Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

Media Organisations Biography Society Web Games Science Arts Places Indiscern. Not-Sorted

< 8 April	10 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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. Consensus that notability is not met Nosebagbear (talk) 10:46, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

47 Street

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

Subject lacks WP:SIGCOV. Pilot333 (talk) 04:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:57, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is obviously a non-notable company (especially since it has just 1 citation from the company itself) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tribe Capital

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

fails to meet WP:NCORP. Every ref is PR or mere notice DGG ( talk ) 03:09, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Following the previous AfD deletion, the contributing editor was advised to submit a draft of any revised instance through AfC but has instead placed it into mainspace. A substantial proportion of the article text and references are about the history of another firm, Social Capital (venture capital), from which this company does not inherit notability. I am not seeing anything to suggest the September 2019 AfD decision should be overturned; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 09:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies AllyD and DGG, I got confused as to the next step after publishing it as a draft. Should I move it back into drafts and then submit it via the process? There are a number of long form articles about Tribe from sources like TechCrunch that are in depth and not PR like https://techcrunch.com/2019/06/05/tribe-capital/. Do those not suffice because they're about the formation of Tribe out of Social Capital? I'm happy to look for other in depth articles on Tribe. Inkforest (talk) 12:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - venture firms and other such capital sources just are run of the mill and to be blunt not notable. In today's low-regulatory environment, anybody can start a venture firm with as little as $1 and operate it, as long as you don't promise too much to your investors. Unless you have $1 Billion, you are not automatically notable. Bearian (talk) 02:48, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Vlček

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

A check on the WP:BEFORE sees more results for the rally car driver of the same name then this football player who just scrapes by with 1 minute in a WP:FPL league. HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - young player with ongoing career who technically meets NFOOTBALL; needs improving not deleting. GiantSnowman 11:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment @GiantSnowman: So what you are saying is a player that has played 1 minute of football passes the GNG test then. HawkAussie (talk) 00:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Although I don't follow football, I agree with GiantSnowman. NASCARfan0548 ↗ 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GiantSnowman , passes WP:NFOOTY and subject is 24 years and is currently playing see no point in deleting it.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:48, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete has not met any standard of reasonable notability. the current football notability criteria are overly broad and we should stop slavishly following them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:24, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Junction, Minnesota

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

Another railroad junction topo GMaps magically turned into a community by mass-production. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not sure how this got to be listed as a populated place, but in looking at maps of Pennington County, I don't see much of a populated place here. There's no grouping of homes or businesses or anything to suggest this is a community -- just a railroad junction. --Elkman ^(Elkspeak) 02:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 22:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Railroad junction does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 01:14, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There was, at least, a foreman's house there, where people lived (well, specifically, Mrs. Carl Stromberg), back in the 1920s. Not sure exactly what we'd want to do with it. See: [1] [2], [3] [4] SportingFlyer T·C 03:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. It's unclear where to redirect to, if anywhere; this can be figured out editorially. Sandstein 08:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crystal Spring, Minnesota

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

Three buildings marked on topo map, matches the buildings on GMaps of the DNR hatchery. Unclear where the mass-produced claim of "is an unincorporated community" comes from or what makes it notable. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Redirect to Altura, Minnesota, which is the community listed on the Fish hatchery website. It seems plausible someone might search for this term, as it matches the name of the road that the hatchery is on.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~- It is listed here.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Topos dating to 1934 show the same three buildings adjacent to a Transient Relief Camp. Site is not on regional topo. The 1920 Minnesota Geographic Names: Their Origin and Historic Significance fails to mention it, and this 1948 classifieds listing and this 1932 picnic notice mark it at Altura, so this site should be mentioned with Altura as suggested. Reywas92^Talk 00:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Which is closer? Altura or Elba, Minnesota?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - According to the Minnesota DNR, the property has been part of a Wildlife Management Area since 1932 and was a farm before that. The Minnesota Place Names mention is questionable and, even with the other sources, isn't sufficient to meet GNG in any case. The name likely refers to the spring itself. –dlthewave ☎ 00:28, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Elba, Minnesota, which is closer than Altura, though smaller and presumably lacks a post office. (It seems like anyone wishing to improve Elba has some ready-made sources thanks to Reywas92.)--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)}}[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chemistry Europe. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ChemistryViews

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

Undeleted PROD. Original concern was "No indication this website/magazine passes WP:GNG, Wikipedia:Notability (media) and so on. Coverage is limited to PRIMARY/press releases and like." Perhaps a merger to Chemistry Europe would be a good compromise, but given that this went the deletion route, it might be good to have a discussion here. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect and selectively merge to Chemistry Europe. The concern given for the original PROD seems accurate, but it also seems fair to give a couple lines about this publication in the article on the organization that publishes it. XOR'easter (talk) 13:59, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wyngate, Virginia

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

Small subdivision, not a distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:38, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete blatantly not notable. Reywas92^Talk 02:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look, its tiny Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 03:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 22:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Small housing development. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plantscape

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

NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No good sources I could find, though there is another company, of the same name, in the same field, founded only a year earlier, curiously. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 03:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and the cited sources are unreliable. Abishe (talk) 08:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text and references describe a company going about its business. Searches are not finding better evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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