Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 3

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 2 November	4 November >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to List of play-by-mail games. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Galaxy II[edit]

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

Not notable. Doesn't meet WP:GNG, as at least 2 sources are required to establish notability. Previously PRODed, but the tag was removed (see talk page). — Newslinger talk 23:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. — Newslinger talk 23:36, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the sources found below, or merge to Play-by-mail game. BOZ (talk) 03:48, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (edit or Redirect) With only one source in evidence, and no more discernible via a cursory search, the product lacks WP:SIGCOV that would allow it to pass the GNG. Chetsford (talk) 08:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
A cursory search will require more than just Google--this game is a bit old. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. All of my cursory BEFOREs check three indices (Google News/Books/Scholar, JSTOR, and newspapers.com) which is, in fact, beyond what is required by WP:BEFORE. Beyond that, if more arcane sources exist, it is the onus of the article creator to present them either in the article or the AFD discussion; !voters in AfD discussions are not expected to go to extraordinary lengths, such as spending an afternoon in the rare documents collection at the NYPL, before registering a !vote. Chetsford (talk) 01:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
While that may be true, Chetsford, what is also true is that AfD participants are expected to pay attention to context. It is much better to give credit that editors are looking for dead tree sources when they say they are, than it is to ignore reliable dead tree sources when presented, which has been your practice at AfD - "I'm not seeing it"; "may have existed". Newimpartial (talk) 05:24, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Per your request, I give credit to you for looking for dead tree sources. Chetsford (talk) 06:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I mostly just wanted assurance you had looked for dead tree sources. :) --Izno (talk) 12:25, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
We need a List of play-by-mail games I think. --Izno (talk) 13:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed, solidly. BOZ (talk) 13:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  - @BOZ: get at it ~ --Izno (talk) 13:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
    - I can't do everything game-related around here. ;) But, I will see what I can do later today or this week. PBM not my best area of expertise, but I think it's a subject worth tackling. BOZ (talk) 13:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
      - I started the list. --Izno (talk) 17:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        Oh, excellent, good work! Then, I will have to see what I can find to add to that. I'm sure there must have been some coverage in Dragon and other contemporary sources. BOZ (talk) 22:11, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
        I mostly just grabbed the articles out of Category:Play-by-mail games which also had at least one obvious independent, likely reliable, source to the games themselves. All of which were yours, as it happens. --Izno (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The list survived NPP, so I'm happy to redirect to list of play-by-mail games given a lack of great sourcing. --Izno (talk) 01:18, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of play-by-mail games. At this point, a redirect looks more appropriate than deletion. — Newslinger talk 06:02, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Question, do any of these count as WP:RS?: [1] [2] [3] [4] BOZ (talk) 05:18, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  1 is bylined by Brett Tondreau, the game's creator, and is not WP:INDEPENDENT. #4 is a letter to the editor and is, therefore, not RS. #2/#3 is fine but is just a single piece of coverage as it's an identical article that was simply syndicated from Elementary Electronics to Budget Electronics, or visa versa. This single piece of coverage now means we have two pieces of unique coverage which may meet the bare minimum under exceptional circumstances, but is rarely sufficient for a commercial product. Chetsford (talk) 06:53, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Which brings us back to the key, if poorly articulated, question of whether games are best understood as CREATIVE products or commercial PRODUCTs. In the case of pbm, I don't think there is much "case law" to work with. Traditionally, at AfD, tabletop RPGs have been subjeCt to CREATIVE and video games to PRODUCT. Newimpartial (talk) 12:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  Newslinger and Izno, that's what I found after a cursory search. ;) I will try a little more and see if I can come up with anything else. BOZ (talk) 14:51, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Not for notability, and we need a better source if we can find one, but just noting some product info: [5] Another PBM designer was inspired by this game: [6] [7] Again, not for notability, but some designer's notes: [8] Not sure about this one: [9] Not sure what else I could search for at the moment. BOZ (talk) 15:14, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  
  Games should require the WP:GNG, end of story. As much as some people like to argue otherwise, taking to invoking SNGs just causes problems IMO. If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. --Izno (talk) 21:20, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete at best, only one of the above sources (the American Radio History review) pass WP:GNG. SportingFlyer talk 10:36, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
The nominator agreed that redirect to the list was better, the one delete voter above conceded that we have two RS's and is willing to concede to a redirect, but you're still going with delete? BOZ (talk) 13:08, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
~~I don't see that concession.~~ I disagree with the concession. I've reviewed all of the sources presented and I don't think they're sufficient to get the article past WP:GNG. Galaxy II is a disambiguation, so not favouring a redirect. SportingFlyer talk 10:29, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Would a move to Galaxy II (play-by-mail game) make a redirect more appropriate? BOZ (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of play-by-mail games, for now, but I really regard that as a stopgap. What we really need IMO is an article on play-by-mail games]] that is properly sourced and that will actually offer sufficient contextual in terms of the games and companies themselves that the reader can trace the emergence of computer-adjudicated PBM and PBEM from their analog antecedents. In this eventual article, the Galaxy II case will be quite important, I suspect, which is why I'd like to see the reference parked in the list, for now. The current PBM article is overly occupied by the player-facing aspects and the business model, while the way the games were hosted and run is given insufficient attention IMO. Newimpartial (talk) 19:22, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:44, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

International Homeschooling Day[edit]

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

No evidence of notability, all sources are just used to support various claims about home schoolers that don't mention the subject. An internet search for the subject returned some blogs but nothing reliable or significant. Does not pass WP:GNG. Originally nominated for PROD, dePROD by initial editor Marlies van St Annaland, incorrectly reverted to reinstate PROD by KlaasZ4usV as PROD is for uncontroversial deletions and can be removed for any (or no) reason, so let's do this here at AfD. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:29, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NOR. I also love this sentence in the content: "Wikipedia is also among the sources families use to know more about a topic of their interest.", further reinforces the uselessness of this article. Ajf773 (talk) 05:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep reverted removal of template, because no argument was supplied; article was edited. Newbees like Marlies van St Annaland need (un)asked help in their first brave steps on any Wikipedia (respectively sisterProjects), do not know the bureaucratic rules moderators and higher ranked people who posess extra power buttons to threaten them with destroying their (hard) work, (partly and/or temporarily) ban them or worse. Not very polite, perhaps frustrating and/or insulting. Give them at least a week to repair their mistakes before "power play".
Kind regards, Klaas `Z4␟` V 10:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems to be pure promotion by the European Homeschooling Foundation who invented the day. A link to the Wikipedia article has very quickly appeared on their website and the creator of the article made a COI declaration associating herself with the Foundation, which she later deleted. Marlies van Sint Annaland is the Netherlands chairperson of this organization. Besides the fact of EHF inventing the day, the rest of the article is entirely WP:REDUNDANTFORK of the Homeschooling article. SpinningSpark 13:15, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I could not find any independent coverage. Tacyarg (talk) 18:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Price[edit]

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

Promotional, unreferenced since its creation ten years ago, reads like a press release, WP:BEFORE shows little actual third-party coverage to meet WP:CORP. No reasonable prospects of the article's problems being fixed organically. PROD removed with no effort to fix problems. David Gerard (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 23:16, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep important historic company. there will be other references. Some of the currentmaterial should be reduced to eliminate the promotionalism /. DGG ( talk ) 01:05, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @DGG: The argument of yours there will be other references is pretty much invalid for AfD per WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. Either there are sources, or there are not. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 07:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I would be delighted to be shown wrong, but first you have to do the actual showing. Will there be other references? Please produce some, enough to pass WP:NCORP - David Gerard (talk) 10:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I added a reference to a book where a paragraph discusses the company's changing manufacture approach. I was tempted to WP:TNT the article down to only the couple of sentences which are supported by that reference, but left it for the time being in case others can find references to support the remaining claims and also render the text encyclopaedic. I don't regard the paragraph in the Bryson article, where the firm serves just as an example of wider changes, as sufficient for WP:NCORP though. AllyD (talk) 08:37, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Clearly needs some editing to reduce its promotional tone, but sufficient coverage in newspapers [10] [11] [12], academic articles [13] and books [14] [15] to meet WP:GNG. Qwfp (talk) 10:35, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly a keep as they are royal warranted, well known manufacturer (in UK at least) who produced cutlery for titanic and currently UK parliament (see the star article) and as per above this just needs re-creating and referenced — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:C5F6:2700:DCBF:59BE:B586:1F35 (talk) 06:59, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, google showing enough, for example [16], [17]. Szzuk (talk) 12:57, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Business Development Center Bucharest[edit]

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

Does not seem to exist. While it appears in many "skyscraper lists", none provide an address, coordinates or even a picture. A google search returns 0 relevant results. Strainu (talk) 23:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I also tried to find any info about this building, but I did not find anything. Razvan Socol (talk) 20:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy deleted per WP:G5. Sir Sputnik (talk) 15:21, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

What's the Good of Being Good? (film)[edit]

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

Contested PROD. This article was created by an SPA promoting the filmmaker. The film is short. The article says 30mins but Amazon and Google Play both say 11 mins. Despite being made in America and being in English, I see no sign of any English language reviews in reliable sources. As far as I can tell, this is not something that was ever shown in cinemas or on TV. The production company is not notable and has no article. Some of the references look like republishings of promotional material. (Google Translate does a good job of translating these, btw). The VNExpress and VoyageLA references look valid but I certainly don't see it adding up to notability for the short film. DanielRigal (talk) 22:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. DanielRigal (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – per nom, not notable. Kendall-K1 (talk) 23:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Linh Nga. Not notable, but a semi-plausible search term. Joseph2302 (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Re-prod?[edit]

Since the article was written by a blocked COI sock, and the prod was declined by the same editor, and no one else has objected, is there any way to restore the prod or just go ahead and delete (or redirect)? Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it looks like WP:DEPROD says we need to go through afd now anyway. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Took another look, I think the prod can be restored per this: "In addition, a tag may be restored if removed by a banned user or blocked user evading a block." Which is the case here. Homealone1990 was blocked 2 Nov, and the sock Giomuathu contested the prod on 3 Nov. Kendall-K1 (talk) 20:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Actually since it was created by a sockpuppet in violation of their ban, it should qualify for speedy deletion as a G5. I've nominated it as a G5. Joseph2302 (talk) 20:17, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. WP:SK1, nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 11:06, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Images (band)[edit]

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

No references of any kind - the musicbrainz reference is a mirror of the article. Rathfelder (talk) 22:25, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. If the article contains no references, add a maintenance tag rather than wasting our time at AfD. Better still, search for sources yourself. You might have found this or this, for example, which confirms the band's hit records, or this which appears to state their biggest hit sold half a million copies,. --Michig (talk) 23:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Sadly there are many articles about bands which similarly have no references. This one has survived for 3 years in this state. Rathfelder (talk) 11:00, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

So improve it. AfD is not for cleanup. --Michig (talk) 12:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

