Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 14

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 13 July	15 July >

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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don Trialeon[edit]

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

Artist has no third party source. The article alleges that this page was created on the Serbian Wiki but no relevant page found.

Tried the usual sources like Google and Google news but I found no hits for the artist. Only found track listings. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 22:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No available sources = no article. --Kbabej (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 17:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no third party sourcing at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, although he seems to have had a certain influence in the underground scene. Found a brief mention at Hip Hop around the World: An Encyclopedia but that's admittedly too little. No such user (talk) 13:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Easily fails WP:MUSICBIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:RS, WP:MILL, and WP:MUSICBIO. Without valid sources, this appears to be a run of the mill MC. There's zero evidence of touring or a major label. Bearian (talk) 20:00, 21 July 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 keep. – bradv🍁 23:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lito Pimentel[edit]

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

Im requesting for someone to nominate afd on this articles on Andre Tiangco Zaijian Jaranilla Victor Basa Lito Pimentel John Medina (actor)‎, as they contain only a single sources and far to be notable. 70.113.36.219 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles nominated by the same IP:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not notable. This article as already existed since 2013 (tagged since 2014) against clear policies and guidelines. It is a single sourced BLP that uses a derogatory source and a majority of the content is improperly sourced through the "External links" section and IMDb. I think it should have long been speedy deleted. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable according to Otr500's very good point about BLP standards. --Lockley (talk) 20:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He was part of an 80s noontime show. Other than that, he has bagged character roles throughout his career. That's also based on search results. The article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. My vote stands. ~~I won't reply any further.~~ ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough to establish notability, and when it relates to a criminal accusation even more so. IMDb counts for absolutely nothing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Sources have been added in the article recently. He was charged with frustrated parricide after allegedly stabbing his wife. It was also covered here as well. He's also talked about in this article, where he was part of the late Alfie Lorenzo's talent group Liberty Boys, he starred in various movies & TV series, had his stint in comedy, and won as Best Supporting Actor in Gawad Urian for his role in Kapag Napagod Ang Puso. Other sources in the article talk about his roles in various TV shows. I believe those reliable sources are good enough for the article to pass WP:NACTOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as since the nomination multiple references to significant coverage in a number of reliable sources have been added to the article which show that the actor passes WP:NACTOR as well as WP:GNG so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 22:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm late to this, and I admit if I'd seen it in the condition it was when it was nominated, I probably would have been minded to delete. But that notwithstanding, there's been a job of work done since , and the article now demonstrates its notability through its extensive sourcing, in spades. ——Serial^# 16:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:53, 15 July 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 07:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Star Parivaar Awards[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG and appears to exist only to promote StarPlus ,to which the award belongs also Draft:Golden Petal Awards was rejected for same reason. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Princepratap1234 (talk) 14:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just for clearer context, the Star Parivaar Awards are an in-house award for the Star Network to praise shows and actors on its own network. And per this RfC, the award is not suitable for inclusion in our articles. So the question remains as to whether or not the award is notable. Regards, Cyphoidbomb (talk) 19:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 30 June 2020 (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)} 13:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 08:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 22:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete according to this Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Film/Indian_cinema_task_force/Archive_6#Request_for_Comment:_Star_Parivaar_Awards. This award is unnotable and only for praising the shows of their own network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2405:204:A405:2A1C:1529:D205:820:AB20 (talk) 15:06, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inman Gallery[edit]

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

Obscure commercial gallery; literally every reference is a directory listing from various Houston "what's in town" publications. No substantial coverage; the "reviews" in external links are reviews of exhibits at the gallery, not of the gallery. Orange Mike | Talk 22:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable art gallery in the Houston area. Nick Moyes (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A gallery that participates in Armory Show and Art Basel and represents artists whose works are exhibited at the Whitney Museum and the Metropolitan Museum of Art is hardly "obscure". On the other hand, I'm fairly certain that the creator Obrienmp412 has a massive Conflict of Interest. There is not sufficient in-depth coverage of the gallery (or its owner, Kerry Inman) to satisfy WP:NCORP. It would be better to focus our attention on their artists, Dario Robleto,Amy Blakemore, Michael Jones McKean, Jason Salavon, Sigrid Sandström, Karin Davie, Marc Swanson, Tommy Fitzpatrick, Brad Tucker, Angela Fraleigh, Demetrius Oliver, Dana Frankfort, Robyn O'Neil and Darren Waterston whose bios could use some work. Vexations (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - locally-known art gallery. While Houston is a major art capital, there's a lack of significant coverage that this place has actually contributed to the city's reputation, a la Menil Gallery. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bearian, the claim " Houston is widely recognized as an important city for contemporary visual arts" has a [citation needed] tag on it, and looking at the galleries listed at Category:Art galleries in Texas, I see at least three galleries that are less notable than this one. There are good art commercial art galleries in Houston of course. We just can't seem to have any articles on them. Vexations (talk) 21:29, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Gibson (computer scientist)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability as either a businessman nor as an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find anything except the cited articles, which are from reliable sources but only have passing mentions of the subject. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't find anything that suggests he's notable --Devokewater @ 17:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG. All sources listed at the page atm do not satisfy "significant coverage" of the subject. Agree with everyone above. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:52, 17 July 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 and redirect to Rational Software. Sandstein 07:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IBM Rational SQABasic[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. WP:ATD could be a merge (or just redirect, as this stub has no verified information) to Rational Software. Boleyn (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 22:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources found covering this in significant detail. Fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 23:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rational Software as non-notable. SL93 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 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 redirect to Magazine (band). Sandstein 07:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After the Fact (album)[edit]

