Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 18

Guide to deletion

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. T. Canens (talk) 02:06, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Rob Monster

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

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

Does not meet WP:BIO Alex.osheter (talk) 18:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Rob Monster is the CEO of Epik (domain registrar). His only claim to fame is his company, which was covered by reliable sources for about a month last year for giving a hosting Gab's domain. Part of that coverage focused on his personal bigoted views. That's it. He was the CEO for 10 years, and has no other notable achievements. Might as well be a single mention in the Gab article, which it is. Alex.osheter (talk) 18:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Per WP:AFD, your nomination is a delete; striking 2nd !vote. Britishfinance (talk) 08:31, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Meets the GNG handily. GorillaWarfare (talk) 19:10, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

What is he notable for besides being the CEO of Gab's domain registrar? Alex.osheter (talk) 19:34, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Please read the GNG, if you haven't. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. There is no caveat that they must be notable for multiple things. GorillaWarfare (talk) 20:24, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

How significant is significant coverage? 10 sources, of which only 4 talk about him specifically (the rest are about his company or Gab), and only 2 about something notable? (HuffPost, PPC Ian, The Inquisitr, Domain Name Wire). Alex.osheter (talk) 21:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I suppose that is what will be determined in this discussion. I think it's sufficient, though clearly you disagree—hopefully others will weigh in soon enough. In the meantime I can see if there is additional sourcing I can add. GorillaWarfare (talk) 21:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Article has enough WP:RS to meet WP:GNG; a WP:BEFORE should have been carried out first (however, the nom may not be fully familiar with WP:AFD). This reference is WP:SIGCOV Huffington Post (important for a BLP). It would make no sense to merge this BLP into Epik as it is sufficiently developed, and references material on the subject's wider views and details outside of Gab. A basic google search on this subject produces material results, and therefore I am sure that our readers would find this BLP useful and interesting. Britishfinance (talk) 08:47, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• DELETE - Or merge with the company article. I don't see enough here to justify both pages (or either really). Most of the articles referenced are compelled to justify why he's even in the article. His wider views and details don't qualify as significant. The reason his name is mentioned at all is because his company is a domain registrar. This is what the articles from the SPLC, Seattle Times (local company), Vice, BBC are about. The SPLC has a single article on the company, zero on him. With the PPCian interview, the author is a shareholder in his companies. Is there a COI concern with having an investment advisor interviewing one of his investments? TheConversation merely uses him to illustrate a point on a technology. As I understand it, there is no consensus that HuffPo is a reliable source. The Inquisitr does not appear to be. In ten years, the significance will be seen as being with the shooting (and secondarily the social network) and the subject here is three steps removed (and many orders of magnitude less significant), after the fact (which is why all of these articles were written when they were). Do any of the searches generate results of him but not the company? I don't see how you can separate the two and justify both articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mothman (talk • contribs) 02:04, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Note that this user also signs themselves as "user:ogenstein" (see below) E.g. "Mothman" and "ogenstein" are the same editor. Britishfinance (talk) 10:09, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I count almost 30 references between the two articles (BLP and company), but you want to delete them both I don't see enough here to justify both pages (or either really)? Have I got that right? Britishfinance (talk) 11:58, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - This is kind of a false argument I'm having to deal with but here goes.

Of the eleven BLP citations, only two use his name in their headline. One is a dubious reference since it is for an interview with an investment blogger who owns shares in his companies. Incidentally, while 'epik' does make into the tag cloud on the site, the subject does not. The other is a wire release of a change in his other company's CEO.

If he were more notable than his company, then his name would be in the headlines. How notable would he be without the company being in the headlines? He founded the company in 2009 but as far as people who watch extremists are concerned, he didn't exist until late last year and that was because of what his company did. He still doesn't exist to the general public. Otherwise, what is there? His tweeting? He didn't have an article until two weeks ago and that was well-justified. Yes, you have that right. ogenstein (talk) 00:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. This is kind of a false argument I'm having to deal with but here goes. This is not the way to handle yourself at AfD. Again, you fail to engage or discuss that we have two WP:SIGCOVs here, as well as coverage in other RS such as Wired and Vice – that is GNG. Adding personal opinions, and other tangential content, will not have any bearing on whether this BLP is deleted or not. He still doesn't exist to the general public; have you even pressed the "news" section on the "find sources tool" above. It is clear from your comments (above and below), that you don't like this BLP (you feel it is a "hit-job"). Rather than engage on the content in the Talk Page, you are trying to just get it deleted. Inserting a "wall of text" (below) that tries to dismiss every reference in the BLP on poor arguments, is unlikely to meet your aims. Britishfinance (talk) 08:12, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - To clarify, there are two HuffPo articles: One discusses Epik/Monster, the other does not. You stated that there were almost 30 references supporting keep. Was that a valid argument for an AfD? This is what I described as false, especially when the majority were duplicates or on an entirely different subject. And, FWIW, it's not really a wall of text. There's a nice list and paragraphs and everything.

If you look at the text of this article, what is significant and notable is focused on the shooting, the social network (SN) and its users. The majority of those references are to support that text. If that's fundamentally what warrant's this page, then the page shouldn't exist because that information is covered better elsewhere, and the entire 'politics' section doesn't justify a page (or there would be a page for every user of the SN and others. The subject should be a footnote on one of those pages (as Epik is on the SN page).

I did not dismiss the SPLC article but I believe the article (all articles) needs to be examined and I don't think that it is sufficient to indicate notability. The gist of the article (and others) is to point out that the subject is beginning to associate with people and organizations which they feel are notable. They didn't write that the subject is the same as David Duke, they wrote that the subject spoke about Duke. All of the issues raised in the article are treated similarly. How is that encyclopedic? HuffPo, I did dismiss. By the way, where is the national coverage? Is there any? People favouring the article could provide significant national coverage of the subject. That would make me reconsider but I don't believe it exists. WP:NEVENTS requires multiple reliable sources with national scope. For example, the NY Times has many articles on the SN and the shooting, but none on the subject.

I spent considerable time searching for news. That's why I could write that none of the referenced sites have sustained coverage of the subject but most have written extensively on the SN. Notability requires WP:SUSTAINED coverage. That doesn't exist. All of the non-trivial coverage was triggered by one event. This is why I don't put as much weight on the Vice or Wired articles as you do. WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTWHOSWHO both clearly specify that we need to examine how issues would best be covered and it may not be in a standalone article. If the SN hadn't lost its earlier domain registration, would any articles have been written about the subject or the company? SIGCOV doesn't obviate the requirements of NEVENTS or SUSTAINED.

As regards the company page, there are perhaps a handful of references which are relevant to that discussion, which I described as one warranting consideration. I'm willing to discuss and I don't have a firm opinion yet but that is extraneous to this page and AfD. My concern here is that this page lacks justification. As an aside, the SPLC article states clearly that they spoke with the subject so I never thought that it was a hit job and you're just making crap up here. I do believe that the subject is insufficiently notable for his own page. I also believe the material belongs on wikipedia but in a way that provides the appropriate context (without having to duplicate it).

Finally, I have no inkling as to what approach would work on Gab and if I read your intent correctly, casting such aspersions destroys your own credibility when it comes to 'handling yourself'. ogenstein (talk) 21:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. You said above: You stated that there were almost 30 references supporting keep. Was that a valid argument for an AfD?. No it is not, but that was not my reasoning for Keeping, which I have noted separately at this AfD using WP:PAG to show WP:GNG. It was my question as to your original dismissal of notability, and it still applies to your subsequent and largely non-PAG based dismissals of the individual references. Your text above is also nothing really to do with whether a BLP should be deleted; it is around bias and other issues in the article, which should be addressed on the BLP's Talk Page. Britishfinance (talk) 11:07, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - As far as the company is concerned, well, 5 of their 18 references are also on the BLP and 2 are internal links. The first reference is simply to the list of ICANN registrars so we're down to 10. But I'll walk through all 15 so this will be longer. Sorry for conflating them here but I think your concerns are worth addressing.

1. The NPR article doesn't mention either BLP or company. It's really about the social network and shooting which to my mind, is where meaningful notability lies. But, there's no reason it should have as it is a 2017 article.
2. The Verge's article mentions neither. No reason it should as it's a 2017 article.
3. The two Times' articles mentions neither. No reason they should as they were from 2015 and 2016.
4. The LA Times article mentions neither. No reason it should as it's a 2015 article.
5. One HuffPo article mentions neither. No reason it should as it is from early 2018.
6. The Atlantic article mentions neither. No reason it should as it is a 2017 article.
7. The Columbian is a small city paper writing about the purchase of a local company. Note it covers all the issues and is well-written but it's really about the purchased company BitMitigate.
8. Seattle Times has another 'local company' article. Note that in their headline, they use 'Gab' and 'Pittsburgh synagogue shooting' but they identify Epik as 'Seattle-area company'.
9. The Vice article refers to the company as, "…A little-known domain registrar called Epik."
10. The AP article is a wire report about Epik having received a subpeona requesting documents related to the social network following the shooting. The Ars Technica story is also related to this request but is really about whether this was an appropriate request from the AG.
11. I don't give HuffPo assumed RS. They can be strident at times and I think this article's headline is a good example of that. And they haven't written since on either subject.
12. The Wired article is a mix. It begins by talking about Gab (the headline company) and then discusses CloudFlare, before getting to Epik/Monster. And it covers some pretty shallow stuff, e.g. "…Monster described the actions of the other internet infrastructure firms as “heavy-handed…”. Again, Gab has many articles on Wired, but this is it for Epik.
13. SPLC is RS but it does indicate under their entry that care should be taken with BLP and undue weight. Incidentally, neither Monster nor Epik is on the SPLC extremist list. The article describes Epik as a 'small domain registrar'. While they also have not written again on Epik/Monster, they have written five times since January on the social network.

So what exactly is Epik notable for? It's a reflection of their clients and really just for a single event. If you do a search for 'epik domain' on google, you'll get less than 5% as many hits as the social network gets. And of those hits, most are of the mundane sort, e.g. is Epik good for hosting?. The first page of results actually has wikipedia's page number second, but nothing else mentions any contraversy. The great bulk of the writing that you feel makes this obviously notable is actually about other companies and people. Do they inherit the notability (or notoriety) of their clients?

