Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2019 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to Nelson DeMille#John Corey series. (non-admin closure) Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:59, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

John Corey

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

Fictional character with no indication of notability, no explanation of real-world significance, almost no real-world context, no sources beyond one of the books he appears in. There are some Newsday articles mentioning the character in connection with a planned TV project, but they don't rise to the level of establishing notability. Huon (talk) 15:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:48, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Change !vote to Redirect to Nelson_DeMille#John_Corey_series as suggested by Aoba47. Delete. Reads like a promotional piece. Fails WP:GNG. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 19:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC) -AuthorAuthor (talk) 01:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nelson_DeMille#John_Corey_series where the books and character are already mentioned. Aoba47 (talk) 21:38, 6 April 2019 (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 17:52, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Morrisey

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

Deprodded. Non-notable unelected politician, promotional. He's a SAIT graduate, ladies and gentlemen! Ribbet32 (talk) 15:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they haven't won — to already qualify for an article today, he would have to either (a) already have preexisting notability for other reasons that would already have gotten him a Wikipedia article anyway, or (b) be referenceable to such an unusual explosion of media coverage, far beyond the merely expected volume and range of coverage that every candidate always gets, that he would have a credible claim to being special. No prejudice against recreation on or after election day if he wins the seat, but nothing here constitutes a reason why he would already be eligible to have an article today. Bearcat (talk) 18:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. In general I feel as though more articles like this are going to start popping up given that its an election year in Canada and its a pretty big municipal election year in the US. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Bearcat. Madg2011 (talk) 01:45, 11 April 2019 (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. TonyBallioni (talk) 19:30, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Sullivan (football club managing director)

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

Non-notable snot-nosed pornography heir. Light tabloid coverage of some of his tweets, because his dad co-owns West Ham football team. Bring back Daz Sampson (talk) 15:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:50, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:53, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject of a BBC series - [1], as well as coverage outside the series - [2], [3]. Quite a bit of coverage per google-news. Icewhiz (talk) 07:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Teenage heir to a porn empire runs professional women's football team... that's notable. So much so that BBC did a documentary about this, and the documentary gets coverage in independent media. A newspaper gave him a column, and that column gets coverage in independent media. The article passes my favorite essay test WP:42: we can write a good article about this person based on the significant coverage. Meets WP:GNG, so keep. Related query: West Ham United Women play in an WP:FPL-listed league, so does that mean its managing director meets WP:NFOOTY? Leviv ich 16:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
No. Dougal18 (talk) 20:03, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets GNG. Article needs renaming, and nominator needs to tone down their description... Giant Snowman 07:38, 8 April 2019 (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) Dusti ^{*Let's talk!*} 16:08, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sabrina Gonzalez Pasterski

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

Simply building an airplane with help at an early age isn't notable. Additionally, Stephen Hawking only cited her twice. See https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/sabrina-pasterski-physics-girl/ Her discoveries in physics aren't widely cited. Chris3991m (talk) 15:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Indeed, the subject isn't going to clear WP:PROF with her resume to date, and indeed, building an airplane at a young age isn't of itself notable. But what the nom seems to be ignoring is the fundamental notability question: does the subject have enough significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass the GNG? I think she does, whether or not her CV twigs any SNGs. Ravenswing 17:35, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not fully convinced, but I did add some balance to the article. Chris3991m (talk) 19:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Since the last attempt to delete this page, it has had over 1 Million page views, has been translated into 10 additional languages around the world, with daily page views in English reaching 85,000 on a good day. Besides that, significant coverage in multiple reliable sources to pass GNG. Her first book was apparently launched into orbit by Space X in February and Space Israel will land it on the Moon next week along with a digital copy of the entire Wikipedia site as it existed in mid-December 2018. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.58.139.88 (talk) 04:00, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Any sources? You seem to have a WP:COI with Sabrina's Wikipedia page... Chris3991m (talk) 11:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The IP's edited the page a couple times, but what leads you to conclude there's a COI in play? Ravenswing 18:41, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Most of this is CV stuff and primary sources. However, there are a few sources that likely qualify as reliable sources, though the depth-of-coverage piece is questionable. The Chicago Tribune articles certainly meets the criteria for a reliable source counting toward notability. The multiple "Forbes Under 30" listings and profile help, but all amount to a few sentences each. The Ozy article is mostly a restating of the Snopes page that covered the original viral news item. The article could use some cleanup, toning down the promotional gushing, but probably enough here to meet WP:BIO. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 15:08, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep At a minimum she passes WP:GNG with the Trib and 30 under 30s, maybe some other higher forms of notability too.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 19:39, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Trending scientist, awards, plenty of notability showing sources, so this is a keep. THEFlint Shrubwood (talk) 03:14, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see a reason stated for why this page is slated for deletion. Ms. Paterski seems like a rising intellectual star, and someone whose page I would love to share with our daughter as an inspiration for what girls can do. I hope we can look forward to doing that on Wikipedia for a long time to come. Matthew.schnupp (talk) 19:34, 12 April 2019 (UTC) Matthew.schnupp[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. Consensus is for deletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:12, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Flore (artist)

