Knowledge

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. A rename to List of serial rapists seems likely to follow, but I leave article renaming to the normal editorial processes for that. RL0919 (talk) 02:29, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

List of serial rapists by number of victims (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:LISTN, evidence of list topic notablity has not been demonstrated. Policy requires the topic to have been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lmatt (talk) 23:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge selectively to serial rapist. I'm just not seeing the kind of coverage as a group that we should have to spin out a list like this. Even picking a couple of the top names and googling them together finds very little. I see no reason the pertinent information from this couldn't be handled, in part, in the main article. — Rhododendrites \\ 02:21, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• .Keep. This has important sociological information for researchers, and per WP:NOTESALThere is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Knowledge:What Knowledge is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists..Oldperson (talk) 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Its a valid list article, far more useful than a category. Having all the articles for serial rapists in one list with information to help sort through them is quite useful for those searching for information. Dream Focus 14:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment. I'm a bit on the fence about this one. But if kept, it should simply be renamed to "List of serial rapists"; the "by number of victims" is a red herring here. It would also need some sourcing on what exactly constitutes a serial rapist (FBI definition, if it exists, etc). Inclusion criteria needs to be cleared up as well. There's been one very persistent editor adding unsourced material, much of which has been extremely dubious. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:24, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Most rapists are serial rapists. So traumatized by it most females can't report it when it happens, so they just keep getting away with it and raping others. This is a List of rapists who have their own Knowledge articles and are only famous/notable for rape and nothing else. Dream Focus 15:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  There is some activity in the deletion log for related pages:

  07:58, 12 February 2019 CASSIOPEIA (talk · contribs) talk contribs moved page List of serial rapists to Draft:List of serial rapists without leaving a redirect (Undersourced, incubate in draftspace (via script))

  03:21, 13 August 2019 JJMC89 (talk · contribs) talk contribs deleted page Draft:List of serial rapists (G13: Abandoned draft or AfC submission – If you wish to retrieve it, please see WP:REFUND/G13)

  Lmatt (talk) 16:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep as owner of the article I'm attempting to maintain the list clean, but there's an IP editor adding serial killers that killed their victims after raping them. The list is supposed to include only serial rapists who only raped their victims. About notability, I think it is balanced at this point. Joji Obara had a very well publicized trial in the media, as did Roger Abdelmassih. About the others rapists, I agree with you that they do not have much notability, but I tried my best to include all rapists in the list to make it complete. I was planning to add gang rapists but there are few cases available on Knowledge. Sorry if my response did not make much sense to the relevant discussion. I'm very bad at explaining things, but I hope this did a bit to understand. Greetings! --Cientific124 (talk) 16:07, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Cientific124: Just a side comment: please see WP:OWN – no one owns articles, even those who have contributed all or most of the content. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 16:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Since English is not the person's first language, I think it was just a wording mistake. They have been on Knowledge for years now so should know that. On a different note, I did post on the IP address's talk page asking them to not add things that shouldn't be there, it seems to be an honest mistake. Dream Focus 16:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Hello @Deacon Vorbis: and @Dream Focus:! Thanks for the note. I used the "owner of article" claim in a few discussions before, but I did not know that rule. Thanks for advising me! --Cientific124 (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Cientific124: Would you support a move to Draft:List of serial rapists by number of victims until evidence of list topic notablity has been demonstrated, as per WP:DRAFTIFY? Lmatt (talk) 17:02, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  Or a move to User:Cientific124/List of serial rapists by number of victims, per WP:HUD. Lmatt (talk) 17:06, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  @Lmatt: I would support a draft to the list until the evidence of list topic notablity has been demonstrated. Greetings! --Cientific124 (talk) 17:14, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  It has to meet the requirements for a list article, not the notability requirements for a regular article. It is a valid grouping that aids in navigation to other articles. Dream Focus 17:27, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

  That is mistaken: list articles need to adhere to all the article criteria including the notability guidelines. See Knowledge:Stand-alone_lists#Content_policies. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete None of the references makes or discusses any list of rapists by number of rapes like this. However meticulous, this is original research and fails WP:LISTN which states "a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". SteveStrummer (talk) 18:39, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep WP:LISTN I would argue Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Lightburst (talk) 03:18, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

In that vein of argument then, I urge you to demonstrate how the list contains "recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes". SteveStrummer (talk) 17:47, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

It helps with navigation by listing all those who are called serial rapists in their own articles. Dream Focus 19:08, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

That navigation would be better suited to a category. As you yourself stated above, this list is just a list of those serial rapists who have Knowledge articles. It's not a definitive list, but the title presents it as if it were, which would be misleading to any researchers. SteveStrummer (talk) 02:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• It would navigation for researchers. WP:IMPERFECT. List does not have to be complete. Lightburst (talk) 02:52, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Lightburst - this list is useful for our core readership of students, of whom very few know how to navigate by category; it's not OR. Bearian (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, Per above, It's a valid sociological list Alex-h (talk) 15:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per WP:LISTN RockingGeo (talk) 09:39, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment for those of you arguing to keep this on the basis that it's purely navigational / an index? It is not list of serial rapists, but list of serial rapists by number of victims. That is not an index but an encyclopedic list. That's why this needs sources which treat them as a group sufficient to pass LISTN (and not just "we have a category" -- because we don't have Category:List of serial rapists by number of victims). This is also why it should just be merged into the serial rapist article. No prejudice against creating a simply list of serial rapists for navigation purposes. — Rhododendrites \\ 12:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

  I agree. It should be renamed List of serial rapists. It'll still list the numbers and other information of course, just as other such lists do. Dream Focus 21:44, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep and rename to List of serial rapists as all names in the list are notable. Also tidy up the article by removing all original research including the possible victims column. Ajf773 (talk) 22:44, 12 November 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 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Angela Halgrimson (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 a notable author. Article is as close to a db-spam nomination as one can get. The awards are fake (Mom's Choice) or not notable (the MIPA awards--that's just a regional thing from the publishers association with no secondary sourcing for either the award or the fact that the subject got them). Drmies (talk) 23:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete the only coverage I can find looks to be self-generated. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:05, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:11, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete The only sources I found are publicity for author visits or interviews, bookshops, blogs, etc, apart from a profile about her on a University of Minnesota School of Journalism news service . Perhaps WP:TOOSOON: if her books are translated or reprinted, she may get reviews or coverage. RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete No coverage apart from an interview. I suspect it will be a very long time before WP:TOOSOON applies. scope_creep 10:12, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - there have been no newspaper reviews nor interviews. Bearian (talk) 14:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete, Not enough coverage to meet notability Alex-h (talk) 15:22, 9 November 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 20:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Ana Ortega (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 person. Article is (was) barely disguised BLP fluff. Sources are unreliable. Drmies (talk) 23:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 03:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I don't find any sources about her or reviews of her publications. If the screenplays are made into films, or future books are reviewed, etc, then perhaps she will meet notability guidelines, but for now it's WP:TOOSOON. (I have to say that one screenplay sounds intriguing - it's apparently about "the growing paints and harsh truths of love".) RebeccaGreen (talk) 11:57, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - there have been not a single newspaper article, interview, or review. Bearian (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This is the third time I've looked at this. Can't find much at all, although she has written quite a few books. I thought I would find a few interviews at least, but she is obviously busy writing, compiling recipes or doing something else. The only thing I can see Apple podcast, but every known thing goes onto eventually. scope_creep 12:13, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I do notice it an interview on podcast. So it could social media. Let me check. Nothing much. scope_creep 12:15, 9 November 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. bd2412 T 20:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Leslie Stefanson (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)

Doesnt seem to be notable by herself but more because she’s James Spaders girlfriend. She’s an extra at best, doesnt need her own page LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. LADY LOTUS • TALK 01:35, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:17, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep Borderline pass of WP:NACTOR for the title role of The General's Daughter (1999) and plot-significant roles in Beautiful (2000), The Stickup (2002) and Desert Saints (2002). Definitely not just an extra. XOR'easter (talk) 19:31, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep There is sufficient coverage I think over a large number of years to establish notability per WP:NACTOR. scope_creep 22:37, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • She doesn’t meet wp:BASIC, I’ve genuinely looked for significant coverage and could not find any. The articles from reliable sources that mention her are about her being James Spader’s girlfriend. LADY LOTUS • TALK 02:06, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Passes WP:NACTOR for the title role of The General's Daughter (1999) and significant role in Beautiful (2000) and others. Actresses are known for their work and this one passes #1 Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Lightburst (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep She has had significant roles in multiple notable productions, with The General's Daughter, Beautiful, Jackie, Ethel, Joan: The Women of Camelot, and others. I have added some sources, including one profile from 2001. I need to look for and add more for her other films, but I would just note that so far, I have seen no coverage of her as "James Spader's girlfriend". The coverage, whether a profile of her or description of her acting in a movie, is about her as an actor. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:17, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It’s hard to verify the sources since they are subscription only but you dont need 4 different sources just to verify she played a role in a film. And in regards to you not seeing anything on her being James Spaders girlfriend, all I ask is how? Google her name and the first article after her IMBd and wikipedia page is from Country Living titled “All About James Spader's Divorce, Kids, and Relationship with Leslie Stefanson”. Lol so I ask again, how? LADY LOTUS • TALK 03:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I have clipped some of the sources, so they should be visible. I did say "so far" I have not seen coverage of her as someone's boyfriend, meaning that the coverage I have found "so far" is about her work, before she even met him. And how do I see that and not coverage of her lovelife? Because I search on terms like "Leslie Stefanson" + review, or "Leslie Stefanson" + "film title". Quite easy. As for four sources - they are reviews, and they each say something about her performance, they don't just verify that she was in a film. RebeccaGreen (talk) 07:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per above. She had a supporting role in a true bomb, Beautiful, which I would argue adds to her notability as an actress. Bearian (talk) 14:39, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep per Lightburst. Cambial Yellowing❧ 21:58, 10 November 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. bd2412 T 20:28, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Claire Thompson (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 sources given, and a search for '"Claire Thompson" BDSM' filtered to news sources only seems to find nothing relevant; a search filtered to books only finds only her own books. -- The Anome (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 07:19, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I attempted to cleanup, added details, added refs. This author is notable. The top novels have several thousands ratings by readers. See list of Thompson's books by popularity.

SWP13 (talk) 01:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep Though it lacks proper amount of coverage but it seem to be in the borderline of passing WP:AUTHOR Kakaey (talk) 06:49, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep passes WP:AUTHOR Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 5 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I see this as essentially advocacy forthe organization's ideas, rather than a NPOV article. If we removed the advocacy , there wouldn't be enough material to show notability DGG ( talk ) 06:19, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 12:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:06, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This article meets all the criteria for stand-alone Knowledge articles about organizations. And it meets all the actual Knowledge criteria for NPOV. And here is proof (Talk page: "How this article meets all the Knowledge criteria for standalone organization articles") that this article meets (exceeds, actually) all the criteria I just mentioned. Thanks -Francisco Fredeye (talk) 17:19, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Delete and Redirect to State Policy Network. This is the NJ-based arm of this larger network of think tanks. It looks to have received a bit of local coverage, but not enough to satisfy WP:ORG. The article further would need major edits, given that it reads like an extension of the official site. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:17, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• reply to the "weak delete" - Per WP:ORG: "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." This article satisfies that requirement. How it "reads" is not part of the notability requirement. Not at all. That's my input. Thanks. --Francisco Fredeye (talk) 20:52, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep appears to meet GNG; (an article about think tank should include its ideas/conclusions, too).Djflem (talk) 08:30, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete and Redirect per Rhododendrites. Ultimately fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. After second re-list, the main Keep argument was upheld, and remained unchallenged. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Francis Lupo (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:NSOLDIER. Being identified after "possibly" being missing in action for the "longest known period" is hardly sufficient. Clarityfiend (talk) 19:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:47, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:48, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 21:49, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete no actual significant claim to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:10, 19 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - possibly is not good enough for an encyclopedia. There's possibly lots of remains in unknown places from the Spanish-American War of 1898. Bearian (talk) 13:02, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect/ Selective Merge to Missing in action#World War I. It would be an interesting tidbit to read in that section.4meter4 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Clearly meets WP:BASIC. Not all the sources in the article are solid, but the WaPo and defense.gov ones certainly are. In addition, I found:

• "On Hallowed Ground". Google Books. Retrieved 26 October 2019.
• Peter Grier (July 2007). "Names for our Unknowns: Scientists are finally identifying servicemen lost long ago" (PDF). airforcemag.com. Retrieved 26 October 2019.
• Bernstein, Nina (3 February 2008). "New technologies raise hopes for identifying war dead". nytimes.com. Retrieved 26 October 2019.
• Bernstein, Nina (3 February 2008). "Still Trying to Bring Their Fallen Heroes Home". nytimes.com. Retrieved 26 October 2019.
• "WWI soldier buried at Arlington Cemetery". The Denver Post. Retrieved 27 October 2019.
• "Cincinnati soldier was missing in WWI for 88 years - YouTube". youtube.com. Retrieved 27 October 2019. Cincinnati soldier was missing in WWI for 88 years

I think people are putting too much emphasis on the possibly. That's just a poorly written sentence. He's the longest known MIA. The possibly is repetitive with longest known. We have lots of articles about the longest/biggest/whateverist known something. In all cases, it's always possible that at some point in the future, we'll discover one that exceeds this. -- RoySmith (talk) 00:35, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, I've struck one of the NY Times sources. They're actually the same article, run under different headlines in different editions of the paper. But the remaining sources are plenty to meet WP:BASIC and/or WP:GNG -- RoySmith (talk) 22:42, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

• RoySmith's intervention really should have been the end of this AfD, folks. Please stop re-listing and close it.—S Marshall T/C 21:57, 5 November 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 this article has been kept several times in previous AfDs, there is clearly a broad consensus that this list is non-notable. It's entirely appropriate for consensus to evolve over time and it's been almost a decade since it was last assessed. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 21:16, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

List of one-time The Simpsons characters (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)