Incidentally, over the last 30 days, the BLP has <500 page views and Epik has <700. Gab has 30K and the shooting page has 57K so their daily averages exceed each (or both). So what I said previously still holds for me but I concede that the company warrants consideration. BLP does not. As is, the shooting holds the most notability, then the social network, then the registrar/host, then the BLP. If things change, they change, but that's where it's at now. ogenstein (talk) 01:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Per my comment above, there is little in the above that is a WP:PAG discussion on the refs. For example, the SPLC WP:SIGCOV is dismissed because neither Monster nor Epik is on the SPLC extremist list. The HuffPost WP:SIGCOV is dismissed because it mentions neither, when it clearly does [1]. You dismiss the Vice article because it says: "…A little-known domain registrar called Epik.". Other refs are given an even more trivial dismissal. You are demonstrating that you are not familiar/comfortable with WP's WP:PAG or WP:GNG, and what constitutes a valid AfD argument, and what is not. Your overtly strong bias to get this BLP deleted means that editors will be less inclined to help you resolved these problems. Such an approach may work on the Gab (social network) (the network that Epik (domain registrar) and Rob Monster are associated with), but not here. Britishfinance (talk) 08:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:57, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep subject is GNG and nominator should have WP:BEFORE per Britishfinance Lubbad85 (☎) 19:59, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Epik (domain registrar) or speedy delete per WP:G10 as a wholly negative BLP. The PPC Ian interview fails WP:COISOURCE as the author has a COI with Epik. The HuffPost article should be taken with a grain of salt as Monster has called it a "hit-job" [2], per WP:BLP. The other references are routine coverage and passing mentions. WP:NBIO is not satisfied, and the only significant coverage is in a HuffPost article that Monster disputes (meaning WP:GNG is not satisfied). wumbolo ^^^ 21:21, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• These are not arguments regarding whether this BLP should be deleted (or redirected), but rather around the content in the BLP which should be discussed on the BLP talk page. The issue here at AfD, is whether this person is notable enough to have a BLP (e.g. does he meet WP:GNG). As well as other references, the subject has a long article from the Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) [3], which is WP:SIGCOV, and the SPLC is also regarded as a Perennial reliable source on WP. He is also the subject of another long article (e.g. WP:SIGCOV) from the HuffPost [4], and the Huffpost is regarded as a PRS by some but not all. Combined with the other interviews in this BLP, for AfD purposes, he does meet GNG. Britishfinance (talk) 21:42, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• The PPC Ian source is only being used for factual, uncontroversial claims, since as an interview it's largely the subject speaking about himself. If you look how it's used in the article, it's just supporting basic factual information about his family, his pre-Epik work history, and his involvement with DigitalTown. He is not notable for having a wife and kids or for working for P&G or DigitalTown, nor does the article imply he is; it's general biographical information. As for the coverage of him being largely critical, or him disliking how a source portrays him, that is not an argument against deleting the article or using an otherwise reliable source. GorillaWarfare (talk) 00:05, 24 May 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 Starship (rocket)#Testing. Per the points made that redirects are cheap and that some material could be mergeable. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 20:15, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

List of Starship launches

List of Starship launches (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Fails per WP:CRYSTAL and is of questionable utility Jadebenn (talk) 18:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, a very short fictional list of speculative launches. Text unrelated to the list was copied from elsewhere. Rowan Forest (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete – The epitome of WP:TOOSOON. — JFG ^talk 19:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - A tethered launch is not remotely a starship as I understand it.--Auric talk 20:41, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
  • @Auric: You're misundertanding the purpose; "Starship" is the name of SpaceX's new rocket. It's "launches of Starship", not "starship launches". Still no good, but making sure that's understood. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Way too much crystalballing in the long version, and rather pointless as a standalone article in the cut-down one. I do appreciate the humour in characterizing sub-meter hops as "suborbital tests" :p --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 19:28, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Starship (rocket) Pretty much WP:TOOSOON, but it can be merged to the article I mentioned as it's decently significant. INeedSupport ^:3 14:28, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to Starship (rocket)#Testing. As a standalone this is WP:TOOSOON, and the testing launches covered are already covered in the main article (hence, nothing to merge). But redirects are cheap. - The Bushranger _{One ping only} 01:48, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
• Merge/redirect Over 99% of the article was already removed. [5] This should've just been made into a redirect. The only thing left is listing two times something lasted for a few seconds. You can do that in the main article. Dream Focus 19:06, 25 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 18:25, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Aimée Leigh

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

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

Actress with questionable notability. Most of her roles appear to be uncredited with no major role at all. Wgolf (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Wgolf (talk) 18:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete It is long past time when all articles sources only to IMDb should be gone from Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:28, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:33, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Seems to have had no significant roles. Fails to meet WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Cwmhiraeth (talk) 12:46, 21 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - the article pretty much makes the case for deletion with the roles she is apparently most known for being ones that are minor. The best I could find was this little bit in this book on Hellraiser. That's well short of the significant coverage that would be needed to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 03:08, 23 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

List of tragedy films and TV programs

List of tragedy films and TV programs (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Please see the conversation at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Film#Creating a genre for where this began. While tragedy is a genre for plays of a certain era AFAIK the term is not used for films, TV programs or anime/manga. When I found the article it had this note at the top of the page. I read this as stating that WP:OR, WP:SYNTH and WP:SPECULATION are okay for articles added to the list and it also tries to justify adding tragedy as a genre to those articles. Many articles listed there are unsourced. Those that do have references seem to look for reviews that use the word tragedy in them but do not place the film in a genre called tragedy. In regards to the anime/manga films listed I found this Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 16#Category:Tragedy anime and manga. There was also this Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 January 16#Category:Tragedy video games. The list article was started shortly before these were closed as delete. Now the filmproject discussion finds a possible mention of tragicomedy as a new(ish) genre but, IMO, it would be better to WP:TNT this article and start fresh with a different list for those film and TV shows that meet the criteria for that term. MarnetteD|Talk 17:44, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:SALAT: "Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value". Clarityfiend (talk) 19:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per nominator and Clarityfiend and for the exact same reasons as this similar article which has already been deleted by AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tragedy television programs. Ajf773 (talk) 09:02, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 00:35, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as I feel that having the article deleted is acting in haste. My view point is that there was no discussion with me in how to approach the article and there was no guideline placed for me to work with. Overall I had not been notified about the discussion Creating a genre until it too late. I'm willing to work to with other editors to make it so that this article works. Yes, I do realise I did too much on my own to add to the article it's because I've personally studied the genre and regularly watch works that I feel would qualify for it. I shouldn't've added to it so much without consensus with other editors and I realise that but I can also say there was no true discussion with me for what should and shouldn't be added as well. Yes, I do agree with the fact that there's no substantial use of the Tragedy as a genre to be labeled for films and TV but there are many instances where directors and writers have personally called their own works tragedies like David Simon, Ashar Farhadi, Gen Urobuchi etc. I'm willing to place in works where the people who created them have explicitly called them tragedies and add said references to do so. Although I do say that's somewhat ridiculous that there even needs to be references because the thing is references aren't needed for other list articles of specific genres such as List of comedy-drama television series. There are very few references in that article and many other similar articles yet they're readily accepted but my article needs the same to find the same acceptance. If my article is deemed broad I'm willing to work so it's not broad and add in stuff that's substantiated so it doesn't come off as such. But I can also make a similar argument for Drama or Comedy both of those terms are just as broad and can come off as such yet, things are readily accepted as dramas and comedies without the same argument being leveled. The thing I don't completely understand is the argument that Tragedy can't apply to film and TV despite some industry professionals having called their own works tragedies like for example Darren Aronofsky and Requiem for a Dream yet drama and comedy come from the same historical root but they can be applicable to film and TV. I don't believe a genre should be put to such limitations because that doesn't seem objective. I would like to make this work and I am willing to agree to split this article in two and create another one for Tragicomedy. I feel as though both these genres have a lot to offer Wikipedia if they continue to influence many of those in the industry and are willing to create works in these genres despite it being rare. I understand I shouldn't've changed other articles and I will stop doing that but I never changed articles to discredit the other genres of that makeup the films and shows I mainly just added to because I felt they could qualify as tragedies and tragicomedies. I do have to note many of the articles of films were already labeled tragedy and tragicomedy before I even added them to my article and they were changed after controversy was provoked with mine and I trying to state that there was no consensus given to those articles before they were edited such as Macbeth (2015 film). I do feel it's rather odd that faithful film and TV adaptations of plays by Shakespeare, Euripides, Sophocles, and Aeschylus aren't labeled tragedies in their wikipedia article since such adaptations don't change the story all that much. So, I'm willing to make this article work if there's a guideline given to me. Like does the works have to fit a specific narrative structure like does the films and TV programs need to have tragic stock characters like the tragic hero or the tragic villain? Do they need to fall in line with classic narrative structure or Greek or Shakespearean tragedy? Although I feel the classic structure would be very limiting since it doesn't take into account the modern development of the genre. Do they need to be stories that deal with moral philosophy? Does the film or TV program need to invoke catharsis? Or does it just need to have been explicitly called a tragedy? If this comes off as offensive then I'm sorry I mean no offense to my fellow editors, I'm trying to objective and not trying to use any negative language. Please excuse if this is long winded. I've never written in a discussion like this before and I'm not quite sure how this works. IceBrotherhood (talk) 19:54, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

For the record IB was notified of the discussion at the filmproject here User talk:IceBrotherhood#Input request on May 7th. As IB has been editing since April of 2012 they should be aware of the guidelines of the various Manual of Styles. However, the note that IB placed at the top of the articles states "Not every addition to this article needs to be referenced by sources" and does show a lack of understanding of how Wikipedia works. I'm also not sure about the claim that "tragedy and tragicomedy in modern day are unpopular genres." As has been stated neither is a term that has been applied to films, TV shows or anime/manga in the past. Wikipedia articles rely on what WP:SECONDARY reliable sources state. I don't know if IB was the creator of the "List of tragedy television programs" or either of the categories that were deleted but If they were they should be aware of the problems that this article has. I don't know if any of the other wikis might be a place for this original research but they could certainly be written up on a blog or a facebook page. MarnetteD|Talk 03:26, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