" An article without references, especially a biography of a living person, may be deleted."Rathfelder (talk) 12:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I've added some very basic sources for the band's chart positions in France and Belgium – they need improving, but it demonstrates multiple charting in more than one country. According to the Infodisc website, their no. 1 record has a platinum certification, and the other three top ten hits were certified silver. And I don't see why the article could not be expanded to include information about Émile & Images, which is the addition of singer Émile Wandelmer to the existing Images line-up... they had another couple of chart hits and a gold disc certification from SNEP [18]. It might not be easy to find in 2018, but you would think a band with a no. 1 single for 13 weeks would have had coverage in the French music press back in 1986. Richard3120 (talk) 15:51, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Happy to withdraw my proposal. I think it now exceeds the basic minimum standard. Rathfelder (talk) 20:19, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:15, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

E.Bon Holdings[edit]

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

Seems like a minor, albeit public corporation, but the article has literally no sources, and there's not much a reason for it to exist. LikeMeercats (talk) 21:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 企管達人 (2017-12-22). "企管達人——怡邦行優質家具贏口碑拒絕「做爛市」". Sing Tao Daily (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
2. 王晓易, ed. (2013-11-04). "怡邦行：二代接班人的"弹性"改革". Forbes China. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04 – via NetEase.
3. "怡邦行集團以誠為本嚴選頂尖品牌穩中求勝". Hong Kong Economic Journal. 2013-10-31. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
  This is an excerpt. The full text is 1,452 words and is available on a subscription basis.
4. 鄺建揚 (2018-07-18). "怡邦行(599)". Centaline Securities. Archived from the original on 2018-11-04. Retrieved 2018-11-04.
  According to http://www.centasec.com/, Centaline Securities is a securities firm and its parent company is Centaline Holdings. This article confirms that the firm publishes research on 怡邦行 for its customers. From Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies)#Publicly traded corporations, analyst reports can be used to establish notability.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow E. Bon Holdings to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 00:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources provided by Cunard. These are reliable Chinese-language sources that can be used to establish WP:GNG. feminist (talk) 12:40, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:34, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The Children's Hour (Boston children's TV series)[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since its creation in 2007. As a locally broadcast series, it does not meet the requirements of WP:TVSHOW. Without sourcing, it fails to meet WP:GNG as well. After a quick look around, I couldn't find anything on this – if this is to be kept, then some sort of sourcing to demonstrate its notability under GNG is needed. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 19:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources have been provided, and I haven't found any reliable sources myself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 19:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I tried finding sources myself but came out short. Every time I thought something came up, it was either the play or the film. --Gonnym (talk) 21:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Building consensus, agree with above. LikeMeercats (talk) 21:51, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of American supercentenarians#100 oldest American people ever. czar 18:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Mathew Beard[edit]

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

Deleted in 2007, recreated in 2012. While technically not G4 eligible, this attempt addresses none of the problems from the original AfD. Non-notable, and WP:NOPAGE applies; not everyone who purportedly has a pulse for an unusually long time is notable. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 18:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only basic bio info and that only was collected in the sources because he did not die when most people die. Legacypac (talk) 19:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Great nomination User:The Blade of the Northern Lights LikeMeercats (talk) 21:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:GNG. There is essentially no article, it's just a claimed record and a list of years he moved or got a new job etc. Of the three sources in the article, one is a GRG list which does nothing to prove notability, and two are mere WP:ROUTINE local feature articles. There is no policy that "the oldest x" is notable or entitled to an article. His age, life dates, nationality and record are already variously recorded on five different lists, where they are easier to view, so this permanent WP:PERMASTUB is not needed. Newshunter12 (talk) 00:10, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to an appropriate list if not already there. Just another permastub with almost nothing in it after you remove the longevity cruft. E Eng 01:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to List of supercentenarians from the United States#List of people in lieu of deletion. There is enough sourced biographical information in the article to support a merge. Cunard (talk) 03:25, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to list of supercentenarians from the United States Fish567 (talk) 22:18, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect per above. RightGot (talk) 18:55, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Redirection would be reasonable as a valid search term. czar 18:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Refractor Engine[edit]

(Find video game sources: "Refractor Engine" – news · newspapers · books · scholar · JSTOR · free images · free news sources · TWL · NYT · WP reference · VG/RS · VG/RL · WPVG/Talk)

Unnotable game engine. Company behind it is notable, but notability is not inherited. Lordtobi (✉) 17:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 18:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps merge into company's page? LikeMeercats (talk) 21:54, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just so you're aware, WP:CSD#A7 doesn't apply to software. That aside, WP:ATD lends us to a redirect to the company. --Izno (talk) 19:09, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's really not even enough info to be worth merging back to the company's article. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 01:41, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unreferenced article with no references otherwise apparent from a standard BEFORE. Fails GNG. Chetsford (talk) 07:00, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 22:58, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom.BabbaQ (talk) 10:53, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) JC7V-talk 19:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fredrik Liliegren[edit]

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

Unnotable person, despite having founded a notable company (EA DICE), but notability is not inherited. Lordtobi (✉) 17:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 18:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 21:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTINHERITED Good nomination. LikeMeercats (talk) 21:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Liliegren is the main subject of articles in the dominating Swedish newspapers such as Svenska Dagbladet, Expressen, Göteborgs-Posten (accessible through sv:Mediearkivet) and so on over a period of 20 years, from 1994 and onwards (possibly earlier, but from 1994 is when I find the earliest relevant articles). There are plenty of sources that focus on Liliegren, rather than EA DICE. I've added some to the article, expanding it slightly. /Julle (talk) 23:30, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

(Google News isn't very good at catching Swedish news in general, and of course even worse when they're from the 90s or early 00s.) /Julle (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep- I cleaned up the article (but could use more work) and added a source or two. In agreement with Julle that notability is clearly defined by available sources focusing on the subject and not his companies. Passes WP:BIO and meets notability guidelines. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep- per improvements done after nom. Passes WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 10:54, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nominator has made an alternative suggestion (non-admin closure) funplussmart (talk) 00:57, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Virtual Riot[edit]

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

I can't seem to find any reliable coverage associated with the subject that isn't already archived. Existing sources on the article are mostly self-published. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 16:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is dependent on this page and would be meaningless without it:

Keep, a simple search on electronic music media sites reveal ample sources: Dancing Astronaut and YourEDM. Perhaps the page can be expanded with these sources, replacing the self-published ones currently available. One of his EPs has also charted so it doesn't obviously fail WP:NMUSIC (Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.), but when combined with the various independant sources helps to keep it afloat of any notability issues. aNode (discuss) 16:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article already has a reference to the reliable source AllMusic biography and together with the coverage above passes WP:GNG as well as WP:NMUSIC for a charting EP as well as significant coverage for criteria 1, regards Atlantic306 (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has an EP charted on Billboard's Dance/Electronic Albums [19], an acceptable chart per WP:BILLBOARDCHARTS, passing WP:MUSICBIO. Also, passes WP:GNG with sources from AllMusic [20], Billboard [21], Earmilk [22], Dancing Astronaut [23][24], Your EDM[25][26]. Flooded with them hundreds 17:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Nominator comment I realize I have failed to see the charted EP and extensive coverage that is not already used in the article, however, at this time, I am not opposed to merging the discography back to the main article, not to address the users that tried to "add" to the main article's discography section, but that it just wasn't time for a separate page. The main article is already a bit short as it is. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk • contribs) 17:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:17, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to List of supercentenarians by continent. (non-admin closure) wumbolo ^^^ 16:33, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

List of Australian supercentenarians[edit]

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

Redundant to List of supercentenarians by continent#Supercentenarians in Oceania. Which contains substantially the same content. Any minor details not in the main article can be added from this one. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 15:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom. I shudder at all the "but Australia is the most super-duper important bit of Oceania!" arguments in the last AfD. The redirect target list is 80% Australians anyway, I suspect they are in no immediate danger of disappearing from view in there. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't yet have an opinion on Keep or Merge, but I do note that this Australian-only list gives the Australian states in which each person was born and died (if that was in Australia). That is useful information, which is not in the Oceania table. It could perhaps be added there, but I'm not sure how that would work for New Zealand and New Caledonia. Given the nature of the comments in the previous AfD discussion, perhaps a merger of countries into continents could be done for another region first, which would remove that argument against merging this with the Oceanian list? RebeccaGreen (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes the states would be included in the main list. All the continent list articles and a half dozen or more country articles have already been merged into List of supercentenarians by continent, only a few European countries, Japan, and North America are left to do and will be completed as soon as the tables are updated. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 20:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect repetition of these tables on various pages helps no one. Happy to see so much progress on merging them together. Let's keep on going that direction. Legacypac (talk) 01:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge/redirect to Oceania list or whatever. Repeating what I said in the prior nomination: All these scattered, overlapping slices and dices by country, region, etc. have no advantage over a small set of larger lists (pseudo-continental), which are easily sorted and searched on e.g. country. And the scattered lists have the disadvantage of maintenance headaches. E Eng 02:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect/Merge to the continent article. Fully redundant given all these names are easily covered there. CommanderLinx (talk) 11:19, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/redirect to the Oceania list. There is no benefit having two near identical lists of the same information. It's just a maintenance nightmare, and larger more comprehensive lists are easily sorted and searched by individual readers as they choose. I also would support further redirects or merges of more country lists for the same reasons. Newshunter12 (talk) 12:18, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to List of supercentenarians by continent taking care to WP:PRESERVE the state information. Creating a new column for this might be a pain, but a solution using a format like Country/State such as "Australia/Victoria" would work with exisiting columns (Australia first for sorting reasons). This format change is essential to do in any case if North America is ever to be incorporated as well. It would also be nice for other countries – I'm sure Scottish readers, for instance, would like to be able to sort Scotland out of the United Kingdom entries. SpinningSpark 12:23, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
speedy keep If countries such as Norway and Ireland have lists which contain less names than Australia are allowed to stay then why is Australia not allowed to have its own Wikipedia entry? I'd vote on deleting the Oceania list as it is not a continent Crveni5 (talk)

The Oceania list article is already gone, merged to List of supercentenarians by continent, as all other country specific lists on this subject soon will be or already have. — Frayæ (Talk/Spjall) 00:00, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:WAX are not valid arguments for keeping this article. CommanderLinx (talk) 00:16, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I would also add that a speedy keep vote is disingenuous. You are free to have and share a keep opinion, but six other people already voted to either delete, redirect, or merge this article, so it was never going to be speedily kept. That was just to fluff up your own minority opinion, not make a substantive addition to this conversation. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I reject your allegation that my comment was dishonest. What I wrote is what I believe therefore to imply that I am being dishonest is an attack upon my integrity. However this does not surprise me as you have a history of personal attacks so this is more of the same from you. I am entitled to my opinion like everybody else who uses and edits Wikipedia articles. Crveni5 (talk)

You know what you did (packaging your vote as speedy keep, not the content of the vote) was a disingenuous attempt to save the article by demending the article be kept at once, regardless of everyone else's stated opinions, so don't pretend your a victim or project your insincerity onto me and claim I'm a bully. Newshunter12 (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to by "continent". Redundant duplicated material. Aoziwe (talk) 12:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:26, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Walker (baseball)[edit]