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

A rather unremarkable compilation album that wasn't promoted with a single. Coverage is extremely limited and better served at the band's page or discography. On average, article only receives 3 views per day. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: wonderful band, but this greatest hits album has been out of print for decades in the UK, being supplanted by 1987's Rays and Hail and later the Where the Power Is/Maybe It's Right to Be Nervous Now discs from 2000, all of which are still readily available there. So from the point of view of the band's home country, there will be zero sources online. Considering the band's importance to the post-punk/alternative music scene in the UK, I think it highly likely that this was reviewed in NME and Melody Maker at the very least back in 1982. But I can't go by WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES, so I'd say redirect for now until at some point in the future I or someone else can have a look for back issues. I'm guessing that in the US, Creem and Trouser Press may have reviewed the album, but again, locating those sources will be a problem. Richard3120 (talk) 22:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trouser Press mentions it, and mentions, uh, your mention, that it has been supplanted. The 1992 Rolling Stone Album Guide gives it 3 stars. The 1999 Rough Guide doesn't mention it, but does mention that Rays and Hail is "the best possible introduction." There is something about the first, though... Caro7200 (talk) 22:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Magazine (band): Barely found anything about the compilation album. Sources mentioned by Richard3120 are hard to find on the internet. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:32, 17 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abandon All Ships (EP)[edit]

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

While the band is notable, the EP isn't. It hasn't charted or received coverage beyond its tracklisting/existance. Doesn't meet notability per WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A quick search found no RSes to support WP:GNG or WP:NALBUM. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Abandon All Ships (or Take One Last Breath): Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES. We have tended to delete EPs, especially early releases by bands before they became notable. I would not oppose a redirect, but there's not a lot to merge here Bearian (talk) 20:07, 21 July 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 07:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kodikas Da Mitsi[edit]

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

Unsuccessful show quickly cancelled, doesn't meet WP:N. Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sources at all in Greek; only listings etc. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 09:05, 17 July 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 redirect to Plant nursery. Content can be merged from history if sourceable. Sandstein 07:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pot-in-pot[edit]

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

This article has been tagged for over a decade. Coverage is very trivial if at all from reliable sources. Note that page views show 5 or less views per day. What is covered could be merged to plant nurseries. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boldly merge - might have been a good step at this point. Probably would have stuck too, with 5 pageviews per day :) --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into plant nurseries, as it's not notable enough on it's own. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - it is completely unsourced and there's not much to merge. Bearian (talk) 20:08, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aadar Malik[edit]

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

Negligible coverage in media, Google result showed just his social media accounts. His only achievement is that, he is a nephew of popular music composer Anu Malik. Neurofreak (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Creator of the page, User:Anonymousbananas was a confirmed sockpuppet. "The account has been blocked indefinitely because CheckUser evidence confirms that the account's owner has abusively used multiple accounts." Neurofreak (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it reads like a CV, there are no references in the article (there is one permanent dead link) and Google doesn't give me any worthwhile, relaiable, secondary sources. JW 1961 Talk 22:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no where near the sourcing to either pass GNG or establish that the subject is a notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promo spam Spiderone 09:41, 21 July 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 07:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Barnard[edit]

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

According to Colin Fine

Wikipedia articles do not belong to their subjects, their subjects have no control over their contents, and they should be based almost 100% on what people who have no connection with the subject have chosen to publish about them. If an article happens to help the person who is its subject in some way, that is a fortunate accident, but Wikipedia articles are absolutely not for the benefit of their subject.

This page violates:

The Wikipedia page is self serving. This biography was extensively edited by Jason Barnard as well as his business partner Anton Shulke for the sole purpose to add high authoritative links from Wikipedia to Jason’s web mentions in which he is a Digital Marketer promoting paid courses on increasing your brand presence in Google with the backbone strategy of getting a Wikipedia page created.

Searching for Jason and Anton will show their business relationship with Kalicube, Kalicube is linked in the Wikipedia page to add authority for this page and site to rank better.

The majority of links on the Wikipedia page are disproportionately in the Digital Marketing section to benefit himself. MerrilAcky (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. No evidence of notability, either as a businessman or an artiste. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be LinkedIn. I am not confident enough to say it is not at present considering how little oversight and monitoring we have on articles on living people. The fact we have nearly 1 million biographies of living people, and some have existed over a decade with no reliable sourcing is a big problem.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTRESUME and WP:MILL. In 2007, this would be excused, but in 2020, everybody knows we are not a LinkedIn substitute. This is a run of the mill person is business. Bearian (talk) 20:12, 21 July 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 07:47, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Morrison (Scottish footballer)[edit]