[6]. They were the creator of that article. Ajf773 (talk) 03:52, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Since this is a reply directed at me MarnetteD I wish for you to please address me as I believe we can work this out. The tone by which the reply is written comes off as condescending and I deserve to be address with a degree of professionalism since Wikipedia is a place that wishes to serve and educate the public. I may not have a high degree of knowledge of the inner workings of this site but I know that at least. Yes, I did just check my notifications recently and yes you did notify me and that's failure on my part as I don't always check my notifications and have rarely been asked to join discussions before. I as an editor have not had a large amount of team related interaction with other editors. I have only had done this once before with other editors but not to this degree. And yes I have been editing since 2012 but I have not read the Manual of Styles. These are all failures on my part, I accept that. I agree with you I shouldn't've had made the claim with my note when I created this article and that too was also a mistake I made. Yes, I had created "List of tragedy television programs" but that one wasn't substantial and I was okay with it being deleted because I too saw that it wasn't as viable. But since creating this expanded version and seeing the amount of work I had put into it and the references I've applied to it I feel it's viable. I feel as though with your guys help I can make this article and possibly a separate article for Tragicomedy to meet Wikipedia's guidelines. Yes, I can say that there was a lot of original research and I'm willing to discard all of that. But you say that neither has been applied to film, TV shows and anime/manga in the past but I like to state that they have. Though not as frequently they have been applied by the creators select films, TV programs and anime/manga. Most of my references were debatable I admit that but some of my references in interviews with directors and writers explicitly stated that said film, TV program, and anime/manga/light novel were tragedies i.e. Darren Aronofsky, Asghar Farhadi, David Simon, Gen Urobuchi etc. The select references were not debatable in comparison to most of the ones I accumulated on the page. It would be a much smaller list but I'm fine with it since it would serve it's purpose more efficiently and accurately. If we choose to let it stay I feel I can work much harder to find references that are explicit like the ones I've stated. I don't know how get them to show in this discussion though cause I don't know how to do that. I wanted to create this article because I wanted to give voice to those who were enamoured by the genre enough to create films, anime and TV programs in the genre(s) and I feel that since they believe their works to be tragedies why deny that of them and many continue to adapt classic tragedies such as the plays by Shakespeare, Euripides, Sophocles etc. into films and TV as Tragedy and Tragicomedy still serves an important role in society with the lessons that they continue to teach and the philosophical questions the genre(s) are unafraid to ask about life by examining life through a lens that's not always the happiest and filled with suffering but is cathartic and hopeful (usually) in the end. IceBrotherhood (talk) 17:07, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. I nominated Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of tragedy television programs for deletion and I support deletion of this article for the same reason. It’s unencyclopedic because it is a personal memo of things that fall into an undefined category. It’s essentially ‘List of things that made me feel melancholy’ or some similar subjective basis. Mccapra (talk) 04:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Oh for the argument that said that tragedy hasn't been applied to TV programs or films. I wanted to give examples. Sons of Anarchy - 1. https://www.tvguide.com/news/sons-of-anarchy-maggie-siff-tara-death-1074527/ In this interview with Maggie Siff when discussing the season 6 finale there's a quote from Kurt Sutter and he said of Sons of Anarchy that "The show is an epic tragedy and a tragic love story." 2. https://www.eonline.com/fr/news/605326/sons-of-anarchy-boss-explains-why-that-series-finale-death-had-to-happen In this interview with Kurt Sutter he said "Yo, what we're writing here is a tragedy. It's always been a tragedy in the Shakespearean or Greek sense. It has to end tragically and we all knew that when we were getting into it." Inside Llewyn Davis - https://www.westword.com/film/oscar-isaac-on-the-screwball-tragedy-of-inside-llewyn-davis-5123034 In this interview the star of the film Inside Llewyn Davis Oscar Isaac called the film a "Screwball tragedy." The Wire - This article is titled The Wire: David Simon reflects on his modern Greek tragedy. In this interview with creator David Simon he said of The wire “We were always adjusting where characters were going to end up, what parts of Baltimore we were going to depict when, what we wanted to say with the overall theme of the show. It was a Greek tragedy done in a modernist urban way, with the city as the main character.” Requiem for a Dream - 1. http://www.papermag.com/the-needle-and-the-damage-done-requiem-for-a-dream-1425144191.html In this interview with Director Darren Aronofsky said of making Requiem that "I wanted to make a tragedy, in the classical sense." 2. In another interview about Requiem Aronofsky said "Eighty per cent of ticket sales across the world go to Hollywood movies," he points out, "and because of that, people are almost brainwashed into expecting a catharsis. But anyone who's been on the planet long enough knows that, in the end, things seldom work out OK. That's what tragedy is about. And tragedy is an art form that's been killed by Hollywood. I mean, with Requiem, the catharsis is really there for the audience the day after they've seen the movie." A Seperation - http://moviecitynews.com/2012/02/the-gronvall-files-asghar-farhadi-writerdirector-of-a-separation/ Director Asghar Faahadi talked about his film A Seperation in this interview talked about how his film is a modern tragedy he said and I quote "When I was working in theatre I was reading a lot of tragedies. But this kind of tragedy—if you want to compare it to the classic tragedies of the past—has one historic difference. In a classic tragedy, there is a war between good and evil, but in modern tragedies, the war is between good and good. In classic tragedies, you hope the bad guy dies, so you feel better. But in this modern tragedy, you don’t know which character you want to win, which one you want to lose, and you’re probably not going to feel good about either. There’s also another difference between the classic tragedy and the modern tragedy. The weakness–the Achilles heel–of the classic tragic hero comes from within himself. For example, Hamlet doubts too much. King Lear is not very with it. Macbeth is too hungry for power. But for the characters of the modern tragedy, their weaknesses don’t come from within themselves; they come from the environment, the pressure that the environment puts on them." Leaving Las Vegas - https://web.archive.org/web/20180705175416/http://www.recommended.co.nz/movies/beautiful-sadness-leaving-las-vegas/14/38 In this review of Leaving Las Vegas what is said of the film is "This tragedy is not for the weak of heart or those who have ever lost a loved one to this terrible disease as there is no mercy and no sugar coating to the horror that alcoholism entails." Manchester by the Sea - https://www.reporternews.com/story/life/faith/2017/03/10/god-removes-shame-even-lee-chandler/98924316/ This review of Manchester by the Sea said "But, Manchester By the Sea is no romance. It is a tragedy that slowly unfolds through flashbacks in the mind of Lee Chandler, the main character played by Affleck, as he wrestles with his brother’s death and guardianship of his brother’s son."

These guys see the value of the genre of tragedy because tragedy isn't about being "melancholy" it's a genre that's definitely sad in nature but it's also about hope and learning that you can survive the sorrows of life and continue to move towards the future. It's a genre that admits that life isn't always happy and that it's filled with a lot of hardship and suffering but that it's still worth living. I can definitely say their views of their own work is objective. I know that I most likely won't convince anyone here but if I do and you guys vote to keep this article around I know that I can make it a worthy article. Plus if anyone votes to save it and wants to work with me to improve it then I would look forward to working with you guys, I believe that it would be a worthwhile experience and with more help then it could be perhaps become great article. That way I can improve my skills as an editor. Anyways even if this article doesn't survive I can say at least I fought for something I believed in, I can say that I didn't lay down and gave up without even trying. I should've learnt to create a wikipedia article better before this but I guess I was overzealous, I can get that way when I get passionate about something. You know Wikipedia shouldn't have as bad of a reputation that it does if there are people like you guys working hard to keep it legit. This was quite the experience, discussions like these can definitely be applied to the real world when you have co-workers and teamwork is needed. I may be on the losing end but it was a nice experience nonetheless. IceBrotherhood (talk) 00:29, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

IceBrotherhood Thanks for setting out your thinking as you have. Maybe the core of the problem with this article is where you say ’I can definitely say their views of their own work is objective.’ That’s not a standard that can possibly make a viable article. If the creators of films and programs described their work as “unique’ that would not be a basis for an encyclopaedia article ‘List of Unique Films and TV programs’. Likewise if they described them as ‘heroic’, ‘adventurous’ or something similar that would not serve. That’s a subjective evaluation and no amount of collaboration with other editors can get around that. Tragedy isn’t a genre like ‘scifi’ or ‘western’ so it’s pretty much impossible to arrive at a consensus of what is tragic. I think Zhang Yimou’s Curse of the Golden Flower is a tragedy. Do you? Should it be included or not? A possible basis for an encyclopaedic list would be films or tv shows where the term ‘tragedy’ is in their title, or where there was a well-established and well documented critical consensus that they are tragedies. Otherwise I can’t see how this article could be improved. Mccapra (talk) 10:08, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

I haven't seen Curse of the Golden Flower. So I can't determine that. My thinking is how isn't Tragedy a genre when people such as Aristotle and Shakespeare have laid grounds for the definition of how tragedy functions. Tragedy is a genre of suffering that has an air of depressing the same way we know dramas are serious, comedy is funny, horror is scary it elicits empathy and sorrow from us that results in catharsis the cleansing and purging of our own negative emotions. That can result from many of the basic storylines of tragedy such as revenge, downfall, reversal of fortune, grief, horror like spectacle that doesn't induce fear but pity like instead of witnessing the massacre of people firsthand but happening upon the bodies and seeing the aftermath, misfortune, being born into unfortunate circumstances, rape, error in judgement, backstabbing, learning to get over a death of a loved one, not being able to fight an unfortunate fate, loss, abuse, being framed for a crime you didn't commit, taking no pleasure in inflicting suffering on others thus describing the tragic villain, doing immoral things for moral reasons and it hurts you inside emotionally thus defining the tragic hero, suicide, loving someone who doesn't love you back or is toxic for you, fatal flaws/hamartia getting the better of a character an example is their pride or their beliefs, mistreatment, loss of self control such as through addiction or a terminal illness, being manipulated into doing things you don't want to do, curses, trying to survive in a post apocalyptic world against all the odds, being forced to make choices you don't want to, war, genocide, ostracization, facing one's own mortality, self hatred, descent into a madness/insanity etc. Overall I notice all tragedies all try to fight or cope with a sense of despair and there's no pleasure to be gained from the events that unfold before them. Drama and comedy you can get a sense of pleasure from them. Though drama is serious and operates a similar way there's still pleasure to be gained from the story and events that befall the characters in tragedy pleasure is lacking and instead filled with suffering and pain. Pleasure isn't gained from the audience except through catharsis. That by watching these negative valued events people go at least my life isn't like that and are grateful for the lives we have or from the ability to empathise with the suffering of the characters and the situations they're forced into. And of course the (usually) cathartic endings which show through all the horrible things that happen in life that there's still hope and you can move forward. Tragedies are pretty easy to define because they generally have the same stories over and over again. The human experience doesn't have too many situations where they're deemed almost entirely insufferable there's usually a sense of pleasure gained from most experiences so tragedies tend to use the same experiences over and over again. I've watched many tragedies and similar stories do recur.

I just read the synopsis to Curse of the Golden Flower and it can qualify as a tragedy. By the way there are a select films and TV programs that have critical consensus that they are tragedies but the thing is it's not widespread because tragedy's a genre that not many can enjoy on a constant so it doesn't have as large of a body but there are. I can see why because it takes a strong constitution to watch the genre on a constant basis so I was the only one in my class when asked to choose a genre and speak on it's importance to society most people chose like science fiction, fantasy, comedy, noir etc. I chose tragedy. I was given many academic books by my professor to support my view like Greek Tragedy on screen by Pantelis Michelakis or Greek tragedy into film by Kenneth MacKinnon. They're books about adaptations of Greek tragedies into film. IceBrotherhood (talk) 4:18, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Hi I just reread your comments and taken together they amount to your personal view of what constitutes a tragedy. That’s fine, but not the basis for an encyclopaedia article. Yes Aristotle wrote about it but you can’t build an article on the basis that a list of things, in your view, meets Aristotle's criteria because that’s your original research, which isn’t allowed on Wikipedia. The sourcing you’ve provided means that this article is something like ‘list of films and tv programmes that have been described at least once as a tragedy by one source’ (I understand that some items you’ve included have multiple sources). That still doesn’t meet the sourcing requirements for an article. Mccapra (talk) 12:59, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Umm... actually most of the events I described came straight from tragic plays. Most of the stuff I said have occurred in the plays written by Euripides, Sophocles, Shakespeare, Seneca etc. Also the others I described are found in plays of other tragedians. Like loss of self control through addiction occurs in a domestic tragedy by Thomas Middleton called A Yorkshire tragedy. Affairs of the state has been a mainstay of many of the old tragic plays and war and genocide fall under affairs of the state. Rape was common in many tragedies and greek legends like say Medusa being raped by Poseidon or Medea being cursed. Medea is a play by Euripides. In the Witch of Edmonton the lead character Elizabeth Sawyer was ostracized by her society prompting her to vow revenge. Being born into unfortunate circumstances is a mainstay of Shakespearean tragedy. In terms of when I said loving someone who isn't good for you that doesn't stray too far from the concept of the most famous romantic tragedies i.e. Romeo and Juliet or Antony and Cleopatra. Many characters in the tragic plays spiraled into madness because they were usually told a prophecy of their impending death at the hands of someone and they go crazy trying to prevent it and having to constantly face their own mortality. Madness is especially common in revenge tragedy plays. Suicide occurs in many of Shakespeare's plays Hamlet, Othello, Julius Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra, and Romeo and Juliet and Sophocles' tragedy Antigone, Antigone she kills herself. All the things I've listed didn't stray too far from the plays. The only thing I said that probably didn't occur in the plays would be surviving in a post apocalyptic world against all odds but that doesn't stray too far from the plays where characters strive to survive in the world against all odds and as with Senecan and Greek tragedy the world usually has supernatural elements. I didn't have to go far because the things that happen in the plays are actually stories that are easy to repeat. I should know I've seen these plays live in person many times. IceBrotherhood (talk) 15:30, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Dusti^{*Let's talk!*} 07:13, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Pedro Rodríguez (politician)