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

Non-notable baseball player Fbdave (talk) 14:40, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:20, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:21, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a career minor leaguer, he fails to meet the notability criteria for baseball players. There are lots of references but they're just typical reporting of player transactions. Papaursa (talk) 19:42, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete On top of points mentioned above, if he is signed by another team (which would presumably be a minor-league deal), a short couple paragraphs could be added to that team's page of minor league players, like the Milwaukee Brewers one. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:18, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 18:21, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Max Rosenmann[edit]

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

Out of the three external links cited in the article, the only link that works is a citation to his personal website. Could not find reliable secondary sources. Awsomaw (talk) 14:34, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:POLITICIAN LikeMeercats (talk) 21:58, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@LikeMeercats: do you want to reconsider your !vote? wumbolo ^^^ 16:37, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice against recreation if somebody can write and source a proper article. As written, this literally just says he was a politician, without actually stating or sourcing what political role he ever actually held, so it's impossible to measure against WP:NPOL. His self-published website does make a claim about that, but we have seen cases of people making inaccurate claims on their self-published websites about political roles they didn't really hold in reality, and there's literally not a single page in articlespace linking to this page either — so the notability test is not the presence of the words "deputado federal do Parana" in the identification banner on his own website, but the ability to independently verify the claim in other sources. (For an example of why his website's banner isn't good enough in and of itself, keep in mind that it does not inherently answer the question of whether he was an actual incumbent deputy, or just a candidate for a seat he never actually won.) So I'm willing to reconsider this if somebody with database access to older Brazilian media coverage can properly verify that he was actually a federal deputy — but without proper verification of that, we can't keep this article just because his own self-published website seemed to claim it. Bearcat (talk) 21:59, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Revised to keep, as new sources have now been located to properly verify that he held an NPOL-passing role. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to lack of proper sources that help establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 04:44, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If you couldn't find sources, you certainly weren't looking hard enough. This confirms that he was a federal deputy. I expanded the article so it isn't a permastub. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:45, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's not anybody's job to magically develop the ability to read a language they didn't already have the ability to read, so attacking other people for not finding sources you were able to find is not appropriate or acceptable behaviour in an AFD discussion. If you have the ability to salvage the article, then just do that and do not criticize other people for not being fluent enough in Portuguese to have done it themselves. That said, yes, your work does change things and is appreciated — but snarking on other people for not having skills in the particular language that was needed is not appreciated or appropriate. Bearcat (talk) 17:52, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Easy now. I can read Portuguese about as well as the next guy, however it is clear after a quick google search that he was indeed a federal deputy and he died in 2008. I am not attacking anyone simply stating they failed to perform a WP:BEFORE search before voting. This is the general procedure at AfDs. The article before my expansion was admittedly very poor, but don't take it personally. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:56, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Here, I'll admit maybe my WP:BEFORE was a bit too cursory. I actually searched this and none of the results came back with something notable, just a few documents with his name listed with other politicians. Not sure why it didn't come to me to just google search his name by itself, thanks for the information and the expansion.Awsomaw (talk) 18:20, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NPOL per Editorofthewiki's research - good work. SportingFlyer talk 00:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sourced added by EDDY.E.M.Gregory (talk) 16:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as is now, still should be improved but look at Brazilian politician stubs and this is no different than many of them.--JAMillerKC (talk) 23:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Szzuk (talk) 13:05, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Teni entertainer[edit]

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

No evidence that she meets WP:MUSICBIO, just assertions of WP:INHERITed notability from her father and sister. Cabayi (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:46, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Patar knight - ^chat/_{contributions} 01:16, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tried improving the article. It has multiple repeated mentions in selective local news portals (Africa related or music related). Two videos have over million views on youtube so definitely popular in local context. Can keep it. Exploreandwrite (talk) 07:20, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:20, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak~~ Keep. I have added some content and sources. It is possible that this is WP:TOOSOON and I'm not completely sure that she meets WP:MUSICBIO, but there is quite a bit of coverage available. Admittedly some is interviews but even so I think there is enough. Tacyarg (talk) 19:30, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Added some more content - The Headies award takes it from Weak Keep to Keep for me. Tacyarg (talk) 20:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 19:45, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per WP:MUSICBIO she seem to be notable to some extents, as she meets criterion 2,4,8 and 11 per my check, the said singer also have some notable sources even if all sources doesn’t appears to be, as some are just interviews. I’d suggest a keep. Is Nutin 05:46, 9 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)
Keep - I'm not sure about all the criteria offered by Soltesh (2,4,8,11 and possibly 1), however I do believe 8 is satisfied - if 2 is satisfied it is probably worth specifically noting that in-article. In any case, with NMUSIC satisfied (by whatever means!) then this is a keep. Nosebagbear (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:20, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Apto[edit]

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

Only routine coverage and listings like Inc 5000, and WP:AUD and WP:ORGIND failing interviews, bizjournal coverage, and such. Nothing enough for WP:CORPDEPTH Galobtter (pingó mió) 15:47, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree; sources fail WP:ORGCRIT. Jmertel23 (talk) 20:27, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, So said The Great Wiki Lord. (talk) 13:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: does not meet WP:NCORP; significant RS coverage not found. Promotionalism only. K.e.coffman (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:45, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Bornstein[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability guideline for biographies. See alsoWikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Born_Fitness. Whizz40 (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:55, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:55, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i opened the refs and they are primary, trivial or not independant, i opened them all on the basis that there might be 1 or 1 and a half decent refs, but actually there is zero. Szzuk (talk) 13:11, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Michig (talk) 14:08, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The NeuroGenderings Network[edit]

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

This article is about an organization, which studies a neologism for which there there is no consensus on terminology or definition. It uses words such as "neurosexism" and "neurofeminism" though these do not appear in the common lexicon and do not appear prevalent in related literature. it does not define them or provide links to corresponding wikipedia articles which do define them. This suggests the theories are fringe and do not meet Wikipedia's general criteria for inclusion of academic,organizations and topics. Ethanpet113 (talk) 09:17, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:59, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the creator of the article I'm not quite sure what the issue is here. The OP has opened an AfD on The NeuroGenderings Network but has then argued a case against 2 redirects.

Neurosexism already existed as a redirect to the "contents" section of Cordelia Fine's book Delusions of Gender diff, I think this is a better place for it.
Neurofeminism is indeed a neologism based a paper by Sigrid Schmitz and Grit Höppner Neurofeminism and feminist neurosciences: a critical review of contemporary brain research, it does not warrant its own article, it does not have its own article, it's a redirect with no other links - just in case anyone specifically looks up "Neurofeminism".

The OP previously added the following templates to this article: COI, Confusing, Context, Hoax, Notability, Primary sources, keep going Recentism and Self-published - there were no corresponding talk messages to any of them diff. Oh yeah, I nearly forgot, there was an WP:A7 PROD (diff) as well! --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:43, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:07, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were more references available about the conferences and the organization than I had expected. I'm satisfied that notability is met. XOR'easter (talk) 17:14, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter:Is the existence of a conference for which the notability of its contents is not well established sufficient to consider it encyclopedic? Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Four international conferences, held every four years - Sweden (2010); Vienna (2012); Switzerland (2014); and the US (2016). Are you now arguing that this article should go because it is not notable, that would contradict your opening post? --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:28, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@The Vintage Feminist: Again I ask: Does the existence of a conference when its impact cannot be determined to be notable make it encyclopedic? There are many academic conferences held all the time that are suspect see Predatory open-access publishing. If the topics in question had more peer review I would consider it notable, but as the primary discussed topics Neurofeminism and Neurosexism, seem to only redirect to this article, I find this dubious.Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:09, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of the organization is established by reliable secondary sources providing coverage of its activities. XOR'easter (talk) 12:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Ethanpet113: Even though you've been an editor since 2012, the first 5 years you've averaged roughly a dozen edits a year and about 1,000 edits in total, so I'm going to talk to you as if you're a newbie.

If you have an issue with the redirect page "Neurosexism" click on this link and add your comments to the talk page there or create an AfD there.
If you have an issue with the redirect page "Neurofeminism" click on this link and add your comments to the talk page there or create an AfD there.
If you want to take an AfD on both redirect pages and "The NeuroGenderings Network" then you ought to have followed the instructions for WP:Articles for deletion#How to nominate multiple related pages for deletion

As it stands, this AfD that you have begun is for "The NeuroGenderings Network" and only "The NeuroGenderings Network". As such your OP should spell out what your objection(s) are to that article. From Before nominating: checks and alternatives: The main four guidelines and policies that inform deletion discussions: notability (WP:N), verifiability (WP:V), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

You might also benefit from reading the essay - Wikipedia:NPOV means neutral editors, not neutral content which probably explains why your proposal WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Degradation of Sociology Related Pages - Recommend Mass Protection Upgrades wasn't taken up. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 01:23, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are several academic sources discussing this. SarahSV ^(talk) 17:56, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

On google scholar there are only a total of 81, mostly primary sources dealing with the keyword neurogenderings, there are more for neurosexiam and neurofeminism, but that has nothing to do with the existence or relevance of this conference. If you believe neurosexism and neurofeminism to be encyclopedic, by all means to create articles about them and remove the redirects to this page, but that does not result in this conference being encyclopedic.Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:52, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Neurofeminism and Neurosexism, redirect to this article, which is about a conference or organization,not the topics, so they are not adequate to establish notability if you believe the conference or organization meet wikipedia's criteria of notability for inclusion, then it logically follows that it must be about the genesis of these topics. If the topics are indeed notable, please establish the topics as separate articles articles, for which some secondary sources may be found. Right now as it stand the article appears to be about a one time event, and the majority of the citations are primary sources.Ethanpet113 (talk) 22:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please observe WP:DISCUSSAFD "How to contribute" When participating, please consider the following: Nomination already implies that the nominator recommends deletion (unless indicated otherwise), and nominators should refrain from repeating this recommendation on a separate bulleted line.

In any case, has your rationale for deletion changed again? Is it now on the grounds of primary sources? If so then out of 22 refs there is only one (the list of members) from neurogenderings.wordpress.com (the primary source) in the entire article. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:39, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't take your meaning, there are many reasons why this article does not belong in an encyclopedia. Most crucially that WP:NOTDIRECTORY#6,7 WP:NOTJOURNAL#9 and WP:PRESSRELEASE WP:SOAP. It may be possible that Neurofeminism and Neurosexism have a place on the encyclopedia, but right now the relevance of this group to any particular topic is difficult to establish. Instead of deletion, perhaps it should be moved into draft space until the requisite articles on the topics in question have been created.Ethanpet113 (talk) 01:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The article defines "neurofeminism" and "neurosexism", so it is reasonable that those redirect to it. As for the "one time event", it's happened four times.