All in-universe fancruft. Fails WP:LISTN. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete "One-time" says it all, this is a list of non-notable characters. The information is better off in the Simpsons Wiki or similar._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Pointless collection of minutia. If there are any that are relevant search terms, it's easy enough just to redirect to the episode in question. Otherwise cataloging them can be left to a fan wiki. TTN (talk) 21:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. And, on top of that, original research. Note that it's not actually a list of one-time characters, but characters who were "central" one time. Yikes. Otherwise, I was going to see how closely this might parallel List of Simpsons guest stars. Answer? It doesn't matter; this isn't salvageable in any form. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• The Simpsons Wiki has this information already, here. In other words, no need for a transwiki before we delete it: this can go directly into the recycle bin.—S Marshall T/C 22:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable characters by definition. There are a number of redirects that should go to their episodes instead. Reywas92 22:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per others. @Squeamish Ossifrage: List of Simpsons guest stars is a WP:FA FWIW. BTW I could say WP:INDISCRIMINATE could be addressed by adding some content controls or something, but then we'd end up duplicating the guest-stars. ミラP 00:17, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment This has been kept 7 times under the name List of one-time characters in The Simpsons. 165.91.13.55 (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC);

Except the last one was nine years ago... ミラP 01:08, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• If at first you don't delete, try, try, try, try, try, try, try again. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:25, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete The only reasonable list out of this woudl be guest stars, and there are separate lists for that. --Masem (t) 03:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Weak Delete - Ah. Sad to see another long-labor-of-love-list bite the dust here, thanks to pesky "policies" and "guidelines". :) I even did a quick search just in case and did find more than I thought I would (AV Club, Digital Spy, Screen Rant, NME, Buzzfeed... but still, it's hard to justify). — Rhododendrites \\ 03:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. We don't need a list of every character who has ever appeared on The Simpsons, there are simply too many. JIP | Talk 07:51, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Worst. List. EVER. Lugnuts 09:12, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. As much of a Simpsons fan I am, this is listcruft. Many of the characters aren't actually one-time, some are recurring, so there is also a degree of WP:INDISCRIMINATE as well. Ajf773 (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Not encyclopedia worthy. Wm335td (talk) 21:56, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The nomination is obviously improper per WP:DELAFD, "It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome." The nomination makes no new points and is blatantly false as it's easy to find coverage of Simpsons one-off characters such as Albert Brooks' Jacques or Lawrence Tierney's Brodka. The topic easily passes WP:LISTN and the rest is just the usual personal opinions – WP:IDONTLIKEIT, WP:ITSCRUFT, WP:WEDONTNEEDIT, &c. – which are contrary to core policy. Andrew D. (talk) 00:30, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • How does WP:DELAFD really apply when the last AFD was in 2010? Consensus can change, after all. DonIago (talk) 03:04, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • The passage of many years demonstrates that the topic is sound. The page has been read by hundreds of thousands of people in that time and the talk page indicates that they have no complaints. All we have in this case is a disruptive, drive-by nomination and a tiny claque of supporters. Such ambushes and attrition are a significant cause of the decline in Knowledge particpation as people won't invest effort when their work can be so casually destroyed without regard to the principles of natural justice such as double jeopardy. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Racism has survived for many years, but I wouldn't call it sound. Just because the article has been read and there are no complaints on the Talk page doesn't mean that the list is appropriate. As for the rest of your counterargument, please read WP:ASPERSION. DonIago (talk) 20:31, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
        • The sheer amount of people who agree that it's non-notable kind of proves your "drive-by nomination" argument wrong. If it was really an ill-considered nomination then there would be some controversy outside yourself. I'm sure people did invest time and energy into this list, but considering Simpsons Wiki probably has even more and better referenced info anyway, that doesn't really count for much._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:34, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • So you can't even be bothered to understand that both of these examples are known for being guest stars, not for being one-time characters? That the source isn't about Jacques but about Albert Brooks? That they are already listed in List of The Simpsons guest stars (seasons 1–20) and described (or PRESERVED as you would say) in more detail at Marge Be Not Proud and Life on the Fast Lane? This is sad, just embarrassing. Reywas92 06:28, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Brooks was not a guest star; he was a regular part of the production team and voiced multiple characters. The work specifically covers such characters, "in the course of this book, we remember the iconic characters". The coverage of Brodka is likewise specifically about such characters, "The 25 Most Underrated "Simpsons" Characters". The topic clearly passes WP:LISTN and that's why it has been kept repeatedly in the past. My !vote stands. Andrew D. (talk) 13:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Yeah, Knowledge's lists should totally be dictated by listicles. But again, this underrated character is still described in the episode article! We're not scrubbing mention of this listicle author's #24 entirely! And if Brooks' multiple appearances don't count him as guest star, take that up with the guest star list and the producers who called him one. Not that I expect you to ever change your mind, just making sure others can see through this failed logic. Reywas92 19:35, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete- This really is indiscriminate fancruft. Previous AfDs have no bearing here since the last one was almost a decade ago, when there was actually still a chance of Knowledge turning into Wikia. Fortunately we did not go down that road. Reyk _YO! 12:15, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This is a great example of an unnecessary (almost trivial) list about more-or-less cameos. Dellwood546 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and transwiki It's pretty clear that this will be axed, before this, please copy the contents to Simpsons wikia, as the main article for this category. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. After the third re-list, a consensus formed that it meets GNG/NCORP (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:48, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

DeepScale (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)

Company lacks in-depth news sources to establish its notability, fails WP:GNG, most of the news is about acquisition and not what company is all about. Created by WP:UPE, who has been editing around the topic. Meeanaya (talk) 07:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Thanks for taking the time to review this page. I also feel strongly that Knowledge should be limited to well-verified content about topics of sufficiently high notability. Whether this page meets the standards is an open question and is worthy of the community's review. I agree that most of the recent coverage is on the topic of the acquisition. That said, the acquisition news drowns out what looks like some fairly in-depth coverage on the technology that DeepScale developed in sensor fusion and deep neural networks that fit on small devices. I think the main flaw, really, is that EETimes seems to be have been the main source coverage for a number of DeepScale's technology and product updates.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 104gli (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:28, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Following the suggestion above, I shortened the history section to focus on the technology, and cleaned up some other less-than-relevant links. I do not think that in the current state it would have been nominated. DGG ( talk ) 17:09, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Hey DGG, are there any particular references that you believe meet the criteria for establishing notability? None of the references in the article meet GNG/NCORP and I note that the two EE Times references above fail WP:ORGIND as they rely almost entirely on interviews with people connected with the company. I am unable to locate any satisfactory references but I recall at previous times you located good references. HighKing 17:41, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 02:06, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Following up on User:HighKing's note, here is a reference that appeared just this week on DeepScale's technology. It is not the most high-brow source, but it is not an interview with someone close to the company: https://towardsdatascience.com/what-is-the-technology-behind-deepscale-b40f05fe7423 (apologies for not formatting this reference properly... I am typing on mobile right now). As an aside, there are now over a dozen articles on the acquisition (mostly real journalism, not just reprinting a press release). An other user seemed against these (at the top of this page), but I imagine they would contribute something to the subject's notability. 104gli (talk) 07:00, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

There's nothing about the *company* in that article though. The article is discussing the technology only. HighKing 13:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for your additional note, User:HighKing. Could you clarify what other company information you are looking for? Once I hear back from you, I will investigate whether there are references for the types of information that you would like to include. In the mean time, I suggest looking at the following reference. The title of the reference is related to the acquisition, but the reference presents some information on the history of the company, including its people, tech, and product. So far as I can tell, the reference is not based on the journalist interviewing someone from the company. https://www.thedrive.com/tech/30122/tesla-beefs-up-autonomy-effort-with-deepscale-acqui-hire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104gli (talk • contribs) 16:43, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Hi 104gli, take a look at WP:NCORP, especially WP:ORGIND which helps you understand what is required for an "independent source". The reference must be functionally independent and must be content independent. From ORDIND: "Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject.". Your reference above, for example, appears to not to have any independent opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and refers to other articles which are entirely based on interviews, company or affiliated announcements, etc. HighKing 18:38, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Delete After reviewing references and searching online, I cannot locate sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Existing references appear to be based on announcements or research from the company or connected companies, inclusion in "Top 10" type lists, quotations/interviews with people connected to the company and primary sources. Topic fails GNG and WP:NCORP. There are multiple sources that provide Independent Content and meet the criteria for establishing notability, passes GNG/NCORP. HighKing 15:49, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment. I agree, because While EETimes is a reliable source for the information presented, it is an "electronics industry magazine" which I would argue is a "limited interest" thus is a light weight in consideration of establishing general notability for organization per WP:AUD. Graywalls (talk) 15:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America 19:30, 26 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. This discussion is maturing nicely, and we seem to be getting down to the core of the matter now. As I understand it...

1. There are good secondary-source references in the following areas: (1) research and technology, and (2) acquisition by Tesla.
2. In addition, there are sources that discuss the company's products and its corporate partnerships, but these sources appear to rely on interviews with company personnel (making them primary sources per WP:USEPRIMARY), so they don't contribute much towards WP:GNG / WP:ORG.
3. Here is where HighKing and I seem to have a difference in our interpretation of WP:ORG: I don't see anywhere in WP:ORG that an organization has to be notable for a specific category of thing (say, a product), so long as the organization is notable for something. This organization seems to be notable for its research and technology and for its acquisition by Tesla. This is not uncommon -- for example, my understanding is that OpenAI is also notable primarily for its research and technology. 104gli (talk) 06:48, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

104gli, from the above, I still don't think you understand the emphasis I place on references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. You say that the organization should be notable for "something". I agree. The *only* standard that I look for are references - and those references must meet the criteria for establishing notability. To date, I have yet to see *any* such references - that is, a reference that is significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content (see WP:ORGIND for definition of Independent Content). If you have a reference, post it here. HighKing 20:41, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Does it have significant coverage? The concept of no-inherited notability is applicable here and the recognition of the acquiring company doesn't weigh i on the notability scale. And "Awards and recognition"sGraywalls (talk) 15:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC) Also, see how TechCrunch article may not add to notability. Knowledge:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#TechCrunch. EEtimes seems to be an issue with a rather specialized and narrow range of audience, and all the other ones seem to be mostly about Tesla.Graywalls (talk) 13:17, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment.

(1) On no inherited notability, I hear you. Alas, I did not state my point above with sufficient precision. What I meant is that DeepScale's acquisition (irrespective of the acquirer) is something notable, because it was covered by multiple secondary sources, who did independent research, analysis, and fact-checking.

(2) On the awards and recognition, I think WP:NNC applies here. The awards and recognition aren't being used in the case to establish notability. 104gli (talk) 05:59, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Nonetheless presence of "awards and recognition" in obscure hole in the wall startup is a hint of promotional activity. News outlets regularly announce well established A acquires B, with brief description of the bread crumb "B" being acquired. In this case, the subject of article doesn't have sufficient coverage in depth to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH Graywalls (talk) 21:56, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per DGG and 104gli. Passes WP:SIGCOV. An SNG can not override GNG.4meter4 (talk) 15:58, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The way I understand it from a previous discussion somewhere, WP:NCORP is an additional set of criteria to WP:GNG so that business owners and marketing and public relations professionals are discouraged form slipping in pages with promotional interest. Graywalls (talk) 20:03, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment 4meter4, recently there are a number of editors saying that NCORP is irrelevant and that "somehow" (without ever explaining) NCORP places "additional" restrictions/criteria on which references may be used to establish notability. This is rubbish and should be stomped on when uttered at AfD. NCORP provides explanations and insight into how to correctly interpret the exact same criteria contained in GNG. From what I've seen, editors complaining about SNG have difficulty interpreting the meaning of "Independent". It appears to me that many editors assume (incorrectly) that "Independent" only refers to the publisher being an independent organization to the company - which of course is incorrect. "Independent" (whether is GNG or NCORP) also refers to the requirement for "Independent Content" - all of which is clarified/explained in NCORP. If you believe that NCORP goes too far in some respect, then the correct course of action is to either take it to the appropriate Talk page, or in the alternative to explain here at the AfD which parts of NCORP you believe contradict GNG. Without such explanation there is a chance of your !vote being ignored by the closer. HighKing 14:17, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

I've simply gone through these discussions before and I was pointing out to where you can see WP:ORGCRIT which says the same thing. This is so you and anyone can see it themselves. Graywalls (talk) 20:49, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• @Graywalls: Did you mean to erase my !vote and rationale? Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

No. I've simply gone through these discussions before and I was pointing out to where you can see WP:ORGCRIT which says the same thing. This is so you and anyone can see it themselves. Graywalls (talk) 20:09, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

@Graywalls: Check your edit- My !vote was erased. I guess i will put it back. Please do not erase votes. Lightburst (talk) 20:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Resolved. There was an edit while I was trying to follow up to 4meter4 while Lightburst was also working on the page and I guess his edit accidentally got cancelled out. Graywalls (talk) 20:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. per the work of DGG. Passes GNG. Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Replaced my erased !vote

• Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
  1. Yushida, Junko (2017-09-21). "DeepScale on Robo-Car: Fuse Raw Data". EE Times. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
  2. Kolodny, Lora (2017-03-21). "DeepScale raises $3 million for perception AI to make self-driving cars safe". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
  3. Korosec, Kirsten (2019-10-01). "Tesla acquires computer vision startup DeepScale in push toward robotaxis". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
  4. Kolodny, Lora (2019-10-01). "Tesla is buying computer vision start-up DeepScale in a quest to create truly driverless cars". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
  5. Reisenger, Don (2019-10-02). "Why Tesla Quietly Acquired DeepScale, a Machine Learning Startup That's 'Squeezing' A.I." Fortune. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
  6. Lee, Timothy B. (2019-10-02). "Tesla just bought an AI startup to improve Autopilot—here's what it does. We talked to DeepScale CEO Forrest Iandola about his work last year". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
  7. Cao, Sissi (2019-10-02). "Tesla Just Quietly Acquired a 4-Year-Old Startup to Fill Its Autopilot Talent Gap". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
  8. Fingas, Jon (2019-10-01). "Tesla reportedly buys AI startup that helps self-driving cars see". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.
  9. Szymkowski, Sean (2019-10-02). "Tesla reportedly buys machine-learning startup DeepScale for self-driving car tech". CNET. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03.