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

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

Sources not exist at all IRIEN✓ (aka MAh'ia)🙏 17:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. IRIEN✓ (aka MAh'ia)🙏 17:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:57, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is about district level politician as well.Not Notable.IRIEN✓ (aka MAh'ia)🙏 18:23, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Easy keep. Nominator depressingly did not follow WP:BEFORE. Member of the first Philippine Assembly, the forerunner of the current Philippine House of Representatives, which is a national legislature. The Philippine Assembly was the first fully elected national assembly of its kind in Asia outside Japan. Easily satisfies WP:POLITICIAN. To the nominator, please exercise in satisfying WP:BEFORE nominating articles such as this. Howard the Duck (talk) 20:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy keep. Definitely passes WP:POLITICIAN since he was a part of the legislature. --Hiwilms (talk) 05:34, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Sources not exist at all, Find some reliable sources. --MA Javadi (talk) 16:41, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Yes, the article needs improvement, but as long as it's verifiable that they actually held the claimed role and aren't an outright hoax, politicians who held seats in national legislatures are always automatically notable regardless of the quality of sourcing present in the article as written. For a person who held an NPOL-passing office 110 years ago, the sources are not all that likely to be readily Googlable — but there are definitely books and archived newspaper coverage somewhere. Our references do not have to be web-accessible; we are allowed to cite print-only content. Wikipedia editors don't always put in the work to locate archival sourcing that they can't just find on a simple Google search, so our articles on older politicians who held office before the age of the internet are often much more inadequate than our articles on contemporary officeholders — but as long as we can verify that the person actually held the claimed role, we keep the article and flag it for reference improvement. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Obviously notable and finding a source to verify that he held office was not at all difficult. -- Whpq (talk) 03:12, 23 May 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:27, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Total Eclipse (web series)

Total Eclipse (web series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

The sources in this article are few, and I am not seeing enough coverage of this web series to warrant an article. Andise1 (talk) 17:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:40, 26 May 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. ST47 (talk) 00:31, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Chicken Girls

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

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

The sources in this article are not enough to establish notability, and I am not seeing enough coverage of this web series to warrant an article. Andise1 (talk) 17:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• I'm inclined to say Keep: the article contains sources from Variety, The Hollywood Reporter and Deadline Hollywood – if that's not enough to make a web series/TV series be considered "notable", I'm not sure what is. Bottom line: With that sourcing, this looks to meet the prerequisites of WP:TVSHOW. Could the article use more sourcing like this? Sure. But what's it's got, and the fact it's run 4 seasons, and led to two(?) follow-up movies seems to point towards it being notable... --IJBall (contribs • talk) 14:54, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This series has attracted very considerable press attention in hundreds of news sources. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:09, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Videos in this series get many millions of views - this example has almost 13 million views. Somambulant1 (talk) 04:19, 1 June 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Yvette Rosser

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Yvette Rosser
• Articles for deletion/Yvette Rosser (2nd nomination)

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

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

Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ∯WBG^converse 15:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Notable author with multiple and heavily cited works. Rioter 1 (talk) 12:05, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  WP:AADD. Given your last few edits, you have a 98.23% chance of being topic-banned. ∯WBG^converse 12:30, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete- Satisfied that she isn't notable author, Fail Passes WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG --MA Javadi (talk) 16:28, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete doesn't pass WP:GNG, [WP:NACADEMIC]] or WP:NAUTHOR. Best, GPL93 (talk) 22:48, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete searches fail to produce adequate sources. Fails WP:NACADEMIC, WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:12, 26 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:09, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Siddharth Bishnoi

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

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

Fails WP:NPOL. No indication of WP:GNG. Notability requires verifiable evidence and it can not be inherited. Hitro talk 12:08, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 12:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Keep. This is regarding notice of deletion of the article Siddharth Bishnoi, which I have added recently. With due respect, I want to put some facts and references about why this article should remain on Wikipedia.

Siddharth Bishnoi is a well-known youth leader in the region of Panchkula and Kalka of the state of Haryana. He is the State's Spokesperson from Haryana for the Indian National Youth Congress, appointed by India's oldest National Political party (Indian National Congress) and regularly appears on TV debates. Please check the references attached at the bottom for proof of his appointment( I have asked from one of my friends to collect some news articles about him and He sent me screenshots of many news articles about him. I am trying to find online links to all these news articles). He is also the founder and managing director of the Ch. Bhajan Lal foundation, which regularly appears on the news for charity activities in the above-mentioned region. Siddharth is also regularly covered in newspapers for his political activities. I have collected many news articles for the foundation and Siddharth and attached a link to them at the bottom of this note. All of these are from within the last year.

He is also the most active and prominent youth leader in this region who campaigns for many major national and state level leaders during the parliamentary and assembly elections in various states. Examples of news coverage of his campaigns are attached at the bottom of this note.

He is the grandson of former Chief-Minister (3-times) of Haryana Mr. Bhajanlal Ji and Son of former Deputy Chief Minister of Haryana, Mr. Chader Mohan Bishnoi. He left his job in London and known for working for the poor people of Kalka and Panchkula region. He has organized biggest cycle rally in Haryana (known as clean air cycle rally) and covered more than 200 villages to inform people about the importance of trees and environment-friendly approaches. His cycle rally got lots of coverage in local media (please see the references).

He is the most likely candidate from the Kalka assembly from Indian National Congress in upcoming elections in Haryana state and he is a well-known personality in politics of Haryana, So I'd like to request you to keep the page alive on Wikipedia as this will help people to know about a social and political leader.

Please check the coverage from different newspapers of Panchkula and Kalka for Siddharth Bishnoi from below google drive link. All the newspapers are of National level newspapers and are in the Hindi language. If still there is anything required, Please let me know. I'll try to do that. But I am sure after seeing these news articles anyone can assume that he is really a notable public figure of Haryana state. So I'd like to request you kindly not to delete the article for Siddharth Bishnoi.

He also writes articles for various newspapers, I have found some of his articles in Times of India. Here are the links to his articles Article on February 11, 2019 and on March 29, 2019 (This one has a lot of news articles about Siddharth and Ch. Bhajan Lal Foundation) The article needs cleanup and to be de-stubbed to better establish his notability, that's all. Sushilkrpro (talk) 15:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

References

• Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:NPOL. Generally speaking, given the amount of attention local politicians get from local media coverage must be significant. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

:Keep. However, I have attached a google drive link which contains lots of news coverage about Sidharth Bishnoi in Local and national newspapers. But still, I am trying to collect the online resources for these news articles. However, It's sure he is a notable personality in Haryana state. But as per the above comment of the respected member, I'll try to collect some more references and will add those into this discussion. Sushilkrpro (talk) 13:01, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

You Only vote once. Second, politicians have a higher bar for notability because all local politicians garner some coverage by the local media. Thirdly, I'm going to ask that you disclose any possible personal connection to Siddarth Bishnoi per WP:COI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per GPL93. Though there are a few mentions of the individual in local newspapers, they are merely passing references. --regentspark (comment) 14:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Being a political party apparatchik is not an instant notability guarantee per WP:NPOL, so the notability test he would have to pass is WP:GNG — but the references here are a mix of primary sources (e.g. a directory of his bylined writing for newspapers) and glancing namechecks of his existence in coverage of other things, not coverage that is substantively about him for the purposes of counting toward GNG. He was also being filed in false categories that were applicable to his father and grandfather, but not to him — and notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, so the fact that his father and grandfather held NPOL-passing political offices does not exempt him from having to pass GNG in and of itself either. Bearcat (talk) 16:12, 22 May 2019 (UTC)

Respected members, first of all I'd like to answer the question I have been asked about the personal relation with Siddharth Bishnoi. I don't have any relation with him and even I have never met with Siddharth Bishnoi personally. I listed the article as I am living in the same state (Haryana) and I read lots of news about him. Second, If I'd have any relation with him then till now I'd have provided hundreds of the news links (references) of all the articles which are in the google drive. But I am not connected with him, So I am not able to provide the links of those news. One more thing that most of the news articles about him are in Hindi and I am not sure any of the respected members have seen those till now or not. So with due respect I'd like to request to kindly not to delete the article and put this article in drafts(or something else, I am not sure), so that I can improve the article over time and can publish it later, once I'll collect all the reliable references about Siddharth Bishnoi. Sushilkrpro (talk) 06:07, 25 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 02:26, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Isokoboy

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

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:COMEDIAN. The creator of this page previously created an article about the subject under the name Clem Ogus. You can view the AFD entry at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clem Ogus. This article is filled with trivial promotional info. Moreover, the references cited are not independent of the subject.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:13, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 15:52, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep– Subject of the article meet WP:GNG. It has been the subject of multiple independent Reliable sources. See this Punch Newspaper, The Nation, NNU Nigeria and this Nigerian Newspaper to point out few. DDluv09^DDluv09 05:23, 05 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Here's my analysis of the sources by DDluv:

Source assessment table:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://punchng.com/i-never-planned-to-be-famous-isoko-boy/	Interview			✘ No
https://thenationonlineng.net/no-rift-with-mercy-aigbe-cossy-orjiakor/			Some might see it otherwise but I'm ok with this kind of celebrity coverage indicating notability	✔ Yes
https://nnu.ng/post/Isokoboy-Reacts-to-Slay-Mama-Caught-With-Charms-Round-Her-Curvy-Waist		? Editorial process and funding model not clear making RS harder to figure out		✘ No
https://www.latestnigeriannews.com/news/6969225/nigerian-instagram-influencer-isokoboy-exposes-padded-slay-queen.html				✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

I don't have time to do a full BEFORE so I'm not voting delete but will say that these sources do not combine to pass GNG. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:14, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

I made an improvement on the article after researching on the subject and was able to add more reference sources found online about the subject. Delords (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:16, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Delords for the improvement made to the article. Are there any more reviews and recommendations for the page improvement where necessary and if there's none, I request that the delete notice be dropped and removed from the article. I appreciate all for their efforts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ddluv09 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as unambiguous WP:PROMO constructed from unreliable sources and WP:GOSSIP. This is fundamentally unencyclopedic in tone and content, and it falls under multiple criteria for what Wikipedia is not, by policy. Bakazaka (talk) 20:31, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Subject doesn't meet GNG as it stands, borderline yellow page content at best. --qedk (t 桜 c) 22:41, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I really don't think it should be deleted, there are basic criteria of notability that the subject meets, there are reliable sources cited in the article with significant coverage of the subject. I will rather recommendations be made to further develop an article as this than for it to be deleted out-rightly.  Delords (talk) 03:03, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The Article is gaining edits and it keep improving. I won’t say delete because there are reliable sources in the article such as Punch Newspapers, The Nation Newspapers and more. The article needs improvement but the notability is established. Thank you DDluv09^DDluv09 03:20, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  Multiple votes struck. --qedk (t 桜 c) 14:39, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. It appears that DDluv09 has a WP:COI with the subject of this article. Per Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ddluv09/Archive, DDluv09 created an article about View Nigeria, the website the subject founded. Keep in mind that they also created an article about the subject under the name Clems Ogus.  Versace1608  ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• CommentThere is no WP:COI with the Subject of the article, the articles you mentioned were created some years ago. Clem Ogus was created in 2014 while View Nigeria was created in 2015 and at a time I was still new and with little experience at contributing on Wikipedia. At that time, the subject already had a good social proof of notability which made me create the pages then and if you check my contributions history, I created several other pages which got approved as I was excited contributing to the platform. I decided to create a page on the subject again because there's been increased popularity and coverage about the subject with good social proofs.DDluv09^DDluv09 05:25, 23 May 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. While I realize that this is not the strict numeric result, the delete arguments are substantially stronger, as even the keep arguments note only brief mentions in the Mueller report. This would not be sufficient source coverage to sustain notability. Combined with BLP concerns raised, this indicates that the result should be to delete. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:42, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Giorgi Rtskhiladze