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

Player fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. According to article creator who removed the PROD, Morrison is a professional who plays for a top flight club and has played over 30 professional matches. However, that is not correct. WP:NFOOTY means that Morrison must PLAY in a FULLY-PROFESSIONAL league. Motherwell are a fully-pro team but Morrison has never had a first-team appearance for them. Additionally, his only pro matches were in Scottish League Two, which is not listed in WP:FPL. ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsenalFan700:Is there a way to de-convert it back to a draft, where it can be improved, until such a time as he has a appeared in a first team match for Motherwell. I do believe Morrison has appeared for Motherwell, albeit for 2 minutes, in the final home game of Motherwell's 2012-13 season, in which he replaced departing goalkeeper Darren Randolph to allow for a standing ovation, please correct me if I am wrong.Adric of Alzarius (talk) 20:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was Lee Hollis source --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Morrison was only 15 at the time, so it would have been unlikely (albeit not impossible) for it to have been him...... -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 20:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Has not played in a fully-pro league, only semi-pro/nearly amateur Scottish League Two. Giant Snowman 20:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - semi-pro player who does not satisfy GNG. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Can this be reverted to draft? Or retrieved if/when he makes a professional appearance? If so, yep I'm happy for it to be deleted.Adric of Alzarius (talk) 20:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be very easily restored, and I am happy to do so if/when he makes his Motherwell debut. Giant Snowman 21:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 12:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater @ 20:19, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gramble[edit]

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

This is another web-based startup that didn't make it. Nearly all the references have 404'd and the ones that work are primarily mentions of the company as a start-up and their intended revenue plans. Extant, separate coverage is minimal at best, with Forbes mentioning it as a hosting platform for game developers. Forbes doesn't go in-depth to the level that we require. The main website for the company is defunct, and the other URL listed in the infobox goes to something in Chinese. An IP mentioned on the talk page that Gramble disappeared and was replaced by something called: 'GetSocial.' A search determines that this to be impossibly vague as there is a myriad of proprietary platforms that bill themselves as 'GetSocial.' Nothing was found that identifies any of these as Gramble. A WP:BEFORE search comes up with virtually no information about the company or what became of them. As such WP:NCORP and WP:GNG are not established, and the latter by the lack of depth of coverage. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Jip Orlando (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Press releases, PR, interviews, q&a. Not much else to replace as it is defunct. Fails per WP:SIGCOV and WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. scope_creep^Talk 22:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: does not meet WP:NORG; sources are in passing and / or WP:SPIP. --K.e.coffman (talk) 02:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 20:20, 21 July 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 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pines, Butte County, California[edit]

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

This name appears at an intersection with a few houses about it rather late in the topo game, and as far as I can tell the area is now considered just part of the larger Yankee Hill area (the Yankee Hill Historical Society, for example, operates out of a building a bit north of this spot, on the far side of the town). Searching is impaired by false hits and the only reference I could find that referred to a The Pines community I could not definitely associate with this spot. Mangoe (talk) 05:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This source from 1977 calls The Pines "a community" with a school, the "Concow School". Google Maps shows a school with that name a short distance north. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it is not quite so simple, because the same listing says of the school that it was "located at Spanish Town two miles north of Yankee Hill - Annexed to Yankee Hill 1943".(p. 34) The topos show two schools, the one labelled "Concow School", and the other right next to "The Pines" label. I'm not sure what to make of this, in terms of getting the article past simply claiming that it was a community and giving coordinates. Mangoe (talk) 18:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect Part of the Yankee Hill, Butte County, California CDP, near the border of Concow, California. "A community" includes neighborhoods and any cluster of homes, falling under WP:GEOLAND#2, and this lacks significant coverage or legal recognition. Butte County Place Names is not a unique source of substance, rather here merely listing a name on Topo maps like the GNIS: It just says The Pines is "NE corner of sect 33", section 33 so numbered on this map. Concow Elementary School serves/-d a wide area of Concow and does not belong to just this neighborhood. Reywas92^Talk 05:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Butte County Place Names is locally-written and contains original content about Butte County. It appears highly reliable, and in some instances, is the source cited by GNIS. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see any good evidence that this exists as a community. Even the GNIS doesn't think this is a populated place, it's listed as a "locality", which means "Place at which there is or was human activity; it does not include populated places...". Per WP:GEOLAND if it isn't a populated place then it has to satisfy WP:GNG, and it clearly doesn't because we aren't even sure it exists. Possibly it is used as a name for part of this area, there's a Pines Yankee Hill Hardware store nearby, for example, but that doesn't make it a community, and it certainly doesn't look like the Concow schools are considered to be part of it. Hut 8.5 20:16, 14 July 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 07:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yusuf Hussain[edit]

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

PROD removed, article of a football player who current seems to fail both WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 19:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 19:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Have you seen the resonse on the talk page? If not I'll paste it here: Having recently signed a new contract at Motherwell, it seems likely Hussain will play, at least from the bench, next season. Or be loaned out to a team where he will play regularly. Hussain also features in many other articles pertaining to Motherwell F. C. and so it is a useful article to have linked. If this doesn't justify it's existence it can be deleted.Adric of Alzarius (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply There is a reason why we are sandboxes and draft space. :/ Govvy (talk) 19:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Plenty of young players become professional and never make it. WP:CRYSTAL applies. Can be restored if/when he plays a competitive first-team game. Giant Snowman 19:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the article's creator I approve of Yusuf Hussain's deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adric of Alzarius (talk • contribs) 20:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 17:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above including article creator; player might well be notable in the future but delete until then Spiderone 18:22, 17 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Polka[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage about the company other than routine funding news and website launch announcements. Promotional article, fails NCORP. M4DU7 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 18:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just another one of those promotional Indian e-commerce articles. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 09:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM, WP:MILL, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:NCORP. This is spam for a run of the mill Internet company -- one of thousands of ordinary firms. In 2020, everybody knows we are not a free web host. Bearian (talk) 20:14, 21 July 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 keep. A discussion about the rename can be held via a WP:RM. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mexicans of European descent[edit]