I do not see how WP:NOTDIRECTORY criterion 6 ("Non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations") or 7 ("Simple listings without context information") apply at all. The entities being listed — conferences, people and references — all have an evident context. The article is not a case study (WP:NOTJOURNAL #9). Nor does it read as a promotion or a press release (WP:SOAP); I re-wrote the introduction based on newspaper coverage of it to make sure of this. XOR'easter (talk) 10:16, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And now we have 4 new basis to try and delete the article - none of them relevant or mentioned in the OP. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 00:25, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my earlier statement about the possible merit of the article Neurosexism it appears that article previously existed twice but has yet to produce something sufficiently coherent. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Neurosexism. Perhaps the editors on that article might have some input.@Tyrenon, Frmatt, DennisTheTiger, Anna Lincoln, JBsupreme, Armbrust, Glenfarclas, and PburkaSL93:Hello editors, sorry to bother you, but needed some input on the notability of the article Neurosexism and it's associate body of researchers the The NeuroGenderings Network which this now seems to redirect to. We noted your participation in the deletion discussion of Neurosexism, and were wondering if you might have some input on the encyclopedic merits of informal bodies associated with it. Thank you for your timeEthanpet113 (talk) 12:17, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is for The NeuroGenderings Network not the redirect page Neurosexism. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:52, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Serious breach of WP:CANVASSING ~~I have therefore put in a request to administrators to close this AfD.~~ --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2018 (UTC) Struck through my own comment. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 11:51, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The editor who was not pinged correctly in the list above was the one who suggested an alternative to deletion — making Neurosexism into a redirect to Cordelia Fine. XOR'easter (talk) 15:47, 28 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

...and it dates back to January 2010 when there was no article for Fine. Fine's blp was created in September 2010, the redirect of Neurosexism was created as a link to an article about Fine's book, Delusions of Gender in February 2017 diff.

Fascinating as all of that may be, the statement to the editors who were pinged requests, some input on the notability of the article Neurosexism. Why? There is no article for Neurosexism. Ethanpet113 knows this - he has posted a link to the successful deletion discussion. What he is arguing now is an AfD for the redirect page https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Neurosexism&redirect=no In which case that is where the AfD should have been taken out. Finally the description of The NeuroGenderings Network as an informal body - when it has held 4 international conferences and has professors and leading neuroscientists at its core - is quite quite ridiculous. This AfD is a simple case of WP:IJUSTDONTLIKEIT, the OP has declared his intention to get rid of anything he doesn't like here: WP:Village pump (idea lab)#Degradation of Sociology Related Pages - Recommend Mass Protection Upgrades. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 12:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Well I was hoping it would be self evident that there is very little material on this subject matter available and therefore its lack of notability should be obvious, but you’ve started to call me name so be it. I’ll start evaluation every citation in and outside the article, using the criteria for inclusion. This section may change over time as I complete my evaluaiton.

Evaluation of sources by Ethanpet113
collapsed by The Vintage Feminist

Criteria for inclusion[edit]

”Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.

”Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity to allow verifiable evaluation of notability, per the reliable source guideline. Sources may encompass published works in all forms and media, and in any language. ‘’’Availability of secondary sources covering the subject is a good test for notability.’’’ "Sources"[2] should be ‘’’secondary sources’’, as those provide the most objective evidence of notability. Multiple publications from the same author or organization are usually regarded as a single source for the purposes of establishing notability.

”Independent of the subject" excludes works produced by the article's subject or someone affiliated with it. For example, advertising, press releases, autobiographies, and the subject's website are not considered independent

Example of a Notable Group[edit]

A notable group should be able to answer some or all of the questions: What specifically do they do? What products/intellectual property do they produce? How has/is what they have done/are doing benefit humanity? How does what they do merit them being recorded in the record of human history?

For example the RSA Security is a small specialized group of math academics and computer scientists, which is analogous to this group. However unlike this group we can answer the questions above. They invented the RSA Cryptosystem, which underpins secure digital transactions every minute of every day the world over. Though the article about this special interest group could use some work it is still unambiguously notable. So although they are special interest group, who introduced a concept now broadly adopted and implemented by others, they are also a notable group, because they invented something so useful it is used by practically everyone all the time whether they know it or none.

Conversely this article for this Afd refers to a group which researches things which indeed may have some value but for which the value or notability is not presently established herein.Ethanpet113 (talk) 06:19, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Evaluation of Sources Cited in article[edit]

For the purposes of this evaluation the citations in the section History will mostly be considered, as the section debates is inadequate to establish notability viz.:

Sex differences…:”Non network members […] Cordelia fine <primary Source>”
Gender differences: Non network member[…] Network member <primary Source>”
Female brain/ male brain “Tracy Shores[ non network member… by comparison network member <primary source>”

Evaluation citations 1-27: Legend

Ok: this citation looks legitimate but I have yet to evaluate its contents to see whether it actually establishes the network’s notability
Maybe: This source looks like it could be primary and is pending investigation.
Primary: This citation is a by someone affiliated with the topic and is therefore invalid for establishing notability under WP:GNG.

#	Source	Validity
1.	1.Briet Lisa https://derstandard.at/2000031791790/Genderforschung-Das-Soziale-an-der-Biologie	Interview with Schmitz, (1)trivial mentioned of netowrk establishes extance, but not why notable
2.	Krichmayr, Karin Geschlechterunterschiede: Das Spiel der Hormone im Hirn".	Same publisher as above, also interviewing Schmitz (1)trivial mention of network
3.	Schmitz, Sigrid; Höppner, Grit	Primary
4.	Dussauge, Isabelle; Anelis, Anelis	Primary
5.	Roy, Deboleena https://doi.org/10.1086/684266	Primary
6.	Callard, F.; Fitzgerald, D https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK333549/	trivial mention
7.	Fine, Cordelia,Delusions of gender: how our minds, society, and neurosexism create difference. New York: W.W. Norton.	Primary
8.	Bluhm, Robyn Neurofeminism: issues at the intersection of feminist theory and cognitive science. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. ISBN 9780230296732.	Primary
9.	Dussage repeated	Primary
10.	Vidal, Catherine (December 2012). "The sexed brain: between science and ideology". Neuroethics, special issue: Neuroscience and Sex/Gender. Springer. 5 (3): 295&ndash, 303. doi:10.1007/s12152-011-9121-9.	Primary
11.	Kraus, Cynthia (2016), "What is the feminist critique of neuroscience? A call for dissensus studies (notes to page 100)", in de Vos, Jan; Pluth, Ed, eds. (2016). Neuroscience and critique: exploring the limits of the neurological turn. London New York: Routledge. p. 113. ISBN 9781138887350.	Primary
12.	MacLellan, Lila (27 August 2017). "The biggest myth about our brains is that they are "male" or "female"". Quartz. Retrieved 26 October 2018	Establishes that this conference happened twice, and that some of the members may be of note, but not that the conference in and of itself is of note.
13.	Engh Førde, Kristin (30 April 2010). "Tverrfaglig forståelse". Forskning.no (in Norwegian). Retrieved 26 October 2018.	(1)Trival plug by primary.
14.	NeuroGenderings: Critical Studies of the Sexed Brain". genna.gender.uu.se. Uppsala University, Sweden. Retrieved 23 August 2017	Essentially a newsletter by the hosting University noting that the conference will take place.
15.	The body/Embodiment group". genna.gender.uu.se. Uppsala University, Sweden. Retrieved 23 August 2017.	No mention of the "network" not relevant to establishing notability.
16.	Dussauge, Isabelle...	Primary
17.	Wills, Ben (2017-03-14). "What is Feminist Neuroethics About?". The Neuroethics Blog. Emory University	Blog, violates WP:UGC + (1)Trivial mention
18.	Chaperon, Sylvie (15 May 2018). "Neuroféminisme contre neurosexisme". Libération (in French). Retrieved 26 October 2018.	Existence but not notability similar to citation (1).
19.	"Welcome to NeuroCultures - NeuroGenderings II". univie.ac.at. University of Vienna. Retrieved 23 August 2017.	Simple archive page mentioning that the conference hapened in Vienna
20.	Gupta, Kristina (2 October 2012). "A Dispatch from the NeuroGenderings II Conference". The Neuroethics Blog. Emory University. Retrieved 26 October 2018.	Primary and WP:UGC
21.	Conrads, Judith. "NeuroCultures – NeuroGenderings II. Konferenz vom 13. bis 15. September 2012 an der Universität Wien". Gender: Zeitschrift für Geschlect, Kultur und Gesellschaft. 5 (1): 138–143.	Maybe
22.	Dachs, Augusta (2012-09-12). "Lesen aus der Gehirnstruktur". Der Standard (in German). Retrieved 2018-10-27.	(1)Trivial, primarily talks about the ideas of Schmitz
23.	A term expressing the idea that disagreement and social conflict are necessary parts of the discovery process: Fitzgerald, Des (2016-08-01). "Book review: Neuroscience and Critique: Exploring the Limits of the Neurological Turn". History of the Human Sciences.	Mentions a Chapter of the book reviewed as having being written by Cynthia Kraus. (1)Trival coverage
24.	""NeuroGenderings III – The 1st international Dissensus Conference on brain and gender," Lausanne, 8-10 May 2014". genrepsy.hypotheses.org. Genre et psychiatrie. Retrieved 23 August2017.	This is a program for the conference WP:Promotional
25.	Pulver, Jonas (5 May 2014). "Le sexe du cerveau ne fait pas consensus". Le Temps (in French). Retrieved 26 October 2018.	Establishes both that the conference occured and some of its contents.
26.	"NeuroGenderings III Conference Recap" (PDF). International Neuroethics Society Newsletter. International Neuroethics Society. September 2014. Retrieved 2018-10-27.	Primary
27.	"2016 Seed Grants". Center for Science and Society. Columbia University. Retrieved 26 October 2018.	I can't actually establish why this was cited at all, maybe the page used to say something of not.

Evaluation of Sources using wikipedia tool-lab[edit]

Sites/News[edit]

Only result https://neurogenderings.wordpress.com/. Which violates WP:UGC, WP:SELFSOURCE, self published user generated content does not meet Wikipedia’s standard of verifiability.

Books (All 3 are not independent or particularly in depth))[edit]

The Brain's Body: Neuroscience and Corporeal Politics

By Victoria Pitts-Taylor (1 citation) Acknowledgement only(Primary): The Neurogenderings Network whos conference I attended in Vienna

Sex, cash and neuromodels of desire

By Isabelle Dussauge Acknowledgement Only(Primary,COI):“[…]my colleagues from the neuroGenderings network”

Molecular Feminisms: Biology, Becomings, and Life in the Lab

By Deboleena Roy Acknowledgement Only(Primary,COI):“To my friends in the Neurogenderings network”

Scholar(Articles)[edit]

Neurofeminism and feminist neurosciences: a critical review of contemporary brain research

By Sigrid Schmitz and Grit Höppner <Schmitz is netowrk member <primary source> Statement about origin:”In March 2010, the Center for Gender Research at Uppsala University, and Isabelle Dussauge and Anelis Kaiser in particular, launched the first international and transdisciplinary NeuroGenderings conference”

GJSS Graduate Journal of Social Science Vol 14, Issue 2

(Trivial Mention, points to user generated content) NeuroGenderings Network (n.d.). The NeuroGenderings Network. https://neurogenderings.wordpress.com/. As only citation which violates WP:UGC, WP:SELFSOURCE

Other[edit]

Newspaper 0 results
FENS 0 results
HighBeam 0 results
JSTOR 0 results
TWL 0 results
NYT 0 results

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ethanpet113 (talk • contribs)

Conclusion[edit]

So on the grounds of notability of organizations, citing WP:INHERITORG WP:ORGCRITE,WP:ORGDEPTH

An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it. A corporation is not notable merely because it owns notable subsidiaries. The organization or corporation itself must have been discussed in reliable independent sources for it to be considered notable. Examples: If a notable person buys a restaurant, the restaurant does not "inherit" notability from its owner. If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member.