  Sources with quotes

  Yushida, Junko (2017-09-21). "DeepScale on Robo-Car: Fuse Raw Data". EE Times. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: Phil Magney, founder and principal advisor for Vision Systems Intelligence (VSI), called DeepScale’s approach “very contemporary,” representing “the latest thinking in applying AI to automated driving.” How does the DeepScale approach — using raw data to train the neural network — differ from other sensor-fusion methodologies? First off, “Today, most sensor fusion applications fuse the object data, not the raw data,” Magney stressed. Further, in most cases, smart sensors produce object data within the sensors, while other sensors send raw data to the main processor — where objects are produced before it is ingested into the fusion engine, he explained. Magney called such an approach “late fusion.” This is analysis from Vision Systems Intelligence, a technology research company. The article also includes quotes from Forrest Iandola, DeepScale's CEO. Kolodny, Lora (2017-03-21). "DeepScale raises $3 million for perception AI to make self-driving cars safe". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: DeepScale’s seed investors included: Bessemer Venture Partners, Greylock, Auto Tech Ventures, Andy Bechtolsheim (who was the first investor in Google) and Jerry Yang. A partner with BVP, Alex Ferrara, said, “Cars are moving from systems today where they have a large number of small computers, called ECUs, in them, to working with smaller more powerful computers for perception. But you have all these little sensors, lidar, radar, ultrasound, and each one brings its own view of the world. There’s a really interesting opportunity here for DeepScale to pull everything together and use info from all those sensors to make computer vision accurate and efficient.” DeepScale is competing for a share of this burgeoning market versus some 800-lb. gorillas in automotive tech, like Mobileye, now owned by Intel, or Bosch, but also other funded startups like Comma.ai, Argo and Drive.ai, which are trying another approach of building their own, fully autonomous vehicles or retrofit systems. Korosec, Kirsten (2019-10-01). "Tesla acquires computer vision startup DeepScale in push toward robotaxis". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: Tesla  has acquired DeepScale, a Silicon Valley startup that uses low-wattage processors to power more accurate computer vision, in a bid to improve its Autopilot driver assistance system and deliver on CEO Elon Musk’s vision to turn its electric vehicles into robotaxis. ... DeepScale has developed a way to use efficient deep neural networks on small, low-cost, automotive-grade sensors and processors to improve the accuracy of perception systems. These perception systems, which use sensors, mapping, planning and control systems to interpret and classify data in real time, are essential to the operation of autonomous vehicles. In short, these systems allow vehicles to understand the world around them. Kolodny, Lora (2019-10-01). "Tesla is buying computer vision start-up DeepScale in a quest to create truly driverless cars". CNBC. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: Tesla is acquiring DeepScale, a computer vision start-up that could help it develop fully driverless vehicles, CNBC has learned. The deal could help Tesla’s goal to deliver cars with advanced driver-assistance systems that are good enough for owners to rent them out as “robotaxis” on an Uber-like platform without drivers. However, like all automakers, Tesla is limited by the computational resources it can build into its vehicles. DeepScale’s technology was designed to help automakers use low-wattage processors, which are standard in most cars, to power very accurate computer vision. These processors work with sensors, mapping, planning and control systems, to allow cars to make sense of what’s going on around them. Reisenger, Don (2019-10-02). "Why Tesla Quietly Acquired DeepScale, a Machine Learning Startup That's 'Squeezing' A.I." Fortune. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: Now part of the Tesla Autopilot team, DeepScale was previously a Silicon Valley startup with $18.5 million in venture funding that was attempting to develop artificial intelligence technology for fully autonomous self-driving cars. In order to achieve that, DeepScale relied on deep neural networks, or multi-layered networks that use mathematics and other sophisticated technology to crunch data and deliver real-world information, to create what it called "squeezing A.I.." The "squeezing" means that its technology would use fewer resources to identify obstacles around a vehicle and inform the car's on-board computer to keep the vehicle and its passengers safe. Artificial intelligence and building fully autonomous driving systems can be expensive. By reducing resource-load, DeepScale's technology could have ultimately reduced costs and allowed more car makers at all levels—from high-line to budget—to implement self-driving technology. ... Since it's still early days and Tesla hasn't discussed its plans for DeepScale, so difficult to know for sure how DeepScale will find its way into the electric automaker's technology. But there are clues based on what DeepScale was working on and what Iandola posted to his LinkedIn profile. Lee, Timothy B. (2019-10-02). "Tesla just bought an AI startup to improve Autopilot—here's what it does. We talked to DeepScale CEO Forrest Iandola about his work last year". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: DeepScale focuses on improving the speed and efficiency of convolutional neural networks, drawing on Iandola's past work as a computer science graduate student. The company's techniques will be particularly helpful to Tesla. Tesla is relying heavily on machine learning techniques to achieve full self-driving capabilities without the lidar sensors or high-definition maps being used by most of Tesla's competitors. The article includes quotes from DeepScale CEO Forrest Iandola. Cao, Sissi (2019-10-02). "Tesla Just Quietly Acquired a 4-Year-Old Startup to Fill Its Autopilot Talent Gap". The New York Observer. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: Two sources confirmed to CNBC that Tesla had bought DeepScale “outright,” but were unable to disclose the specific terms. Until the buyout, DeepScale had raised three venture capital rounds, including a $15 million series A last April led by Steve Cohen’s private investment fund Point72 and Siemens-backed venture fund next47, a $3 million seed round in 2017 and an angel round in 2016. Fingas, Jon (2019-10-01). "Tesla reportedly buys AI startup that helps self-driving cars see". Engadget. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: An acquisition would make sense. Elon Musk has stressed his belief that Tesla can rely on cameras for autonomy, rather than the bulky LiDAR units many others use. If that's going to happen, Tesla will need self-driving AI that can recognize a wide variety of road objects in less-than-ideal conditions. A buyout like this could bring it one step closer to that reality. Szymkowski, Sean (2019-10-02). "Tesla reportedly buys machine-learning startup DeepScale for self-driving car tech". CNET. Archived from the original on 2019-11-03. Retrieved 2019-11-03. The article notes: CNBC reported Tuesday that Tesla has fully acquired a tech startup company called DeepScale. The startup focuses on computer vision and not on lidar, which many other companies and automakers bank out to give their self-driving car prototypes the gift of sight. Tesla did not comment on the reported purchase, though CNBC also reported DeepScale CEO Forrest Iandola made a curious announcement on LinkedIn. On the social media network, Iandola confirmed he joined Tesla as a senior staff machine learning scientist. CNBC's sources familiar with the deal reported back saying it wasn't a single hire and that Tesla has, in fact, purchased the startup outright. DeepScale's approach to autonomy fits the bigger picture Musk has promoted for a few years now. Rather than relying on lidar, Musk has consistently believed cameras, radar and ultrasonic sensors will make up a robust system without other hardware. Powering it all is a new artificial intelligence chip Tesla developed in-house. The chip, detailed this past April, uses minimal power for operation and takes in an absolute massive load of information from the hardware package.

  There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow DeepScale to pass Knowledge:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

  Cunard (talk) 23:41, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

• Weak Keep article is written very much from insider's POV and borders on WP:PROMO. The Tesla acquisition just gets it over the line in terms of notability, but I could see this comping up for deletion at a later point to be merged into the Tesla article.--Goldsztajn (talk) 15:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete—It appears this company was set up to develop software to the end of being acquired, which it was. I'm feeling this article should be dissolved into the Tesla article and one or more articles on the evolution / development of perceptive systems rather than having a stand alone article. Sorry, folks - I do usually come here to argue for preservation of articles, but in this case, I think that "dissolution" is a better solution = take those citations and ensure that they support content in other appropriate articles. This means the aticle gets deleted, but the content gets incorporated elsewhere. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 04:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment An examination of the sources provided by Cunard above. Just to point out that references that are based entirely on company announcements, funding announcements and interviews usually fail the criteria for establishing notability because they do not contain any "Independent Content" which is defined as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. A simple way of thinking about it is that if the journalist does not provide any of their own input in terms of opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and only parrots what either the company itself or others who are linked to the comapny have said, then the article fails. This from eetimes is based on "an exclusive interview" and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. It's churnalism. This from techcrunch is based on their announcement of raising seed finance and fails WP:ORGIND. The second Techcrunch reference appears to be a summary of other articles in other sources and also fails by not containing any Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND. ″The reference from cnbc, this from Fortune, this from Ars Technica, this from the Observer, this from Engadget and this from cnet are all entirely based on the announcement that the company was being acquired by Tesla. All reference the CNBC announcement and the CEO's LinkedIn "announcement". The information about the company is clearly attributable to a source affiliated with the company and there is no "Independent Content". They all fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing 14:09, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• 104gli's responses are inline below.

HighKing: An examination of the sources provided by Cunard above. Just to point out that references that are based entirely on company announcements, funding announcements and interviews usually fail the criteria for establishing notability because they do not contain any "Independent Content" which is defined as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. A simple way of thinking about it is that if the journalist does not provide any of their own input in terms of opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and only parrots what either the company itself or others who are linked to the company have said, then the article fails. This from eetimes is based on "an exclusive interview" and therefore fails WP:ORGIND. It's churnalism.

104gli: When you say, "A simple way of thinking about it is that if the journalist does not provide any of their own input in terms of opinion/analysis/investigation/etc and only parrots what either the company itself or others who are linked to the company have said, then the article fails," it sounds like you are saying is that, if a reporter does an exclusive interview, and then the reporter provides independent analysis as part of the same article, then the entire article is a primary source. However, I think it's often worthwhile to look at an article on a per-paragraph basis to establish what information from the article is primary-sourced, and what information is secondary-sourced. When you click next to Cunard's "Sources with quotes" box, you'll see that Cunard has provided an excerpt of this article. The excerpt is drawing on the thinking of an independent analyst, Phil Magney, who (to my knowledge) is unaffiliated with DeepScale and is quoted in various EE Times articles on autonomous driving that are unrelated to DeepScale (e.g. this and this).

HighKing: This from techcrunch is based on their announcement of raising seed finance and fails WP:ORGIND. The second Techcrunch reference appears to be a summary of other articles in other sources and also fails by not containing any Independent Content, fails WP:ORGIND.

104gli: Cunard reproduced an excerpt that I believe is independent analysis: "DeepScale is competing for a share of this burgeoning market versus some 800-lb. gorillas in automotive tech, like Mobileye, now owned by Intel, or Bosch, but also other funded startups like Comma.ai, Argo and Drive.ai, which are trying another approach of building their own, fully autonomous vehicles or retrofit systems."

HighKing: The reference from cnbc, this from Fortune, this from Ars Technica, this from the Observer, this from Engadget and this from cnet are all entirely based on the announcement that the company was being acquired by Tesla.

104gli: A couple of points:

(1) To my knowledge, there wasn't an announcement of the acquisition. It appears that CNBC did some investigative journalism to figure out that the acquisition happened and found sources to confirm the acquisition. If that's not independent investigation, analysis, and fact-checking, I don't know what is.

(2) Take a look at these two passages from Cunard's excerpt of the CNET article: "The startup focuses on computer vision and not on lidar, which many other companies and automakers bank out to give their self-driving car prototypes the gift of sight." and "DeepScale's approach to autonomy fits the bigger picture Musk has promoted for a few years now. Rather than relying on lidar, Musk has consistently believed cameras, radar and ultrasonic sensors will make up a robust system without other hardware." This sounds like independent analysis to me. The journalist is analyzing and synthesizing ideas from multiple sources here, and I think it fits the definition of WP:SECONDARY. Several of the other excerpts that Cunard provided do this as well. So far as I can tell, there is nothing in WP:SECONDARY that calls for secondary sources to have especially interesting analyses, and in my opinion the journalists' analyses aren't especially interesting, but I think most of Cunard's excerpts do meet the criteria for WP:SECONDARY. 104gli (talk) 22:41, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, 104gli (talk · contribs). You have perfectly explained why I provide these quotes: I think it's often worthwhile to look at an article on a per-paragraph basis to establish what information from the article is primary-sourced, and what information is secondary-sourced. When you click next to Cunard's "Sources with quotes" box, you'll see that Cunard has provided an excerpt of this article. The excerpt is drawing on the thinking of an independent analyst, Phil Magney, who (to my knowledge) is unaffiliated with DeepScale and is quoted in various EE Times articles on autonomous driving that are unrelated to DeepScale (e.g. this and this).