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

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

WP:BLP1E, and it's not even much of an event: the guy wrote a couple messages about rumored "Trump in Moscow" tapes. Put this text exchange in a footnote of the Mueller Report or Steele Dossier article, at best. — JFG ^talk 08:29, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as "Rtskhiladze" in the redacted Mueller Report 27 times.[7] X1\ (talk) 22:25, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The person and the related controversy seem to be sufficiently important because they are related to the both Mueller Report and Trump–Russia dossier subjects. Here is one of many publications explaining this. Of course I would not trust anything this businessmen tells, but that is hardly relevant to his notability. My very best wishes (talk) 19:08, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:39, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:54, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I think passes WP:GNG --SalmanZ (talk) 22:13, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

  How so? He is known for one event, a brief mention in the Mueller Report about some messages he once sent to Cohen. Where's the coverage of his business or his person to assert GNG? There's a little bit of information in the cited New Yorker article, but it's not focused on him, so not enough for GNG. Just BLP1E. — JFG ^talk 01:39, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

@JFG: Hi, following your note, I reviewed the article for General Notability, and I agree with you and respect your opinion ,so I deleted my vote. Regards --SalmanZ (talk) 22:12, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

@SalmanZ: Thank you, but do you mean now to be neutral or to support the deletion of the article? — JFG ^talk 23:09, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, For now neutral, Regards --SalmanZ (talk) 23:38, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Scott Burley (talk) 08:32, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. As mention by X1, he appears 27 times in the Mueller report. This makes him more prominent in the report than former policy director to the Trump campaign John Mashburn (11 results) and Michael Glassner (12), who introduced Papadopoulos to the Trump campaign (according to the Mueller report). Furthermore, Rtskhiladze's contacts with Michael Cohen represent some of the few Russia–Trump campaign links that exist, and his name is prominent due to the mention of "tapes". One of the footnotes regarding his interview is still redacted by Grand Jury. One Central Asian outlet even made an article about pronouncing his name right, and Rtskhiladze is currently disputing parts of the footnote mentioning the alledged tapes (article from two days ago). I believe he does not fall within WP:BLP1E because his presence in the report is substantial enough, because he does not qualify as WP:LOWPROFILE and due to him also not attempting to keep a low profile (Bloomberg interview) — Pilaz (talk) 15:52, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I would like to remind editors that being mentioned in the Mueller report (a primary source) does not confer any notability in and of itself. What is needed are secondary reliable sources independent of the subject.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Fails notability. "If reliable sources cover a person only in the context of a single event, and if that person otherwise remains, or is likely to remain, a low-profile individual, we should generally avoid having a biographical article on that individual." This is further explained in Subjects notable only for one event. He is identified in the article as a co-owner of the Silk Road Transatlantic Alliance, but there is nothing about his role in the company and the company itself fails notability. Otherwise, his only coverage in the media has been because he objected to a footnote in the Mueller report. So he's sort of like a footnote to a footnote of history. TFD (talk) 04:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

If you believe that WP:BLP1E applies here, can you specify what the single event in question is? Pilaz (talk) 13:06, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete: Not notable. Everything in the article equals "nothing" but run-of-the-mill stuff including the events in the Role in development of Trump Towers in Georgia section. The one "claim to fame" would be the exchanged text conversation with Donald Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen that was included in the Mueller Report. This would be the WP:BLP1E that seems feigned as not clear. Without this there is nothing "worthy of notice". If it is kept it will just amount to Trump drama junk. Just being associated with Trump or mentioned in a report does not convey notability which is not not inherited. The !votes, that the subject "appears 27 times in the Mueller report", a primary source as indicated by the relisting comments, does not advance notability "of the event" so the !votes are negated as non-persuasive reasoning that the subject is "prominent enough" for an article just on those grounds. "Trump's itchy Twitter finger" would likely be more notable. Otr500 (talk) 07:49, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Subject fails WP1E. Not even sure they would be notable if 1E did not exist. -Ad Orientem (talk) 02:34, 26 May 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. ST47 (talk) 04:24, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

MMA Pro Fighter

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

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

While there is some coverage of the game here [8], that is the only thing I was able to find from significant coverage in reliable secondary sources (from WP:VG/RS) that is not a WP:ROUTINE announcement of it's launch. Hence fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 14:28, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 15:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

'Delete, I can't find much on it. Seems like just another app game among many. Not notable as far as I can tell. Harizotoh9 (talk) 16:06, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 01:40, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. I was able to add an Italian-language reference. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 03:23, 26 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Just great. Not only the unreliable references in Ko Key Technologies were restored (a blog with no staff writing both of the cited articles), so was added an extra unreliable italian blog (which is admitted on https://fantagiochi.it/info-fantagiochi). Eastmain, please read WP:VG/RS before doing things like these and trying to keep not notable games like these. Every game will get coverage on unreliable blogs. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:47, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Also Inside Social Games is unreliable as well as another gaming blog, even the first user comments are outright calling it so [9] Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:50, 26 May 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 with no prejudice against speedy renomination. The article seems to have undergone substantial changes during the discussion, but with disagreement on whether those were enough to demonstrate notability. Several keep arguments referenced invalid rationales such as "other stuff exists" or inherited or inherent notability. A new discussion focused entirely on analysis of the sources might be able to better generate consensus. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 04:56, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Santa Cruz Breakers FC

Santa Cruz Breakers FC (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Team does not play in a professional league and has not played in the national cup so fails WP:FOOTYN and clearly fails WP:GNG. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:10, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:16, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - there is no requirement to play in a professional league, and with a quick Google search bringing back coverage like this and this, and given the fact they play in a notable league, I'd say the club is notable. Article needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 07:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
  • The professional league is not a requirement, but it sure would help to get better coverage, while the references you've pointed to are WP:ROUTINE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:48, 4 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to USL League Two WP:GNG not demonstrated, and having not played in a professional league or in the national cup, the article fails WP:FOOTYN. It's a plausible search term and redirects are cheap, so a redirect would be appropriate. Jay eyem (talk) 13:57, 5 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The professional league requirement only applies to players, not the clubs themselves. Also, meets WP:GNG per the sources from GiantSnowman. Smartyllama (talk) 14:39, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • You mean the ROUTINE coverage supplied? Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:47, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment Except that the team is not eligible to play in the national cup either, beyond existing in League Two, which really is not sufficient. Plus League Two is a set of regional leagues with a national playoff, not to mention not sanctioned by USSF. How exactly is a profile for one of the team's players and a "local roundup" of sports in the area sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG for this team? Jay eyem (talk) 23:54, 6 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Why is the team not eligible to play in the cup? I see no reason why that would be the case. Smartyllama (talk) 00:29, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      • As of 2016, lower-division clubs owned by higher-division professional clubs are no longer eligible to participate in the U.S. Open Cup, but it does not seem as though a professional team owns this amateur team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 00:46, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
        • I actually think that only applies to the professional teams like Orlando City B in League One or Bethlehem Steel FC in the Championship. That's why you still see NYRB U-23s and South Georgia Tormenta FC 2 in the competition. I don't think this particular criteria is relevant for this discussion, though. Jay eyem (talk) 02:04, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
      • Comment because the only teams that get automatic entry into the Open Cup are American teams in professional leagues. NPSL and League Two do get some automatic spots, but there is no guarantee for any of those teams to be eligible. Unless you think that literally every team in America should have a Wikipedia article, because literally any team can compete in local Open Cup Qualifying, I don't see a strong justification in that regard for keeping an article. That is an obscenely low bar, and still doesn't address the notability concerns. Jay eyem (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect – Per Jay. This team does not meet GNG. This source spends more column-inches on routine rugby and basketball games than it does on the soccer cup win. This one is about a player, not the team; only a few sentences are about the team. I can't find anything better. Redirects are cheap, though, and if someone found some additional sources to meet GNG and write a decent article, the redirect can be expanded into an article again. Leviv ich 04:17, 7 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep I added some further references to the article. Researching back to their 2007 and 2008 seasons, I seem to see some older stories, but my newspapers.com subscription has lapsed - can anyone else access? In particular there seems to be articles that may be relevant on page 14 of the March 16, 2007 The Salinas Californian, and possibly later editions. In addition they played in the qualifying round of the 2008 U.S. Open Cup. Nfitz (talk) 03:55, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:31, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment – As far as I can tell, the known sources are the two GS posted here that I commented on above, and this blog. I appreciate rescue efforts but for me, those three sources don't satisfy GNG. Leviv ich 02:50, 13 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep until further notice I'm not entirely sure on this article, I know AfD is a pretty much yes or no debate, but this is probably one of the first that I can't fully decide. It's got the notability, as it is a real team that actually plays football, however, it does not seem to have a teamsheet...so, I'll just say, keep it for the time being, but if it does not get any significant updates, then send it back to AfD. Cheesy McGee (talk) 08:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • This is the first time I've seen a keep !vote with the rationale that is essentially "because I can't find any sources to support notability". Walter Görlitz (talk) 14:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. By my count, Wikipedia has 70 articles about USL League Two teams. To me this is a clear indication that there is consensus that such teams are inherently notable enough to have articles. I realize this may come across as a WP:OTHERCRAPEXISTS argument, but it's really a WP:OTHERNOTABLESTUFFEXISTSSOTHISSHOULDTOO argument. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:57, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • WP:OSE I would be happy to nominate any of the 70 articles about other non-notable teams in that league. We could probably bundle many with this discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:08, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  OK, let's consider all of those 70 to be bundled into this discussion and have the outcome here apply to them all. Edgeweyes (talk) 17:44, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  It doesn't work that way. They either have to be listed here or they're not included in the discussion. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:45, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  You're the one who expressed a desire to "bundle many with this discussion". But if now you're saying it doesn't work that way, then don't do it. Edgeweyes (talk) 18:55, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  Wikilwayering my way out of it. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:59, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

  This literally is an WP:OSE argument, could you clarify your argument using a different argument, perhaps addressing the notability concerns? Jay eyem (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

  @Jay eyem: It's quite distinct from an OSE argument. The long term existence of so many articles about equivalent topics (members of the group of USL League Two teams) establishes a consensus that there is notability, or even Wikipedia:Inherent notability, of members of the group. Edgeweyes (talk) 14:55, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

  I'm also not perceiving the difference between the argument you're making (the long term existence of other similar articles establishes consensus that there is notability) and WP:OSE. Aside from everything else, one 4th-tier team can be notable while another 4th-tier team is not. Why should we treat them all the same? – Levivich 16:03, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Except if you actually dig into the AfD conversations regarding this specific topic (i.e. US fourth tier soccer teams that have never played in the Open Cup), you'd see that there is very little consensus and very rarely are arguments made that are backed by policy. And I vehemently disagree that these teams in inherently notable, many fold after a few seasons, never to be seen or heard from again. Jay eyem (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:GNG with significant coverage both in the article and in other articles such as [10] and [11]. Needs a bit of a rewrite though. SportingFlyer T·C 23:34, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • I think significant means something different for you than most. Walter Görlitz (talk) 23:42, 17 May 2019 (UTC)
  • That is a horribly low bar for inclusion. One is an article about the team wanting to help players become professional, the other is a WP:ROUTINE announcement of a new team. How does this constitute significant coverage? Jay eyem (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
    • Both articles address the topic "directly and in detail, so no original research is needed to extract the content." SportingFlyer T·C 13:17, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Very much disagree that they address the topic directly and in detail, I think Levivich has done an excellent job with source analysis so far to demonstrate otherwise. Jay eyem (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry to hear you disagree. Especially with the new newspaper articles in the article, I think WP:GNG is clearly met. SportingFlyer T·C 05:20, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• And again, Levivich has already addressed the sources in the article in their source analysis below. If you are arguing WP:GNG, it would be helpful to refute their arguments. Jay eyem (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment It would be appreciated if those arguing that the article does meet WP:GNG would explain how it does so. At the moment, the only users I have seen really addressing the notability concerns in detail are myself and Levivich. My concern is that all of the sources are either WP:ROUTINE or don't actually address the notability of the subject, either because they aren't in-depth coverage or because they don't actually address the subject in question e.g. addressing a particular player. At the moment the sourcing feels woefully insufficient to meet WP:GNG, and the fact that the team exists and plays in USL2 is really weak grounds for inclusion. Jay eyem (talk) 12:19, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I second what Jay eyem wrote just above. Better policy-based arguments are needed to keep this article, at this point the "delete" !votes have the better arguments , even though they are in a numerical minority.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Randykitty (talk) 14:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Source analysis – Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think these are all the sources in the AfD and the article brought forward so far:
  1. Santa Cruz Sentinel (GS's 1st): 3 sentences about the team
  2. Register-Pajaronian #1 (GS's 2nd, ref 2 in the article): 4 sentences, which are: ... Santa Cruz Breakers FC inaugural Premier Development League (PDL) soccer team, which is set to play its first home match on Saturday at Cabrillo College at 7:30 p.m. against the San Francisco Glens SC ... None of the players on the Breakers are being paid. The Breakers, coached by UC Santa Cruz head coach Michael Runeare, are one of 74 teams in the PDL. They play in the Southwest Division. The rest of the article is about a player, the league, and college soccer in America generally.
  3. Midfield Press (ref 1 in the article): apparent blog/WP:SPS [12], not an WP:RS, routine new-team announcement/interview
  4. Register-Pajaronian #2 (SF's 1st): in my opinion, this is the best one yet, and counts as WP:SIGCOV, but one SIGCOV is not enough
  5. Front Row Soccer (SF's 2nd): a blog/SPS, not an RS [13], routine new-team coverage

