem (talk) 22:27, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:22, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment, so a "redirect/merge" to Tin can telephone not an option? Coolabahapple (talk) 06:16, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
- It was a single-month amusing news and no lasting interest. Staszek Lem (talk) 19:51, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment, "Helloooo, is anyone there?...", drat, i don't think my icup's working. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete per nomination. If Wikipedia had a criterion for being funny, it'd fail that too, but it doesn't. Anyway, it would not be out of place to Merge whatever can be salvaged into the section on Reception of the real product. -The Gnome (talk) 19:35, 25 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:50, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Quidem

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

A relatively recently (2009) established radio station owning/operating company. I can't see anything in the form of general news coverage, outside of the industry-specific press release rehashes. Article has been flagged for improvement for 5 years with little success. Time for it to go, fails WP:NCORP. Sionk (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Sionk (talk) 06:56, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:41, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 25 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:32, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Mr. lab!

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NMUSIC. Mitte27 (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 08:18, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. Not enough significant singers established. no news coverage on google , fails WP:GNG and Fails WP:NMUSIC.-Nahal^(T) 20:19, 24 December 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 Zhytomyr. Merge away Spartaz ^Humbug! 20:24, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Lugyny Youth Centre

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

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Mitte27 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Mitte27 (talk) 22:16, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Given its location it certainly has some claim to notability. Rathfelder (talk) 22:41, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
Merge - there certainly is a claim to notability, but it's barely notable, and a merger to Zhytomyr would provide some context. Bearian (talk) 18:31, 19 December 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. Insufficient discussion for deletion. Sandstein 08:44, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

BigPicture

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

BigPicture and BigGantt are run-of-the-mill software packages by SoftwarePlant that do not satisfy software notability. These articles were created by a single-purpose account who has made the required conflict of interest declaration for BigGantt but not BigPicture. Google search on both packages shows that they exist, and that they are products of SoftwarePlant, which has a draft in review at Draft:SoftwarePlant, and are marketed via Atlassian. The search for in-depth third-party coverage is unsuccessful.

BigPicture, BigGantt, Draft:SoftwarePlant, and Atlassian appear to be a walled garden under construction. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Previous speedy tagging was explicitly contested, so relisting this rather than handling as soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:44, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

BigPicture/BigGantt are notable. Yes, there is a number of project management apps out there, but very few PPM apps. There are two PPM apps in Atlassian environment and they are BigPicture/BigGantt. Both are uniqe in the sense that they are built around Gantt chart module, a 'forbidden' thing in the agile times, that have overtaken the project management world since circa 2000. The subject is pretty hermetic, and much of the knowledge gets exchanged during the conferences. These articles were created by multiple-purpose account, see Martin DE (Polish Wikipedia). As for the third-party coverage, see how TechCo Jira review 2019 tells apart BigPicture from "2,000 third-party integrations". Regarding the apparent conflict of interest, I was encouraged to declare it for one article after I wrote it. I happen to know more about the two pieces and the project management world than 99% of the public. Jira links to BigPicture, so I wouldn't call the articles the 'walled garden'. --Martin DE (talk) 14:01, 27 December 2019 (UTC)

Added BigGantt and BigPicture to Comparison of project management software to fix the walled garden issue. --Martin DE (talk) 12:36, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:35, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. No previous deletions or proposed deletions, so treating this like an expired WP:PROD due to lack of feedback. WP:REFUND applies. RL0919 (talk) 20:42, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Second Hand Stories

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

A PBS program that did air, but never made it past the pilot episode. The current article is unsourced. When I searched for additional sources, I did find a handful of mentions, but all of them appear to just be brief snippets describing it as an upcoming show, published prior to its air date. I could not find any type of in-depth review or discussion of it, which makes it appear to fail the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 17:10, 17 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 20:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Interior Design Resource Agency

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

Fails NCORP and GNG. None of the sources listed are about the company itself. Nor did a thorough search yield any either. The fact that the lede itself has a citation needed tag says it all. The claim that Venesulia Carr was invited to a run of the mill Pentagon presser means nothing when it comes to IDRA. PK650 (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 01:00, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:28, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete: yep, WP:NCORP isn't met. - Julietdeltalima (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. None of the sources listed are about the company, no WP:RS. fails WP:GNG.-Nahal^(T) 19:51, 24 December 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. Sandstein 19:14, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Art Rock Circus