Cunard (talk) 00:50, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thanks 104gli and Cunard. For me the key point above is that Phil Magnet is unaffiliated and is an analyst. Just to clarify - you say that it appears that I'm saying - if a reporter does an exclusive interview, and then the reporter provides independent analysis as part of the same article, then the entire article is a primary source. No, the opposite. If a reporter provides independent analysis/etc then the article meets the criteria for establishing notability regardless of whether the article is based on an exclusive interview or not. To go further, for me this is the primary criteria along with WP:CORPDEPTH. The key test is for "Independent Content" that is *clearly* attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You then point out that Phil Magney from VSI provides independent comments and these comments are therefore from a source unaffiliated with the company. I've done some checking and this does appear to be the case. On that basis, I've revised my !vote since there are now multiple sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Thanks again. HighKing 13:03, 11 November 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 and redirect to Brownie (folklore). There is consensus that the article article topic is not notable and so there is consensus for the article to be deleted. Two possible redirect targets have been offered, however those suggesting Brownie (folklore) as a target cite relevant policy where as though suggesting List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters seem to be oding so more because of the current article topic. I considered relisting another week but this isn't RfD - a venue where editors regularly have these kinds of discussions - and since there is a consensus that this topic is not notable I am closing this with the redirect to Brownie. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:54, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Grugach (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 D&D topic TTN (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 19:16, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - An obscure sub-race of elves that barely has any sources at all, primary or otherwise. The only scholarly sources discussing it are actually referring to the mythological creature from folklore, which is covered under our entry on Brownie (folklore). If anything, this namespace should serve as a redirect to that notable topic, rather than being used to describe a non-notable fictional version. Rorshacma (talk) 20:00, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fantasy-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:16, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete as non-notable and Redirect to Brownie (folklore) as possible typo of alternate name._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 16:14, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters. BOZ (talk) 00:04, 31 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - Care to actually give a policy based reason why, exactly? Especially when, as I mentioned, there is an actual notable topic that this would be a far better redirect to? AFD is not WP:JUSTAVOTE. Rorshacma (talk)

• Redirect to Brownie (folklore) as a plausible misspelling of "gruagach". There is nothing worth merging in this poorly sourced piece of fancruft. Not a very active user (talk) 06:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to List of Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition monsters Policy reasons for keep !vote. WP:PRESERVE WP:ATD WP:NOTPAPER and from the five pillars I enjoy this one WP:5P5. Wm335td (talk) 21:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• WP:NOTPAPER and WP:IAR explicitly state that they are not a "free pass" to make any article ever. They are often abused as such, but only mean that one should not argue that a subject has too much content as long as it's notable. This isn't._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 22:46, 7 November 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. There was no consensus after two-relists, with a leaning to Keep; there was a vocal minority view that it should be smerged into larger campaign WP articles, however this was felt premature; can be re-visited again. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Second Battle of Ras al-Ayn (2019) (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 enough material to be a separate article from 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria KasimMejia (talk) 15:15, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep (from the article creator) For two reasons (1) This article is substantial, and it is an ongoing operation, so its not yet complete (2) Knowledge is an encyclopedia - The article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria is already substantial. Putting this information into it would make it too big. Apart from that, this is an important battle that has been going on for about 9 days, involving the the SDF, Turkey, and the TFSA militia, and probably about 200 people have died so far, so its a battle certainly worthy of its own distinct article. It is currently an indicator of the SDF's will to put up a fight against Turkey. Certainly Battles of a lot smaller size have their own articles. Its really the *pivotal* main battle for this operation. Thanks! Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment Everything included in this article is already included in the main article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. The background section is an entire copy of it. There are at most 4-5 sentences in this article that is included in this article but not the main one. They can simply be moved to the main article. Everything seems double written here. KasimMejia (talk) 06:17, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I have added more detail, so there is more detail in the article, and there was in fact before. Even if it was, that doesn't mean the battle isn't notable to get it's own article, which IMHO, it is. I've seen battles way smaller than this with less significance, that were regarded as notable enough to have their own page. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:53, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

The half of the article is still a copy of the main one. The background section is an exact copy. A lot of stuff in the operation section is also double written in the two articles. Making this article very un-user friendly. Who ever reads the main one and moves into this is just reading what they read over there again. KasimMejia (talk) 09:41, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment "The background is an exact copy"? Its not, I wrote it from scratch and I hadn't even read the other one. Compare them, they are different. Deathlibrarian (talk) 11:39, 20 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Per the nomination this isn't significant or notable enough to warrant a separate article. Ras al-Ayn is like half of the offensive and the main article isn't long enough to split off half of its content. Lightspecs (talk) 23:57, 20 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. This is a legitimate sub-page of 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria. The military campaign by Turkey just has began. There will be a lot more content on the parent page. The battle should be only very briefly mentioned on page Ras al-Ayn, with a reference to this page. My very best wishes (talk) 01:48, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment This battle is already over as SDF evacuated the town. It lasted 11 days, there is no material regarding the battle inside the town to have a separate article. The background section and most of the information about the battle is an exact copy of the main article. The article has over a dozen missing citations. KasimMejia (talk) 11:03, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

This depends on the coverage in RS (it seems to be significant) and if the battle represents a separate well-defined event according to RS. All battles end, and it should not be within the town. My very best wishes (talk) 15:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - While this is only one out of many battles during Turkey's offensive, no specific battle pages for this operation have been made on Knowledge. This was also so far the biggest resistance the SDF made against the Turkish military and the TFSA right on the Syrian-Turkish border; and it was covered in RS too. If that's not notable enough, then I don't know what is. SkoraPobeda (talk) 18:54, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment, the article 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria that some editors may suggest is not long enough to split is presently around 8,000 words, from WP:SPLIT - "A page of about 30 to 50 kilobytes (kB) of readable prose, which roughly corresponds to 6,000 to 10,000 words, takes between 30 and 40 minutes to read at average speed, which is right on the limit of the average concentration span of 40 to 50 minutes.", so suggesting that the length of the Turkish offensive article is not an issue may be slightly misleading. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:18, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• delete For now, the battle seems to be over and at this time its to close to events to determine lasting importance.Slatersteven (talk) 09:30, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The events outlined in the article are important enough to merit a separate article. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:53, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Ras al-Ayn was a flashpoint and was besieged for many days during the offensive which included urban warfare, so the specific fight for it is significant enough. I believe there's enough independent information in this article's current state to warrant its existence. Helps keeps the main article as de-congested as possible as well. RopeTricks (talk) 16:33, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete/Merge to 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria per WP:REDUNDANTFORK. Much of the content in this article is a rehash of material from the parent article, and what little isn't can easily be merged into the main article (which isn't that large). Frankly this event is so central to the parent article that it seems strange to have the information split. Further Knowledge:Too soon should apply here as well. We just don't have enough distance to get a good editorial perspective.4meter4 (talk) 14:51, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Comment I don't know why people keep saying that the article for the offensive isn't that large and this should be simply put back into it. The article for the offensive is now quite huge - its 12,000 words. That is over the limitations for a standard Knowledge article, which according to WP:SPLIT should 8000 to 10,000 words.Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:33, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep This helps avoid an overwhelmingly large article, and much like the original Hasakah campaign in 2012 and 2013 this warrants a similar level of attention and importance, albeit the article could use some serious improvements.Takinginterest01 (talk) 04:23, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge per reasons given by 4meter4. There are already 200 articles in the Syrian War Campaing box in 10 separte subcategories, whats to point to create and keep low important articles that are of the same topic.Mr.User200 (talk) 12:40, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment The original listing was 5 Keeps to 2 deletes, so how can that translate into a delete?. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:46, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment. By after the 1st re-list it swung more in favour of Delete/Merge, with some strong arguments in that regard. Hopefully, the re-list will get to a clearer consensus. I find that some these types of articles (e.g. current event inside a larger current event), can get kept for a period, but then eventually with the passing of time, merged/written-down into the main article to avoid FORKS and excessive detail. Britishfinance (talk) 11:15, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment If you are talking about voting consensus, there was 5keeps to 2 deletes initially. The re-list saw 2 keeps to 1 delete. Overall, that is *not* an indication that editors are voting to delete the article. Taking into account all votes so far in the three listings, there are 7 keeps and 4 deletes. Deathlibrarian (talk) 01:38, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• AFD is not a majority vote. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep for now WP:NORUSH There is enough no trivial source information in this article's current state to warrant its existence. Wm335td (talk) 21:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete/Merge (Nominator) None of the sources explicitly state details about the battle that took place in this town. All the cited sources in the article are related to the larger 2019 Turkish offensive into north-eastern Syria which already has a detailed article. The article for example has no access to the number of casualties specific to the clashes in this town so there is a clear lack of material. One reading both articles reads absolute no new information by reading this article since its pretty much copied material. KasimMejia (talk) 09:48, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment KasimMejia you just voted here, but you also are the nominator for deletion! Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:10, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

I did nominate it, that doesn't mean I'm not allowed to vote, I had not voted previously. KasimMejia (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

(1) This is the article on the battle, you are talking about the article on the operation - they are different - there are plenty of details about this battle, and the investigation into the use of white phosphorus that aren't in the article about the ongoing operation. (2) They shouldn't be put into the main article, because at 12,000 words, it is way too big WP:Split(3) There is a lot of information on the battle, there are probably at least 30 articles that discuss the battle, many actually mentioned the town's name in the battle...the article itself has 49 references (4) There are no articles that mention the casualties, that's because the casualties aren't known - not because they didn't happen. At least 30 or 40 civilians died alone without the numbers of soldiers, but as the battle went on for 10 days, the soldiers killed could be in the hundreds. However, because the number of deaths isn't know, it doesn't mean they didn't happen. Deathlibrarian (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Splitting this battle from the article just copies most of the material from the original article. The two major towns in the OP, Tall Abyad and Ras Al Ayn are both written in the article. Tal Abyad battle lasted 3 days, this one lasted 10 days. Both were very brief clashes and can be written under the same article. The biggest reason I'm opposed to this article is because everything is written twice. It's tiring to read the same thing in two different articles. I've learned no new information about this 10 day battle by reading this articles, then I would while reading the Operation article. KasimMejia (talk) 06:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

- At this point, the article for the operation is too big, there is extra detail in the battle article that shouldn't be put into the Operation article. If anything, the detail on the battle should be removed from the operation article (now at 12,000 words) to make it shorter to fit within WP:Split. You say this is a brief battle, it went for 11 days! What is your definition of brief?? Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

KasimMejia I don't understand, why would you say "None of the sources explicitly state details about the battle that took place in this town" - have you read them? They just about all do, and in fact, look at the titles, many of them mention the town in the title of the article. Deathlibrarian (talk) 07:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes I know the article is at 12.000 words. That doesn't mean this article is not a copy of the OP article. This article has an infobox and the information written are already included in the main article. Why do you want to keep this article so much anyway? I know you started it but you shouldn't take ownership of it, see WP:OWN. If you want to write information about this battle you can write it into the OP article, you copied most of the stuff into here. As for a brief battle yes 11 days is short. Battle of Aleppo lasted 4 years for example. Battle of Al-Bab 3 months. This is 11 days, very short. KasimMejia (talk) 07:37, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

KasimMejia I'm not sure if you have written a lot of articles on Battles, but Waterloo, Austerlitz and Agincourt all took place on one day. So arguing that this battle "only" took 11 days and it should therefore be deleted, by itself isn't a valid argument for deletion. I've already stated the need for this as a standalone battle article compared to the operation article, and I believe we are just going in a circular argument, so I'm not going to re-state it. Clearly you believe what you do and that won't be changing any time soon. Thank you for the discussion. Deathlibrarian (talk) 13:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

This being 11 days is the least of my argument and you should know it by now after 10 comments. I think I've made my point clear at this point and will be referring you to WP:JUSTDROPIT. KasimMejia (talk) 13:55, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• CommentThis article has now been listed for a total of 23 days, and its been relisted three times. Could an admin please make a call on this article, one way or the other? Thank you, cheers. Deathlibrarian (talk) 20:14, 11 November 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. Lord Roem ~ (talk) 20:57, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Rose Thornton (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)

Mayor of small town and thus fails WP:NPOL. No indication she passes GNG either. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep (note: I created the article as a translation) - per WP:NPOL, "Major local political figures who have received significant press coverage." are considered notable. As the first female mayor pro-tem of the city, as well as its longest serving elected official, she meets this local-level bar. --DannyS712 (talk) 20:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That is meant on a national/international scale as shown by the footnote which says "Generally, a person who is "part of the enduring historical record" will have been written about, in depth, independently in multiple history books on that field, by historians. A politician who has received "significant press coverage" has been written about, in depth, independently in multiple news feature articles, by journalists." I would suggest that a local newspaper, even offering repeated coverage over the length of her career, does not meet this standard. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

@Barkeep49: There are many more sources listed at es:Rose Garland Thornton that are offline and I haven't had a chance to verify DannyS712 (talk) 20:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I considered those sources. There are some that would suggest notability for her husband but nothing that help establish notability for her, in my opinion. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 21:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Mayor pro tem is not the same thing as mayor; it makes the person effectively the deputy mayor, not the mayor mayor. But deputy mayor of a small town is not an NPOL-passing office, being the first woman to hold that role is not a free ticket to being more special than everybody else who held it before or after her, and the footnotes here do not represent the type of "significant press coverage" that we're looking for: exactly zero of them actually represent press coverage at all. Three of the four are primary sources which are not support for notability, and even the one that actually is from a newspaper is just her paid inclusion obituary in the classifieds section of the community hyperlocal rather than a journalist-written news article. And even the citations in the Spanish article are still routine local coverage of the type and volume that every municipal councillor in every town or city that exists at all can always show, not notability-making nationalized coverage that would make her more special than other deputy mayors of small towns.
  We also do not automatically keep Knowledge articles just because they happen to be translations of articles on other language Wikipedias, per WP:WAX — it's remarkably unclear why the Spanish article even exists, because it's not making a strong case for notability as a politician either. Frankly, its existence almost certainly has much more to do with the fact that the Spanish page creator's entire edit history pertains very heavily to Thornton's husband than it does with her actually passing the Spanish Knowledge's notability standards for politicians — I'd nominate the Spanish article for deletion too, if I could read or write Spanish to do it. Bearcat (talk) 15:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - she was merely the deputy mayor of a small suburb. She fails WP:POLOUTCOMES specifically and general notability. Bearian (talk) 14:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
  • "Small" is putting it mildly. This is a place that if you count the land is just 1.1 square miles with less than 3,000 inhabitants. It claims 19 square miles, but the remaining 18 square miles are its cut of Lake Saint Clair.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Strong delete Grosse Pointe Shores is a very small by population suburb of Detroit, with people with over inflated egos who think they and their location is much more important than they really are. Someone with a position like this in Detroit would not be n0otable, in Grosse Pointe Shores they are default non-notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:26, 10 November 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) 19:52, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Alex Bretow (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 actor. No notable roles nor has he directed anything which appears to be notable - had one short played at Cannes but does not appear to be notable either. Sources in article mostly lack independence (best is brief article from college paper saying he's raising money to attend Cannes). No better sourcing found (including not even a passing mention in the trades like Variety). Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. First off, let's settle that he fails the acting guideline as never having had a major role. Secondly, because producers are so common and it's difficult to ascertain how much creativity or just cold cash they contributed, we have tended to delete articles about producers. Finally, there's a serious question about the reliability of the sources in the article. Bearian (talk) 14:55, 8 November 2019 (UTC) P.S. FWIW, my domestic partner produced a short that premiered in Cannes in May 2010; his role was solely as an investor and despite his IMdB page, he's not notable for being a producer. This subject appears to be of the same order. Bearian (talk) 14:57, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a bunch of super minor roles does not add to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:05, 10 November 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. If any editor wants the list content to potentially use in Thursday Night Football (or wherever), you can request a copy from an admin. RL0919 (talk) 18:39, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

