Open main menu

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/Today

Purge

22 August 2019

Read how to nominate an article for deletion.

Purge server cache

Contents

ImLive.comEdit

ImLive.com (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Poorly sourced, broken links, just another website. Alexa rank, 18,099, not covered by mainstream media, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:NWEB. Also, creater of this article User:Download has been already banned for paid editing. Störm (talk) 09:26, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Voltage Musique RecordsEdit

Voltage Musique Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Non-notable record label per WP:CORP. SL93 (talk) 08:18, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Delete: only 5 hits on Google News despite existing since 2003, and none of those seem to be more than promo pieces. The claim that they've had 500 tracks that charted seems to be the WP:OR that was flagged in the article, and I can't find a reliable source for that. --Slashme (talk) 09:03, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Pantaloons Fashion & RetailEdit

Pantaloons Fashion & Retail (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Advert; long time no sources; not obviously notable. Dicklyon (talk) 06:07, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:09, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • The reason that it read like an advertisement is that, as is sadly too common, on three separate occasions over the past two years the prior Wikipedia article had been blanked and replaced by advertising blurb taken either straight from the company itself or from this ("Copyright © 2019 Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd."). The apparently last good version from 2017 stands now. It has significant sourcing problems, but it's not an outright straight copy of corporate advertising any more. Uncle G (talk) 07:50, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and improve. The topic is clearly notable, and even though the article as it stands now isn't very well sourced, it isn't so blatantly promotional as to require TNT. --Slashme (talk) 09:33, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Allen Dodgson TanEdit

Allen Dodgson Tan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The subject of the biography does not pass WP:SIGCOV as required under WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Most of the references include a quote or two from the subject, who is speaking on behalf of the organizations he has been affiliated with, and other sources are WP:PRIMARY and non-independent of the subject. Moreover, the article reads like a personal vanity page. Vicheat (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Vicheat (talk) 09:15, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 10:31, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Vicheat the majority of the sources are from WP:NEWSORG including both of the national newspapers the Khmer Times and Phnom Penh Post. Just because an article includes quotes from the subject does not make it an unacceptable source, in good journalism they should seek input from the subject of an article. Additionally, the article clearly meets WP:GNG as the subject "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." — Preceding unsigned comment added by CambodiaSocial (talkcontribs) 12:51, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Kyree WalkerEdit

Kyree Walker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NCOLLATH . Not even played a game in college yet. Only WP:ROUTINE sources found. Josalm64rc (talk) 20:32, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:34, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment: There is also a lot of significant coverage from various sources listed above. WP:ROTM does not apply because a very small percentage of college prospects are featured in multiple publications across the country like Walker. Sportzeditz (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:42, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Chapter Eight: The Upside DownEdit

Chapter Eight: The Upside Down (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Was redirected as part of an AfD, after which, nothing has changed. This article is virtually identical (in terms of sourcing and content) as that which was redirected as a result of that AfD. Onel5969 TT me 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Onel5969 TT me 22:21, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep: The old AfD from October 2016 was set up, and passed, because alot of the episodes from the first season were basically a copy\paste. This article is an exception to the rest, due to the fact that it's NOT a copy\paste unlike the rest of the episodes. Have a look at the reviews, they are specifically about the episode. The Optimistic One (talk) 02:23, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete – per nom, this is nearly identical to the article that was AfDed, as can be seen via a simple compare. —Joeyconnick (talk)
    • Comment: And is it nearly identical to the rest of the episodes of this season? That AfD, was set up and passed for the reason being that most of the episodes were basically a copy\paste. If it was nominated separately, it probably would have been kept. The Optimistic One (talk) 19:35, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Selective merge to Stranger Things - this article is headed by a tag saying the article may be of interest only to a particular audience. Vorbee (talk) 15:00, 17 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Redirect to Stranger Things (season 1)#ep8 to preserve history. -BRAINULATOR9 (TALK) 21:44, 18 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Just Detention InternationalEdit

Just Detention International (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article has been tagged as lacking sources since 2011. Most of it was written by a handful of single purpose accounts. I have tried to find anything about them that's not a press release, without success. It appears to be a project of Russell Dan Smith, author of such peerless references as "Extraterrestrials And Sex",and the dates coincide with Smith's lawsuits.