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

This article seems to be original research since it lacks sources directly addressing the subject matter. There are sources on Mexicans who self-identify as White in national censuses but non on the strict concept of "Mexicans of European descent" (i.e. the vast majority of Mexicans) for which Original Research is required in order to define who does and does not fit in this category. An article for "White Mexicans" could be created without violating WP Policy yet this one cannot.Php2000 (talk) 18:02, 14 July 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 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article violates many of our policies. We cover ethnic groups not racial groups, so merely biologically having an ancestry is not the key. Otherwise people would always refer to George Zimmerman as black, when in fact some falsely call him white and some correctly call him Hispanic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As the editor Php2000 admits at the start of this report, plenty of sources regarding "White Mexicans" exist within the article, thus, the problem in reality is not that the article's subject is original research but that he considers the title of the article to be vague. Therefore I think renaming the article would be more convenient than deleting an article that features massive amounts of well sourced and researched information. It is important to also note that in the talk page for the article Mexicans of European descent [4] the editor Php2000 is asking for a redirect/renaming, not a deletion. Pob3qu3 (talk) 21:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:Pob3qu3 I agree that renaming the article White Mexicans would solve 80% of the issue but it would also require a degree of redrafting to purge it of OR. Php2000 (talk) 12:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply So, if you agree that renaming is the main issue here and that the big majority of the article is correct (with no mention that you recognize that "the term White mexican is backed by sources thus you actually can't argue against it's inclusion" [5]) then this is not the right place to deal with this issue. The right place would be the talk page of the article in question (or the talk page of the article "Mexicans" which is te one that is seeing most of this discussion). Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I agree with Pob3qu3, instead of just deleting the article it's more prudent to discuss the changes needed on the talk page. Garlicolive (talk) 17:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but rename to White Mexicans or Race in Mexico. At least some parts of this page seem to be written as a racialist essay focused on the differences in "skin color". For example, " Mexicans with lighter skin tones (lighter than "F") have higher levels of academic achievement... This time 11% of Mexicans were reported to have "dark skin tones (A-E)" 59% to have "medium skin tones (F-G)" and 29% to have "light skin tones (H-K), etc. I am not sure this can be fixed given that the entire page is about "Whites" versus "Non-whites". The opinion by John Pack Lambert above is not unreasonable. On the other hand, if we have page African Americans and White Americans, why can't we have White Mexicans, i.e. White people in the state of Mexico? My very best wishes (talk) 17:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I agree with the sentiment, and probably the course of action, but the problem here is the way race is considered in Mexico. Mexicans do not consider themselves to be divided into discrete colour based groups, they believe there are indigenous people and everybody else. However, they do use the term 'blanco' based on appearance, and the society is extremely biased in favour of these people, whatever their ancestry. So we have an article that probably needs to exist in some form, but which is difficult to source as Mexican sources rarely consider Mexican Whites as an ethnic group. There might be a case for merging this page into a new Race in Mexico page. Boynamedsue (talk) 08:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I see. Some tables on the page are using a classification to three different racial groups. But it also tells "Also included in the survey was a color palette (the same as the one used in the PERLA project: composed of 11 different tones with "A" being the darkest and "K" being the lightest) so a person could chose what color the skin of his/her face was.". This is kind of unusual, although, yes, the surveys of race/ethnicity are conducted also in the USA, etc. My very best wishes (talk) 16:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Although I never considered it as something to think much about, I agree that the article in varios sections is written in a "Whites vs non-Whites" style as My very best wishes has pointed out. My suggestion would be to rename the article as "White Mexicans" and reduce/trim these sections of the article (which would now focus on said ethnic group history and distribution etc.) and move them to a new article such as the propossed "Race in Mexico" if necessary. Pob3qu3 (talk) 23:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Rename. This article is effectively already "White Mexicans", as Mexicans of European Descent would include many people who have one European parent and one Mexican parent of any ethnicity, these people are clearly not included in the article. Sources all talk about "White" or "fair-skinned" Mexicans. There are some troubling outdated sources in there, which probably need excising. A complete rewrite of some sections is necessary for OR.Boynamedsue (talk) 06:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per a comment abouve, I now feel a Race in Mexico article might be better than White Mexicans. --Boynamedsue (talk) 06:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I consider appropiate to point out that the concept of "White Mexican" as an ethnic group is very prevalent within Mexican society, just like "Indigenous Mexican" or "Afromexican" are (I just added another source to the article about it). I say this because I've seen that in your responses you have stated things along the lines of "its rare for Mexican sources to think of White Mexicans as an ethnic group" or "besides indigenous peoples, Mexicans perceive themselves as being all of the same ethnicity", which I have the impression, is a similar posture to the one shown by the editor Php2000 in the talk page of the article "Mexicans" where he says that "the label White Mexican is an anglocentric misconstruct that does not exist in México" [6] when in fact, there are sources on which investigators have stated that, despite Mexico's government promoting an unionist ethnic discourse for nearly 100 years many Mexicans still consider themselves to be of different races/ethnicies. I hope this can make you reconsider your posture, but no personal grudges if you don't. Pob3qu3 (talk) 22:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