List of Thursday Night Football commentator pairings (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

A previously-placed PROD was declined by the article creator. Fails WP:NLIST and there is consensus from Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings that these types of articles do not merit inclusion here. The article is also entirely unsourced and may consist of original research. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete no sources provided and no real claim to notability to even evaluate.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • comment if you need a policy reason, then having unsourced material could be considered a violation of biographies of living persons.--Paul McDonald (talk) 18:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
    • Is this material "contentious"? Invoking BLP here seems like inappropriate overkill and distraction, especially where it's not plausible that this is unsourceable. The valid deletion argument here would seem to be there's no reason to restate information in a standalone list that is already contained (or can be) in the parent article Thursday Night Football. And this does seem like valid and relevant information to include there, whether it is in this list format or not. postdlf (talk) 18:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Well, several people are shown paired with Joe Buck and personally that would do it for me... but I see your point. I'm still in the same position because there's no real reason to keep. Discussion should be similar to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/List of NFL on Fox commentator pairings unless someone can give a reason otherwise.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:19, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:LISTN which requires that the topic has "been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources." Here, no sources are provided in the article, and a WP:BEFORE search fails to reveal sources in which the topic has received arguably significant coverage in reliable, independent sources. Cbl62 (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Lack of sources establishing notability. Reywas92 19:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:22, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I am unsure what to say about this list. Can it be referenced? If so I think it would meet WP:LISTCRITERIA. Wm335td (talk) 21:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to Thursday Night Football. The lists of announcers and other information on that page make me think this sort of material (presuming sourcing) would be right at home there. If anything, it should be spun out with that long list of announcers. — Rhododendrites \\ 03:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This is easily a grid in the TNF article (and it doesn't need the one-time cruft of the oddly-branded Thursday Night Football on Christmas Eve Sunday Morning from London pairings; stick to the actual games that take place only on Thursdays). Nate • (chatter) 05:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete per Cbl62. « Gonzo fan2007 (talk) @ 01:42, 7 November 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. Subject doesn't appear to meet either WP:PROF or WP:GNG. That could change in the future, but for this discussion the result is Delete. RL0919 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Jean Richardson (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)

Here I go making myself unpopular again by nominating an a) WikiEd production about a b) female c) academic. But I honestly can't see the claim to notability as per WP:NACADEMIC here. The one award of note, the George Mercer Award, is an early career thing, good to give you a career boost but not what you would call "highly prestigious".

If you wanted to make a case, you would have to base it on citation index alone, and that's less impressive than it seems, because

• the profile mixes in hundreds of cites from other Richardsons (including the 2nd highest ranker) and
• three or four papers around the 100 mark are not "significant impact" (at least in Ecology - I've got two, and I'm a lazy postdoc with industrious PIs).

Look, I agree that we need to cover more academics and fewer ball players; but if we want to include researchers like Richardson, we have to work over our inclusion criteria. As it stands, I'm bound to note that she does not meet the stated thresholds. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:54, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 21:10, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment I see from the Revision History that it was created as a student project. It's had some publications removed by a Wiki Education editor "to avoid coming across like CV", but with wording like "currently offers freelance work" it still reads like that. It doesn't look like she would meet WP:NACADEMIC. I might check and see if any of her research has been reported in the general media (you never know, male breeding-season behavior in green frogs might have got some coverage). RebeccaGreen (talk) 00:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak delete. The article paints the picture of a failed academic career. Not a good choice for student article-creation project nor a good choice to highlight the accomplishments of women in science (if that was the intention). And a best-paper award is not enough for WP:PROF#C2. Searching Google scholar for author:jean-ml-richardson finds two papers with three-digit citations, which might be enough for a borderline case for WP:PROF#C1, but I think in combination with the more negative aspects of the story (got an assistant professorship, didn't get tenure, went home and left academia) we're better off without this article. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:46, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak delete I don't have a clear idea of what citation rates are good for her field, so will go by David Eppstein's view on that. I did not find any general coverage of her or her research, so she does not meet WP:GNG either. If it was kept, it needs to be trimmed of the "available for freelance work" tone in it. RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:30, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
• Weak keep - I think an h-index of 20 is marginally notable. Bearian (talk) 14:54, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Again, those stats are deceptive - check how many other authors who share the last name have been mulched in here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:48, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment As Elmidae points out, the subject's GS profile is broken. A plain GS search for "JML Richardson" is much more productive, and it looks like all papers returned on the first couple pages are hers. From this search, I estimate an h-index of 17, and note that her top cited papers have 177 and 120 citations. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 17:01, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak delete per David Eppstein. "Best paper" awards aren't significant enough to count for WP:PROF#C2, and indeed, a well-developed biography of a notable academic probably wouldn't waste time reporting on them. The only other possible route to wiki-notability would seem to be WP:PROF#C1, and I'd have to stretch to argue that. XOR'easter (talk) 17:31, 6 November 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. Tone 17:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

South Asia Faculty Network (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

Defunct with no references. Not obviously notable Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:15, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:04, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 12:05, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:19, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I cant find any evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 04:13, 12 November 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) Störm (talk) 18:11, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Institute of Computer and Management Sciences (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)

Started by SPA, User talk:Newcenturyscientist. No reliable source verifies the content. Fails WP:NSCHOOL, WP:CORPDEPTH. Störm (talk) 08:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:20, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment the article is in pretty rubbish shape but we tend to keep articles on secondary level institutions. This one is very substantial, with multiple campuses in its school network and at least one linked tertiary institution. I can’t find much in terms of RIS but there’s this, and some passing mentions like this, this, and this. Considering the location in provincial Pakistan I’m not sure I’d expect much more than this so overall I think I’d be inclined to keep. Mccapra (talk) 04:35, 12 November 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. Tone 17:56, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

This article would only interest a small segment of Tolkien fans. ―Susmuffin  04:43, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 05:09, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or redirect This is the only example of a vampire within Tolkien's mythos.★Trekker (talk) 13:07, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Why is that important? ―Susmuffin  08:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Non-notable topic. TTN (talk) 22:32, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters, surely.—S Marshall T/C 22:13, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Middle-earth characters as this is a plausible search term and redirects are cheap per WP:CHEAP. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 00:10, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete No evidence of notability. Why redirect when there is nothing at the target?_{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:37, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Notability isn't required for a redirect. Virtually everything to do with Tolkien's legendarium is attractive to inexperienced editors, and it's unwise to offer them a redlink that encourages them to write an article; where that road potentially leads to is more wasted volunteer time on another AfD in future and yet another bruising experience for someone new to Knowledge. The redirect helps manage that risk. Also, Mark Viking is correct when he says that this is a plausible search term; see section C4 of WP:BEFORE.—S Marshall T/C 11:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Not every trivial character needs to be mentioned in the LoC, and redirecting there with no additional info makes no sense. Before (re-)creating the article, editors will be greeted with a link to this AfD, which will (hopefully) discourage them to do so. – sgeureka 09:58, 11 November 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, without opposition, after extended time for discussion. bd2412 T 22:46, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

There used to be a company called SicolaMartin. It was purchased by Young & Rubicam. It is now just one of the offices of that company. The website given in the Knowledge article does not exist. This office is not a separate organization and does not merit its own page. Carax (talk) 02:01, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Automated comment: This AfD cannot be processed correctly because of an issue with the header. Please make sure the header has only 1 article, and doesn't have any HTML encoded characters.—_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:06, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 October 28. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 02:22, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 02:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 02:33, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. A search for anything to suggest that WP:GNG is met leads me to conclude that this is just another branch office without any independent notability. The title is not a useful redirect to the parent company. --Kinu /_c 06:00, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV.4meter4 (talk) 21:11, 13 November 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) 05:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Asaii (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)

Company does not appear to have ever been notable - coverage of the company was routine. There has been coverage by a wide variety of outlets of the acquisition/hiring of Asaii's co-founders by Apple but that's not really notability establishing for anything let alone this company. Given that the technology does not appear like something Apple will be using, redirecting to Apple Music doesn't seem to provide our readers with any value. We're not a newspaper and this company has not shown itself to have lasting notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:38, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

• Delete The sources offered in the article are either about WP:ROUTINE business transactions, other companies or press releases. Nothing is apparent in the article or in searches that sustains notability under either WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 06:48, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Per nom and Eggishorn; ultimately, Apple bought the founders and wrote off the company (as even they thought it was also non-notable). Britishfinance (talk) 22:37, 10 November 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 Delete. G11 by Jimfbleak (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 08:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

This organization does not meet minimum notability requirements. The references either do not mention the subject, or contain merely a passing reference to it. This article was originally submitted as a draft at User:Abhirupmoitra93/sandbox/WhiteHat Jr, but it was declined for lack of notability. However, the article's creator just bypassed the AFC process and recreated it in article space. Peacock (talk) 16:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC).

• Speedy delete as G11 promotional. Also is not notable - lacks significant independent coverage from multiple reliable secondary sources. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 19:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 20:24, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Speedy delete per Barkeep49, fails WP:GNG and no significant mentions anywhere. -Liance 23:37, 5 November 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, preferably with improved sourcing to address the issues raised in the nomination. RL0919 (talk) 17:06, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

José Mentor Guilherme de Mello (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)

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

This article is full of WP:OR. Some sources do not even mention anything about him (several of these sources don't suport what they were supposed to). I believe the article should be deleted per lack of independent reliable secondary sources:

• Google Maps say there's a street named José Mentor, but it does not say that it was named after him. In fact José Mentor is also the name used by his grandson.
• The second source is a letter written by someone named Dorian writing about his family memories (family memories are usually not accurate and full of conflict of interest, which is clearly not an independent reliable source)
• It does not mention anything about him.
• It does not mention anything about him.
• It does not mention anything about him.
• It does not mention anything about him.
• It does not mention anything about him.
• It does not mention anything about him.
• An NGO named after his son (Aldy) writes an article about his son. The source is offline and it is hard to see how notable the organization is to be a reliable and independent source. It is clearly not a maintream newspaper.
• The source is about his son, it does not mention anything about him.
• The source is about his son, it does not mention anything about him.
• The source is about his son, it does not mention anything about him.

Bolhones (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Bolhones (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:35, 5 November 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) 17:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I am the article subject and regard myself as a non-notable, private person, and want the article to be deleted. Arnodrost (talk) 16:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:28, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete References cited are not substantial or reliable (including 3 citations to Arno's LinkedIn profile). WP:BEFORE doesn't reveal anything that would establish notability. Pegnawl (talk) 19:44, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete. Arnodrost thank you for the request. Notability is not inherited from artists with whom you worked. Musicians are supposed to collaborate with other creative persons, but that doesn't make all of them notable. In cases of marginal notability, we have tended to delete, but not always. Bearian (talk) 15:07, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete no clear sign of strong notability. We need to respect desires for privacy.John Pack Lambert (talk) 03:10, 10 November 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) 17:03, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

This list is very much like the now deleted List of fictional comics and List of fictional magazines. It has more than hundred entries, yet only about a half dozen of the listed newspapers have their own articles. The list also cites no sources at all, and has no criterion for inclusion. Knowledge is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Not a very active user (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Not a very active user (talk) 16:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Indiscriminate non-notable list. Just because a newspaper is used as a prop in a movie does not mean we need to record its name that wouldn't even be mentioned in a detailed plot summary of that work. The Daily Planet and Daily Prophet yes, the other 95% of this list absolutely not. Reywas92 19:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Textbook case of a WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. Delete per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Ahhhh disappointing. I have a love-hate with our multitude of "list of fictional ___" entries. I love that someone put this together, but yeah, it's hard to see how it passes our guidelines for lists. I even found a handful of sources listing some fictional newspapers... but what makes this list great is also its downfall: the main appeal is its vast length. I just imagine someone taking notes while watching any media and adding new ones to the list as they appear. I hope that whoever created this will copy it and put it somewhere else. I don't know where, though... — Rhododendrites \\ 03:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - List of potentially infinite minutia. The category handles the small number of entries just fine. TTN (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - Very, very few of these are actually notable, and there are no sources that discuss the grouping as a whole that would allow it to pass WP:LISTN. This is pretty much the definition of an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of minor trivial. Rorshacma (talk) 18:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - Indiscriminate, sprawling list of badly sourced fancruft. I agree with Rhododendrites that a lot of work has gone into this, and I hope it finds a new home at Wikia or somewhere similar, but this encyclopedia is not the place for it. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a few of these are almost certainly notable (like the Daily Planet), but some of these are one time mentions, and in some cases we just learn they are someone's employer, not anything else. The Daily Planet almost certainly becomes notable because it is the employer of Lois Lane and Clark Kent across almost all the media they appear in. Especially in the films and TV shows it becomes a medium of communicating information, the setting of much of the action, and lots of other things. Possibly no where is this more true than in Lois and Clark: The New Adventures of Superman. A few episodes occur almost completely in the news room of the Daily Planet. That does not translate into every newspaperever mentioned in a work of fiction being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
  • It gets more clear that the Daily Planet is a measure of notability. True, it does not appear by that name in Superman until 1940. However we have this line "The Daily Planet has been featured in all adaptations of Superman to other media." We also learn that Iris West Allen (wife of the Flash) and Bruce Wayne (the Batman) have had connections with the Daily Planet. In some incarnations of Superboy Perry White won a pulitzer prize for his story on Superboy for the Planet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 02:27, 10 November 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. Tone 17:55, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

LGBT-free zone (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)

Reason FxJ (talk) 15:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC) Fake news, Russian trolls publish lying articles

Its all about ideological war. Stickers vs stickers - its all bout it.

Stickers affixed to people who do not support LGBT ideology and pro life. https://www.polskieradio.pl/5/1222/Artykul/2348023,Transfobiczny-smiec-Obrazliwe-naklejki-na-biurze-rzecznika-warszawskiego-PiS https://www.facebook.com/NarodowyPoznan/photos/a.1020901757983823/2965929860147660/?type=3

Translation: "Homofobiczny śmieć. Homofobiczna spierdolina." https://translate.google.pl/#view=home&op=translate&sl=pl&tl=en&text=Homofobiczny%20%C5%9Bmie%C4%87.%20Homofobiczna%20spierdolina.