Bluntly, this is advertising. It's also not notable. Superficial referenciness is provided by links to documents that are either self-published or do not discuss the subject at all, with one exception: https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/226680.pdf, a mere namecheck. Guy (Help!) 23:04, 15 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CASSIOPEIA(talk) 13:38, 16 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:40, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Lil ChanEdit

Lil Chan (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Self Promotion previously created by a sock puppet User:Frankie De Pyae for non notable individual, and deleted with G5. Now...recreated by User:Ko Ko Chit Chit, still fails WP:NMUSICIAN. In the majority of the references he is mentioned, but they are not about him, lacks in-depth coverage. Shin Khant (talk) 05:20, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Children of the Corn: RunawayEdit

Children of the Corn: Runaway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Fails WP:NFILM. Direct to dvd film nothing found in a before search of any interest. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Dom from Paris (talk) 02:31, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Sharmin Sultana Sumi (singer)Edit

Sharmin Sultana Sumi (singer) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

The subject has no notability outside of the band. Previously redirected to band but has been restored by article creator, twice. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 01:23, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep and rename What we have here is one overbearing editor who apparently refuses to listen to reason. I had a run in with him in a recent case so I was left watching his talk page. He called me a troll as he deleted my words of advice. Since, I have seen him steamroll other newbie editors, as I said, overbearing but more importantly incorrectly. The newbie who created this understood there should be an article about this singer and did an improper end-around. The original article just under the singer's name should be the proper place for this, without the unnecessary, unilaterally imposed redirect. Before that action, maybe an AfD or other form of mediating discussion could have taken place to solve this. That is what the collegial atmosphere of wikipedia should be.

    That said to the subject of the article: I have added sources showing she has written what appears to be a hit for other artists. I think 2 million youtube views might count for that in the Bangladeshi marketplace. She has (as already in the article) won several individual awards. Also now sourced, the Ice Cream video makes no mention of her band. She also, independently is a Playback singer. Those would qualify her under WP:NMUSIC and WP:COMPOSER. Plus she is the founder, leader, lyricist, singer and front person for the band.

    This could have come up in a reasonable discussion. I realize those are hard to get at AfD. They are even harder when the discussion is not initiated by a high power editor who should know better, but instead just knows it all. Trackinfo (talk) 05:43, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Vinegarymass911, it isn't you. I avoided naming names to avoid making a personal attack. Point being, I have shown independent notoriety with sources. Any editor worth their google could have done the same and avoided this. We do not need to abuse our ESL newbies and the products of their work. They don't know how to deal with these situations and in this case behaved improperly. Now we have this article as improved. Stop the AfD, move it to the original namespace, remove the redirect and we should be on our way. Trackinfo (talk) 08:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Keep, She is a notable singer. She is a playback singer, Creator and lead vocalist of a Bangladeshi famous band Chirkutt. She won many several awards. And Thank You Trackinfo for properly describe this matter. ChotoBhai (talk) 13:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Note that the original edit history is at Sharmin Sultana Sumi and that the current article is a bogus copy and paste of the same. There is a discussion of the first redirect at Talk:Sharmin Sultana Sumi and AFD is not the place for disputing redirects. AFD is for deletion. The second redirect was a reversion of a reversion. Discussion of all this belongs on the article talk page, where it already was, and this duplicate edit history should not be continued. Uncle G (talk) 08:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Conquest of Manila (1405)Edit

Conquest of Manila (1405) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

This article should be deleted as the sources provided don't establish that this conquest ever even happened. The first source is a secondhand reference, prefaced with uncertainty, to an already vague description of a fleet sailing to Manila. The second source makes an even more vague reference to "visits", "attempts", and "pretense of sovereignty". The third source literally has one sentence about this: "Ming emperor Yung Lo sends expeditions to Philippines, establishes Chinese trading posts." The fourth source is a blog by a non-expert, and vaguely states that Luzon was claimed. It refers to the fleets, but there is no mention of them traveling in force to Luzon or conquering any part of the island. The fifth source is also a blog from a non-expert, and vaguely refers to attacks and "attempts to subjugate Luzon".