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

Promotional article created by a COI, and edited by the subject. Insufficient WP:RS that are independent and cover the subject in depth, and thus fails WP:GNG and WP:ARTIST. Huff Post is not RS. Artnet is passing mention. Artsy is just a gallery page, not independent. HUBLOT is promotional/press release cruft. The Dwell lifestyle post is about his house, and his lifestyle, and would only help satisfy GNG, which it doesn't. And it says he has only been making art for 6 years -- explicitly admitting himself that this is WP:TOOSOON at best. The Nakumara Keith Haring Collection is a private collection in Japan, whose page is also flagged for notability. The line from the entry: "Flore embodies "the spirit of Keith Haring", and is closely influenced by artists such as Jean Michel Basquiat, George Condo, and Pharrell Williams." says it all. --Theredproject (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC) Theredproject (talk) 14:03, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 14:26, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. At first I thought there could be something here, as he compares himself to Pharrell Williams-- which is a good thing. Alas, there is inadequate sourcing to establish GNG.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

personal disagreement not related to AFD

Why would a comparison to Pharrell Williams lead you to think "there could be something here"? I don't understand that reasoning. Bus stop (talk) 14:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was humour.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It was gratuitous. It was mean-spirited. Bus stop (talk) 18:43, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

nah, not at all. I really like Pharrell. Have you seen his 24 hour version of Happy? It is genius, almost contemporary art.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not humorous. It is gratuitous and mean-spirited. Bus stop (talk) 19:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Oh relax. It is not gratuitous, Pharrell is mentioned in the article and in the nomination. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Please stick to the subject of this page. No one is interested in your extraneous comments. Bus stop (talk) 21:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Really, relax. Drop the stick.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Also, this is totally off topic, so I am collapsing it. Please leave it be.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

If you are providing input to an AfD on an article on an artist, and the article fails to meet notability requirements, all you need to do is point that out. I think additional commentary is unwanted. We delete articles such as this regretfully rather than gleefully. Bus stop (talk) 01:02, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

that's fine for you to hold that opinion on commentary, but you should try to treat the other volunteer editors with respect rather than disdain. Calling people you do not know "mean spirited" is a personal attack and a waste of time. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:55, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for the using the terminology "mean-spirited". Bus stop (talk) 19:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:NARTIST, ie. not held at wikinotable galleries or significant exhibitions, maybe WP:TOOSOON. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2019 (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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 20:42, 20 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Transcend Media Group

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

Non notable company. Probably fails WP:NCORP, sources are simply announcements, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Ceethekreator (talk) 13:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ceethekreator (talk) 18:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. I could only find routine coverage and passing mentions in the news. wumbolo ^^^ 19:53, 20 April 2019 (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 Draftify. Obviously we will have an article but not this one. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:27, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Eredivisie

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

Besides the names of the 2 teams (PSV and Ajax) and their stadiums/capacity, everything on this page is incorrect or speculation.

Season doesn't start at 9 August, the Eerste divisie will.
(Regular) season will not end 24 May with play-offs taking place after
The assignment of spots in European leagues will most likely differ.
The reference to the season rules is invalid. A new document will be published with the rules for 2019/20.
Coaches and captains of teams are far from certain. In case of Ajax the odds them changing is substantial.

Wiki is not a speculation encyclopedia, nor an announcement board of what might be. Sb008 (talk) 12:57, 6 April 2019 (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/2019 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 13:02, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:04, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup. The erroneous information can be removed, having erroneous information is not a reason to delete. This article can exist as a stub with the qualified teams and certain information like their stadiums: there are already two qualified teams so there's at least some certain information. By June, all of the qualified teams will be known. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.243.239.57 (talk) 13:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's too soon to create this article. – Pee Jay 14:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Draft or Keep Pointless deleting something that's needed to recreate it in a months time. Govvy (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Articles can be restored by admins at such time as is warranted. No point keeping something in draft space when we can just delete it, and it definitely shouldn't be kept. – Pee Jay 17:24, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Those teams have qualified for next year's season, so it's ok to have it created. Kante4 (talk) 18:44, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a general thumbrule that next-season (next-iteration pattern) articles can be created when the year they start in is the current year, or when the previous iteration is over. @PeeJay2K3: Please cite the policy which states that it's too soon to create this article.

Per WP:FUTURE, this article satisifies the conditions that this will definitely happen. The article can be modified to remove the speculation bits. --QEDK (後 ☕ 桜) 18:47, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@QEDK and PeeJay2K3: If you expect PeeJay2K3 to cite a policy, it's only fair you do the same for your thumbrule. Furthermore, I don't understand the 2 examples you provide, the 2019 Indian general election page was created 5 years (2014) before the actual election. In 2014 no one could guarantee the government elected would not collapse. So the page was pure speculation at creation time. And I most certainly hope you don'y wish to compare the 2019–20 Premier League and the 2019–20 Eredivisie (DED) page. On the EPL page I don't see speculations about managers/coaches, team captains, kit manufacturers and shirt sponsors. I don't see invalid start and end dates. I don't see invalid references to season rules. I don't see a ranking table with incorrect European League qualification options and 18 TBA listings. If you can guarantee the stadium names mentioned will not change, the EPL page contains only accurate info where the DED page besides 2 team names only contains invalid info or speculation. The DED page has been used as an exercise page and is a disgrace as is. --Sb008 (talk) 20:34, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let me quote part of the second pillar: "All articles must strive for verifiable accuracy, citing reliable, authoritative sources, especially when the topic is controversial or is on living persons." At the time the article was created, the only verifiable accurate information available were start and end date of the season (both listed incorrect) and not 2 but 5 teams which will participate next season. If you study the current ranking and matches to go, in depth, the list of 5 teams can be expanded even more. From those teams, in general, the only thing which can be listed is the town they from. For the 2 teams listed right now, we can assume the stadium names still to be correct next season. However nothing is for sure. There was a time you were called insane if you said PSV will have a different shirt sponsor than Philips. So who knows, maybe next season the PSV stadium is called Sony Stadium. All in all, in general the stadium name, kit manufacturer and shirt sponsor are in some cases likely but in none factual. The shirt sponsor now listed for PSV in the next season is incorrect. To list coaches and team captains is even more absurd. The transfer circus still has to start, so almost all is open. Like mentioned before, the spots available in European leagues are not yet clear. But the way it's listed now for sure will not apply. This alone makes it bizarre to create a standings table already. The majority of the teams not yet known makes it even more bizarre. However, what can be said for sure is that PSV will not be among the first 9 at the start of the season. To list them right now as 2nd is incorrect for sure. Ajax could in theory start as 1st, but it's not what I expect. If the page should be kept, right now all that can remain are a corrected start and end date and a list of teams (name and town only) which for sure will participate in next season. All the rest is assumption and speculation and doesn't belong on the page (yet). --Sb008 (talk) 18:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - CRYSTAL does not apply here. Giant Snowman 07:38, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Draftify per WP:TOOSOON, there isn't sufficient information yet for an article although it will need to be created at some point. SSSB (talk) 16:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep If this does get delete, it's properly going to be recreated anyway in a couple of months with this type of seasonal article. Matt294069 (talk) 05:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
keep If delete, it will be recreated in a few weeks Hhkohh (talk) 08:01, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Hhkohh:, @Matt294069:, that's not a keep argument, it's a drafting argument, moving it to draft allows an article that was created prematurely to be republished at an appropriate time. This article was created prematurely and should be temporary moved to draftspace where it can be added to and improved until an appropriate time to move it back to the mainspace. SSSB (talk) 08:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SSSB, I am fine with drafting. Either is okay to me Hhkohh (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Drafting would just mean that another user could create a stab in the article space, and then we have both a stub and a draft.--Ymblanter (talk) 10:47, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ymblanter, unlikly, when you attempt to recreate a deleted article a notice comes up informing the editor that the article was deleted, and when you create an article that exists in the draft space the same thing happens. Besides another user creating, also prematurly, is not an argument to keep the article. SSSB (talk) 10:59, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Being a new page patroller, I have seen this actually happening so many times that I can not really believe this is unlikely. Now, if you need the argument, deletion and draftifying are the last means of dealing with the article which can not be otherwiose salvaged. This article can be reduced to an entirely uncontroversial stub in a couple of minutes, it is just the nominator was not willing to do so and nominated it for AfD out of principle (they and I had a discussion prior to the nomination).--Ymblanter (talk) 11:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: reducing it to a stub doesn't make it uncontreversial, it has been nominated per WP:TOOSOON making it a stub doesn't change anything. SSSB (talk) 11:27, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It is not in any way uncontroversial. The 2019–20 Eredivisie is going to happen with absolute certainty, and we have plenty of reliable sources about it. We also know quite a few facts with absolute certainty, for example, how many clubs are going to participate and what are the positions of these clubs in the current season going to be. Or who is going to organize the competition.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:31, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Ymblanter: but we don't need an article about it yet because there isn't enough specific information to warrant an article per WP:TOOSOON. There is no need for this article to exist yet. SSSB (talk) 11:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Our policies do not operate with such notions like "we need an article" or "we do not need an article". You think we do not need it, I think we need it, who cares. The policies establish notability (which in this case nobody really disputes) and whether the article otherwise conforms to the policies (it does not since it contains clearly false statements). Then the question is what do we do with the article: clean up, draftify, or delete. The policies are pretty clear that cleaning up is preferable. Additionally, it is unclear who is going to work on this article if it goes to draft and who will remember to move it to the article space once more info is available. My guess is that nobody is going to do it, but just someone recreates something directly in the article space.--Ymblanter (talk) 11:43, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Look if you really want to complain about the fact this article is indeed WP:TOOSOON then why haven't you gone and AFD 2019–20 La Liga and 2019–20 Bundesliga as they haven't happened yet. Both of those events will happen in the near future and yet you haven't targeted those. Maybe it is because there is no references in the article and that is why you have put it up for deletion. Matt294069 (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2019 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Identification in Burkean rhetoric

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

Survived PROD in 2006 apparently because the book discussed in the article is notable. There are no secondary sources so this appears to be original research to me. Mccapra (talk) 08:58, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: completely original research framed as an essay, something Wikipedia is not for. SITH (talk) 15:20, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are sources with very substantial coverage of Burke/identification/rhetoric. The Legacy of Kenneth Burke, whole chapter; Critical Responses to Kenneth Burke, 1924-1966, Kenneth Burke and the 21st Century. SpinningSpark 19:45, 30 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:29, 1 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per User:Spinningspark. With so much unsourced, and only an actual general source supplied, there are very possible instances of original research or at the least plagiarism, as well as issues of NPOV. On looking at the sources provided above it seems to be an editing issue, deserving of tags and possibly a rewrite, but not a notability problem deserving deletion. Otr500 (talk) 16:59, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is clearly a case for moving the article to A Rhetoric of Motives, and it should all be rewritten. But there is no need to be deleting it. Charles Matthews (talk) 07:28, 7 April 2019 (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. Sandstein 11:36, 5 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

TeleTrade Group

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

Advertising, promotion. Deleted 3 times in Ru.wikipedia.org Кронас (talk) 06:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:32, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:33, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the topic is notable, but it's insane to me that it exists without mention of the raid,[1] embezzlement and fraud,[2] website shutdown,[3] and most recently suspension of operation.[4][5] Pegnawl (talk) 15:29, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 18:05, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

neutral keep a multinational corporation with 3,000 employees will generally be notable. Graywalls (talk) 10:36, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't seem to be an adequate argument per WP:BIG: "Notability isn't determined by something's quantity of members, but rather by the quality of the subject's verifiable, reliable sources." Pegnawl (talk) 14:25, 15 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. This was a poor argument. I spent a few more minutes looking around, so thanks for commenting. An analyst from their firm was quoted in RT.com about a plane crash... and if RT is like the Wall Street Journal equivalent of Russia, then, being cited in such would be an indication of credibility, thus potential notability. ~~I'm going to say neutral~~, I initially casted keep, but switched to neutral because I don't really know the standing of RT. This is the article in which I am talking about link Graywalls (talk) 22:08, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, B dash (talk) 03:24, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I would vote for Delete unless the citations brought into the discussion by User:Pegnawl were added, in which case I would switch to a Weak Keep. As the article currently stands, its advertising and non-notable; with the inclusion of the criminal investigation under WP:ILLCON/WP:NCRIME it's possible to establish notability (technically it would be the Russian Bank Crackdown that would be notable and deserving of an article, which is why I'm a Weak Keep). Userqio (talk) 05:20, 21 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:10, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional Delete As is this article needs to be deleted. There is no actual coverage, no 3rd party to establish his claim they have 3,000 employees, and one of the references he does provide is the company site. That being said if they can establish some facts in the article through coverage from reliable sources I might switch to a keep. I havent done anything but look at the page, so there may be coverage I am not seeing. Virtually any large brokerage will have significant financial coverage out there so this one might be a little tricky. ScienceAdvisor (talk) 20:38, 28 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per Graywalls. Mosaicberry (talk) 20:46, 28 April 2019 (UTC) ok then Mosaicberry (talk • contribs) 19:49, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment Hi Graywalls, Mosaicberry, having an employee provide a quote is not a criteria for notability of the firm they work for. Would you please review your !vote? HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment 2 Hi Graywalls, you appear to have registered two !votes on this topic (yes, neutral could also be considered a !vote) - please fully strike one, thank you. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:48, 29 April 2019 (UTC) My bad, didn't register two. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 30 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. I would expect a large analyst firm to have coverage that meets the criteria as described in WP:NCORP but none appears to exist. The inclusion of a quotation by a comapany analyst does not meet the criteria. As such, topic fails WP:NCORP and GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:45, 29 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Supposing the material from the references I've noted above was properly integrated into the existing entry, and unsourced material was removed, this entry would then be near 100% negative coverage, as no neutral coverage in RS seems to exist. Since operation has been suspended, there's no reason to believe more neutral information in RS will surface anytime soon, maybe ever. As mom used to say, if you can't write neutrally, you shouldn't write anything at all. Pegnawl (talk) 15:47, 2 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per DELREASON4 - it's seriously rare for me to suggest deletion for being excessively advertorial rather than advising cleanup per WP:ATD. However, the failures here are so huge that the current form doesn't meet requirements and is actually rather deceptive in its nature. No prejudice against recreation IFF it is sufficiently improved. Nosebagbear (talk) 11:17, 5 May 2019 (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. Consensus was to keep (citing WP:LISTN). (non-admin closure) -- Dane ^talk 04:13, 14 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

List of Irish supercentenarians

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

The list is very short and has no standalone notability per WP:LISTN, therefore falls under WP:SYNTHESIS and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The oldest known Irish person, Katherine Plunket, has her own article. The next two, Margaret Dolan and Mary Ellen Geaney, are not notable, and died too "young" to be mentioned in any of our other lists such as List of the verified oldest people. Finally, people listed in the section about emigrants and who are "old enough" are already mentioned in the American, British and Canadian lists of supercentenarians, including their country of birth. Accordingly, we won't lose any relevant information by deleting this list, a legacy from GRG overreach. — JFG ^talk 06:12, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the detailed nom. Listcruft, fails LISTN. --Randykitty (talk) 07:21, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Is this an less notable a list than all the other similar lists found in Category:Lists of supercentenarians by nationality? Ok, it's short but at the time these people were born, Ireland only had a population of around 3 million. What do you expect for a small country with a small population? ww2censor (talk) 10:56, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This, along with all the other by-country lists, is a split-out of List of supercentenarians by continent, to prevent that article from becoming too large. Such split-outs do not require the standalone notability of WP:LISTN as long as the "parent" list meets the guidleine. UnitedStatesian (talk) 11:41, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
What? So a bunch of non-notable oldsters from a random country deserve a list here because a much broader general list on the subject is notable? That doesn't follow. Also, where are the reliable sources to show this is notable? The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there seems to be an assumption that anything to do with the GRG should be deleted. There were several similar ill-considered noms at cfd recently. It is hardly WP:SYNTHESIS or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Oculi (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there is ongoing war against any articles on Wikipedia relating to longevity. Why would this information be a cause of such angst to people? If other countries have similar entries, why should Ireland not be allowed to have the same information available? Crveni5 (talk) 02:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. There are almost no sources about supercentenarians in Ireland, just a list of names from one database. Every reference in this article is either a GRG page or something about British supercentenarians, demonstrating the lack of notability for this subject. Plus, there's the simple fact that not a single person on that list was born in the country of Ireland; everyone there entered the world while Ireland was part of the British Empire, even if their departure was after Ireland's statehood. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 15:45, 8 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian Spiderone 21:25, 9 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There would be issues with creating article on each of these names but a list is justifiable as it meets LISTN. Kaweendra (talk) 16:59, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian. Also I don't see anyone proposing to delete/merge the List of Finnish supercentenarians, even though everyone on the list was born when Finland was part of the Russian Empire. Spleodrach (talk) 17:23, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
WP:WAX. The Blade of the Northern Lights (話して下さい) 01:06, 11 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per UnitedStatesian. --Comment by Selfie City (talk about my contributions) 22:55, 10 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list is indeed a bit small, but I am unsure about merging, the UK article has the potential to grow a lot more and this information would be better separate in the long run. Garlicolive (talk) 02:53, 12 April 2019 (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 Withdrawn nomination with no input from Wikipedia editors on whether to Keep or Delete. A non-admin closure. Capt. Milokan (talk) 22:17, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Carol McGregor

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

GNG fail and WP:ARTIST fail. Four sources, most of which do not appear to be independent RS. I cannot find any more than that in a search. I did see event announcements, talks, interviews and the like, but those are not enough in terms of independent recognition in reliable sources. I'll be happy if someone can prove me wrong. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:28, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn, see comment below.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:14, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:30, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I partially disagree with the nominator that the sources "do not appear to be independent RS". At the time of nomination, there were four sources, two of them problematic:

http://www.carolmcgregor.com.au (the subject, clearly WP:PRIMARY)
https://www.griffith.edu.au/art-museum (does not mention the subject, but she is listed as a Higher Degree Research candidate at https://www.griffith.edu.au/centre-creative-arts-research/our-researchers, so there is a connection.
https://ima.org.au/exhibitions/the-commute/ The Institute of Modern Art used visiting curators to organize the exhibition. There is no close affiliation between the artists and the institute other than that they showed her work.
http://www.portrait.gov.au/content/so-fine-2018/ The National Portrait Gallery similarly is a museum that makes its curatorial decisions independently, something that is implicitly recognized in WP:NARTIST. https://www.portrait.gov.au/content/so-fine-carol-mcgregor, a statement by the artist, is a primary source. That still doesn't mean it can't be used. Policy, per WP:PRIMARY is that "Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them." Vexations (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comment from a different angle, it appears her work is in two public collections. Kluge-Ruhe Aboriginal Art Collection clearly satisfies the requirements. I don't know enough about Australian art organizations to make the call on the other one, but given that they are a public institution and have a permamenent collection, I am leaning towards accepting it as satisfying 4(d) --Theredproject (talk) 13:36, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have been looking for sources and adding some, as well as looking for collections which hold her work. I may be able to add some quotes from reviews, although there are some I don't have access to (on ProQuest). The Commute exhibition at the Institute of Modern Art, Brisbane, is of works commissioned from the artists - whether that means the works will become part of the permanent collection of IMA, I don't know. I think that she is close to meeting WP:NARTIST, though that's not completely clear yet. RebeccaGreen (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn I didn't mean for this to be a cleanup, but it has been, and that is good. References have been found and added, and the two collections do seem to mean she meets WP:ARTIST. I still think there is little in terms of truly independent coverage, but she seems to meet notability on other grounds. (One thing I want to remark on, and this is not applicable to the article at hand, was the use of indigenous art collections as notability criteria. This is fine for contemporary living artists, but it immediately struck me that many museum collections are full of stolen aboriginal art! Again, not related to contemporary living artists and the article at hand, but interesting given the history of (often forced) appropriation in that area.)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:02, 6 April 2019 (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. There is a strong consensus to delete, and as suggested I will salt the page. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:45, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge Back to Life

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

In its earlier version, this was a coatrack for the doctor prominently mentioned in the article. In its current version, with most of that information removed, it is no longer notable. See also the extensive delete history (and here too!) for the Dr in question. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:37, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nomination. Pit there are not any more sources for a place established in 1988.TH1980 (talk) 04:39, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:18, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:51, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is certainly many more sources which establish Bridge Back to Life as an OASAS certified outpatient addiction treatment program with numerous centers throughout NY metropolitan area. This fact is not even in question. Additionally, the owner Gary Butchen, has extensive and unique qualifications. This page does not list all of his qualification but a simple search will show this. Here is another link: https://www.lohud.com/story/news/crime/2019/03/28/opiod-lawsuit-sackler-purdue-pharma-drug-crisis-oxycontin/3300544002/. Also, I agree that there was a significant amount of information about the medical director - Dr. Russell Surasky, however his notoriety as a triple board certified physician is also well established. If someone would do a little basic research about Bridge Back to Life this nomination for deletion would have never even been started.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 63.85.164.33 (talk • contribs) Strikng comment of blocked editor/ likely sockpuppet.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 08:49, 7 April 2019 (UTC) [reply]

Comment: The above IP user has been blocked for one week for repeatedly removing the AfD notification template from the article in question, and for re-introducing content to the article that was previously introduced to Draft:Russell Surasky by users who have been indef blocked for sockpuppetry and for undisclosed paid editing. I would recommend that the closing admin take into account that this is likely an IP sock of a blocked user. ST47 (talk) 04:18, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. This is an infomercial for the doctor, and given the difficulty in establishing an article about him, looks like a backdoor effort. The facility doesn't appear notable. To be clear, this is the version I was referring to [4]. 2601:188:180:1481:65F5:930C:B0B2:CD63 (talk) 04:10, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Salt The text of this article which is repeatedly being added by IP users and sockpuppet accounts is substantially similar to the deleted content of Draft:Russell Surasky, which was Russell Surasky, before it was deleted several times, salted, and gotten no fewer than six different accounts indef banned for socking or for undisclosed paid editing. If this AfD is closed as "delete", please also salt the page. ST47 (talk) 04:26, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cannot see how this facility passes WP:ORG or the WP:GNG - couldn't find much coverage in sources. Zingarese talk · contribs 04:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete entirely promotional rubbish not WP:GNG Lubbad85 (☎) 20:23, 11 April 2019 (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 Edda Awards. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:55, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Edda Award for Best Short Film

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

An award at a show that may or may not be notable. Either delete or a redirect be the best I think. No references to be found either. (Not sure of the notability of the other categories at the show.-one can check to see) Wgolf (talk) 04:23, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:19, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:20, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edda Awards. These sub-articles are severely out of date (many updated 13 years ago, like this one), and they should probably all redirect to the parent article. The award show itself has some notability (albeit minor) as being the only large film award in Iceland, but the Edda Awards article might need to be written from scratch. – Þjarkur (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2019 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:39, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Ernie Schenck

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

Poorly sourced, promotional creation that has not been improved in nearly 10 years of existence. Nothing to show meeting WP:GNG and a WP:BEFORE source turns up a fair amount of self-promotion and some passing mentions. Melcous (talk) 00:29, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:49, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete If the article has not been improved in a decade, it can go.TH1980 (talk) 04:07, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:52, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see any reason for keeping this article. TheEditster (talk) 10:01, 6 April 2019 (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. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:37, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley Uyi Idehen

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

Unsourced BLP. One apparently spurious hit on Gnews, one verifiable hit on Gbooks. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/OpenLink Software. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:22, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:58, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:59, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Heavily promotional and lacks any reliable third party sources. – Ammarpad (talk) 05:46, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promo, not notable. Graywalls (talk) 21:57, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Can't find sources.Jacona (talk) 12:45, 7 April 2019 (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 soft delete. WP:REFUND applies. Xymmax ^{So let it be written} _{So let it be done} 17:36, 13 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

OpenLink Software

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

I declined a G11 speedy deletion of this. However, I see nothing resembling the level of in-depth coverage required to satisfy WP:NCORP, so listing here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. KCVelaga (talk) 03:01, 6 April 2019 (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.