Articles that need Attention. https://en.wikipedia.org/No-go_area#Poland https://en.wikipedia.org/LGBT-free_zone

My comment https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:No-go_area#FAKE_NEWS_-_No-go_areas_in_Poland

• Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 November 5. —_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. The topic of the article has received significant coverage in numerous reliable sources, including CNN, NBC, Reuters, BBC, TIME, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Washington Post. Because of this, it's quite clear that the subject of the article meets WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 16:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Note Links to these sources can be found in the "References" section of the page, in case you were wondering. Not a very active user (talk) 14:30, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep - Article topic is broadly discussed in international media. The 'fake news' claim doesn't seem relevant to notability; even if the LGBT-free zones are a hoax, the topic has still received significant coverage worldwide over an extended period of time. 38.142.216.106 (talk) 17:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge to LGBT rights in Poland. This topic is essentially a political ploy and propaganda from both sides is at its heart. The major reportable events are a 'rainbow Virgin' and 'anti-LGBT' stickers being distributed. In the scope of WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RECENT, there is no need to give this development more prominence than it deserves. Elizium23 (talk) 13:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - as per rationale already stated. --John B123 (talk) 18:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge as in above comment by Elizium23. It's a short-term phenomenon, mostly being repeated by the news, because it's touching the sensationalist/sensitive topic of LGBT, not because any actual restrictions were put in place. Nobody forced LGBT people to leave the supposed zones, or prevented letting them in. All municipal/governmental services work normally there like in other parts of the country. --Wanted (talk) 22:23, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete and merge any remaining relevant content to the LBGT rights in Poland. Knowledge is not a news outlet.--Darwinek (talk) 01:14, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Merge: one-time event, important only as an mention in LGBT rights in Poland, as Elizium23 stated. A.J. (talk) 16:00, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Wide coverage in international media of legislation by regional governments (states), and stickers. On going coverage for several months. Note to closer: Canvassing to this AfD in extreme-right Polish media and social media.AstuteRed (talk) 05:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment AstuteRed, and congratulations on your second week being the Wikipedian. Welcome. I believe, however, that you are mistaken; there is no "On going coverage for several months". News sources used as a reference to draft this article date to less than two weeks period of July 27 - August 9, 2019. After that, there is no news coverage.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:49, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete and merge any remaining relevant content to LGBT rights in Poland per Darwinek and Elizium23. It was a short-lived political stunt pulled up by politicians hoping to gain popularity among the conservative rural population. This information belongs to LGBT rights in Poland. GizzyCatBella🍁 08:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment and Welcome to Knowledge Queen Viga.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:01, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

• Strong keep. You must be kidding me. This is an example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. François Robere (talk) 12:53, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • And where is your strong argument for Keep? --Wanted (talk) 16:46, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
    • To quote Not a very active user and Queen Viga: The topic of the article has received significant coverage in numerous reliable sources, including CNN, NBC, Reuters, BBC, TIME, The New York Times, The Daily Telegraph and The Washington Post; Say after me: The CBC, Washington Post, and The Telegraph are NOT "Fake news, Russian trolls publish lying articles". Strong enough? François Robere (talk) 23:05, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
      • Nope. Those are links to the media web pages, not the articles. Do you mind also explaining why we should become a news agency? WP:NOTNEWSGizzyCatBella🍁 23:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
        • Links in body, Bella, don't be lazy. And I don't get your question. François Robere (talk) 13:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This ] rather implies that even if it will be short lived, it aint dead yet.Slatersteven (talk) 13:11, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Then it should be described as such, that relatively high percentage of people in Poland are against LGBT agenda, but not as LGBT-free zones, which simply do not exist in reality, except for imagination of certain politicians/media/activists. --Wanted (talk) 16:44, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Which would be an argument for a re-rewrite, not a delete. You maybe right this may well only be in the imagination go "certain politicians/media/activists", but that still mean it is notable, as they have noted it.Slatersteven (talk) 16:54, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Not notable enough to have an article on its own. Old news, and we are not old news archivers. A section in LGBT rights in Poland is a due approach.GizzyCatBella🍁 17:15, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Actually "old news" would be the exact opposite of wp:notnews, and I am not sure that 3 weeks counts as old new anyway.Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Sources for October ] ] ] Sources for September ] ] There maybe more, I mean how long did I search?Slatersteven (talk) 17:56, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources you presented cover violence/restrictions against LGBTQ; LGBT-free zones are only passing if at all present. So how did you come up with 3 weeks count? July when the news hit the air was over 3 months ago Yes, old news, and we are not WP:NOTNEWS.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:06, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Violence/restrictions against LGBTQ, Yes, being discussed in connection with LGBT-free zones, it does not matter if they only mention the zones in passing its still coverage of the issue and its impact on the LGBTQ communuity. As to how did I come up with the three week count, the AFD was launched on the 5th of November, at least one of the above is from the 16th of October, thus about three weeks ago.Slatersteven (talk) 18:12, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Nope, LGBT-free zone is only breefly mentioned in the sources you provided. LGBT-free zone news are from over 3 months ago.GizzyCatBella🍁 18:23, 9 November 2019 (UTC)

Which means...its still being being mentioned.Slatersteven (talk) 10:29, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, just mentioned. The highly absurd idea of a few shallow politicians, but Free Zone itself is not news anymore.GizzyCatBella🍁 20:56, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

It means it is still (the whole issue, and the issues surrounding it) in the news, that is what sustained coverage is, it continues to have ripples long after the main event.Slatersteven (talk) 10:17, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Preposterous nomination, Knowledge is not a LGBT-free zone and Reuters and Washington Post are not fake news. Reuters reported on these anti-LGBT hate declarations in May: . Washington Post in July: . Telegraph in August: . Feature reporting. More after election. Also in November, Nixmag: reports: "Queer party Homobloc has teamed up with LGBT+ human rights group All Out amid homophobic violence and discrimination in Poland. The partnership comes after 30 towns and villages in Poland declared 'LGBT-free zones' and the leader of the ruling party (PiS) said the LGBT+ community was "a threat to Poland, our nation and its existence".". Catogato (talk) 08:35, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Welcome to Knowledge Catogato, Thank you, GizzyCatBella🍁 18:47, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep The subject is well-documented in Polish and foreign media. These declarations are a fact, and a phenomenon notable enough to warrant keeping this article. — bieχχ (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep The reporting is sound and the zones exist, even if the law is unenforceable. Jakub.zabinski (talk) 18:36, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• Merge ctrl-v: "merge any remaining relevant content to LGBT rights in Poland per Darwinek and Elizium23" Zezen (talk) 19:44, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep This article has gathered significant coverage from reliable sources meeting WP:SIGCOV. Some reliable sources which cover the subject include: , , , , , , , . I do not see how this article is "Fake news by Russian trolls publish lying articles "  Spy-cicle💥  22:19, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Yes, "Fake news by Russian trolls publish lying articles" is an absurd statement. Please ignore that and focus more on the notability of the article itself. I still think that this information should be merged to LGBT rights in Poland per WP:NOTNEWS GizzyCatBella🍁 00:48, 11 November 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. Tone 17:54, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Tsam Chuk Wan (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 Knowledge:Notability (geographic features). Can't really find in-depth coverage on this water body. The current content, was just the extract of some content of a table of doi:10.3724/SP.J.1003.2011.05049, and nothing more. May be delete or create a List of water body in the Sai Kung District could solve this problem. I don't know why in 2006-07 people indiscriminately include all place name of Hong Kong into wikipedia, but leaving below stub standard , without citation junk everywhere. Matthew hk (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew hk (talk) 15:55, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per WP:GEOLAND - we function as a gazetteer, a search in English shows coverage of the feature as people unfortunately tend to drown there, and I would suspect there may be an equal or better level of coverage in Cantonese. There's also seemingly a war memorial. SportingFlyer T·C 23:00, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

It return real estate ad for the land area of 斬竹灣 only, if searching in Cantonese. Matthew hk (talk) 08:22, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep. Article expanded with multiple references.Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 17:48, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep. Per the above. --SalmanZ (talk) 20:23, 6 November 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) 00:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Ahab (comics) (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 fictional topic TTN (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: A. BOZ (talk) 16:59, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The Captain Ahab character also appeared in comics, making this title untenable to keep. The article itself is non-notable, per nom._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• delete Too reliant on in-universe sourcing. Anything from outside the universe is too thin to meet GNG. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete - As mentioned by Andy Dingley, the only non-primary sourcing is extremely brief coverage, and/or limited to plot only information. Rorshacma (talk) 22:42, 12 November 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. Tone 18:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Bi-Beast (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 fictional topic TTN (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 15:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to List of Marvel Comics characters: B. BOZ (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Non-notable comic book cruft._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:30, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep per Wp:imperfect and Wp:NOTNOTABLE. Will look for sources for the character.Jhenderson 14:26, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Update: A reception section has been added. Jhenderson 15:20, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• 15 & 16 are trivial mentions not worth including. #17 & #18 are hyper-focused "Top X" lists, which have little weight. #19 is another "Top X" list, but it's at least something. I'd say only #19 has any weight, but not much. TTN (talk) 15:28, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• You are not going to change my mind with your deletionist attitude. Still good sources and still keep is my favor. Jhenderson 15:33, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep Not a valid reason for deletion. Dimadick (talk) 15:38, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Redirect to List of Hulk supporting characters. Not enough sourcing to support own article, but redirects are cheap, and there's basic info abut the target there. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:18, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Articles like that list aren’t much better. I would say the Marvel Comics character page would be better if merged. Jhenderson 16:46, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I think this will have to be an agree to disagree, but I think a short description at a focused article is better than keeping the entire, plot heavy, unsourced article at an indiscriminate dump. I would vote delete, but I know that even if it were deleted it would be recreated as a redirect shortly thereafter anyway. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 16:56, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete Anything from outside the universe itself is far too lightweight to pass GNG. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:50, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Redirect to List of Hulk supporting characters. When templates are discounted, Bi-Beast is only linked in the body of 20 articles. Of those, at least 10 are lists. Of the ten that link Bi-Beast inline, most are name drops like the one at Betty Ross. This doesn't meet my criteria for being notable within the fiction, but it's a valid search term and the list entries already exist. I believe this is the best target because the character is most relevant to the Hulk stories. Argento Surfer (talk) 17:47, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion was mentioned at Knowledge talk:WikiProject Comics#Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Bi-Beast, and some users suggested that it may not follow the rules of WP:CANVASS. Ultimate someone (talk) 23:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

• I'd say project pages are fair game so long as the wording isn't explicitly canvasing for more keep/delete comments, or the poster isn't obviously trying to sway an already set consensus. TTN (talk) 23:36, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

It wasn’t intended as much. Also if it was canvas. I failed miserably lol. So no harm than foul. Jhenderson 04:00, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, not the greatest, but I personally think the new reception adds enough to meet GNG. Interesting that it made so many different Top X articles. Never heard of him. -2pou (talk) 20:32, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep Notable Hulk villain. Artw (talk) 04:16, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep - Let this page stay. I am agreeing with the claims by @Jhenderson777:, @Dimadick:, and @Artw:. --Rtkat3 (talk) 20:43, 8 November 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. The result was Procedural Keep. I don't think we are going to get anything out of this AfD, there seems clear consensus that there could be some notable individuals included here but also that there are probably a number of non-notable individuals listed. This close should not be taken as confirmation that any of the individuals listed are by consensus notable and editors should feel free to relist individually where they feel appropriate. Fenix down (talk) 12:02, 11 November 2019 (UTC)

Oliver Maloba (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)

Footballer who fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Despite the number of references, almost all of them are trivial transfer updates. --BlameRuiner (talk) 14:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I am also nominating the following pages (all of them are non-international Kenyan footballers) by the same author, for the same reasons as above:

Victor Okullu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Cornelius Mwangi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Heritier Luvualu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Ronny Kagunzi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Kevin Okumu (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nahashon Thiong'o (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Nahashon Thiongo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Peter Mwangi Wainaina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Eric Ochieng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Calvins Masawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Elvis Ojiambo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Davis Agesa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Augustine Ochieng (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Levis Opiyo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Salim Abdalla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU 16:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete all All of them fail WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG like the nominator has said with the references basically being WP:ROUTINE. HawkAussie (talk) 22:04, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Procedural keep - 1 AfD for 16 articles isn't, in my opinion, appropriate. Separate AfDs would be fine. If NFOOTY was the be-all and end-all then no problem, but as GNG is all-important extra care needs to be taken. A quick look at a few of the articles suggest the GNG level could vary, namely between (picked at random) Calvins Masawa, Victor Okullu and Oliver Maloba. No instant rush to delete, if deletion is correct it will come. R96Skinner (talk) 02:13, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Procedural Keep Bulk nomination in this case is inappropriate as there are separate issues that need to be considered for each. No objection to renominating players individually so we can do this the right way. Smartyllama (talk) 18:40, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Mr Maloba who fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL but procedural keep for the rest. This kind of bundling is entirely inappropriate. GiantSnowman 11:41, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Procedural keep/close, agree with the couple of editors above, 16 articles up for deletion in one afd like this is too many for appropriate consideration to be given. ps. and if these are so straight forward to delete why were they not prodded? Coolabahapple (talk)
• Delete all We have kept on the rubbish undersourced psedo articles on footballers for way to long. It is high time we clean house.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
• Procedural keep Looking at Oliver Maloba, he passes WP:GNG - yes, he fails NFOOTY, but he's one of the players nominated for the Kenyan league's most valuable player award, and playing for some of the best teams in the country, has a well-referenced start-class article, and easily passes a before search. I'm not about to go through all 16 articles when the first one so obviously is a bad nomination. If there are others which clearly fail WP:GNG, feel free to renominate individually. SportingFlyer T·C 01:27, 11 November 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 Withdrawn. An agreement that the medieval "commote "of Llannerch is a notable topic (although concern as to whether the existing text reflects such a topic) (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

There is a lack/absence of reliable sources do support the existence of this village/community. An internet search does not find anything except to show that the area claimed in the article as Llannerch exists as part of Trefnant Community - a civil parish/community within Denbighshire for example. All the sources in the article are to places in the area such as Llannerch Hall, the holiday park, the Tweedmill shopping outlet but there is nothing to substantiate the existence of Llannerch as a village. Even the described places such as the hall etc do not identify as being in Llanerch but have St Asaph as the post town within the LL postcode area. While a locality is not a formal part of a postal address, the absence of Llanerch from any such examples is unusual if the village does exist. Nthep (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Nthep (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Nthep (talk) 13:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Nomination withdrawn on the basis that the medieval commote of Llannerch is a notable topic. Nthep (talk) 19:00, 13 November 2019 (UTC)

Here are some additonal established sources to confirm the status of village https://www.doogal.co.uk/ShowMap.php?postcode=LL17%200BD and https://checkmypostcode.uk/ll170bd confirm the status of village. If they say village, and are post codes. They then confirm it. Plus 70 people live around the park. Almost a hamlet population. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 13:41, 5 November 2019 (UTC) I noticed you have tagged my page for Llannerch for deletion. I have found one which proves the area is classed as a village. https://www.streetcheck.co.uk/postcode/ll170bb. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 13:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Comment all these sources appear to rely on the Office of National Statistics (ONS) definition of rural/urban which assigns a status to output areas of which village is one. To quote from the user guide on the 2011 rural urban classification "An Output Area assigned to the village class will not correspond to a village; the design of OAs is such that it will include part of a village (sometimes parts of more than one) and other dwellings away from it." - paragraph 2.7 All the maps in the links given above show the area in question is within the boundaries of Trefnant which is the village being referred to. They are not statements that Llanerch Park and Llanerch Farm (note none of these sources show a place name of simply Llanerch) are villages in their own right but are part of one - Trefnant.