In summary, whatever may be written about Chinese expeditions to Luzon, this article has no relation to it. The sources provided are either unreliable or offer only brief, vague statements about what might have happened. They certainly do not support the text or even the title of the article. Someguy1221 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment Funny, I could have sworn this article was sent for deletion about six months ago. Perhaps there was another possible conquest of Manila lost in the mists of time and I’ve mixed them up. Mccapra (talk) 06:29, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
There is one, by the same author I think, called Conquest of Manila (1365). Deb (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:12, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
1.) The first source didn't mention any conquest or battle happening in Manila during the year 1405. When the year 1405 is mentioned in page 257, only the account from the Ming Shi is mentioned about the Yongle Emperor sending a "high officer" in "Luzon" (N.B.: NOT Manila but "Luzon"), which resulted in the establishment of a Chinese embassy there. There is no mention of conquest or battle in the relevant page. The page is also clear that the Ming Dynasty was interested only in "extending its fame over land and sea to the farthest extremities of the world", not about conquest and occupation. In the next page (pg. 258), there is a mention of "old Spanish accounts", and in particular of the account of a certain Father Gaubil recounting that a thirty thousand fleet was sent to Manila at various times, although there was no mention what was the purpose of sending the fleet there. There is also no mention whether the fleet visited Manila in the year 1405 or whether they were instructed to conquer Manila. The user Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. used these sources to prove that a "conquest" happened but the information at hand didn't explicitly mention any conquest, but only "visits". Also, word "conquest" only appeared three times in the aforementioned source, with the first two mentions referring to the Spanish conquest, and the third mention of the word "conquest" was about the "conquest of Terrenate". Again, the user extracted his own conclusions that a conquest occurred using this first source that did not mention any 1405 conquest or battle of Manila.
2.) The second source didn't mention any conquest or battle. At best they were "visits". From the source itself: "The fleet visited (emphasis mine) Lingayen in Pangasinan, Manila Bay, Mindoro and Sulu. These visits took place in 1405–06, 1408–10, and 1417." The relevant page (page 33) did not made any explicit mention of "conquest" or even "battle" or "invasion" of Manila with such a fleet, but only "visits". It can also be argued that the fleet was only there for intimidatory purposes, like in the case of the Perry Expedition between Japan and the United States. Unfortunately, Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. used this source to infer that a "conquest" happened despite the source itself not being precise and detailed enough to specify what exactly happened during the year 1405.
3.) The fourth and the fifth sources are not reliable. One is self-published blog entry by a certain Paul Kekai Manansala, which is an unknown in the academic sphere, while the other one is an opinion piece from a news website Globalita. The user Rene Bascos Sarabia Jr. is probably using these two sources to strengthen his re-interpretation of the first and the second source.
I also want to add that there is no significant academic coverage of the 1405 event between Manila or Luzon and China, so the notability of the event in question is questionable. In summary, the reinterpretation of source materials and coming to conclusions which were not explicitly mentioned in source materials (i.e. original research) and the questionable notability of the 1405 event make the article eligible for deletion. I therefore support its deletion, and the subsequent migration of some relevant information to already existing Wikipedia entries (like the Yongle Emperor, Ming Dynasty, etc.), as the current sources at hand are not enough to create a separate Wiki entry about this "supposed" 1405 "conquest". Stricnina (talk) 07:45, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
  • Not sure If there's any evidence that such an event occurred, I'd like us to keep and rename appropriately, eg. "1405 Manila incident". I feel like I don't have enough understanding of the issues to decide, based on what little I know. Deb (talk) 07:58, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Ninthwave RecordsEdit

Ninthwave Records (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · newspapers · scholar · free images · WP refs· FENS · JSTOR · NYT · TWL)

Record label of dubious notability although they have released music by some notable artists. Not finding independently sourced coverage to satisfy WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Nominating with some regret, as I'm a synthpop fan and own several releases from this label. --Finngall talk 23:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 23:24, 7 August 2019 (UTC)
  • comment Did some searching and found a couple more references and put on talk but not much and only 2 that are not really inherited notability. One that I had put in the info box a long time ago, that probably belongs in the prose if keep and one that is slightly more than a brief mention in billboard. Unfortunately it's hard to see either is that strong. PaleAqua (talk) 00:43, 8 August 2019 (UTC)
    • Given the merger I also wonder if BuGoudi House might be worth searching for as newer sources might use that name. Bing news returns one result for BuGoudi House, and Google news a different one but neither seem to mention Ninthwave. PaleAqua (talk) 00:22, 22 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 02:05, 15 August 2019 (UTC)
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dom from Paris (talk) 00:04, 22 August 2019 (UTC)