response I don't disagree that skin colour is an important factor in Mexico, but Mexican Whites don't really form an ethnic group in as much as the academic sources don't support it. I would say there is a mismatch between conceptions of ethnicity, if you look at google scholar results for "mexicanos blancos" you get nearly nothing of any use for an article called "White Mexicans", although they clearly exist and to a degree have group-consciousness. Boynamedsue (talk) 23:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply I believe this is an issue of perspective that can be sorted out easily if we focus on what we agree (which is most things) instead of on what we disagree, as both of us agree that White Mexicans exists, that there's group-consciousness in Mexican society about them (which has become extremely notorious in the last two years) and that reliable sources about them exist. The only point of discussion between us is that there isn't much information about them, but this is ultimately explained because its a new term, but even then, there's official sources that acknowledge them, academic investigations about them (some from before the 2010s, such as the American Sociological Association investigation that is included in the article's lead section), published literature (much of it already featured in the article) and recently very much press coverage. I think that the time most of those reliable sources have been around shouldn't influence the inclusion of the topic they primarily addres. Specially because they're not really that recent, most are 3 to 4 years old. Pob3qu3 (talk) 00:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

reply The ASA article is the type of thing that worries me, it specifically states that while colour discrimination exists in Mexico, the group categorisations the study uses to identify it (one of which is "blanco o güero") are not socially recognised. That means it can't be used as a source to prove the existence of an ethnic group called "White Mexicans". This is a really hard article to write without OR. Boynamedsue (talk) 06:54, 22 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mbachu John Ndubuisi[edit]

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

Non notable footballer Spike 'em (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Spike 'em (talk) 18:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 18:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - possible hoax, certainly non-notable, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL, with dearth of adequate sources. Giant Snowman 18:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
G3 Govvy (talk) 18:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete another non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I believe they exist, they're just not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 08:32, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete he's not play at high level or international football --Devokewater @ 17:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 18:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NFOOTY. -- Dane ^talk 19:46, 17 July 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 speedy delete. Because there seem to be few if any non-sock participants in this discussion, we can mostly ignore it and apply WP:G4 (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy). Sandstein 07:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sliema’s Sri Chinmoy Statue Controversy[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

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

Re-creation of Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy which had been deleted after discussion BostonMensa (talk) 17:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article has nothing to do with Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy, and there is a controversy regarding the Statue in Malta because it still exist, like other controversies that can be found on wikipedia List of monument and memorial controversies in the United States — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriSriPatrick (talk • contribs) 18:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G5. For the same reasons elaborated in WP:Articles for deletion/Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy. Article creator has been blocked as a confirmed sock (and for creating attack pages). Softlavender (talk) 00:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC); edited 02:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softlavender should be banned from wikipedia for sugar coating the Sri Chinmoy Wikipedia Page which has become a promotional page for sri chinmoy .org — Preceding unsigned comment added by OeilDuCyclope (talk • contribs) 08:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not suitable article. Per WP: CSECTION, there shouldn't be an article devoted to criticism or controversy. Also article is heavily slanted to promoting critical view. Finarfin77 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 08:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't agree, this Controversy should be kept , there are controversies for many statues on Wikipedia and people in Malta have not been consulted in the first place, regardless of the accusation against Sir Chin MOY ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by GrumpyLocust (talk • contribs) 10:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC) — GrumpyLocust (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, i note that the Sri Chinmoy page has no legacy section, that could include a list of memorials etc relating to Chinmoy? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Coolabahapple, you are right , no legacy and NO controversy Section was which removed years ago . Regarding the items I have put on this Controversy entry they are based on facts , I did not made them up . All have been reported in the Maltese press. You can check . Maybe the article is slanted but it is not on purpose . I will try to rephrase them more gently . Besides I am not attacking anyone . I simply try to put more factual data on this Statue issue . — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriSriPatrick (talk • contribs) 16:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~added sections for a less slanted view - hope that would be taken into account — Preceding unsigned comment added by SriSriSriPatrick (talk • contribs) 10:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)~~ Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nice compliment a separate article for this event. That might be an option for a world religion or a larger group. But I think the main reason for the creation is to discretize SC and their followers.--Riquix (talk) 13:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wikipedia is about facts , not opinions and if we look at the facts presented in this proposed entry there are many facts that show that there is a controversy - The other issue we have too is that is is impossible to do anything on the SC Page without having either Riquix or Softlavender jumping in and undoing/rollbacking contributions - don't think even to say anything ( that is backed by facts ) that goes against SC — Preceding unsigned comment added by OeilDuCyclope (talk • contribs) 09:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep We have similar isssues in Canada ... maybe the scope of the controversy should be broadened ? like Chinmoy Free Statues Controversy or ask softlavender if we can create the Controversies Section in SC Page , as she is the owner of this entry/page ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CrummyOwl (talk • contribs) 10:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — CrummyOwl (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: All of the "Keep" !votes on this page are sockpuppets. Softlavender (talk) 01:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin : calling people having different views on the matter 'socketpuppets' is not serious . Weither this page in kept or not there is an issue with this 2 people that have been undoing other contributions for at least one full year . Wikipedia is about facts . — Preceding unsigned comment added by OeilDuCyclope (talk • contribs) 05:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Administrator note I have struck the !votes and comments made by sockpuppets. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for editing. Trifle is I think the user Finarfin77 is also I think a sock puppet is a kind provocateur.--Riquix (talk) 15:34, 21 July 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:09, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iskra (band)[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass WP:NMUSIC Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 17:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. No evidence of notability indeed. Couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sources like databases, streaming service entries, social media pages, concert sites, lyrics sites, retail sites, Youtube videos, download sites, trivial mentions/name checks and blogs. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 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 keep. No consensus to delete, and a consensus that it meets s WP:NACADEMIC #6; the additional issues regarding sourcing can be handled outside of AfD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hugh Loxdale[edit]