The article should also note WP:GEOLAND. Census tracts which is essentially what the links provided by JoshuaIsTheFalco are referring to are not generally considered notable unless on a case-by-case basis they could be considered notable, given non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources. Nthep (talk) 15:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

File:Denbighshire_UK_location_map.svg shows Llannerch on the map, plus there is a substantial amount of housing developments around the Hall and Park of Llannerch. Also look at the OS Maps. Grid Ref SJ 04782 72197 points to the area and also Llannerch Crossing and Park. This implies it is a village. That is on OS Maps https://osmaps.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/53.23823,-3.42814,17 if you look around. Plus the village in question does have a large shopping outlet unlike Trefnant and the village has a horse riding school named Llannerch Equestrian Centre. So That argues that the area has its own identity and is not named either Trefnant Park or Trefnant Hall. While I understand the village appears under Trefnant. It has its own distinction from the village with Llannerch Hall, Park and Shopping centre. I feel if this was changed to hamlet or a small village. Then it would be better because I argue with backing sources the Hall at Llannerch plus its park and old railway station give it. Its own identity as a community and plus with a population of 70 people. It has the same size as Bwlch-y-cibau which itself is a small village. Llannerch also has three seperate areas named after it.

Llannerch Hall,

Llannerch Hall

Saint Asaph

LL17 0BD

Llannerch Crossing/Park

Llannerch Park, St Asaph LL17 0BD

and

Llys Llannerch

Llys Llannerch

Saint Asaph

LL17 0AZ

https://www.streetcheck.co.uk/search?s=llannerch+st+asph https://www.ordnancesurvey.co.uk/shop/landranger-map-denbigh-colwyn-bay.html

I would be happy with scattered community or hamlet but I argue it is distinct enough to have a small form of recognition. Especially after it had a railway station Llannerch, the famous Llannerch Hall, Tweedmill Shopping Outlet and Llannerch Park.

JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk) 15:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

That's all original research. Find the sources that support to support this history. The existence of a hall and it's associated estate and the subsequent building of modern premises on the former estate that have retained the estate name do not imply the existence of a village by the same name. Neither can you say "I would be happy with scattered community or hamlet" when you're no presenting any sources that say that. The history or presentation of a settlement isn't what you'd like it to be but what the reliable sources it is. Nthep (talk) 16:58, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Nthep don't you dare make out for what I want it to be. You just randomly selected my article for deletion as more evidence of your continued herding of me. I'm not bothered now delete it. It states plenty there but you dont accept it. I dont care I really dont. You've regularly targeted me and redrose64. I am no longer bothered. You wont accept a government source post code but would an article or piece of history possibly never happened. You and the admin do what you usually do and delete my own contributions but no one elses. I'm not caring anymore.

Plenty of sources but you wont accept them. Original research? Whatever. I'm outta here. Good day.

Signed not bothered user — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 17:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep, I think. I didn't dig too far into this. However, the Dictionary of National Biography gives a "Llanerch" in Denbighsire as a residence of the antiquary Robert Davies. On the other hand, the two-n spelling also seems to be legitimate; one manuscript of the Book of Llandaff was previously held in Llannerch in Denbighsire and so is known as the Llannerch Manuscript. Now, Welsh place names being what they are, there's a possibility that there is (or was) both a Llanerch and a Llannerch in Denbighsire... but the parsimonious explanation is that the same village where a prominent antiquary lived might host a library with historically important manuscripts. Our inclusion standards for named, populated places are (rightly, imo) very minimal; Knowledge is a gazetteer. It seems likely that this village was more important in the mid-19th century than it is now; further information is likely in other contemporary sources. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I've seen the DNB entry and that's a reference to Llannerch Hall, DNB like many gazetteers of the time don't bother adding the hall/estate bit in a lot of entries (see this entry for Whitehall Dod in a typical book of the period for example or this from an early edition of Burke's Commoners which uses both the single n and double n spellings and includes and omits estate in the same entry!). The distinction between the hall and its estate and whether its name implies there must have been a village of the same name first is what this discussion is about and there just isn't anything to say there was a village here first from which the estate took its name or that after the breakup of the estate a village called Llannerch has sprung up. Every mention I find in 18th and 19th century books about Llanerch is entirely about the owners of the estate. Nthep (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. Well, there's definitely more history here than just the estate at Llannerch Hall, dating back in some form to the Middle Ages. Quoting from Rusu, R. (2011). "The evolution of administrative organization in Wales. Case study: The former Glyndŵr District". Studia Ubb Geographia. 61 (2): 151–158.: "In Perfeddwlad, an important cantref was, for instance, Dyffryn Clwyd, which covered the upper part of the Vale of Clwyd basin and the surrounding hills. Before the Edwardian conquest of Wales in 1282–1283, it was divided into the commotes of Dogfeiling (in the east), Llanerch (in the south) and Colion (in the west)" . And, indeed, our article on commote redlinks Cwmwd Llannerch as a division of Dyffryn Clwyd. I'm not sure what the best way to approach our coverage of the topic is, but I definitely don't think deletion is the right path forward here. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 20:34, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

I found this "FAMILY, LAND AND INHERITANCE IN LATE MEDIEVAL WALES: A CASE STUDY OF LLANNERCH IN THE LORDSHIP OF DYFFRYN CLWYD" in the Welsh History Review 27/3 417–458 which may make a useful source for an article on Llannerch as a commote. Example it states that the commote covered 9,000 acres covering two parishes and 14 towns. On that basis I have no problem accepting Llannerch as a notable place but not with the current content or describing it as a village. Nthep (talk) 21:12, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Broadly agreed, although that's an editorial process rather than a deletion decision, no? Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 21:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Comment The article claims that "Llannerch is a community and village located between Trefnant and St. Asaph in Denbighshire, North Wales". Now, in Wales, a community has a legal definition: there are around 40 defined communities within Denbighshire, but none are named Llannerch (St Asaph and Trefnant are both communities, however). At the very least, all suggestion that the place in question is a community should be removed. As for the claims above that Ordnance Survey maps "confirm the status of village" - OS maps do not do anything of the kind. They confirm the existence of features named Llannerch Hall, Llannerch Park and Pont Llannerch; but there is no feature named using the word "Llannerch" alone; and nor do any of these three features have any indication that they are a village, hamlet, or cluster of buildings. To take an example not so far away: St Asaph has been a city for a little over seven years, but the OS map does not use the word "city" anywhere, not even for ancient cities such as York. A railway station named Llannerch did exist (opened 1858, closed 1871) but that does not mean that a village of that name existed. Railway stations were given names by the railway companies, and in some cases are named after a local feature that cannot be considered to be either city, town, village or hamlet - for example, Bat & Ball railway station and Berney Arms railway station were both named after pubs. A few (such as Verney Junction railway station and Calvert railway station) were named after people, and not places. You cannot surmise the existence of a village from the fact of a railway station bearing that name. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 19:50, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, if only for historical purposes. It may no longer qualify as a community, or even as a village. But it is obviously a recognisable area/ location with very notable connections/ buildings. Martinevans123 (talk) 21:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete I agree with all Redrose's comments. We already have an article on Llannerch Hall, which is quite sufficient and can include mentions of Llannerch Park, station etc. There is no village with a separate existence.---Ehrenkater (talk) 21:57, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

PS You will see from our Welsh Toponymy article that llanerch simply means "clearing"; and this authoritative source says it can just mean an "empty space". There is no reason why an historical commote could not have been named after such an empty space. This tends to deny rather than confirm the historical existence of a village.---Ehrenkater (talk) 22:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Per long-established consensus, Knowledge is an encyclopaedia, a gazetteer and an almanac. I think this is a good example of content that wouldn't belong in a generalist encyclopaedia, but as it's a real place, there's a potential argument that it could be kept on Knowledge to fulfil our alternative function as a gazetteer. There's obviously a need for sources, and the way I always like to reconcile this is to say that a map's a reliable source. Unfortunately, I've been unable to locate an entry for "Llanerch" (as opposed to Llanerch Hall or Llanerch Park) on a map -- and the other sources seem quite inadequate to me -- so I can't see how we can keep this.—S Marshall T/C 22:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

See above, we've now established that Llannerch existed as a commote in medieval Wales and that can be sourced. As an administrative area in a country that makes it notable and I will happily withdraw this nomination. The article can be re-writen even if it starts reduced to a one-line stub "Llannerch was a commote in the cantref of Dyffryn Clwyd". Nthep (talk) 22:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Thank you, that was interesting. I agree that we can cover Llannerch as a historical commote. I do not see how any of the content we currently have would be useful in that article, so we might as well delete all the existing material so you can start again with a clean slate.—S Marshall T/C 22:51, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Can I request the deletion be removed if its allowed to stay, please? On the article as well. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 13:02, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

• If it doesn't merit an article it could be merged into Trefnant, alternatively it could be redirected to its railway station. Crouch, Swale (talk) 10:30, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree Crouch, Swale. Merge it either with railway station article or maybe like I did with Pipehill. Make it a hamlet article. It's got enough evidence to be given a stance at least. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 18:41, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Crouch Swale. Could you remove the deletion on the article as its being allowed to stay. Thank you - JoshuaistheFalco — Preceding unsigned comment added by JoshuaIsTheFalco (talk • contribs) 15:38, 13 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:20, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Pure puffery with a dash of pseudoscience and a hint of advertising. No demonstration of notability as well. Strongly recommending deletion. Necromonger...We keep what we kill 12:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 13:53, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete not notable. I also checked and there is not a French Wiki. WP:PROMOTION Lightburst (talk) 15:32, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Delete the deletion per reasons above. IF and only if notability is established, then i suppose the article could be completely rewritten, but as no notability has been established, this is not an option. ArkayusMako (talk) 15:43, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete a clearly non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:22, 10 November 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. Tone 18:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Steve Loeb (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:GNG, not quite an unsourced WP:BLP but it's pretty close. I can't find any significant coverage in any before searches - there's a couple routine mentions in Billboard from the 80's. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC) SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 12:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep I am inclined to say this was an important figure in New York hip hop recording.
• The DJ Booth
• Music Origins Bio
• New York intelligencer
• Billboard Magazine

WP:PRODUCER produced the pop single "Amityville" for rapper Lovebug Starski Billboard which reached #12 on the UK Charts. Lightburst (talk) 16:25, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• You found some of the same sources I did. Not a single one of those is WP:SIGCOV. SportingFlyer T·C 12:10, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete due to lack of non-trivial sources about the subject. Guy (help!) 13:46, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete no reliable 3rd party sources have been presented.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:02, 9 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

Matzav.com (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:NORG. Of the sources, several do not mention the source at all, and the rest are passing mentions, or the website itself. This may be related to Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Matzav (2nd nomination). Captain Eek ⚓ 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ⚓ 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Captain Eek ⚓ 08:37, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 09:36, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per WP:GNG. I am unable to find any sources talking about this website, only the website promoting itself. BTW in my own research, I find that the website merely copies from other sources, like Yeshiva World News, and even from Knowledge articles. Yoninah (talk) 11:16, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete There's nothing i the article to support a claim of notability and I couldn't find anything more in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 13:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete This seems to be the third attempt to shoehorn this into an article and I can't see how it is notable.

Matzav (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats) 38.142.216.106 (talk) 13:26, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• author note: I've reformatted to begin that they're primarily a news aggregator, but that they do develop their own material which has been picked up by The Jewish Press (Matzav.com claims 4 part-timers get their non-aggregaion "scoops") and a number of Jewish organizations and specialty sites (JLaw.com).