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.

When evaluating the notability of organizations or products, please consider whether they have had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education.

The primary criteria have five components that must be evaluated separately and independently to determine if it is met significant coverage in:

multiple
independent
reliable
secondary sources.

Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability.

I concede that this organization, does exists, but has not been covered in any significant depth or had any demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education, hence to reiterate, I propose Wikipedia:Userfication Ethanpet113 (talk) 11:25, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage in Le Temps, Libération, Der Standard and Forskning.no is more than enough to establish notability. I would also count the two sources from the Neuroethics Blog, since that is the official site of an academic group — it is hosted under the auspices of a university and appears to operate with editorial oversight. Unlike many scientific organizations, even many respectable ones, this group clears the GNG with room to spare. As I said at the beginning, I originally expected there to be much less material available. My first inclination would have been to recommend a merge per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE, perhaps to one of the articles on the founding members, which is still a viable (but now unnecessary) course of action. XOR'easter (talk) 13:03, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, I should note that it's not unusual for coverage about scientific societies and suchlike groups to get swamped by sources by them. This is the natural consequence of scientists proving their productivity by writing papers. For example, finding sources about the history of the Society for Industrial and Applied Mathematics was a bit of a nightmare, because it required sifting through the vast amount of literature published by SIAM. This group is smaller and newer, but one should expect the same dynamic to be at work. XOR'easter (talk) 14:28, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

but you’ve started to call me name so be it - where have you been called names? Anyway the sources that you are labelling "primary" in your table do not come from neurogenderings.wordpress.com (the only primary source in the article). You have mentioned WP:UGC, WP:SELFSOURCE as "violations" as it does not meet Wikipedia’s standard of verifiability. Actually, WP:SELFSOURCE (which is an exception to WP:UGC) states, Self-published or questionable sources may be used as sources of information about themselves, especially in articles about themselves, without the requirement that they be published experts in the field. - The source has been used to provide the current list of members, so no "violation" there. I've made a few tweaks to your table to make it more readable. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 17:37, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In fairness, journal articles by members of the network are "primary" sources, albeit vetted by a review process — but we don't rely on those to establish notability, only to indicate what the network members themselves have said. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

OP has defined primary as This citation is a by someone affiliated with the topic and is therefore invalid for establishing notability under WP:GNG. WP:PRIMARY sources are defined as original materials that are close to an event, and are often accounts written by people who are directly involved. They offer an insider's view of an event, a period of history, a work of art, a political decision, and so on. The topic is the network rather than neurofeminism / neurosexism in and of itself. The notable academic voices which contradict network members also matter. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 20:59, 31 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Clarification, re:excluded citations. The citations in question according to the the article body are notes made by network members after the fact. So (1)I don't disagree that the opposite opinion could help establish notability.(2)As presented in the article body I do not currently see the commentary as being reciprocal. Citing responses of the critiqued scientists may help.(3)If there is a response, that is adequate to establish notability of the network member, but unless the respondent specifically mentions the "network", then notability isn't transitive viz. WP:INHERITORG Ethanpet113 (talk) 12:05, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The citations to the Neuroethics Blog are miscategorized in the table above. See WP:BLOGS and WP:NEWSBLOG; WP:UGC is irrelevant. Nor is the Wills (2017) reference merely a "trivial" mention; he spends a substantial chunk of it discussing an activity of the NeuroGenderings Network, to wit, the journal special issue devoted to their conference proceedings. Plenty of academic conference proceedings get less attention than that. In addition, the table above criticizes Caselles (2018) for being a "trivial mention" (it isn't), and because it "points to user generated content", which is apparently code for "cites the organization's website". It cites primary sources and discusses their content, making it a secondary source. That reference is not yet in the article, but it should be, because it would benefit the article's coverage of its subject. As for why the "2016 seed grants" page was cited — you state that you "can't actually establish why this was cited at all, maybe the page used to say something of not [sic]" — by clicking the collapsed section headings, one can reveal that it establishes the 2016 meeting was hosted at Barnard College and provides commentary on how the group wishes to improve itself. In summary, the tabulation above, though lengthy, is of no use in evaluating the sourcing of this article. XOR'easter (talk) 14:14, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand why "the conference" and "a conference" keeps being used to describe four seperate international conferences - Sweden (2010); Vienna (2012); Switzerland (2014); and the US (2016) - can that be corrected please? We also now have yet another reason for deletion being cited: WP:INHERITORG. --The Vintage Feminist (talk) 15:10, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Also, reference 24 is called "promotional". A conference program is not an advertisement in the sense of that guideline. In principle, linking to the website of an upcoming conference could be promotional — a way of drumming up business, bringing in more registration fees — but that link is to the program of the 2014 conference, an event well past. There's no product to buy. All that link does is provide some extra information about an organization already demonstrated notable by secondary sources. It seems that WP:SPAM joins WP:INHERITORG, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, WP:NOTJOURNAL and WP:SOAP among the guidelines thrown against the wall here in the hope that one of them will stick. XOR'easter (talk) 18:48, 1 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs opinions by more people.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:53, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GNG. Covered in multiple reliable sources, including books. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 09:30, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think the detailed discussion above clearly points towards notability. /Julle (talk) 22:54, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

John K. Edmunds[edit]

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

This subject continues to not meet WP:BASIC. Source searches are providing no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources, only name checks and minor mentions. The Deseret News Church Almanac source in the article presumably provides some coverage, but multiple sources providing significant coverage is required to qualify notability, not only one.

Almost none of the !votes for article retention in the previous AfD discussion provided any sources, except for one lone source (here) which provides minimal, non-significant coverage (in my opinion), instead relying mostly upon personal opinion regarding the subject's notability, such as the subject's activities and position in a religious group. However, there is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note that his book Through Temple Doors is quite widely cited [27].E.M.Gregory (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:01, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This was kept at a nomination after North America began his anti-articles on members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints crusade on July 22nd, 2018. This is far to soon to bring this up for renomination.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:35, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sorry, but regarding the !vote above:

The previous AfD discussion was closed as no consensus, not as keep.
It does not provide a valid rationale for the article to be retained.
Renominating an article around three months after a first nomination, and when the previous AfD was closed as no consensus, is certainly not too soon.
Arguments for article retention in the previous AfD discussion were based upon personal opinion, rather than actual Wikipedia guidelines and policies.
There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:13, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ASCAAD[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Computer aided design society, created in the 21st century, that shows no evidence of meeting WP:NONPROFIT notability criteria. Though it was kept at a previos Afd, it was 9 years ago and notability criteria has been improved greatly since then. Simply by existing it does not deserve a substantial (or any) Wikipedia article. I can't find any significant independent coverage about the society online. Sionk (talk) 12:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:53, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:54, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SkyGazer 512 ^{Oh no, what did I do this time?} 13:18, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Basically a bloated About page; fails WP:NORG and WP:ORGDEPTH. Sam Sailor 20:30, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a society for a niche area of computer aided design. Not notable. Szzuk (talk) 15:35, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beth Burgess[edit]

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

Promotional article (cleaned up some of it) for a non-notable author. Self-written articles, trivial book listings and 1 low-quality PR interview (ref#2, with exactly zero independent journalistic content) do not establish notability. The vast majority of sources are from the author, not about the author as required by WP:GNG. A Google-search did not reveal any promising in-depth sources, just a few more listings, her own publications, and a few passing mentions in articles (incl. some possible false positives). GermanJoe (talk) 13:31, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GermanJoe (talk) 14:04, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 12:43, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can find only two mentions of her in news sources (1 tabloid, 1 not, but then only one of several people giving opinions on the benefit of having an alcohol-free month). The citations of the book to which she contributed two chapters (1) are mainly in other works by the editors, and (2) do not refer to her chapters. Does not meet WP:GNG RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:06, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Article lacks reliable sources. A Google search turned up mostly fluff. Clearly fails WP:GNG and WP:AUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 18:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appers to be WP:PROMO for a non-noatble addiction recovery therapist, who writes about the topic.E.M.Gregory (talk) 14:11, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:16, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Real Estate Hegemony[edit]

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

The article was so much original research. Wikidata synced the article with the zh-wiki article about the book Land and the Ruling Class in Hong Kong, while i can't find the term "Real Estate Hegemony" really came from. Is that a self translation by a wikipedia user?

Since the article old content history was much hidden due to copyvio, the article was violated copyvio already. To not violate self-publishing / original research, the article need blow over and summarized the book and other news article on expressing on the situation, but not a collection of news article and self interpretation as relating to the situation.

Also, despite Alice Poon's book is notable in Hong Kong. I don't think it is appropriate to use her personal blog and her own transcript of her speech to HKU, as a proper citation. Matthew_hk t c 13:30, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 13:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Matthew_hk t c 13:33, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As a note, secondary source do reporting tycoon in Hong Kong, but little use to rescue the current OR content.^[1] Matthew_hk t c 14:02, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And here is a rough draft for a proper mapping of the zh-wiki article Draft:Land and the Ruling Class in Hong Kong. Matthew_hk t c 14:41, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Another note: the term " real estate hegemony" apparently appeared in SF Weekly of San Francisco in 1995. Matthew_hk t c 17:44, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third note: an article by a professor of Hong Kong was dig out, however, it seem still not able to backup the current content.^[2] Also, since 地產 can be translated to property, the term coined by the Chinese title of the book, can also be translated as Property Hegemony^[3] or Oligopoly of [Hong Kong] real estate [companies/market]. The current search term did came out some external result, but not able to backup the current original research content as citation. Matthew_hk t c 20:35, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Bland, Ben (10 May 2018). Written at Hong Kong. "Hong Kong's tycoons: handing over power in troubled times". Financial Times. London. Retrieved 19 October 2018. Like the other tycoons who dominate Hong Kong, Mr Li made much of his money through property development, recycling the profits into a wide range of businesses ranging from ports to retail, telecommunications to energy......Family businesses dominate economies across Asia but no place is as synonymous with its tycoons— nor its tycoons as synonymous with it — as Hong Kong. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)
^ Wong, Stan Hok-Wui (2018). "The real estate elite and real estate hegemony". Written at Hong Kong. In Lui, Tai-lok; Chiu, Stephen W.K.; Yep, Ray (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Hong Kong (ebook). London: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group). ISBN 978-1-317337379.
^ "Hegemony - a word lost in translation". South China Morning Post. Hong Kong. 13 January 2012. Retrieved 19 October 2018. "Hegemony" has been on everyone's lips since people turned against the property tycoons. Now, it seems anything that draws flak from some segments of the public can be denounced as such. Beyond "property hegemony", consider such examples as "supermarket hegemony" and "luxury hegemony".

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:02, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. A few sources have been cited, but the impression I am getting from comments is that these don't go beyond routine, which is no real surprise given that this is a very low level amateur team that has only ever competed in regional competitions. Fenix down (talk) 08:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Huaithapthan Weset United F.C.[edit]

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

Fails WP:FOOTYN#Club notability ~~- never been in a WP:FPL~~. Contested PROD. Cabayi (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks SportingFlyer for catching my mistake...