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

Notability is in question and has not been established. The sources appear to be all primary, without reliable sources. A major contributor to this article appears to have a close connection with its subject. Devokewater (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks to me as if the persomn might well be notable, Devokewater. Did you do a WP:BEFORE search to try to find independent sources? if so, what search parameters did you use, please? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and COI editing is not grounds for deletion, unless there has been promotion or hoaxing. Lack of notability is, but onloy after trying to check for sources, and considering WP:ATD. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi DES I googled him (do this for everyone I comment upon) + did some research, it appears to me that the article was written by connected people. All the sources appear to be connected to him and not independent, IMHO the article looks as if it was written as PR, it even has his CV attached. Quite happy to be proven wrong. Regards --Devokewater (talk) 17:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict) Devokewater Recently on the Teahouse, Loxdale wrote There has been for some while a Wikipedia web entry about me entitled ‘Hugh Loxdale’ (Username: Loxdale), which was not instigated by me, but was begun I believe by the Royal Entomological Society about the time or shortly after I was President of that Society. I had nothing to do with its instigation (and for some time was even unaware of its existence!), although subsequently have added information to broaden its interest. Assuming this to be accurate, the subject is not the primary author but is a contributor to the article, and the degree of COI of other contributors is unclear. None of which is a reason for deletion. (Being a pure autobiography is not a reason for deletion.) The lack of independent sources is s problem. A google books search jut now showed on the first results page several books where Lockdake was thanked for reviewing contributions, as well as several where he wrote the book or a chapter. None of these as an independent source with significant coverage but in the past such things almost always indicate soemoen who will pass WP:PROF. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article as it exists needs to have an ax taken to it, but at the core, I believe the person can meet Wikipedia's definition of notabile. David notMD (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep President of the Royal Entomological Society satisfies WP:NACADEMIC #C6, and NACADEMIC explicitly supersedes GNG. That said, the article is indeed promotional with evidence of obvious COI editing. I recommend passing this on to WP:COIN to deal with the COI and promo issues. Spicy (talk) 18:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this article is kept then it needs independent sources + the fluffy parts edited out, why on earth is his CV attached? the piece on the Teahouse talks about a couple of accounts (or numerous accounts) this is a red flag to me, he may meet the criteria of being notable however I emphasis that IMHO this article is written as PR and presently does not add to Wikipedia. --Devokewater (talk) 18:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- IMO the article should be cut down to a one-paragraph stub, but dismantling an article while it's at AfD is sometimes frowned upon. Spicy (talk) 20:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have taken an ax to some of the article (including the CV). More needed. If Loxdale stays away from editing the article it can rise to Wikipedia standards. David notMD (talk) 19:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment my concern now is that too many of the references contain; "Loxdale, H. D" Devokewater (talk) 19:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Spicy as meeting NACADEMIC C6 as president of the Royal Entomological Society. Also seems fairly well cited. The article needs cleanup, perhaps stubbing, but not deletion.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment per Spicy the article should be cut down to a one-paragraph stub. Devokewater (talk) 08:35, 15 July 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 redirect to Gameplay of World of Warcraft. Sandstein 17:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Races and factions of Warcraft[edit]

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

does not meet notability guidelines Prisencolin (talk) 17:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe this user is making AFD nominations in a POINTY manner due to issues with an article creation of theirs being taken to AFD and another draft being rejected by AFC (which had been previously AFD'd). I recommend a speedy keep on procedural grounds, with no opposition to someone else nominating if they feel WP:LISTN or WP:GNG aren't met. @Postdlf: As info based on your comment at another recent AFD nomination. -- ferret (talk) 17:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 17:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither the notability of lists or GNG is met. We need to stop using procedure to keep useless clutter on Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep but purge~~ LISTN can easily be shown for the major factions and races, particularly playable ones from the various games. The mass of fancruft about every little race and creature though can be purged out. -- ferret (talk) 17:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed a quick prune of general cruft that is unlikely to be sourcable. The major factions and races are all that's left now, though I wouldn't call it great by any stretch, this was just a quick prune. -- ferret (talk) 02:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clean-up and rename: so much of this is unverifiable, and questionably accurate. There's no sense of proportion, and no real world context to determine what's important or impactful. But it seems likely that at least some of the races here are notable, and probably covered better together in a singular article than as a few stubs. This is based on my best estimate of the article's WP:POTENTIAL. And if that doesn't come to fruition, I would support a merge or redirect to a suitable article that covers a lot of this type of in-universe stuff. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Redirect. This WP:FANCRUFT fails WP:NFICTION. Perhaps some of it could be rescued into an article about Universe of Warcraft but nobody tried to create the main overview. Anyway, this stuff belongs on a fandom/wikia site. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Gameplay of World of Warcraft, with potentially some content merged. The vast majority the sourcable content is within the context of World of Warcraft's now decades long domination of the universe, such as which races have become members of which playable factions. @Piotrus: This target might be suitable for your thoughts on a Universe article. -- ferret (talk) 02:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or, perhaps more suitably, merge content into Warcraft#Setting, which is the main link to this article. I do not believe this article large enough that a suitable merge of high points could not be accomplished. -- ferret (talk) 02:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a better redirect target, changed my vote. Unfortunately there is almost nothing worth merging :( --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Right now a mess of FANDOM-style fancruft that should be WP:TNT deleted. An article on Azeroth would probably be notable and be able to include the major races but would probably merit a full rewrite from scratch._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 07:53, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to a suitable target). WP:GAMECRUFT. Looking through the ol' VG/RS search engine, I get some mentions here and there, but nothing in-depth or information beyond in-universe. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 14:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and/or merge to existing Warcraft articles. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:13, 20 July 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) 22:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of All That characters[edit]

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

non notable list WP:CSC Prisencolin (talk) 17:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Prisencolin: You've posted a number of the exact same AFDs recently and it seems like you're not reading the discussions, because you've not expanded your rationale in any way beyond the same WP:VAGUEWAVE incomplete sentence. Please discuss the content and your evaluation of it per WP:BEFORE, and explain why there are no alternatives to deletion as policy requires, instead of making participants guess at your reasoning or do that work for you. This is your case to make. postdlf (talk) 17:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe this user is making AFD nominations in a POINTY manner due to issues with an article creation of theirs being taken to AFD and another draft being rejected by AFC (which had been previously AFD'd). CSC is not a notability guideline. I recommend a speedy keep on procedural grounds, with no opposition to someone else nominating if they feel WP:LISTN or WP:GNG aren't met. -- ferret (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this appears to be an unsourced list. Wikipedia is built on verrifiability which in turn is built on sourcing. When we have sourceless items they should be deleted.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That content currently does not include sources does not mean it's not verifiable, because the question is whether sources exist (and here at a minimum there is the series itself as a source for its own content). Your claim that "sourceless items...should be deleted" is false and contrary to policy outside of the very narrow BLP exception; see WP:PRESERVE, WP:ATD, and WP:BEFORE. postdlf (talk) 18:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and non notableShrikanthv (talk) 07:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete as more of a database than an article, and a questionably verifiable one at that. It's possible you could focus on the notable cast members of a sketch comedy show, and some of their more notable appearances, but that would be a very different article, probably with a different name. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- unsourced fancruft, and there is little evidence of meeting WP:LISTN. Reyk _YO! 09:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and non notableShrikanthv (talk) 07:30, 20 July 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) 22:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlie Handsome[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. This interview is a primary source, and is cited in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing here adds up to passing any of the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON (the friendly way to say it) or WP:PROMOTION (not so friendly). The earliest versions of this article made factual statements about this guy working with various famous people. A later editor changed the text to "Vojetsak has stated he helped produce..." and the like, because confirmation cannot be found. If those unconfirmed statements were totally removed, there would be nothing left to the article. Mr. Handsome does indeed have a few credits, as can be seen in the three sources presently used in the article, but those add up to very thin and non-critical coverage. Under both his stage name and real name, nothing else can be found beyond the usual self-promotional and streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:35, 16 July 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) 22:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antec_International[edit]

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

Per WP:NCORP not a notable subject. A Google search doesn’t return any useful result PlunketMcShane (talk) 15:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 17:27, 14 July 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 redirect to Rail profile#Bridge rail. A redirect section-hatnote can be placed there to bridge barrier. -- JHunterJ (talk) 17:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridge rail[edit]

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

Redirect to Rail profile#Bridge rail; obvious primary topic. ~~The other entry only mentions the term once in the entire page, and is not listed in its #Types of guardrail section.~~ WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 14:07, 14 July 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 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:34, 14 July 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 July 14. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bridge rail page was originally created as a redirect to Baulk road as this type of rail section was designed specifically for that type of track. The Guard rails article does not make it clear why this was converted to a disambiguation page.Geof Sheppard (talk) 16:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now we have a section in Rail profile, wouldn't that be a better (future) target? WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 17:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the converter to the dab page 10 years ago, I can say in retrospect that it might have been better to have changed the redirect to the railway/railroad target and added a hatnote there to the respective bridge component article. However, "bridge rail" is a common term in bridge construction (see documents from the U.S. states of Texas and Minnesota and a fan page which includes official references regarding Michigan) and therefore should have a wikilink somewhere, either from a dab page or a hatnote. In searching since I discovered this AfD I found Traffic barrier § Types and performance which does mention the type of structure, if only calling it a "bridge barrier" and not providing sources, but at least there would be some relevant material at the target, with the addition of sources to come. Mapsax (talk) 22:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Mapsax for that link, I have rewritten the guard rail entry to link to Bridge barrier. It looks a bit more plausible as a dab page now; before, the entry for the guardrail appeared to be purely a random two-word combination, as BD2412 says in his comment below. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unnecessary WP:D Lightburst (talk) 16:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Referring to the guardrail on a bridge as "bridge rail" is not an encyclopedic construction, so there really is only one meaning for this term. BD2412 T 01:14, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Since this AfD was opened, I have done substantial cleanup/rewriting (with a bit of WP:TNT) to the page in question, meaning that my nominating rationale is slightly outdated. The revision of the page when the AfD was opened was this one (this edit had only just been made); the difference is shown here. WT79 ^{(speak to me | editing patterns | what I been doing)} 09:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rail profile#Bridge rail, the only legitimate use, and delete G14 Bridge rail (disambiguation). Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references that I provided above, and I could probably find more, show that the term in the bridge context is as legitimate as the one in the railway context. I am not against a redirect and a hatnote added to the target article, just the claim of illegitimacy. Mapsax (talk) 22:12, 18 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prockmans, California[edit]