I still think redirect is the best outcome here. If more SIGCOV is written, the redirect can be expanded back out into an article. As for the WP:OSE argument above, I've never looked at the notability of 3rd- and 4th-tier American teams; it's possible there are others that should be turned into redirects to the league. Leviv ich 18:18, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Another source brought forward in the discussion above is the article on page 14 of the March 16, 2007 The Salinas Californian, for which I couldn't access and have not opined on whether it meets WP:GNG or just provides a reference for some older information not otherwise referenced. I also noted the teams participation in the 2008 U.S. Open Cup qualification which does raise whether or not it meets WP:FOOTYN. I feel that more research could be done. Nfitz (talk) 17:19, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

When I type in "Santa Cruz Breakers" into Newspapers.com, I get 800+ hits, the earliest one is from 1879 (... put your hands over your eyes, and shake the brine of the Santa Cruz breakers from off your bathing dress). From a quick review, all of the coverage of the modern soccer team seems to be routine reporting of game scores in local papers. With regards to the specific story in the Salinas Californian on March 16, 2007, you can read the OCR text here (click on "Show 14 article text (OCR)"), and the only mention of the team is On May 26 and June 2, the Santa Cruz Breakers make their debut in Salinas, followed by visits from the Colorado Crimson on June 9 and the Denver Kickers on June 10. The final two home games are against Real San Jose FC on June 23 and the Sacramento Knights on July 8. Also, I thought NFOOTY doesn't apply to teams, and it's WP:NTEAM instead, which just says teams must meet GNG? --Leviv ich 17:40, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah typo - WP:FOOTYN - which is of course an essay. I raise it because comments above because the comments above about US Open Cup participation since 2016 ignore that they participated historically. While those articles you've found, don't seem to establish that the team meets GNG, they do provide references for unreferenced facts in the article and could be used to improve it. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Yeah, that redirect confused me for a long time, too. I don't know why we still have it. As I understand it, FOOTYN was replaced by NFOOTY some time ago. – Levivich 00:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment after I looked for recent sources a few days ago, I noticed that an article was recently published about this team, which I've added to the article. Seems to help it meet GNG - also notes they are semi-professional. I suspect there are further sources available about the earlier iteration of the team, if one had the means to find them. Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

And here's a 2008 source. Nfitz (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

The May 10, 2019 article ("aims to send players to the pros") is Register-Pajaronian #2 in my list above. The 2008 article I'd say is more coverage of a player than SIGCOV of the team. I agree these all meet WP:V and could be used as sources in the article, but in my opinion only one of them is SIGCOV and thus the article doesn't (yet) meet GNG. – Levivich 00:16, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Ah, I hadn't spotted that someone had mentioned that recent article here 2 days ago. Given that it was an arguable keep in the eyes of many before that source was found (or even published), I'm not sure how that isn't easily pushing it over the line. I'm also not convinced that a full examination of a lot of hard-to-find sources over the last 12-13 years wouldn't find other similar articles. If only people would spend as much effort into trying improve articles, rather than remove borderline content! Nfitz (talk) 03:19, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Every stand-alone page is one more page for the watchlist, one more page for the page feeds, one more to patrol for vandalism, to transclude a template onto, to put on an AWB list, etc. etc. WP:NOTPAPER is followed by a bunch of other WP:NOTs like WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTADIRECTORY, WP:NOTINDISCRIMINATE, so we have a notability guideline to help resolve that age-old tension between wanting to include all notable things but not everything. We don't have a WP:SNG here, so the way to resolve it is WP:GNG, which requires multiple in-depth sources. So far, we have one. At bottom, that means that, in all the years of this team's existence, if they've only been the subject of in-depth coverage once, then they're not notable enough for a stand-alone page. The single in-depth source was from less than two weeks ago, suggesting this may be a case of WP:TOOSOON–even though they've been around a while, perhaps they're just now becoming notable. Maybe they'll do well this year and more in-depth sources will be written, establishing that they have become notable. Maybe somebody will go through the archives and find another example of WP:SIGCOV. In any event, a redirect to the league isn't "erasing" them from the encyclopedia, it's just saying they don't meet the notability guidelines we've established for stand-alone pages, and the redirect can easily be expanded any time we have the sourcing. – Levivich 04:14, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Too many articles on the watch list - that's almost sounding like WP:OWNERSHIP to me! A 13-year old article for a team in its 5th semi-pro season is too soon? It sounds to me like you are just throwing crap at the wall to see what will stick ... or is it WP:LASTWORD. Time to WP:MOVEON! Nfitz (talk) 05:32, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

Too many articles on a watchlist sounds like an active editor to me. You might want to look through Wikipedia:WikiFauna. A team in its (check your grammar) should definitely have more than routine and local coverage. Thanks for sealing the article's fate with that tidbit. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:45, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

How about we stick to assuming good faith here, hmmm? I very much agree with Levivich and think that the Register-Pajaronian article is the only thing approaching WP:SIGCOV, but I fail to see how this is sufficient for inclusion as a standalone article. The age of an article is absolutely no guarantee that the subject is notable, and purely based on the criteria set out at WP:FOOTYN it could be argued that it is WP:TOOSOON since the team has not played at the national level or in the national cup. Jay eyem (talk) 01:03, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

They played in the qualifying round of the 2008 U.S. Open Cup. I added 7 references to the article during the AFD and some meet GNG. Nfitz (talk) 02:52, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The County Breakers folded prior to the 2009 season. This is a different team. Walter Görlitz (talk) 03:41, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No it isn't. Both teams are from the same athletic club. This article was created in 2006 - it certainly didn't cover the 2018 team when it was created in 2006! It's also the same pitch, and even the same coach in 2007 as in 2018 (and presumably in 2019 too). Nfitz (talk) 05:16, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

So are they the same team or two different teams from the same club? Why does the article point to a reference that states "The Breakers would fold prior to the 2009 season"? The article does not state that this is a phoenix club. There do not seem to be sources that state that this is a continuation of the former club. Walter Görlitz (talk) 05:38, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

It's quite clear from the sources that the Santa Cruz Breakers - sometimes, called the Santa Cruz County Breakers - are an athletic club with soccer teams at various levels including the semi-professional, and it's existence has been continuous. This is quite normal for athletic clubs in the USA. What's unusual here is decade-long gap at the highest level. The text could be improved to better reflect this ... I wish everyone who edited at the AFD put as much work forth at improving the article! Nfitz (talk) 13:03, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

No, Nfitz, its not at all clear. It appears that the two teams appear are distinct: the one operated until 2009 and the new team—the one we are discussing here—is not discussed and has never played in the cup. Walter Görlitz (talk) 15:04, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Also as an aside, playing in a qualifying round of a cup is the same as playing in the cup itself. If the argument here is that it meets WP:FOOTYN because of that, it's still insufficient. And Nfitz please stop with the snide remarks and keep things WP:CIVIL for this discussion. Jay eyem (talk) 15:59, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The play itself is not the question. That was a different team. That team folded. Go write an article about them. This team is not that team and this team does not merit an article. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:18, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure User:Walter Görlitz what you mean the article is only about another team. The article says, in the first sentence that Founded in 1992, the team played in the National Premier Soccer League (NPSL) in 2007 and 2008 - and the article has said similar since around 2007. How are we only discussing the recent seasons here - surely the notability of the 2007/2008 team is also important. I'm not sure how you've turned this into a discussion that is trying to ignore 2007 and 2008 - which was all that was discussed in the article as it existed from 2006 to until the May 20, 2018 edits. Nfitz (talk) 17:31, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

The article is not a reliable source. It's not that I'm trying to ignore 2007–08, I'm trying to find sources that state they are the same team. The source you added to the lede you modified discuss the earlier team, but there are also sources that state that team folded. The new sources do not make it clear that this is a continuation. Walter Görlitz (talk) 17:46, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

Which article? I'm not aware than any of the references listed are unreliable sources. In particulary this one from early 2018 says that Since their founding in 1992, Santa Cruz has been one of the top youth clubs in the country. In 2007 and 2008, the Breakers were members of the NPSL and that they will relaunch an adult first team, but this time in the USL’s PDL. The club's website discusses the 1992 founding, and links to the current Breakers FC team. I'm not sure how there's any doubt it's the same organization, that has been in continuous operation for 25 years. Yes, the article could be improved - especially the wording. But it needs improvement, not deleting. Nfitz (talk) 18:01, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You wrote "the article says" and then quoted the Wikipedia article. I was addressing that statement.

The club was a youth club. This article is about the senior mens side. This helps with the understanding. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:08, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

You make a good case that the article should be further clarified and improved. However that's not grounds for deletion. Perhaps we should all improve the article more, rather than debating further here. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The two Register-Pantojan sources seem to be enough to me to get it over GNG, even without the other sources provided. It's clearly notable in my mind. If it meets GNG, it doesn't matter whether it meets FOOTYN. Smartyllama (talk) 14:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Updated source analysis – two more sources have been added to the article in addition to the five listed above.

6. Last Word in Sports (ref 5 in the article now) assuming this group blog counts as an RS [14], three sentences about the team, which are: Prior to the 2007 NPSL season, the Santa Cruz County Breakers joined the league, igniting a rivalry within the Central Coast. The Breakers finished their inaugural 2007 season third in the Northwest Conference and their 2008 season second in the conference. The Breakers would fold prior to the 2009 season.