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

No evidence of this band meeting WP:GNG/WP:NBAND. Nothing much online, though there may be more in print that I can't access. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Anarchyte (talk | work) 13:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment in this version of the article here there were quite a few reviews listed and some interviews but I'm not familiar with these sources except one that could be Classic Rock which is an rs but it is a dead link, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment In the article John Miner (musician), there's a section of "Discussions and critical analysis", which are external links to reviews, etc. Someone needs to go through those (and the reviews in the earlier version of this article which Atlantic306 noted), and add the reliable, independent sources as proper references with inline citations. It may be that both John Miner and Art Rock Circus are notable, or only one of them, but until the existing sources (included as external links) have been reviewed, and a search for others done, it won't be possible to tell which is notable and which could be redirected or merged to the other. RebeccaGreen (talk) 09:59, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

@RebeccaGreen: Most of the websites in that section focus more on Art Rock Circus than John Miner, though I'm wary of the reliability of some. ProGGnosis is a fan site and their review doesn't leave a name. ProgressoR is similar; "a 2-man crew of enthusiasts". Prog-Nose is another fan site, but they at least list their members. This site doesn't have an 'about us' page, unless I can't find it. I'm not sure what to make of Music Street Journal. Their about page is hideous (and doesn't tell us anything). Prog Archives is "a small group of fanatic progressive rock music collectors". The reviewer in the Sea of Tranquility article isn't listed on their staff page. Progressive World put the word "staff" in quotations on their 'about us' page. They also call it a "vanity site". If you agree with my interpretation of the reliability of these sources, we're left with one long album review, one short review, and an artist page with two more short reviews (one, two). None of these talk about John Miner in detail. Anarchyte (talk | work) 03:02, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Some discussion on sources which seems to have gone cold since the last re-list; try one more re-list
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. RL0919 (talk) 01:22, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

Tim Wildsmith

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

Cannot find sources that provide more than just passing mention of the subject. Awards are local, not national. Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:52, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete does not meet notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eagles 24/7 (C) 00:26, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete A musician with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Mattg82 (talk) 18:58, 31 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete my WP:BEFORE does not turn up any reliable sources to establish notability. Wm335td (talk) 21:48, 31 December 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. – sgeureka ^t•c 09:37, 3 January 2020 (UTC)

Hell's Bloody Devils

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

No reliable sourcing found. Sources cited are not WP:RS. Newspapers.com yielded only showtimes at drive-in theaters and no actual reviews. Google Books yielded only passing mentions, interviews, and film directory listings with no substantial coverage in sight. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 02:43, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep I'm not convinced that the cited book is clearly unreliable. Vadder (talk) 16:58, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
- The book, yes. But the Rotten Tomatoes entry is clearly blank, and the other three sources are either personal blogs or fansites, neither of which is a WP:RS. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 19:01, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -Nahal^(T) 19:52, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete. No professional reviews, so WP:NFILM is not satisfied. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:49, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep per Karl Twist. Clarityfiend (talk) 09:08, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep - This is a B grade biker movie from 1970 directed by another notorious B Grade director, Al Adamson. It got a short review by The New York Times, shown here. Its cult status is recognized by dvddrive-in.com here. And DVD Talk reviewed it back on April 26, 2005. Searching in Google News, a good review by RideApart comes up. The reviewer is Bryan Wood who has done quite a few articles for RideApart. His review of the film can be seen here. There's a bit about it too in Tom Weaver's It Came from Horrorwood. Weaver is a well-referenced author for B grade sci-fi and horror etc.. You can see what he wrote here at Page 310. Also The Grindhouse Cinema Database does a review on it. Normally when The Grindhouse Cinema Database covers something you know it is most likely gonna be B grade exploitation sleaze. And this is just what this film is! And millions of B grade exploitation aficionados around the world love this stuff. Well, it's got cult status and it is easily notable! Karl Twist (talk) 05:57, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:38, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Keep - While I may be admittedly biased since I created the page, and it's true that the page deserves more (way more) work being put into it, the editions made by Karl Twist show that it has been given enough notability by sources that are both reliable and themselves notable enough, including a New York Times review.--EdgarCabreraFariña (talk) 13:02, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. I am closing this delete discussion as no consensus because after two relists, consensus wasn't reached. If some editors feel that the article is some sort of WP:PROMO, they should take it up at WP:COIN. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 00:40, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Škoda 33Tr SOR