P.S. It's not the 3rd time, only second-and-a-half: In the original Matzav article about the "situation" (meaning of Matzav), this topic (Matzav.com, the site) was the tail. Now it's the turn of Matzav to be the dog-like tail: Matzav.com doesn't need to stand tall, OK, on the shoulders of .. stream-of-consciousness postscript ... perhaps it's still (notable 2008 cited comment) "up and coming. Keep an eye on it." Pi314m (talk) 13:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete. Confirming that the added sources do not constitute significant coverage: We're looking for secondary sources that show the importance of the topic by covering the publication itself in depth, not simply citing it. czar 11:40, 12 November 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 delete This article was speedily deleted by Athaenara at 19:15, November 5, 2019 per WP:CSD#G11. Mz7 (talk) 23:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Asli Daud (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 describe what is notable about the subject; is promotional, being an advertisement for Asli Digital Media. I and someone else tagged for CSD G11 unambiguous advertising but an IP editor removed the CSD template multiple times*, hance forcing this AfD. Sources, whether in the article or found through WP:BEFORE, are either non-reliable sources fawning over the subject, routine announcements, or paid-for articles with caveats e.g. "The Asian Age does not endorse the above content." and "IBT does not endorse any of the above content." Does not pass WP:GNG, WP:BASIC or WP:CREATIVE. -Lopifalko (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

* Dharmamulla (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) removed the speedy deletion tags several times. – Athaenara ✉ 03:25, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 04:38, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete I fixed a bunch of dupe refs and deleted a few others whose reporting was extremely poor. One ref still in the article reads "The prominent Arabic music leading light's proclamation for the colossal Indo-Arabic collab with the Indian music industry has, hitherto, congested the news. The voguish bigwig has proclaimed about his collab with Asli Daud AKA Abdullah, the unusually percepted hotshot." I'm wondering if this text was machine generated, or written by someone on drugs? The article is so bad that the best solution is to delete and wait to see if his notability in good sources of this voguish bigwig will increase to a collossal enough level that he can be percepted as a notable hotshot... (which I doubt will happen). In the meantime it should be salted given the problems described by Lopifalko in the nom.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Speedy Delete as A7 and/or G11 - I firmly believe that the speedy deletion removals were bad-faith removals (there's two very new editors and a couple IPs working on this article, so high probability sock/meatpuppetry). Non-notable subject, blatantly promotional article. _{a creffett franchise} (talk to the boss) 13:40, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment The article claims that Daud was a producer for Mastizaade. Per the article on the film principal photography commenced on 7 September 2014. Daud was born in 1997, so he would have been 17 or 18 years old when they began shooting the film and even younger when planning the production. That seems unlikely. The film had a ₹300,000,000 (US$3.6 million) budget. I'm conjecturing here, but it Daud was probably working or interning for the production company, Pritish Nandy Communications Ltd. Vexations (talk) 14:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment After more verifications I have updated Asli Daud's Filmography as per User:Vexations Asli Daud is not Producer in Mastizaade but he is assisting producer I had mentioned it due to lack of research about his filmography now it has been improved for reference — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dex1122 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Dex1122, IMDB is not a reliable source. I looked at Daud's IMDB page earlier, and the information you cite above was just added today. That does not instill trust that any of Daud's biography can be reliably sourced. The article fails one of wikipedia's most important policies, verifiability. I now support deletion of the article on two grounds; it violates our policy on what Knowledge is not (a platform for advertising) and the information cannot be verified. Delete. Vexations (talk) 19:46, 5 November 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. RL0919 (talk) 05:22, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

National Informatics Centre (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 government agency. Google gives me only name-drops ( is the best source it throws out, but it's too sparse on details about NIC to be useful; string "National informatics centre"). The article also has some serious issues with promotional content, but the biggest issue is the existential one of a lack of viable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 04:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

The sources added by 14.139.11.11 are all the company, press releases, and the one article I linked in the AfD nom; thus none are acceptable sources. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 07:20, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CodeLyoko 05:01, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete – Insufficient independent coverage to support an encyclopedia article. I was asked to look at this a few days ago at IRC and was disappointed by the lack of sources. That was not a time to nominate for deletion, but now that it has been, I agree with the reasoning. — jmcgnh 05:15, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Comment: Informally looking at this it seems almost incredulous no sources have been found for an agency that has WP:SUSTAINed sustained for over 40 years. It is indeed rare click on the 'books' link and find so many relevant hits, albeit main will be passing passing mentions and others may be self-published .... The article may have all sorts of issues needing clean up and improvement but it would be most strange if the topic is not appropriate for an article. But there has likely been and I wonder if that is the reason it has been brought to WP:AFD? Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:02, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

  Djm-leighpark, I have looked up the article in multiple places and can only find passing mentions, even sources in Hindi that are only passing mentions. Just because a company has existed for a long time does not make it notable, for example in Dallas there is a plumbing company that has been around for 120 years and yet it's very hard to find information on said company to make an article. CodeLyoko 15:29, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per nom, sources are sparse and does not really have coverage to warrent an article. CodeLyoko 15:31, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Keep WP:INDIA contributor here. This is one the biggest public sector (Government owned) technology companies in India with 162.5 Million $ (1150 crore ₹) annual budget in 2018-19. NIC is covered in these books which is enough for me to vote a Keep. There are many news coverages of the projects undertaken by this company. The article may be a stub, but it has potential to expand and the subject is notable. wP:HEY also applies, as the article may have been in poor shape but several editors have recently worked to remove the unsourced/poorly sourced content and the article can now be kept. --DBigXrayᗙ 18:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• For Thankyou for those. Prabhu, Malwad and Bhattacharya as far as I can establish are or have relevant sections written by NIC people so likely to provoke issues from a straight WP:RS angle viewpoint. For Kumar, Jain and Pareek one relevant page is 2, there are others. (NB: please reference pages or location in large sources here and when citing).Djm-leighpark (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Keep: Me getting 20+ lakh google hits for National Informatics Centre and over 9 thousand in Scholar, even if 99.9% were useless for WP:RS it seem unlikely all be be so. In fact every bit of WP:COMMONSENSE tells me the subject is a reasonable, probably nigh on 90 crore people are affected by it and given the size and significance and longevity of the entity it would seem nearly insane if it had to be incubated as WP:TOOSOON. Per advice given to me above WP:IRC would be pointless. I know little about the plumbers in old Cowboys town (0.12 crore sort of not really comparable to 90 crore catchment) but I do know the UK news had some noteworthy ex-plumber news which is not good. Per WP:THREE I will initially present 3 specific sources for consideration, Rituraj(2018),, Jamwal et. al(2011) and Venkatanarayan et. al.(2017) and should those for any reason fail there will likely be replacements available from those better in this area than I. One source, Rituraj, is actually (Kumar, Jain & Pareek, 2018) from above but the I've reworked citation differently so both Author and Editors of the sources are clearer for scrutiny.Djm-leighpark (talk) 19:52, 6 November 2019 (UTC)

@Djm-leighpark: @DBigXray: I thank you for your efforts. Since the sources have been found and added to the article, I will happily withdraw this request. That said, there still remains the efforts to turn the article into a promotional piece, though that is not an issue for AfD. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 05:33, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jéské Couriano thankyou for coming back quickly ... it is much appreciated. I can become more erratic the longer I am at AfDs/DRVs etc. I think your initial insight into sparse WP:RS results among the masses of google hits was in fact very accurate and I had to try all manner of predicate filters in the search string to google and scholar and news to try to find anything useful in the top of a list. Hopefully we're good for a close and peoples can concentrate on developing a good article (it probably won't be me but it will be on my watchlist). Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 07:50, 7 November 2019 (UTC)

Keep Notable national institution. Arunram (talk) 16:16, 11 November 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) 04:27, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTY, can't find WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich 04:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vermont-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:09, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 04:10, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:49, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Does not pass WP:NFOOTY. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 5 November 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 merge to The Deadly Hands of Kung Fu. czar 11:35, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Sons of the Tiger (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 topic TTN (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. TTN (talk) 01:47, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep or merge to either List of Marvel Comics teams and organizations or The Deadly Hands of Kung Fu. BOZ (talk) 02:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Merge info about the series into Deadly Hands of Kung Fu. The real world info has value, the in-universe stuff can be summarized. --Killer Moff- ill advisedly sticking his nose in since 2011 (talk) 17:06, 6 November 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) 04:24, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NFOOTY, can't find WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich 04:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 04:05, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 04:06, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:48, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 05:11, 10 November 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. No agreement and minimal participation after two relists. RL0919 (talk) 04:17, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, fails GNG. HighKing 16:20, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:35, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 16:36, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Comment: I know this is the English Knowledge, but I have seen quite a large portion of little-known television channels and networks having their own article. Do the rules change if it is from a non-English country? Foxnpichu (talk) 12:23, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
• Keep, notable TV production company, well known even to people not watching TV for producing Harald Schmidt's and Stefan Raab's shows. Lots of studies on Gbooks, "largest German comedy provider", something about their early business strategy, not to mention the massive referencing on German Knowledge, including Handelsblatt, FAZ, Tagesspiegel (back in 2001). Recent Gnews hits: , , . —Kusma (t·c) 10:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment The web references you've produced do not meet the criteria for establishing notability as they are largely based on either a tv show that the company produces (notability is not inherited) or they're based on company announcements (no Independent Content) or a blog (not a reliable source). The books may meet the criteria. I am unable to get a reasonable translation but the rough one I did manage to generate looks good. Perhaps someone else can comment on the books? If the books meet the criteria, I'm happy to withdraw the nomination. HighKing 13:28, 8 November 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. Tone 18:00, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Institute of Customer Service (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 appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NORG. The only reference is to the organization's own website. Searching turns up very little. MB 19:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Good Housekeeping seems to take their customer service ratings seriously. And ICS CEO Jo Coulson gets quoted, a lot. And there's no shortage of Google Books hits for marketing and marketing analysis books that name-drop the ICS. It's all relatively weak tea, without a lot of substance about the organization itself. But I think there's enough to at least cobble a stubby article together. They do seem to be recognized as a major benchmarking organization for customer service data. Squeamish Ossifrage (talk) 19:41, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:01, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU 00:26, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

• delete unless evidence of SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE is offered up in the article sources. As others have pointed out, it's a respected source. It's mentioned in the Dummies, and mentioned in a MacMillan published book such as https://books.google.com/books?id=ozsdBQAAQBAJ&dq=%22institute+of+customer+service%2 However, not every respectable business pass the notability criteria for inclusion into Knowledge. Graywalls (talk) 04:01, 6 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete Agree with above, needs significant coverage not just passing references.VViking_TalkEdits 15:01, 8 November 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:14, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

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

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, can't find WP:SIGCOV. – Levivich 03:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. – Levivich 03:52, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. – Levivich 03:54, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 09:48, 5 November 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:18, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

PTron (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)

small company,$7 million in sales; the references are either trivial announcement of individual products or PR, DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 05:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA 05:59, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep It passes WP:GNG and has significant coverage in reliable sources. Here is analysis...

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
News 18	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Indian news website which is reliable mentioning about the company and its sell.
Telangana today	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	News paper of Telangana, Indian state, is giving coverage to future plans to expansion by this company.
The economic times	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	ET is of course reliable and independent.
Business line	Y	Y	Y	Y	Y	Two mentions by business today, first one is quite promotional type but ok in other
The Asian age	N	N	Y	Y	N	Tech columns are not independent in general and it covers product.
The Indian Express and Times of India	N	Y	Y	Y	N	More than company it was about product launched by firm.
Total qualifying sources					4	There might be some other multiple qualifying sources too but not cited in the article.

We don't pass WP:NCORP based on less or more turnover but by Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. -- Harshil 13:43, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep a notable Indian company which has coverage across various newspapers. Telangana Today is a reliable source which describes the company well in detail. Economic Times and The Hindu Business Line describe the company's overseas venture. There are other sources which I did not add to the article such as this tech magazine. More sources can be found. Converting sales revenue from rupees to dollars will make it look like a small company because of India's currency value. Among Indian companies, this is one of the top brands for mobile and electronic accessories. For example, Deccan Chronicle says "PTron, a brand that needs no introduction in the mobile accessories space" and India TV calls it "India's fastest-growing mobile accessories brand" .. Ibiza Gnome (talk) 08:11, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

India has billionaires, and also very large enterprises. We can make some adjustments, but not so far as this.

As for the Deccan Chronicle quote, any newspaper article which includes the line " a brand that needs no introduction in the mobile accessories space" is advertising, even if the nature of public relations is such that newspapers can be induced to write it in a news story. DGG ( talk ) 02:34, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

We can make some adjustments, but not so far as this. Which adjustments are you talking about? Is there any specific policy which says only billionaire company can have article? -- Harshil 16:05, 4 November 2019 (UTC)

• Delete per DGG.4meter4 (talk) 03:21, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
• I have removed product announcements and added more sources that describe the company in detail. Ibiza Gnome (talk) 11:37, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

• Keep If I am being honest it was the chart above. GNG met. Lightburst (talk) 03:23, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
• Delete The analysis provided by Harshil169 incorrectly omits to check for "Independent Content" and incorrectly applies the criteria for "Significant". Checking for "Independent" does not simply mean checking that the publisher is "independent" from (i.e. has no corporate links with") the company but that the *content* is also Independent. WP:ORGIND defines this as follows: Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. So when you see that Harshill69 has indicated that (for example) this news18.com reference as meeting the criteria for "independent" and yet the article is based on an announcement from the company and largely consisting of a quotation from the CEO of the parent company, you know the analysis is bad. So, here is the analysis redone to correctly account for Independent Content, in-depth coverage (of the company) and "significant" coverage (which also states the article must be "Independent of the subject" (i.e. Independent Content):

Source	Significant?	Independent?	Reliable?	Secondary?	Pass/Fail	Notes
News 18	N	N	Y	Y	N	This reference is entirely based on a Company Announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Telangana today	N	N	Y	Y	N	Entirely based on Interview with CEO or Based on company announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND
BTVI	N	N	Y	Y	N	Entirely based on Company Announcement and Interview with CEO. Fails WP:ORGIND.
The Economic Times	N	N	Y	Y	N	ET is of course reliable and independent but the article is neither Significant nor Independent, based as it is on a company announcement. Fails WP:ORGIND.
Business line	N	N	Y	Y	N	Two mentions by business today, first one is based on a company PR announcement and the second is also based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
Silicon India	N	N	Y	Y	N	This article is simply PR, fails WP:ORGIND.
Digital Terminal	N	N	Y	Y	N	This article is based on a company announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
SME World	N	N	Y	Y	N	This article is based on "an email interaction" (i.e. an interview) with the CEO and fails WP:ORGIND
Total qualifying sources					0	Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability