Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 11

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 10 June	12 June >

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 speedy keep. Speedily keeping under WP:SK#2 This is likely a vexatious nomination, the 2nd from this user for this article, who has also previously this year twice nominated for deletion an article for one of the creators of this podcast. There are no votes to delete. (non-admin closure) gobonobo ⁺ ^c 04:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Scare (podcast)

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

Eligibility. Not every tiny podcast deserves a Wiki. This article is self-promotional material that doesn't belong on Wikipedia. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 01:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep based upon the same arguments from the first nom. With comprehensive articles in The Telegraph and The Times, it easily passes WP:GNG. Jlevi (talk) 02:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Jlevi, although some of these news articles seem to have a negative POV of the podcast. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 03:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep, this is now the fourth nomination for deletion this year of a Red Scare-related article from the same user who clearly as a personal grudge with one of the hosts. The previous nominations survived by considerable margins per WP:GNG. Its increasingly obvious that this user's concerns for "eligibility" cannot be taken seriously, and that these nominations are made simply for vandalism and disruption. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment If what Pinchofhope claims is accurate then this entire AFD should be put down by an editor. No need to waste anyones time with bad faith nominations.★Trekker (talk) 09:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The claim is accurate from my perspective. See also the recent history on Cumtown and Shane Gillis for similar behaviors. Jlevi (talk) 17:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case a possible ANI for Yellow-billed Loon may be in order.★Trekker (talk) 15:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Cusack

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, coverage appears to be limited to mere-mentions, routine coverage and primary sources. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:47, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As much as I hate losing pages when the person actually exists and is well known, it seems strange that a major DJ who has worked on the two largest independent radio stations in the UK and is a regular on the DJ scene has nothing more than tiny mentions anywhere or primary sources. I did a Gsearch and found the name is very common.User:Davidstewartharvey
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Not to mention the name is very common, per Davidstewartharvey. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamal Kartik

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, the extensive amount of unsourced early life information is suggestive of a COI on the part of the initial editor. Searching online, I was able to find mere-mentions, but not much else. Someone searching in Hindi or Malayalam may have more luck. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is the most substantial coverage I could find and is not much at all. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College Publisher

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

Non-notable service provider for college newspapers, it is sourced only to a press release and two websites which are primary sources. It fails WP:GNG, and is also highly promotional. Article has been prodded in the past, which was declined by the article creator. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:40, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:27, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. If there were a few reliable sources, this organization might meet requirements. But the lack of sourcing makes me lean delete. Andrew³²⁷ 14:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This organization might be providing valuable services to merit WP entry but there are no sources to support it. Google search returned results that are not related to the subject and this would make it difficult for any editor that may want to help establish its notability. Ugbedeg (talk) 6:21,16 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 00:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IgniteXML

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

It was flagged as advertisement back in 2017 and clearly hasn't improved since Shushugah (talk) 23:07, 10 June 2020 (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/2020 June 10. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:30, 10 June 2020 (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/2020 June 11. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 00:41, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:57, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete as G11 Spam. This is exclusively -- relentlessly -- jargony promotional material with no sense of shame or self-awareness. Ugh. --Lockley (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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