Fails WP:FOOTYN#Club notability - playing in a regional league. Cabayi (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Cabayi (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment fully professional leagues are for players, not teams. I don't think this one passes WP:GNG, though, but will reserve my judgment for now in case someone who can understand Thai sources a little bit better than I can judge the quality of the references. SportingFlyer talk 13:05, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

In previous encounters the author seems fully aware of what is required, and has caught another of my mistakes (time to take a break for the day). I assume the inclusion of Premwut Wongdee, a junior international, is the best shot at any claim of notability. Cabayi (talk) 13:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:12, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This club has news in http://www.supersubthailand.com/. It Public national football news in in thailand. Aquaelfin 13:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:44, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment maybe @Paul 012: you could help us with the sources here? cheers. --Dom from Paris (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Most of the coverage on the club is from khaochad.com,[28][29][30][31] which appears to be a general news website (first time I've heard of it). Don't know how reliable it is, but the pieces seem like sponsored reporting to me. The coverage by supersubthailand.com[32] (as well as teeneeballthai.com[33] and thsport.com[34]) are all focused on Premwut. --Paul_012 (talk) 23:45, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Queen (Nicki Minaj album). czar 18:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thought I Knew You (song)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSONGS: "Coverage of a song in the context of an album review does not establish notability." The same lines about writers/98-peak is repeated. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 12:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:14, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect to Queen (Nicki Minaj album) as it is the parent album. I understand a preference for deletion though to avoid the article being recreated in the future. Aoba47 (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as a categorized {{R from song}} to album article Queen (Nicki Minaj album) for now per WP:MUSICOUTCOMES. Can be rewritten if and when the notability guideline for songs is met. Sam Sailor 16:27, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 18:18, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Trishna Mukherjee[edit]

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

Non notable actress, The article is pretty much relying on this one source (which is more or less a LinkedIn page), Google brings up a few mentions but nothing substantial, Also to note the article states she's been in 1 film and 6 TV shows however her IMDB only mentions 3,
Anyway cannot find any evidence of notability, Fails NACTOR & GNG. –Davey2010^Talk 19:22, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:30, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 12:00, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It seems that she may have won an award for best actress in a local, minor competition (the 48 Hour Film Project in Mumbai), but the only information about that is on the competition website - and while the Times of India entertainment times has an entry for her, it has 0 news items listed. There may be more in Hindi and Bengali language sources, but she does not seem to have made an impression in English language media in India. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:19, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete-Concur with above.Nothing in Bengali sources and FWIW, nor do I expect any.∯WBG^converse 20:10, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG, that is pretty clear. Nothing in the article nor in BEFORE search is a significant coverage for her. WP:NACTOR wise, apart from a villain episodic role in one show, she seems to have a single prominent role in Code Red (and even that is debatable, but let's count it), so it fails that criteria too. Not notable. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 23:43, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. (non-admin closure) Sheldybett (talk) 22:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Isaac Du Toit[edit]

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

Does not meet the WP:GNG, plus it is probably promotional. Sheldybett (talk) 11:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, no independent sources, all indepth sources are from organisations he worked with. Fram (talk) 13:05, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KwikBoost[edit]

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

Recreation of an article deleted under G11 in August (log), so I am taking it here for broader input. The recreation looks very much like a copy-paste job. Running through the references they are rehashes of corporate-produced announcements, blogs, interviews and local news. I do not see this passing WP:NCORP and WP:CORPDEPTH. Sam Sailor 22:11, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Sam Sailor 22:13, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is skimpy on good, neutral sourcing, and the article reads more like a short summary than an article.TH1980 (talk) 04:40, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails ncorp, refs are present but don't satisfy wp:n. Szzuk (talk) 13:19, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Tyler Gilbert[edit]

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

Advertorialized WP:BLP of a musician, whose claims of notability under WP:NMUSIC are not reliably sourced. The playlisting claims are to the local CBC radio station in his own hometown, where NMUSIC #11 requires playlisting by the entire national radio network and not just one local affiliate of it; NMUSIC #4 does not confer an instant notability freebie on everybody whose article says they toured, but requires reliable source coverage in media (i.e. concert reviews, etc.) about the tour; the only award listed here is the local Mayor's Arts Awards, not a major national award on the Juno-Polaris level for the purposes of NMUSIC #8. And half the references here are to primary sources, not notability-supporting ones, but even the other half that are actually to media outlets aren't building a strong case for NMUSIC #1 either -- four are local coverage in his own hometown rather than nationalizing coverage for the purposes of establishing nationalized notability, and even three of those are unsubstantive namechecks of his existence rather than articles about him, while the three that are more than local are a Q&A interview in which he's talking about himself rather than being written about in the third person, a 74-word blurb and a dead link in a publication which is not archived by any news retrieval databases (and is thus unrecoverable for the purposes of verifying how much it did or didn't actually say about him). None of the referencing cuts it at all in terms of establishing his notability, and nothing claimed in the article body is "inherently" notable enough to exempt his referencing from having to cut it. Bearcat (talk) 17:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:45, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:58, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, i opened all of the refs, around half are 404, the rest trivial, track listings and non independent. Google showing nothing better, nobody watching on youtube. Szzuk (talk) 13:25, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No-one has rebutted the deletion rationale. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spencer V. Jones[edit]

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

Non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. The Deseret Morning News 2008 Church Almanac source in the article presumably provides some coverage, but multiple, independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage are required, not just one. Several WP:BEFORE source searches are only providing name checks such as this (in the article) and this, and almost nothing else. The remaining sources in the article are primary or unreliable, which are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:05, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:06, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. NN. Szzuk (talk) 18:06, 21 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - High level LDS church functionary. High enough? Not sure. Sourcing is very, very borderline. Carrite (talk) 12:29, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:21, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the arguments above. If North America truly disagreed with the bishop's view, he would take on the only sourced to a bare-bones date listing blog articles on bishops, instead of sourced to full bio articles written by third parties articles as we have on these general authorities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Regarding the above !vote:

It does not provide a valid rationale for article retention.
Its thesis is utterly unclear; this article and deletion nomination is about Spencer V. Jones, not some other subject.
Primary sources are just not usable to establish notability.
There is no presumed notability for religious subjects on English Wikipedia.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Michig (talk) 09:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Maakhir. Black Kite (talk) 00:18, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Boharo[edit]

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

This supposed subdivision of a short-lived Somali sub-state isn't mentioned in the parent's article, by either name supplied, and is completely unreferenced. Even beyond the verification problem, I don't see notability happening here. Mangoe (talk) 16:37, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:59, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with article on Maakhir - this is only a brief article, thus a merge should not be too difficult. Vorbee (talk) 15:52, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Maakhir. Sources seem hard to find, so a merge is a good solution here. Sam Sailor 18:26, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I've undone my "merge" closure because, in my view, it would be irresponsible to merge unsourced content (WP:V).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:11, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: A reference to a source has now been added. Sam Sailor 21:32, 8 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinoo Mankad Trophy[edit]

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

Under-19 domestic cricket tournament, which fails the inclusion of WP:CRIN. Under-19 domestic tournaments have been determined to be non-notable below international level. These matches do not hold List A status as the editor claims. I have a sneaking suspicion the editor is trying to pass this tournament off as the Vijay Hazare Trophy, which meets WP:CRIN. StickyWicket (talk) 10:09, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. DBig Xrayᗙ 10:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG and WP:NSPORT as far as WP:CRIN is concerned, it is already discussed and we have a consensus on WikiProject Cricket#Extend WP:CRIN to include competitions that pass GNG and NSPORT. This book^[1] lists out 6 of the important cricket trophies in India and mentions it as national championship for Under 19 age players. (more to be added) --DBig Xrayᗙ 10:27, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment would that consensus be in your head by any chance? I see no such consensus. Perhaps you are the senate? StickyWicket (talk) 12:32, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in continuation of the above, This cricket tournament is the highest U19 Domestic level trophy played among the states and organized by the Board of Control for Cricket in India and every match is covered by main stream Indian media and newspapers throughout the country.^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12]^[13]^[14]^[15]--DBig Xrayᗙ 14:55, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I don't think the discussion referred to above has reached a consensus. I also deleted a load of refs from the article as it seemed to be a WP:REFBOMB. I was going to add them in here to allow others to judge if they prove notability , but I see DBigXray has added them already (whilst there are lots of them, many seem to be WP:ROUTINE) Spike 'em (talk) 15:53, 11 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Spike, none of these sources from Mainstream media in India are tabloid or promotional coverage, so your doubts of WP:ROUTINE does not apply to these sources. --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:36, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Mehrishi, Mr Rajiv (15 October 2017). "INDIA 2017 YEARBOOK". McGraw-Hill Education – via Google Books.
^ "Surat to host 36 matches of Vinoo Mankad Trophy from today - Times of India".
^ https://greaterkashmir.com/news/sports/vinoo-mankad-trophy-j-k-under-19-suffer-2nd-consecutive-defeat/299087.html
^ "Vinoo Mankad Trophy begins today". 9 October 2015 – via www.thehindu.com.
^ "Vinoo-mankad-trophy Latest news in hindi, Vinoo-mankad-trophy से जुड़ी खबरें, Breaking News, page1". www.livehindustan.com.
^ "Karnataka emerge Vinoo Mankad champs". 15 October 2017.
^ "BCCI announces Associate & Affiliate squad for Vinoo Mankad Trophy".
^ "Vinoo Mankad trophy: Karnataka grab five points". 20 October 2012.
^ "All India under-19 Vinoo Mankad Trophy: Talent-rich UP extend legacy in junior cricket". India Today.
^ "वीनू मांकड ट्रॉफी: उत्तराखंड के आर्यन शर्मा को उत्तर प्रदेश अंडर-19 टीम की कमान- Amarujala".
^ "Delhi U-19 captain Manjot Kalra's age under scrutiny before Vinoo Mankad Trophy". 30 September 2017.
^ "Vinoo Mankad trophy: Hyderabad dish out decent performance". 9 October 2017.
^ NDTVSports.com. "Arjun Tendulkar Takes Five-Wicket Haul As Mumbai Beat Gujarat In Vinoo Mankad Trophy – NDTV Sports".
^ NDTVSports.com. "Don't Want to be Carried Away, Says Aditya Garhwal – NDTV Sports".
^ "Vinoo Mankad: Latest News, Photos, Videos on Vinoo Mankad - NDTV.COM". NDTV.com.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:05, 18 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:58, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:CRIN. I would prefer keeping only if there is wider consensus to create articles on such subjects. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:34, 30 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of sources have been presented herein, but thus far, little analysis of them has occurred. Hence the third relisting.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:12, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Naming a trophy after a notable cricketer in itself does not make the tournament notable. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:23, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Almost every cricket tournament is named after another famous cricketer, but that is not the point being made here. Article are kept on the notability of their subject (the tournament here) none of the sources I shared above, talk about the "notable cricketer" but instead talk about this tournament. --DBig Xrayᗙ 11:46, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DBigXray. We don't need to throw GNG level coverage, (accumulated over years), to the trash to accomodate with a shitty guideline that was thought by a few project-regulars and is implemented with a thorough disregard to common-sense, in a bot-like fashion.I find it ridiculous that the same folks over here who are proposing to delete this were !voting en-masse to keep an article with practically non-existent sourcing, just because it suited their whims aka pet guideline.∯WBG^converse 09:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

And, what happened to alternatives to deletion? At the very minimum, this can be easily merged somewhere, even if treating NCRIC as a commandment.∯WBG^converse 09:41, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment In continuation of my keep vote above, adding some more sources (from past 2 weeks, since the AfD) from the Mainstream media in India which are giving a consistent and regular coverage of this tournament.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]^[12] --DBig Xrayᗙ 12:28, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Vinoo Mankad Trophy: Comeback-man Mahale, Chavan take Vidarb". The Times of India. 31 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "Vinoo Mankad Trophy U-19: Paul knock helps Tamil Nadu post four-wicket win". The New Indian Express. 6 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "Vinoo Mankad Trophy: Yazh Arun Mozhi helps Tamil Nadu beat Rajasthan". The New Indian Express. 12 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "विनू माकंड़ अंडर 19 ट्रोफी: अर्जुन तेंडुलकर का धमाल जारी, अब 14 रन देकर झटके 3 विकेट (Arjun Tendulkar Takes 3 Wickets As Mumbai Beat Assam In Vinoo Mankad Trophy)". Navbharat Times. 17 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "SZ Vinoo Mankad Trophy from Oct. 20". The Hindu. 18 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "वीनू मांकड़ ट्रॉफी: अर्जुन तेंदुलकर की शानदार गेंदबाजी, टीम को दिलाई एकतरफा जीत". Hindustan Dainik. 17 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "Leggie Kishan bowls Tamil Nadu to semifinals". The New Indian Express. 31 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "वीनू मांकड ट्रॉफी: आर्य-अवनीश के शतक से उत्तराखंड की शानदार जीत, अरुणाचल प्रदेश को दी करारी शिकस्त". Amar Ujala. 25 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "In Vinoo Mankad trophy, batsman Mankaded for 48". The TImes of India. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "Vinoo Mankad U-19 Trophy: Nagaland trash Pondicherry by 113 runs". Eastern Mirror. 14 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "Who will fill in the blanks?". Ahmedabad Mirror. 1 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.
^ "Vinoo Mankad Trophy: TN to meet Rajasthan in semis". Retrieved 4 November 2018.

Very weak keep - essentially I'm undecided here so I'd rather see the article kept for now and the wider scope of articles such as these discussed first.

There is, without doubt, plenty of coverage of the tournament, but all of the referencers we've been given seem to fulfil the definition of WP:ROUTINE - i.e. passing mentions of the tournament in the context of match reports rather than in depth articles about the tournament itself. I suspect the same is true of at least some of the first-class or List A tournaments that we have articles on - we don't have much in the way of in depth references about the Logan Cup or the Ford Trophy (cricket) for example. And we do have articles on subjects such as the Second Eleven Championship, the Minor Counties Championship and the Women's County Championship.

I'm not sure that WP:CRIN, WP:ATHLETE or WP:ORG really deal with sports leagues at all for what it's worth. Per the GNG I'd prefer that sources were more in depth and dealt specifically with the competition, but if we do that then I think we can't draw a distinction between under-19 competitions, second XI competitions or even first XI competitions where there is little or no detailed coverage. Which is why I tend to think that either WP:CRIN needs to be written in such a way as to include leagues or we need to think about which leagues are actually properly notable and how we go about showing that. Blue Square Thing (talk) 15:41, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

All these mainstream national newspapers would not be covering the tournament if its non notable. There is no "One rule for all country" for Baseball. Several baseball tournaments are notable in USA but a similar tournament in other country may not be notable. The coverage in the reliable national media is a perfectly valid scale to gauge the notability in such circumstances. Some of the Delete votes above based on outdated WP:CRIN are akin to saying "Such tournaments are non notable in England, so we have a Policy CRIN that will be applied to all countries, even if it is clearly notable in India and people + Media care about it."--DBig Xrayᗙ 15:59, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As I say, I am generally undecided here, but no matter what else applies, there is no doubt in my mind that the coverage meets the definition of WP:ROUTINE and I would prefer if there were in depth sources discussing the competition. Those sources may well exist - I tend to think that they're likely to given the context.

Fwiw, my reference to British competitions should be seen as support for this article given that at present we have little more than routine coverage of those competitions cited in the relevant articles. Blue Square Thing (talk) 16:49, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Michig (talk) 09:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vinamra Shastri[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO. He is a jobbing middle management employee. The sources do not show that he is a philanthropist. The sources do not show he passes GNG they are as follows. Passing Mentions: 1, 2, 6, 7. Written by the subject: 3 and 4. Finally 5 is a quote from him about a report his company drew up. No in-depth coverage whatsoever and nothing turned up in a before search. The creator has just also created an article on the company he works for so probably a WP:UPE account or at best WP:COI Dom from Paris (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 13:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He can not inherit notability. So family having political background certainly doesn't count. However, he is debating and writing about politics in credible places so that might be considered for being an influencer in politics if not being a politician. Also noticed he is part of Entrepreneurs' Organization which needs the company's leader to have US$1,000,000 business. Plus some quotes in various articles on management. That maybe can be considered for being someone in the corporate space. Exploreandwrite (talk) 09:50, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If you are claiming that he meets WP:NJOURNALIST then sources have to be added to show he meets the criteria. Just writing in credible places doesn't make you a notable journalist especially as the only 2 articles that are cited are identical opinion pieces but in 2 different langauges. --Dom from Paris (talk) 10:39, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 10:40, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:08, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Merely writing articles (even several op-eds or pieces) in high quality RS don't make you notable.∯WBG^converse 20:15, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:26, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Patricia.com.ng[edit]

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

I'm not seeing significant coverage in independent reliable sources; does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:COMPANY. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:37, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. GSS (talk|c|em) 06:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While topics in Africa do not lend themselves, frequently, to online searching I do not see the kind of indicators to suggest there are better non-online sources available that would demonstration how it meets WP:NCORP Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 20:18, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject does not meet general notability requirements. Meatsgains^(talk) 03:28, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete I think the startup is considerably relevant in Nigeria although it is a startup really, I think it is notable having even been featured on reputable Nigerian websites like Guardian^[1], Punch ^[2], Vanguard ^[3]and even Business Day.^[4] I think Africa coverage is really quite low and many of these startups only get featured on African platforms which is understandable considering how big the global space is afterall. Only a very minute few get coverage on big platforms like the CNN and BBC outside Afric and I saw coverage on Ventures Africa too ^[5]. Well, I think this coverage on TechCabal is also ideal ^[6] Ladispeaks (talk) 10:08, 5 November 2018 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Ladispeaks (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Do Not Delete - I do not think this topic should be deleted though, found the topic subject on Cruchbase^[7] — Preceding unsigned comment added by BashiruBolatito (talk • contribs) 14:48, 5 November 2018 (UTC) Suspected sockpuppet of Ladispeaks - see Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Ladispeaks. GAB^gab 16:13, 6 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

References

Delete. Some of the sources are reliable per WP:NCORP but there’s not enough independent coverage to ascertain that the said subject is Notable. Is Nutin 05:13, 11 November 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Soltesh (talk • contribs)

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. Michig (talk) 09:09, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Gazza (musician)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Too much of this article is written in the first person to not immediately violate WP:NOTPROMOTION - would rather put here for a clear consensus over a speedy delete LikeMeercats (talk) 04:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Specifically - parts of the article written like this: "KIA Motors

The album made him receive a car endorsement by KIA MOTORS, so I was the face of KIA MOTORS for two years." LikeMeercats (talk) 04:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2018 November 3. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:07, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Deletion is not cleanup. Sure, the article is written in a promotional and unencyclopedic tone. But we can fix that! or add a cleanup template like Template:Advert.
Do you have a valid reason to suggest deletion? Absent one, we shouldn't delete it. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep. He is clearly notable in Namibia and South Africa - as well as multiple newspaper articles about his music and advocacy in various areas (eg with the UN information centre about using less water in the severe drought), he even has an entry in the Historical Dictionary of Namibia. He's also performed internationally (eg Australia). The article may need improving, but certainly not deleting. RebeccaGreen (talk) 06:50, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:RebeccaGreen User:BenKuykendall I think your keeps are misguided when he doesn't meet even the most basic aspects of WP:MUSICBIO. The music is self published and he has not been charted. LikeMeercats (talk) 22:01, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Outside of the article, written by the artist, I'm not able to find anything that supports notability. But agree that one could get the impression of notability solely from the promotional article. LikeMeercats (talk) 22:02, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @RebeccaGreen: Could you post some of the sources you have found here, for others to consider? North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:04, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- @LikeMeercats:. Sure, his music has not been charted. But I don't think Namibia has national charts per Wikipedia:Record charts; this shouldn't mean the country's music should be ignored. He has won number of Namibian Annual Music Awards. This might not be "major" enough to qualify for WP:BAND:8, but it's a slight indication of notability. More importantly, under WP:BAND:1, he has received media coverage as referenced in the article. Is there anything wrong with namibian.com or allafrica.com as sources? BenKuykendall (talk) 22:45, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment North America, Here are some sources I easily find for Gazza: 'Namibia: 'Misunderstood' Gazza Explains Himself' [35], 'Gazza challenges ‘all Namibia’s people’ to take a #ShorterShower' [36], 'Namibia: Gazza to Set Commonwealth Stage Alight' [37], 'Gazza sweeps at 2017 NAMAs' [38], 'SUPERSTARS GAZZA AND UHURU CONFIRMED FOR MEGA-HIT LIVE PERFORMANCES AT NAMA2015' [39], 'Gazza slaves for the Industry' [40], 'GMP Supremo Gazza to perform in Australia' [41], 'Gazza expands business' [42], 'Namibia Tourism Board teams up with Gazza' [43], 'Gazza and Monique are Namibias' best Male and female artists for 2017' [44], 'Kalux, Gazza inspire Khorixas learners' [45], ' Gazza ready to launch 12th album' [46], 'Gazza Talks GMP, A New Album and the Birthday Tour' [47], 'Gazza goes Kwaito again' [48] 'Gazza faces attempted murder charge' [49], 'Gazza 'Puts The Record Straight' ' [50], 'Young African Commonwealth at Festival 2018' [51]. Some sources might not be considered reliable, but surely some are (The Namibia Economist, for example). Those articles range from 2007-2018, and there are mentions of awards he has won, which could be followed up. Gazza is also mentioned in some books, often as one of Namibia's most popular artists - Culture and Customs of Namibia [52], Kwaito's Promise: Music and the Aesthetics of Freedom in South Africa [53], Namibia (Other Places Travel Guide) [54], The Changing Faces of Aawambo Musical Arts [55]. And the Historical Dictionary of Namibia [56] RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:07, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Meets WP:BASIC. Some of the sources atop are usable vis-à-vis basic notability, and I found a couple more in my own searches. The article would benefit from a cleanup to read less like a cv, and more like a standard Wikipedia biographical article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:59, 4 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:19, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Hagedorn[edit]

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

Tagged for notability for over four years. Sourcing does not appear to meet WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:25, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 04:26, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (though many search results lead to the controversial Republican politician of the same name). There are a few articles online that concentrate on this garden entrepreneur and pilot, for example in Columbus Business First and Forbes, which strongly suggest he's notable enough. Sionk (talk) 12:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I confused him with the congressional candidate. There's just nothing notable about this Jim Hagedorn and the article is written as if it's a bio from his website.Glo145 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam Sailor 08:53, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:57, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There's nothing unique here to support WP:GNG. LikeMeercats (talk) 04:24, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP-He just got elected to Congress. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.191.137.6 (talk) 23:09, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

ADMIN - Please disregard the above. This is not Jim Hagedorn (politician). – Muboshgu (talk) 23:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject completely fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Nothing in WP:BEFORE search except the Forbes article (Bizjournal link is behind a paywall and reads like a trivia from the headline and he needs more than that to pass WP:GNG) and the sourcing in the article does not satisfy WP:SECONDARY and WP:SIGCOV (paywall links, passing mentions, primary sources are only present). Also the 66.191.137.6 vote is connected to a wrong person. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 21:54, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. The two relists have not resulted in any further input, so it seems pointless relisting again. Michig (talk) 09:02, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Georgian Triangle[edit]

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

Unreferenced article about an unofficial term for a poorly defined geographic region. While it's true that there are a few organizations in the Owen Sound and Collingwood areas that name themselves as "Georgian Triangle", the region has no official status, no clearly defined boundaries and no reliable source coverage about it as a thing. As always, per WP:GEOLAND, every local geographic neologism that exists at all is not automatically appropriate for a standalone article even if it's unsourceable -- we need reliable source coverage about it, not just primary source verification that the term exists, before it warrants an encyclopedia article. Bearcat (talk) 18:17, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 18:18, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:22, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I agree that just because granny in the cottage on the corner calls a path "cowpat lane" doesn't mean Wikipedia should have an article, but this goes well beyond that. A placename does not have to be legally recognised to have an article, and characterising this as a neoligism is a bit inaccurate, I'm seeing references going back to at least the 1980s. The proposer says that there are a few organisations with this name. Well the Georgian Triangle Anglers Association (and quite a few others) might have just picked a clever-sounding name, but Georgian Triangle Development Institute, Georgian Triangle Economic Development Corporation, and Georgian Triangle Tourist Association were clearly set up to promote the commerce of the region. As for the boundaries, we are up against paywalls and offline material here, but I would be astonished if somewhere in the book Mind the Gap: A Skills Gap Analysis Georgian Triangle Region, or one of the papers published by these development organisations does not clearly delineate where they think the boundaries of the triangle are. For instance, this paper lists in its references "A profile of the tourism sector in the Georgian Triangle 1989" and "Georgian Triangle Tourism Study". Several other papers are also referencing publications by the GTEDC so there is clearly a lot of information out there. However, the best I can do from online material is Completing the Picture: An Opportunities Analysis of the Georgian Triangle which lists the municipalities in the Georgian Triangle right on the first page, and Industrial land development policy (for Collingwood) which says "Collingwood is the centre of a larger economic region called the Georgian Triangle,..." and discusses the Triangle throughout the paper. SpinningSpark 10:25, 20 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, from the above this looks like a keep, if editors deem sources from a gsearch and what Worldcat has as primary/promotional, at the very least this should be a redirect (as a wikireader searchterm) to a paragraph at Southern Ontario. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:41, 26 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:44, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints#Emeritus. czar 17:47, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

L. Lionel Kendrick[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE searches and research, this subject does not meet WP:BASIC, and not finding any evidence that WP:NACADEMIC is met. Regarding WP:BASIC, research has provided no significant coverage in multiple, independent, reliable sources to qualify an article. Coverage found in said research is limited to:

Quotations from the subject (which are primary in nature, and do not establish notability)
Name checks and fleeting brief mentions (not WP:SIGCOV)

Also, the article is entirely reliant upon primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:37, 19 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect, another one for List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Coolabahapple (talk) 01:38, 23 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Redirect seems perfectly fine to what Cool had suggested to the List of general authorities of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, it would be a good use. Adog104 ^{Talk to me} 12:31, 27 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Neither of the two redirects has given a reason to justify their !votes and thus insufficient justified consensus is currently present for a close
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 00:33, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Deletion has not been proposed and AfD is not the place to propose merges. SpinningSpark 18:38, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Transfusion dependent anemia[edit]

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

Not an actual type of anaemia. Describes an anaemia where body is unable to compensate for losses of red bloods cells. Should be merged into Anemia#Blood_transfusions Tom (LT) (talk) 00:28, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Addit: To be clear, transfusion dependent anaemia describes anaemia that is transfusion dependent (ie because of ongoing blood loss, iron deficiency, inability to replace cells, ongoing haemolysis etc.). It's not an actual pathological subtype. It's confusing and will waste the time of future editors to have this as a duplicate article. --Tom (LT) (talk) 00:31, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sheldybett (talk) 00:47, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that you may think this article should not exist as an independent article but I acquired this topic from the requested articles on Wikipedia, therefore I definitely think there is interest in the topic and it should not just be a sub category of another article. I am happy to make further improvements to the article wherever people may find it necessary but I do not believe it should be removed all together. Munchkaa (talk) 00:49, 3 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] Bland, Ben (10 May 2018). Written at Hong Kong. "Hong Kong's tycoons: handing over power in troubled times". Financial Times. London. Retrieved 19 October 2018. Like the other tycoons who dominate Hong Kong, Mr Li made much of his money through property development, recycling the profits into a wide range of businesses ranging from ports to retail, telecommunications to energy......Family businesses dominate economies across Asia but no place is as synonymous with its tycoons— nor its tycoons as synonymous with it — as Hong Kong. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |subscription= ignored (|url-access= suggested) (help)

[2] Wong, Stan Hok-Wui (2018). "The real estate elite and real estate hegemony". Written at Hong Kong. In Lui, Tai-lok; Chiu, Stephen W.K.; Yep, Ray (eds.). Routledge Handbook of Contemporary Hong Kong (ebook). London: Routledge (Taylor & Francis Group). ISBN 978-1-317337379.

[3] "Hegemony - a word lost in translation". South China Morning Post. Hong Kong. 13 January 2012. Retrieved 19 October 2018. "Hegemony" has been on everyone's lips since people turned against the property tycoons. Now, it seems anything that draws flak from some segments of the public can be denounced as such. Beyond "property hegemony", consider such examples as "supermarket hegemony" and "luxury hegemony".

[4] Mehrishi, Mr Rajiv (15 October 2017). "INDIA 2017 YEARBOOK". McGraw-Hill Education – via Google Books.

[5] "Surat to host 36 matches of Vinoo Mankad Trophy from today - Times of India".

[6] ttps://greaterkashmir.com/news/sports/vinoo-mankad-trophy-j-k-under-19-suffer-2nd-consecutive-defeat/299087.html

[7] "Vinoo Mankad Trophy begins today". 9 October 2015 – via www.thehindu.com.

[8] "Vinoo-mankad-trophy Latest news in hindi, Vinoo-mankad-trophy से जुड़ी खबरें, Breaking News, page1". www.livehindustan.com.

[9] "Karnataka emerge Vinoo Mankad champs". 15 October 2017.

[10] "BCCI announces Associate & Affiliate squad for Vinoo Mankad Trophy".

[11] "Vinoo Mankad trophy: Karnataka grab five points". 20 October 2012.

[12] "All India under-19 Vinoo Mankad Trophy: Talent-rich UP extend legacy in junior cricket". India Today.

[13] "वीनू मांकड ट्रॉफी: उत्तराखंड के आर्यन शर्मा को उत्तर प्रदेश अंडर-19 टीम की कमान- Amarujala".

[14] "Delhi U-19 captain Manjot Kalra's age under scrutiny before Vinoo Mankad Trophy". 30 September 2017.

[15] "Vinoo Mankad trophy: Hyderabad dish out decent performance". 9 October 2017.

[16] NDTVSports.com. "Arjun Tendulkar Takes Five-Wicket Haul As Mumbai Beat Gujarat In Vinoo Mankad Trophy – NDTV Sports".

[17] NDTVSports.com. "Don't Want to be Carried Away, Says Aditya Garhwal – NDTV Sports".

[18] "Vinoo Mankad: Latest News, Photos, Videos on Vinoo Mankad - NDTV.COM". NDTV.com.

[19] "Vinoo Mankad Trophy: Comeback-man Mahale, Chavan take Vidarb". The Times of India. 31 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[20] "Vinoo Mankad Trophy U-19: Paul knock helps Tamil Nadu post four-wicket win". The New Indian Express. 6 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[21] "Vinoo Mankad Trophy: Yazh Arun Mozhi helps Tamil Nadu beat Rajasthan". The New Indian Express. 12 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[22] "विनू माकंड़ अंडर 19 ट्रोफी: अर्जुन तेंडुलकर का धमाल जारी, अब 14 रन देकर झटके 3 विकेट (Arjun Tendulkar Takes 3 Wickets As Mumbai Beat Assam In Vinoo Mankad Trophy)". Navbharat Times. 17 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[23] "SZ Vinoo Mankad Trophy from Oct. 20". The Hindu. 18 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[24] "वीनू मांकड़ ट्रॉफी: अर्जुन तेंदुलकर की शानदार गेंदबाजी, टीम को दिलाई एकतरफा जीत". Hindustan Dainik. 17 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[25] "Leggie Kishan bowls Tamil Nadu to semifinals". The New Indian Express. 31 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[26] "वीनू मांकड ट्रॉफी: आर्य-अवनीश के शतक से उत्तराखंड की शानदार जीत, अरुणाचल प्रदेश को दी करारी शिकस्त". Amar Ujala. 25 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[27] "In Vinoo Mankad trophy, batsman Mankaded for 48". The TImes of India. 13 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[28] "Vinoo Mankad U-19 Trophy: Nagaland trash Pondicherry by 113 runs". Eastern Mirror. 14 October 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[29] "Who will fill in the blanks?". Ahmedabad Mirror. 1 November 2018. Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[30] "Vinoo Mankad Trophy: TN to meet Rajasthan in semis". Retrieved 4 November 2018.

[31] ttps://guardian.ng/technology/patricia-launches-innovative-e-commerce-service/

[32] ttps://punchng.com/firm-launches-innovative-e-commerce-service/

[33] ttps://www.vanguardngr.com/2018/07/patricia-launches-innovative-e-commerce-service/

[34] ttps://www.businessdayonline.com/companies/retail/article/mypatricia-commits-to-improved-e-commerce-customers-experience/

[35] ttp://venturesafrica.com/selling-gift-cards-in-nigeria/

[36] ttps://techcabal.com/2018/10/19/challenges-of-e-commerce-business-in-nigeria-the-gift-card-ordeal/

[37] ttps://www.crunchbase.com/organization/patricia-com-ng#section-overview

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[13]

[14]

[15]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[12]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]