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

Fails WP:GNG. Seems to be a variant of another bus model, but the other bus model doesn't even have a page. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 02:47, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~riley (talk) 06:27, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete No effective referencing. Seems to be a couple of paid editors pushing Skoda bus articles on Wikipedia. @CaptainEek: Can we please add this: Škoda 32Tr SOR. Thanks.scope_creep^Talk 08:16, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Can we add this: Škoda 31Tr SOR and this Škoda 30Tr SOR and Škoda 14Tr and Škoda 15Tr. Thanks. scope_creep^Talk 11:13, 18 December 2019 (UTC)
Scope creep, Please do. Makes sense to take care of em all at once. Captain Eek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 16:07, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep. I find this a confusing AFD. First it was about this new article that has just two refs. Then there is a comment requesting that four more bus articles be added, all with varying age (one going back to 2012) and referencing. I see no justification at all for treating all five in one AFD. Furthermore, I would never see Delete for any of them; if they could not be justified as independent articles then there should at least be Merge/Redirect to Škoda Transportation or List of Škoda Transportation products but never outright delete. There is also a comment about paid editing. That may be true, but again it doesn't apply to all five. the 14Tr and 15Tr are out of production so I don't see any possible promotional issue there. The newer articles seem to be neutrally written. If there is a concern about promotional editing, then that is a matter for WP:COIN, not AFD. MB 03:03, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 00:33, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Hypergiant Industries

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

Highly promotional article, unwisely accepted from AfC. The list of the advisory board is half the article, and is not encyclopedic content. The references are either promotional interviews with the founder, as for the first 3, or mere notices of funding. Neither type of reference meets WP:NCORP DGG ( talk ) 20:38, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:44, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG, if it's overly promotional, that can be addressed through the regular/normal editing process.

Silicon Review-- Isaidnoway (talk) 11:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Submitted a new edit request on 12/23 to improve the article. The request includes new sources detailing a recent partnership and products. Open to additional suggestions to improve the article. Thank you. DISCLOSURE: I proposed the edit for FleishmanHillard on behalf of Hypergiant. I am a paid editor and am aware of the COI guidelines. Justin Goldsborough (talk) 03:54, 24 December 2019 (UTC)
Keep. Yes, it is promotional (please delete the advisory board section - Wikipedia is not your "pitchbook"), however these good RS are SIGCOV, Popular Mechanics, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle. Per the article, and a google search, there is a lot of other RS on this company - maybe overhyped, but it is getting coverage. Britishfinance (talk) 10:54, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Interview with the CEO about the company in the 'The Silicon Review'. Britishfinance (talk) 15:46, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

An article that relies extensively on an "interview" fails WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:24, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Not a single one of the references mentioned in the article or here meets the criteria for establishing notability.
- This from Dallas News is based on an announcement and fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Chron is churnalism and based entirely on an interview with the co-founder/CEO and information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from American INNO is based entirely on an interview with the CEO/co-founder. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This from D Magazine is another example of promotional churnalism, based entirely on an interview with ex-colleagues of Lamm, the the co-founder/CEO, or with Lamm himself. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Entrepreneur is based on an interview with an investor. Fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from VentureBeat] is entirely based on information provided by a co-founder, Copps. Fails WP:ORGIND.s
- This from Adweek is a single line, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND.
- This from BizJournals is based on an interview with a co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Dallas Innovates is based on a company announcement and interview with a co-founder, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Statesman is based on a company announcements, fails WP:ORGIND
- This next from Dallas Innovates is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Fast Company is based on a company announcement and interview, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Chron is based on a company announcement and quotations from the CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This third from Dallas Innovates is based on an interview with an investor, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Popular Mechanics is based on an interview with a company VP and fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Gigabit is based on an company announcement and fails WP:ORGIND.
- This from Silicon Hills is based on a news statement from the CEO and a news release from the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Statesman is based on a company announcement and an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Houston Chronicle is based on a number of company announcements with quotations from the CEO and from one of their corporate partners, fails WP:ORGIND
- [https://www.inc.com/shama-hyder/how-one-satellite-acquisition-just-changed-future-of-ai.html This from INC is based on an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Silicon Reviews is entirely based on an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
It is clear that the company has an active marketing department and is capable of securing interviews for their CEO and of getting press to cover their announcements, but none of that coverage meets the criteria for establishing notability. As an aside, the CEO likely meets the criteria for notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:36, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Commment. Quite a few of the above sources are profiles on the company by an independent and reputable source, but where the RS happens to also speak to the CEO, which you consider to be a failure of WP:ORGIND. But a fail of ORGING is really where the the RS is a company press releases/marketing release repackaged as an article (which many of the above are not). You note that the company CEO could have their own BLP from the above RS, which again, goes to the independance of many of the above RS.

As a company, there is plenty of coverage from good RS like this Bloomberg which do fail ORGIND (e.g. they are from fund raisings); however, to dismiss interviews of the CEO and covereage of the company like this in Popular mechanics or Fast Company or Dallas Morning News (and more) is not correct. On that basis, almost every RS that ever spoke to an CORP's CEO would be deleted from Wikipedia as a fail of ORGIND, which of course makes no sense. Britishfinance (talk) 18:04, 28 December 2019 (UTC)

Response Britishfinance, the question is not whether the sources are reliable and independent, but whether the content is independent. Therefore, lets assume that the sources are RS and from publishers that are "functionally" independent. But. From WP:ORGIND, articles in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. "Coverage" that relies entirely on information provided by the CEO, the company, their investors, their partners, their customers, or any other "connected" sources may not be used for the purposes of establishing notability. Please note - the interviews, etc, are not "dismissed" for the purposes of citations supporting information contained within the article. Repackaged company announcements and press releases as well as articles that do not contain any Independent Content are "dismissed" for the purposes of establishing notability. It's all explained in WP:NCORP and the WP:ORGIND section. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:02, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment. Take the Popular Mechanics example, the article quotes from third party experts saying: "It's not just trees that ingest carbon dioxide, however. Most breathable air in the world originates from the ocean, "where high levels of nutrients fertilize large blooms of algae," writes Scott Denning, a professor of atmospheric science at Colorado State University.". In the Houston Chronicle piece, they quote third-party experts such as: "Essentially, artificial intelligence and machine learning turn massive amounts of imagery into useful insights, said Chad Brinkley, CEO of Satellite & Extraterrestrial Operations & Procedures, or SEOPS. He said such technologies could enhance the company’s offerings and help it develop new services. “It’s the difference between giving someone a stack of paperwork and asking them to sort through it themselves,” he said in an email, “and taking that paperwork, summarizing the key insights, and giving them concrete actions to follow through on."" These are proper pieces by good RS on the company, that interview both the CEO and other experts on the business; not a fail of WP:ORGIND. The amount of coverage on this company in a general Google news search here is considerable (although much of it would fail ORGIND). Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 17:32, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Response What Independent Content is there *about* the company? The comment you've selected from Scott Denning is generic in that it is a comment about CO2 and the air but says nothing about the company. Similarly, the comment selected from "third-party experts" is from the CEO of SEOPS - the company acquired by Hypergiant (the acquisition of SEOPS is the subject of the entire article), therefore is a "connected" source. Again, nobody is saying that these article are not "proper pieces by good RS" - I've explained (at length) that the article fail the criteria for establishing notability because they do not contain any "Independent Content". Finally, pointing me to a Google Search result because of "considerable" coverage is not an acceptable argument at AfD. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:00, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Response I am only trying to show how extreme your reading of ORGIND is (to the point of wikilawyering imho). This interpretation is needed to discount a material number of refs from good RS on this company. The acceptance that this RS would satisfy a BLP of its CEO is also not really consistent that notability is not being met; there are many cases where an article on a company and/or its CEO is acceptable, and splitting hairs over which one it should be is also not productive. Thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 20:19, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Response OK, if you believe my interpretation is "extreme" and/or "wikilawyering", it would be more helpful if you could point to which parts of the WP:NCORP guidelines you believe I am quoting/interpreting in error/incorrectly. WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND are fairly easy to understand. BLPs have different guidelines (apples/pears) but crucially the CEO has a number of notable achievements which is why I believe the CEO might pass. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:04, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep WP:BEFORE by Britishfinance produced reliable sources. SIGCOV, Popular Mechanics, Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle. Wm335td (talk) 21:25, 31 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Weak delete. [1] is likely the best source, but it is in the end half-rewritten press release, half intereview quotes. What independent, reliable source discusses this company in-depth? No mentions in Scholar/Book, not surprising since this is a 2018 establishment. It can hardly have any impact. Thus, promotional entry, and WP:TOOSOON. Come back in few years when you have some awards, and coverage that wasn't paid for. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 13:22, 8 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment: The company has been able to get a lot of it's publicity echoed various media outlets. However, I'm having difficulty finding much in the way of clearly encyclopedic information about the company. I quickly trimmed back the article, removing what I believe is simply WP:SOAP. --Ronz (talk) 16:29, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Comment. Good job; I have also re-wrote this (meant to do when I !voted above), and added the references discussed (re Popular Mechanics). Having one of your products listed as a "world-changing idea" in Fast Company and reviewed by Popular Mechanics (who are a very well regarded science magazine - and not fools or an RS that allows itself to be abused for unfounded marketing) is notable. In addition, the partnership that Booz Allen announced with them is also notable given that Booz Allen is one of the world's biggest global consultancies (there is more RS behind this partnership that I am looking at but it is behind a paywall). Britishfinance (talk) 14:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment. Given you and I have now re-written this article, I removed the UPE; I will add this article to my watchlist in case UPE returns. Britishfinance (talk) 16:24, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
Comment. As well as the ones above, I have added more sources, including D Magazine (more info on their founding), designboom (their algae HVAC unit was covered in Designbooms top tech predictions for 2020). Britishfinance (talk) 17:26, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:18, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ibrahim Olugbade

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO & does not satisfy WP:42. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 02:18, 18 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:49, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Vivo V2

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

What makes this product (phone) notable? I couldn't find any review in an outlet that seems reliable and not just blog advert or a rewritten press releases. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Oppose The Vivo V1 was covered pretty significantly, so I just figured it's successor should have a page as well. I dunno. Thanks, EDG 543 (talk) 16:09, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

- WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, WP:NOTINHERITED. I am not seeing any significant coverage of the V2 model, but if you see it, please link it here and ping me. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:38, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:44, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Agree with nominator. I tried finding some sources myself but failed. But there seems to be a lot in different languages. If anybody finds a couple in different languages, I'll change my vote. Also, reviews of it might just be covered up by all the product sites selling it. Sam-2727 (talk) 02:29, 30 December 2019 (UTC)
- Right, but we can't assume WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Sources should be the start point of an article, not an eventual goal. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:49, 30 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete Can't find any non-trivial or acceptable sources to establish notability for the device. Note that Vivo devices are largely absent in any English-speaking market I can think of (except for maybe India?) so English-language sources are likely to be few and far between. Given that the device is approaching 4 years old, I don't see that changing in the future. –Erakura^(talk) 01:47, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Additional comment: Looking again at the article, it mentions Verizon Wireless, a US carrier; I'm fairly knowledgeable regarding the US market phone industry and I'm not aware that VZW has ever carried or supported a Vivo product. So I also question the veracity of this article's content as-is. –Erakura^(talk) 01:53, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:01, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Ubald Klug

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG. I should note that a WP:BEFORE shows subject has been discussed in passing but never in detail nor with in-depth. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 03:12, 18 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:02, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

SPC XL

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

Software appears to be NN. I am not able to locate the two supposed references in the article or see how in-depth they cover it, nor are they particularly reliable. Further searches for sources turn up only sales links: [2], nothing relevant at all [3], or only brief, trivial mentions [4]. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:59, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:40, 18 December 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) 19:20, 26 December 2019 (UTC)

Sue Dodge

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources and fails WP:GNG, WP:42 & WP:SINGER Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 01:22, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 11:49, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete non-notable -- the possiblity of redirection to Spear Famoily is nt supported by the availabel sources. DGG ( talk ) 09:57, 26 December 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. RL0919 (talk) 01:33, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Garuda (Kannada film)

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

Non notable film which hasn’t been discussed in sufficient reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:58, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete the current sources are insufficient to demonstrate the notability of this film. The Mirror Cracked (talk) 01:53, 22 December 2019 (UTC)
Delete. The sources are insufficient to show the origins of this film, not reliable source.-Nahal^(T) 00:14, 25 December 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:34, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Flow 187 (Rapper)

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

No signs this person meets WP:GNG. A review of the references provided show they're all from sites that allow PR agencies to post promotional pieces, in fact 3 of the links are the exact same press release just posted in different places. Article is full of unreferenced unsourced promotional claims like the subject being a "famous photographer." The "widely regarded as one of the most dynamic speakers" line is right from the press releases. User name on the account that created the page is the same as the group behind the press releases. His book is self published and not covered anywhere. No record label, no charted hits, no big collabs, etc. Puff piece. JamesG5 (talk) 02:33, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

As a quick note, I didn't speedy this largely because one of the 2 editors involved with creating it has created it & had it speedied multiple times earlier this year, wanted to take it to AfD to clarify it instead of just speedying again. JamesG5 (talk) 03:03, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Delete - Daaang JamesG5 laid it all out like a G6. Definitely a puff piece with no indicia of reliability. Michepman (talk) 02:40, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Comment - I agree with JamesG5. I removed poor and unreliable sources and the associated material as required by Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. The remaining sources are all copies of the same publicity piece, and demonstrate no notability. --Ronz (talk) 16:15, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

This article seems fine to have online. If anything it needs some minor edits not deletion. Wiki team let’s help this article this subject seems valid. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:E000:1701:E351:3D5A:C827:6FEB:CF29 (talk) 15:23, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Every blog is written through PR and Staff in every magazine or online pub or news... Also subject has many great references and collaborations, & book has been covered. I will site all references here that I found Online on this subject. I understand that You are not familiar with the artist in subject but there are many subjects on this website that have 0 relevance to be on here and are marked as not having enough supporting cites but are not marked for speedy deletion. Some of the people on this website abuse their power. JamesG5 Didi't lay it out at all. This is more references on the subject

Press & Links:

https ://open.spotify.com/artist/4BrrFONNOXK6mnArGNYQo6

https: //soundcloud.com/rob-flow-roots

https: //www.imdb.com/name/nm10653338/

https://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Flow%20187

https: //www.instagram.com/flow187official/?hl=en

https://www.dopecausewesaid.com/dope-features/interview-los-angeles-based-rapper-author-and-entrepreneur-flow-187

https://www.thehypemagazine.com/2018/07/flow-187-the-wave/

https://www.hotnewhiphop.com/tags/flow-187/

https://unitedmasters.com/flow-187

https: //mymixtapez.com/album/172511

https://www.amazon.com/s?k=Flow+187&i=digital-music&search-type=ss&ref=ntt_srch_drd_B0773ZTWBY

https://music.apple.com/us/artist/flow-187/943409674

https://hiphopsince1987.com/2019/videos/flow-187-trap-video/

https://medium.com/@hillstromjarrod012/flow-187-hip-hop-musician-author-music-producer-6bc47b640ad6

https://genius.com/albums/Flow187/The-wave-flow-187

https://indiehitmaker.com/ihm_artist/flow-187/

http://www.fox21delmarva.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

http://miamibangerz.blogspot.com/2018/05/flow-187-flow187official-wave.html

https://www.abc6.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://www.news9.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://www.abc6.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://www.magic1065.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://www.fox34.com/story/41433622/meet-flow-187-the-hip-hop-entrepreneur-boasting-passion-and-creativity

https://thriveglobal.com/stories/what-this-music-artist-taught-me-about-passion-determination-creativity/

https://www.newreleasetoday.com/author_rank.php

https://ideamensch.com/rob-roots/

https://www.bookdepository.com/Falling-Isnt-Failing-Rob-Roots/9780615474670

Links pertaining music, Movies, Books, Etc are all included. I'm not going to over cite the subject if im writing facts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TomWestmeyers (talk • contribs) 17:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

- I respect the effort, but most of those sources are garbage. (Medium.com, amazon/com, newreleasetoday, mymixtapez.com). None of those would pass WP:RS. The few that are OK are all copies of each other and don't demonstrate the sustained, ongoing and significant coverage required by WP:SIGCOV. I have nothing but respect for the subject of this article and I respect of course the work of the people who contributed to the article, but Wikipedia has specific rules for writing biographies of living people (WP:BLP) and this just doesn't cut it. Michepman (talk) 02:35, 18 December 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. No consensus to delete,, and after a relist, further good RS was provided that was unchallenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 02:58, 2 January 2020 (UTC)

Abu Rafi

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

Lack of reliability from the information provided here. Fails WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:11, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep -- I know nothing of the subject, but if it is true, this is an article on an important person. Since we are dealing with a distant period, so that the amount of information available may be modest. The current article does have sources, though it seems to rely too much on a single one, which is unsatisfactory, but not a ground for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 11:24, 20 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 16:07, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep. Historical figure, . I can't read the sources given but there's an excellent English language source in Encyclopaedia Islamica: Bojnurdi, Kazem Musavi and Negahban, Farzin, “Abū Rāfiʿ”, in: Encyclopaedia Islamica, Editors-in-Chief: Wilferd Madelung and, Farhad Daftary. Consulted online on 27 December 2019 [5]. All it took to find this was Google. But there is another person of that name in the period, Abu Rafi' ibn Abi Al-Huqaiq (Arabic: أبو رافع بن أبي الحُقَيْق‎), one of Mohammed's enemies, so it is necessary to be careful. See: Expedition of 'Abdullah ibn 'Atik DGG ( talk ) 05:40, 27 December 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 National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:48, 25 December 2019 (UTC)

Nitrutsav

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

Non-notable student "cultural festival". Even if notability can be established, the article is so larded with WP:PEACOCKery and WP:PROMO content as to warrant WP:TNT. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Julietdeltalima (talk) 18:34, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Redirect - this is obviously an ordinary student event - to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela. Bearian (talk) 18:35, 20 December 2019 (UTC)
Redirect. as per :Bearian, Nitrutsav to National Institute of Technology, Rourkela.-Nahal^(T) 00:34, 25 December 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. (non-admin closure) NNADIGOODLUCK (Talk|Contribs) 11:43, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Aashna Chopra

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

Non notable model & actress who fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG & WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 13:50, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Keep: After some researches and clean up and I believe the article meet WP:GNG.Chris Calvin (talk) 21:13, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 20:45, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

DeleteNot notable and did not meet WP:GNG. --17:13, 30 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Richie Campbell (talk • contribs)

Few different sources claims he notability on being the first and only Southeast Asian on a cover of a L'Officiel Europe, also a few sources were used in the article and more to be find in the internet, so it is more likely to meet WP:GNG.Chris Calvin (talk) 23:03, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Newslinger talk 09:24, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

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

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 __NOTOC__
-Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|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 [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 14:23, 24 December 2019 (UTC).
+Below are the top 25 [[WP:AFD|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 [[User:Cyberbot I|bot]] roughly every 6 hours, and was last updated on 18:58, 24 December 2019 (UTC).
 {|class="wikitable"
@@ Line 10: / Line 10: @@
 !Score
 |-
-|[[#Newton Earp |Newton Earp (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20191202214428}}||10||21370||0||'''726.84'''
+|[[#Newton Earp |Newton Earp (2nd nomination)]]||{{Time ago|20191202214428}}||10||21370||0||'''740.61'''
 |-
-|[[#Business Jet Traveler|Business Jet Traveler]]||{{Time ago|20191223133538}}||0||1577||0||'''489.11'''
+|[[#Business Jet Traveler|Business Jet Traveler]]||{{Time ago|20191223133538}}||0||1577||0||'''502.88'''
 |-
-|[[#Jeopardy! Teen Tournament|Jeopardy! Teen Tournament]]||{{Time ago|20191223143415}}||0||3732||0||'''471.27'''
+|[[#Bangla Tribune|Bangla Tribune]]||{{Time ago|20191223154424}}||0||2007||0||'''481.42'''
 |-
-|[[#Bangla Tribune|Bangla Tribune]]||{{Time ago|20191223154424}}||0||2007||0||'''467.66'''
+|[[#ICups|ICups]]||{{Time ago|20191224075600}}||0||3429||2||'''462.94'''
 |-
-|[[#ICups|ICups]]||{{Time ago|20191224075600}}||0||3429||2||'''449.17'''
+|[[#Quidem|Quidem]]||{{Time ago|20191224065657}}||0||1994||0||'''451'''
 |-
-|[[#Quidem|Quidem]]||{{Time ago|20191224065657}}||0||1994||0||'''437.24'''
+|[[#Mr. lab!|Mr. lab!]]||{{Time ago|20191224081839}}||0||1223||0||'''446.89'''
 |-
-|[[#Mr. lab!|Mr. lab!]]||{{Time ago|20191224081839}}||0||1223||0||'''433.12'''
+|[[#Lugyny Youth Centre|Lugyny Youth Centre]]||{{Time ago|20191223221653}}||1||1669||0||'''426.96'''
 |-
-|[[#Cornelius Law College|Cornelius Law College]]||{{Time ago|20191223130400}}||1||2107||0||'''425.71'''
+|[[#BigPicture|BigPicture]]||{{Time ago|20191224163404}}||0||1757||0||'''421.95'''
 |-
-|[[#Lugyny Youth Centre|Lugyny Youth Centre]]||{{Time ago|20191223221653}}||1||1669||0||'''413.19'''
+|[[#Second Hand Stories|Second Hand Stories]]||{{Time ago|20191224171059}}||0||1378||0||'''420.32'''
 |-
-|[[#BigPicture|BigPicture]]||{{Time ago|20191224163404}}||0||1757||0||'''408.18'''
+|[[#Interior Design Resource Agency|Interior Design Resource Agency]]||{{Time ago|20191224010032}}||1||1993||0||'''418.72'''
 |-
-|[[#Second Hand Stories|Second Hand Stories]]||{{Time ago|20191224171059}}||0||1378||0||'''406.55'''
+|[[#Art Rock Circus|Art Rock Circus]]||{{Time ago|20191224134453}}||0||3137||0||'''415.39'''
 |-
-|[[#Interior Design Resource Agency|Interior Design Resource Agency]]||{{Time ago|20191224010032}}||1||1993||0||'''404.95'''
+|[[#Tim Wildsmith|Tim Wildsmith]]||{{Time ago|20191224005233}}||1||2502||0||'''404.28'''
 |-
-|[[#Art Rock Circus|Art Rock Circus]]||{{Time ago|20191224134453}}||0||3137||0||'''401.62'''
+|[[#Hell's Bloody Devils|Hell's Bloody Devils]]||{{Time ago|20191224024329}}||1||2281||0||'''398.56'''
 |-
-|[[#Vlogger (film)|Vlogger (film)]]||{{Time ago|20191224075500}}||1||3591||2||'''399.41'''
+|[[#Škoda 33Tr SOR|Škoda 33Tr SOR]]||{{Time ago|20191224024737}}||1||2465||0||'''398.5'''
 |-
-|[[#Kyiv Specialized School No. 159|Kyiv Specialized School No. 159]]||{{Time ago|20191223222316}}||1||2312||0||'''397.84'''
+|[[#Hypergiant Industries|Hypergiant Industries]]||{{Time ago|20191224203808}}||0||3395||0||'''394.83'''
 |-
-|[[#Tim Wildsmith|Tim Wildsmith]]||{{Time ago|20191224005233}}||1||2502||0||'''390.52'''
+|[[#Ibrahim Olugbade|Ibrahim Olugbade]]||{{Time ago|20191225021843}}||0||1381||0||'''392.8'''
 |-
-|[[#Hell's Bloody Devils|Hell's Bloody Devils]]||{{Time ago|20191224024329}}||1||2281||0||'''384.78'''
+|[[#Vivo V2|Vivo V2]]||{{Time ago|20191225030419}}||0||1935||0||'''390.71'''
 |-
-|[[#Škoda 33Tr SOR|Škoda 33Tr SOR]]||{{Time ago|20191224024737}}||1||2465||0||'''384.73'''
+|[[#Ubald Klug|Ubald Klug]]||{{Time ago|20191225031258}}||0||1420||0||'''390.27'''
 |-
-|[[#Hypergiant Industries|Hypergiant Industries]]||{{Time ago|20191224203808}}||0||3395||0||'''381.06'''
+|[[#SPC XL|SPC XL]]||{{Time ago|20191225035912}}||0||1502||0||'''387.92'''
 |-
-|[[#Ibrahim Olugbade|Ibrahim Olugbade]]||{{Time ago|20191225021843}}||0||1381||0||'''379.03'''
+|[[#Sue Dodge|Sue Dodge]]||{{Time ago|20191225012248}}||0||2263||0||'''380.75'''
 |-
-|[[#Vivo V2|Vivo V2]]||{{Time ago|20191225030419}}||0||1935||0||'''376.95'''
+|[[#Garuda (Kannada film)|Garuda (Kannada film)]]||{{Time ago|20191224135840}}||1||1555||0||'''379.78'''
 |-
-|[[#Ubald Klug|Ubald Klug]]||{{Time ago|20191225031258}}||0||1420||0||'''376.51'''
+|[[#Flow 187 (Rapper)|Flow 187 (Rapper)]]||{{Time ago|20191224023333}}||1||7102||0||'''379.03'''
 |-
-|[[#SPC XL|SPC XL]]||{{Time ago|20191225035912}}||0||1502||0||'''374.16'''
+|[[#Abu Rafi|Abu Rafi]]||{{Time ago|20191225081143}}||0||1697||0||'''375.02'''
 |-
-|[[#Sue Dodge|Sue Dodge]]||{{Time ago|20191225012248}}||0||2263||0||'''366.98'''
+|[[#Nitrutsav|Nitrutsav]]||{{Time ago|20191224183420}}||1||1948||0||'''366.11'''
 |-
-|[[#Garuda (Kannada film)|Garuda (Kannada film)]]||{{Time ago|20191224135840}}||1||1555||0||'''366.01'''
+|[[#Aashna Chopra|Aashna Chopra]]||{{Time ago|20191224135058}}||1||2669||0||'''365.06'''
 |}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Newton Earp (2nd nomination)}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Business Jet Traveler}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jeopardy! Teen Tournament}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bangla Tribune}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/ICups}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Quidem}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mr. lab!}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cornelius Law College}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lugyny Youth Centre}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/BigPicture}}
@@ Line 74: / Line 72: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Interior Design Resource Agency}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Art Rock Circus}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Vlogger (film)}}
-{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kyiv Specialized School No. 159}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tim Wildsmith}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hell's Bloody Devils}}
@@ Line 86: / Line 82: @@
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Dodge}}
 {{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Garuda (Kannada film)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Flow 187 (Rapper)}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Abu Rafi}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nitrutsav}}
+{{Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aashna Chopra}}