7. USL (ref 7 in the article) does not mention the Breakers at all. – Levivich 14:47, 23 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have taken an interest in this AfD for some time, but probably won't be able to edit this page again unless it gets relisted again. I would like to point out that Levivich has done excellent analysis of the sources presented in this AfD and the article itself, and the responses have either not addressed the arguments that they are presenting, or are just a reiteration of calling the article notable and the sources sufficient without otherwise demonstrating their reasoning. I hope this critique of the sources will be addressed beyond latching onto the one source that approaches SIGCOV. Jay eyem (talk) 15:59, 23 May 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) 14:38, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Blu-spec CD

Blu-spec CD (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

No assertion of notability. Article reads like an advertisement for a CD pressing plant and makes claims of audio woo hiding them under weasel words such as “purpotedly”, “Sony claims”. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 13:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:55, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• DELETE - This should be a footnote on the CD page, as in failed attempts to improve on the CD. I know that the sources are primarily in Japanese and primary in nature, but I don't really see anything practical as relates to audio quality (not that I'd know). What's kind of odd is that when selling regular CDs, Sony would likely say that there isn't an issue that requires fixing with the optical read-out process. That said, it did apparently exist and Sony did apparently manufacture some discs although who knows if they actually sold any. I see the cover of Blow by Blow in there. Maybe a paragraph should be added to the Compact Disc Digital Audio page under 'Format Variations'. Kind of fun but it's not notable enough for its own page though. ogenstein (talk) 05:50, 27 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Gold compact disc

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

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

Gimmick with no assertion of notability. Also a coat-rack article about lift-lock cases. Nowak Kowalski (talk) 12:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 13:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Merge into main CD article. I have taken the liberty of removing lift-lock material in the meantime. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 18:43, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I have expanded the article a bit. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 01:57, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. A perfectly valid topic to have an article about. This is still capable of further expansion. Metal Finishing tells me they were introduced by Ultech Corp. and Tonen Sekiyukagaku KK of Tokyo; Lenk's Laser Handbook has more information; some unusual research use in the Canadian Journal of Chemistry. Scholar gets a lot of results and the snippets indicate that some of these papers have usable information. SpinningSpark 11:23, 19 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Patryk Noworyta

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

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

Subject, I believe, fails WP:NHOCKEY. The Polska Hokej Liga is a league that does not grant notability regardless of games played or honours achieved, or at least it isn't listed in those criterias. He also never played in the top level of the World Championship (Poland haven't played there since they were relegated in 2002) which is required to pass #5. Tay87 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Tay87 (talk) 12:06, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. It's not easy for anyone to fail the super inclusive SPORTBIO criteria, so if someone does, well, it's a big red flag. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:07, 20 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete He definitely fails WP:NHOCKEY, as the Polish league is not high enough. Also have a suspicion the subject of the article created it himself years' back, which also goes against various policies (though that isn't proven here). Kaiser matias (talk) 01:10, 22 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Poland doesn't play ice hockey at the highest level of the World Championship (WP:NHOCKEY #6), and their top-level domestic ice hockey league is nowhere to be found in WP:NHOCKEY #1, 2, 3, or 4. Therefore, the only way a Polish ice hockey player can become notable is to either 1.) play professionally outside of Poland (like Mariusz Czerkawski) or 2.) meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline. And, as of right now, I'm not seeing enough independent, non-stat site sources on Noworyta to meet WP:GNG, though I'd be open to changing my mind if additional sources could be produced. Ejgreen77 (talk) 20:22, 22 May 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. Even if we don't apply WP:CSD#A7 here, it seems like notability is not met going by Djm-leighpark's comment. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 11:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Auspex, Inc.

Auspex, Inc. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Entirely unsourced article about a non-notable company. Not to be confused with multiple companies of the same name. Not comfortable with speedy deletion because this article dates back to 11 year old spam (by a SPA, no less) and contains some unrelated edit history that may have relevance elsewhere. MER-C 10:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:48, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy Delete Fails WP:NCORP, meets WP:CSD#A7. Age is not an exception to CSD, all of the revisions seem to be eligible for A7 as well — there is a brief mention of an artist called Auspex in older revisions, which is covered by A7 (person). --qedk (t 桜 c) 18:26, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I am objecting to speedy delete. I don't say at this point it should be kept but I'd like to look at it. It is currently at AfD attempts to circumvent this process are absolutely not necessary in this circumstance. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 09:38, 20 May 2019 (UTC)

At this point I have not found sufficient online references or information that enables this company to be retained in Wikipedia.Djm-leighpark (talk) 13:54, 20 May 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. Seems like there is little desire here for a WP:CSD#G5 inspired deletion and valid claims of notability. In fact, the nominator itself supported keeping the article. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 10:46, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Edward Borrows and Sons

Edward Borrows and Sons (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Challenged CSDs. This has been tagged as a copyvio of a site which appears to be newer than the WP article page. It was tagged for deletion as one of a set of four pages, all with the same creator (although this was not disclosed by the nominator). It has also been put forward as a WP:CSD#G5 related to creation by a blocked sock, which seems pointlessly damaging to the encyclopedia and more vindictive than constructive. See WP:ANI#Compromised account - GretLomborg ?.

This warrants discussion at AfD, but it's too complex to handle by CSD. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 11:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep No valid reason for deletion. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:50, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Andy D. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep added one book source. pass WP:GNG. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 12:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment I think we are going to need offline sources for this. It would now come under WP:ORGCRITE or WP:GNG, and I don't think that there are enough sources available online to show that it meets either (as far as I have seen so far - I may be wrong). The only newspaper results I've found are a report of a fire, and and advertisement for its sale in 1912, both of which are standard coverage and don't count for WP:ORGCRITE. I think it's quite likely that there are offline sources, as steam trains and steam engines are specialist fields of interest which have resulted in many books and specialist magazines. Two books which come up in a google search, but which have no preview so I don't know if that's just by association or because they do actually cover this firm, are British Steam Locomotive Builders by James W. Lowe (first published in 1975, republished 2014), and The Golden Age of Steam Locomotive Building by Philip Atkins (1999). I notice that, although the article has existed for nearly 2 years, it has no project affiliations on its Talk page, and no assessments, which seems strange. How do we bring it to the attention of relevant projects, like WP:WikiProject_UK_Railways? RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:25, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

The creator was indeffed a week after this article was created. I presume details like the talk: page got caught up in that. The original deletion nominator picked four articles to delete, all created by that same editor. How curious.

Lowe is upstairs. I'll see what it has on Borrows. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:24, 19 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The worst case here is merger into James Cross and Company which started the business as a spinoff from the St Helens and Runcorn Gap Railway. There are therefore alternatives to deletion which we prefer per WP:PRESERVE. Andrew D. (talk) 12:40, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment Andy Dingly, please WP:ASSUMEGOODFAITH. Doing otherwise "seems pointlessly damaging to the encyclopedia and more vindictive than constructive," as you said. - GretLomborg (talk) 15:16, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• keep there will be enough offline sources, e.g. Industrial Railway Society journal. Tony May (talk) 02:40, 23 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:55, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Awadhesh Kumar

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

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

Non notable journalist. Seems more like a puff piece. The refs don't talk about anything mentioned in the article, with the 1st ref mentioning he was one among the participants of some conference and the 2nd being an article by him. Fails WP:GNG Jupitus Smart 03:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 03:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jupitus Smart 03:58, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 04:15, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:00, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Puffery, no real establishment of notability. Fails criteria for a BLP. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:37, 18 May 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:17, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Irvin Rivera

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

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

Promotion for Non notable photographer. Has a bunch of awards but none are major. Has a bunch of exhibitions but none are major. Small galleries, pay for play and the like. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. Article is bombarded with multiple sources but none are independent reliable sources with any depth of coverage of the individual. duffbeerforme (talk) 01:30, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. feminist (talk) 04:01, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RL0919 (talk) 02:48, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree, this doesn't meet WP:CREATIVE, seems self-promotional, and should be deleted. Qono (talk) 23:31, 20 May 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Mathias Pierre

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

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

Based on my analysis of the available sources (not just the ones in the article), I don't think the subject meets WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO.

Sources currently in the article:

1. Wapo: Quote from subject at very end of page 3, article not otherwise about subject
2. Planet Money: Podcast, we don't generally accept podcast features as evidence of notability
3. Entrepreneurship: Presentaion from subject to the House, therefore not independent
4. NextBillion: blog report about above-noted presentation. In-depth, but blogs aren't generally taken as reliable.
5. CS Monitor: two scant paragraphs concerning subject, one of which consists of quotes from him and the other is a 3-sentence explanation of who he is
6. WSJ: visible through paywallhere, this is one of two decent sources as it has a reasonably substantial amount of content about Pierre
7. MMD Newswire: it's a press release, so no
8. AlertNet: also a substantial source about the subject
9. inec.usip: archived here, it's a blog, so no

Aside from that, I found a bunch of trivial quotations ("Mathias Pierre said...") and trivial mentions that he chose not to run for president. There's also this, which is basically political gossip reporting and not a substantial source IMO, and this, another two sentence+quote combo. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:58, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Haiti-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:32, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Two in-depth references from reliable sources ought to be enough to demonstrate notability. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 00:45, 5 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:23, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still needs more input
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 08:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: OK, last relist. Are Eastmain's two sources (or any other people can find) adequate or not?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 14:19, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• DELETE - Concur with opening argument. Some news searches came up with similar articles. There is insufficient significant coverage to write a biography. ogenstein (talk) 06:06, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete At this time, he doesn’t meet notability. Seems to have been one event 10 years ago. Trillfendi (talk) 15:22, 27 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Per nom. Fail passes WP:GNG or WP:ANYBIO --SalmanZ (talk) 19:18, 29 May 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. News coverage is primarily of the "human-interest" type, covering the subject's performance at school and their school projects, etc. If there was more coverage establishing the website as notable, I might vote to keep - but the coverage that is cited does not qualify as "in-depth" or "significant". With the only !voter having withdrawn their vote (I'm counting them as neutral, as they struck their "keep" vote without placing a new one), and the debate having already been relisted once, the consensus here is to delete. ST47 (talk) 00:15, 2 June 2019 (UTC)

Tristan Pang

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

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

Non-notable by WP standards. Subject is credited as a 'child prodigy' by a number of non-authoritative sources, including websites (some of which are the subject's own), non-specialist journalism, YouTube, etc. WP article child prodigy gives the well-sourced definition "A child prodigy is defined in psychology research literature as a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert performer." Nothing in this article gives any example which would warrant this description. There are no serious assessments by secondary sources. Subject is now 18: most of the things mentioned in the article relate to his teens and nearly all to above age 10. Article has had a 'close connection' warning for over a year and large recent additions come from an IP source. The article reads like a self-promotion - not a record of notable achievements (see WP:COI). -- Smerus (talk) 08:35, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:38, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep . I am happy that he has "received significant coverage in reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject" WP:BIO. Many are youtube clips of news reports. No contest on some of the page being a vanity project. (Dushan Jugum (talk) 09:13, 18 May 2019 (UTC)).

• You don't, I think, address the issue of WP:Notability. He is mentioned in the lead as a "child prodigy". He does not seem conform to WP's definition of child prodigy and none of the sources in the article seem to meet WP:RSPRIMARY; they therefore give no reason to suppose that he meets this definition.--Smerus (talk) 12:07, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• If he is or is not a child prodigy is none of my business, if he is called such in the reliable secondary sources then he is one on Wikipedia. If he is not then edit the page. I do not understand why you care if he is a child prodigy or not (WP:CONTN), please direct me to the right part of a Wikipedia deletion policy.

Some of the refs on the page are not reliable secondary sources, some are. There is even a section on media coverage on the page (one which should be deleted, but is quite useful for this discussion). I would say [15] is good for example, why do you think it is not? Dushan Jugum (talk) 20:36, 18 May 2019 (UTC)).

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:11, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• @Dushan Jugum: - it is indeed a secondary source, but all it supports is the claim that he got a good exam result at age nine for an exam aimed at 11 year olds. This is not exactly WP:NOTABLE. The article is predicated on the assertion in its lead that Pang is a child prodigy, a status defined by the WP article of that name as " a person under the age of ten who produces meaningful output in some domain to the level of an adult expert." No reliable secondary source in the article supports that.--Smerus (talk) 17:58, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Hi Smerus, is this the section of WP:Notable you think it fails? ""Presumed" means that significant coverage in reliable sources creates an assumption, not a guarantee, that a subject merits its own article. A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not, particularly the rule that Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information.” If not which one? (Dushan Jugum (talk) 19:31, 30 May 2019 (UTC)).

• See 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" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary." I don't believe the subject sufficiently meets any of these criteria.--Smerus (talk) 19:55, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry for taking so long to come around Smerus, have removed vote. I see it as border line, so will leave it for someone else to "vote". (Dushan Jugum (talk) 22:18, 30 May 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 speedy redirect to Death of Julie Van Espen. Per WP:BLP1E and WP:BLPCRIME (non-admin closure) Linguist111^{my talk page} 20:09, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Steve Bakelmans

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

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

Notable for one crime that he may not have even committed, fails a number of polices. mmited, not notable.Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC) Slatersteven (talk) 08:29, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 08:58, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

- -

Serial offender, confessed to the crime in Julie van Espen's case even though not convicted yet, has been convicted in multiple other crimes, including another rape case. The Julie van Espen case sparked outrage in Belgium.

The Belgian Minister of Justice Koen Geens said on May 7, 2019 in a statement released by his cabinet that Steve B, before murdering Julie, had served 4 and a half years in prison for a series of offences including the rape of a woman. Geens explained that in 2016 Steve B was again committed for theft and rape, for which he spent two and a half months in detention awaiting trial. Geens offered his sympathies to Julie Van Espen's family, and expressed regret over the matter. He explained that Antwerp's correctional courts sentenced Steve B. to 4 more years imprisonment, but that he was not immediately arrested because he appealed his case. 1. On the day Julie was found murdered (May 6 2019), Steve B confessed he killed her. 2

On May 6, 2019, Steve B was arrested by the police in Leuven and confessed to killing Julie Van Espen. The police were able to arrest him after they published CCTV images of him, asking the public for information and the wherabouts of an "important witness" in Julie's case. However, he had been the prime suspect since the beginning, since he was filmed carrying Van Espen's bicycle basket. The police removed the bicycle basket from the CCTV image when they released it. 2

PhotoandGrime (Pieke Roelofs) (talk) 13:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

People have confessed to crimes they have no committed before, he is innocent until proven guilty. Even if found guilty he is not notable enough (as a criminal) to have his own page.Slatersteven (talk) 13:27, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Merge with Julie Van Espen and rename to Death of Julie Van Espen. I think the case itself is interesting; the handling of the case has led to severe criticism of justice minister Koen Geens, including calls for his resignation and in the aftermath of the murder there has been proposed legislature demanding safe cycle paths, including CCTV cameras and better lighting. The case also sparked protests (a protest?), and the suspect could definitely be a part of the article, since he's a person of interest in the investigation and he confessed to the crime. But the suspect himself is not notable enough to have his own page. Alex.osheter (talk) 15:05, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:26, 18 May 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. bd2412 T 21:56, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Nikolai Ivanovich Kurbatov

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

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

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

• Autobiography with no assertion of notabilty per WP:CREATIVE or WP:ACADEMIC. Article has been speedied three times at Russian Wikipedia: Курбатов. No significant coverage online in English from WP:Reliable sources, and references here in English and Russian are all from blogs or Youtube. Proposed deletion contested by creator. Already many times deleted as Nikolai Kurbatov and Nikolay Kurbatov--Kirill Samredny (talk) 06:04, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 May 18. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:21, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA^(talk) 06:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Doesn't pass our notability guidelines.--Darwinek (talk) 00:06, 19 May 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom. No notability; spends his time on you-tube fan-fiction stuff. References are not WP:RS. History of this BLP being deleted many times under different versions of his names (two other AfDs), as a WP:G4 (twice), and as WP:A7 (three times), means that this needs SALTING (although I am not sure if they can be stopped recreating under other related spellings). Text also implies a strong WP:COIN problem (which was also noted by the xcloser in one of the past AfDs), and possibly a WP:UDP issue. Britishfinance (talk) 21:37, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. We also need to look at the author of this article, whose user name is also Nikolai Kurbatov. 21:42, 25 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

Dewar Trapshooting Trophy

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

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

Article sourced to a single local newspaper (not checked as subscription required). I’ve found one other passing ref to support this article. It The creating editor concludes the article concludes with the words ‘none of today's trapshooting historians have ever heard of the Dewar Live Bird Trophy’ so it does not seem notable to me. Mccapra (talk) 04:14, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. 94rain ^Talk 04:30, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• I checked the newspaper given and confirmed that this is legitimate (i.e., not a hoax). I'll look to see if I can find anything else on this cup to see if it's notable. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:49, 18 May 2019 (UTC) EDIT/Update: there are zero (0) newspaper records courtesy of newspapers.com of the phrase "Dewar trapshooting trophy" between 1900 and 1902, when it should have been most relevant, and quite a few matches to an unrelated event starting in 1909. As such, it should at least be renamed, though I will not oppose a delete. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:53, 18 May 2019 (UTC) COMMENT: Also, "The trophy seems to have disappeared into obscurity as none of today's trapshooting historians have ever heard of the Dewar Live Bird Trophy." is not a good sign for notability, source or no source. – John M Wolfson (talk • contribs) 05:56, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. The Trapshooting Hall of Fame is given as an EL, but neither the Dewar trophy, not Webber are mentioned on the site. SpinningSpark 22:59, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• delete Proquest newspaper searches on article title and on "Dewar Live Bird Trophy" fail to produce a single hit.E.M.Gregory (talk) 01:14, 26 May 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:10, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Vanessa Johnston

AfDs for this article:

• Articles for deletion/Vanessa Johnston
• Articles for deletion/Vanessa Johnston (2nd nomination)

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

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

Actress who has not had significant roles in multiple productions, and also fails WP:GNG for lack of significant coverage in independent RS. Could be a case of WP:TOOSOON; for now, the article does not meet notability guidelines. Citrivescence (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 01:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. No significant secondary RS coverage. She has an online presence on social media (self published). As an actress she doesn't meet GNG or WP:ENT. But it seems she is a working comedian, but still no notable significant coverage. Subject may indeed be WP:TOOSOON. • HM Wilburt (talk) 19 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 25 May 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. Despite a relatively close !vote, it appears that all of the keep !votes come from SPAs, which implies either sockpuppetry off-wiki canvassing. Regardless of which of those it is, this AfD clearly has decided to delete this article. ST47 (talk) 23:49, 1 June 2019 (UTC)

Supreeth Shankarghal

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

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

Not finding independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:GNG. Run-of-the-mill businessman. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:17, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. per nom. Following a WP:BEFORE exercise, the only sources that I can find are of the "subject was quoted as saying X in the news" variety (many of which are linked/referenced in the article). Rather than where the subject is, himself, the topic of news. This type of thing (where, for example, a company executive is quoted or mentioned in pieces of news about his company or area) doesn't meet the WP:SIGCOV and WP:CORPDEPTH requirement. I can find no significant coverage of this type (where the subject himself has been covered substantively in the news, or a book, or a journal, or an academic study of similar). Otherwise, the article seems to be trying to establish notability by associating the subject with companies (or high value hedge funds) as a way of bolstering notability. (Like the stuff in the lead which seems to say "he is a partner in company X, which is an important company [and hence he is important]". Which falls into a WP:INHERITORG trap). The WP:COI, WP:SPA, and WP:NOTLINKEDIN overtones are also concerning. (Including the resumé style stuff down the end about his personal interests and hobbies. Which are very "CV like" in tone...). Anyway, mine is a "delete" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 13:23, 23 May 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Have noted the above comments duly and I did notice that personal life section has been removed as there were no references and did not meet Wikipedia standards. The concerned person has been quoted in several articles from the likes of Bloomberg and others. As far as the notability of the person is concerned,it's not my area to comment upon. The article has been well referenced and it is to be noted that in a country like India, the hedge fund industry is very new and nascent. There is no major awareness about hedge fund industry or the hedge fund managers unlike in the western world. Also the concerned person noting his age at that time would have been only 24 approximately when he was given the license to operate as a hedge fund (first in India) should be noted as well. The Indian securities regulator has the fund and his name in their list along with the date. The article seems to have been around for around three years or so. Also lastly would just like to bring to your attention that the concerned person has a Google knowledge box. Lastly, I am not as expereinced as other editors here. I respect whatever decision is taken here.Vijaybanner (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per Guliolopez. Simply doesn't meet notability standards. Most coverage is passing references and not SIGCOV. Given the promotional nature of the article I'd recommend WP:TNTing it even if he was notable. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:40, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The person also has the names Supreeth S M. https://www.bloomberg.com/search?query=Supreeth generated 32 articles directly or indirectly mentioning him. Also was able to get several interview articles on Economic Times website. The person seems notable enough for a Major television show to conduct a 1 hour show on Education campus. It's the wikipedia editor's role to remain as neutral as possible. We are not here to judge or voice our opinions. If there is reasonable proof a person's notability or relevance, who are we to judge whether someone is notable or not. The wiki page seems to well referenced and there was no dead links found. This is my honest opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ‎ Montrealking (talk • contribs) 22:58, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

Montrealking (talk)

• Comment New account, created solely to vote on this AfD. Likely sock. Likely COI. Edwardx (talk) 23:32, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. The Subject has a knowledge box in Google. So it would appear that people do search him for whatever reasons. One of the main links seems to be this article: https://www.livemint.com/Money/5nQjwov36Swa26944y0XyL/Hedge-fund-manager-who-predicted-Sensex-rally-says-its-time.html which was also covered by Bloomberg and few others. Bloomberg can certainly be treated as noteworthy reference. There are very few articles on Indian Finance executives. Its a keep on my side.Oxbridge1976 (talk)

• Comment Another new account, created solely to vote on this AfD. Likely sock. Likely COI. Edwardx (talk) 23:33, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment Looking at the wording of the above votes, it appears very likely that Montrealking and Oxbridge1976 are socks of Vijaybanner, who created the Supreeth Shankarghal article. Edwardx (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• Comment. I beg your pardon. I am not a sock of any account. Its true that this would be my first edit as I was coming across another notice of deletion, which happened to be of London based hedge fund manager Ana Cukic by the the same nominating editor. I was just curious to see the nominating editor create several new articles including bankers and yet is nominating well referenced article of bankers and financiers. It's just my two cents that one should try staying away from atleast one of the activity from a neutrality point of view. If one wants to take down articles, there are plenty of stubs and articles where there are very few references. The whole thing of nominating similar articles above sounds a bit personal given that the editor is creating such articles on the other side.Oxbridge1976 (talk)

• Delete: Per nom. I don't know about possible sock connections but when I see new SPA accounts showing up specifically to !vote it definitely waves red flags. Otr500 (talk) 03:33, 31 May 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. T. Canens (talk) 16:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Ana Cukic

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

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

Not finding any independent in-depth coverage in reliable sources, either those in the article or elsewhere online - lack of WP:SIGCOV. Fails WP:BIO. Run-of-the-mill businessperson. Promotional article, created by a WP:SPA. Edwardx (talk) 00:12, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 18 May 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nominating editor.Grapefruit17 (talk) 01:47, 18 May 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Searches should included Ana Armstrong as well as Ana Cukic. I went through all of the awards that provided sources. Only one award seemed to be to her rather than the firm. Those that only mentioned the firm I deleted. If the award was to the firm but she was mentioned, I deleted from awards and mentioned it in article. I suspect most of the remaining awards are also to the firm by the way they're worded. --valereee (talk) 11:54, 21 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 07:54, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 1 June 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.