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

Yet another reason not ot scrape articles out of gazetteers: the typos. Prockmans gets almost no Ghits, and besides Durham, the only "legitimate" hit is this map; but checking against the topos I find that the location indicated is that of Brockman, California, whose notability is a little iffy, but which is listed in GNIS and which finds some other real mentions. I'm loathe to redirect one to the other given the paucity of legitimate references, but it's a possibility. Mangoe (talk) 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. "Prockmans" has no significant coverage, failing WP:GNG. I agree with nom that it is probably a typo of Brockman, which is actually notable. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Typos happen, this location is indeed Brockman.--Milowent • ^hasspoken 16:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a typo that's been sitting around for more than 10 years. A good example of how you can call anything a community and make it nearly impossible to correct. Glendoremus (talk) 19:51, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magpie Recycling[edit]

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

Not a notable subject. No citations.Devokewater (talk) 15:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I searched for sources both under the name given in the article, as well as with various variations of "cooperative" or "co-op", and turned up very little. It has a couple of mentions in a few books and papers, but none of them did anything more than establish that it existed, and gave no actual discussion regarding the group. It also appears that the group may no longer be in operation, making it unlikely that any further sources regarding it will be created in the future. There is just not any WP:SIGCOV on this group, causing it to fail the WP:GNG, as well as the more specific guidelines like WP:NORG. Rorshacma (talk) 15:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination and per Rorshacma's well-researched rationale. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:32, 20 July 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, without prejudice against restoring to draft if additional sources are found to overcome the objections raised in this discussion. BD2412 T 00:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kole Black[edit]

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

Fails notability, verifiability and RS requirements. BLP concerns. Article had already been deleted (see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kole Black) and was apparently undeleted for no clear reason. Doanri (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Doanri (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Doanri (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Doanri (talk) 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is no where close to what we would need to establish that this journalist is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 15:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Only one source now. Needs more sources, but can be re-considered if re-worked and revised. Ambrosiawater (talk) 23:14, 20 July 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 keep. After new sources presented by Cunard, which after a relist were upheld. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 17:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guandan[edit]

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

Lacks significant coverage by reliable sources needed to meet WP:GNG DannyS712 (talk) 01:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't read the Chinese or evaluate the sources. But they look plausible. Does the nom have more information about those sources? Hobit (talk) 17:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The version I nominated didn't have any sources, but I don't see them as significant in depth coverage DannyS712 (talk) 20:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to poker (under variants). I try to have some humility around non-American games, and it's possible this really is a phenomenon. But much of the article is about detailed rules and game guide style information, which is something that wikipedia is not. Jontesta (talk) 19:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

"Over 6,000 people play Guandan games in Hongze". Jschina. 2016-06-12. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
"Most people playing a card game simultaneously". Guinness World Records. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
"《掼蛋传习》新书发布会暨中国掼蛋文化高峰论坛在南京举行" [The launch of the new book "The Egg-Breaking Practice" and the China Egg-Break Culture Summit Forum were held in Nanjing] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. 2019-12-08. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
蔡志明 (2017-04-16). ""淮安掼蛋" 有了统一国标" ["Huai'an Egg" has a unified national standard]. Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
张家然 (2017-04-11). "江苏出台"掼蛋"规则背后：对裁判进行培训，今年办全省赛事" [Behind the introduction of Jiangsu's "Egg-breaking" rules: training of referees, this year's provincial competitions]. zh:澎湃新闻 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
王瑞芳 (2019-11-25). "掼蛋赢"宝马"——第一届掼蛋世界超级联赛总决赛完美收官" [Egg-breaking wins "BMW"-the first egg-breaking World Super League finals] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.

Sources with quotes

"Over 6,000 people play Guandan games in Hongze". Jschina. 2016-06-12. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
The article notes:
As a kind of poker game, Guandan originated in Huaian city years ago and got widely spread across China, becoming the favorite poker game of the general public at present.
"Most people playing a card game simultaneously". Guinness World Records. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
The article notes:
The most people playing a card game simultaneously is 2992 and was achieved by Huai'an Guandan Culture Association (China) in Huai'an, Jiangsu, China on 16 October 2016.
"《掼蛋传习》新书发布会暨中国掼蛋文化高峰论坛在南京举行" [The launch of the new book "The Egg-Breaking Practice" and the China Egg-Break Culture Summit Forum were held in Nanjing] (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. 2019-12-08. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
From Google Translate:
Egg-breaking is a poker game that originated in Huai'an, Jiangsu. On December 8th, the release of the new book "Hanging Eggs" and the China Egg-breaking Culture Summit Forum were held in Nanjing. The event was co-sponsored by Nanjing Radio and TV Station, Modern Express and China Egg Research Institute.
Li Dansheng, the author of "Die Egg Biography", is the dean of China Egg Egg Research Institute. According to Li Dansheng's introduction at the conference of the new book, the book "Breaking Eggs" is divided into "Basics", "Improvement" and "Expansion". Among them, "Basic" focuses on the basic rules of egg-breaking, analyzes the rules of card type, summarizes and refines the endgame formula, and designs card examples and exercises similar to the Go-and-Go game; "Enhancement" explains the game of egg-breaking In essence, it puts forward the concepts of communication theory and sign language, and does research on the memory method of the egg-handed game; "Expansion" goes beyond the hand of the game and introduces Sun Zi's art of war and game theory into the egg-handed game. Reveal the relationship between egg-breaking game strategy and human wisdom thought.
蔡志明 (2017-04-16). ""淮安掼蛋" 有了统一国标" ["Huai'an Egg" has a unified national standard]. Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
The article notes that the Chess and Card Sports Management Center of the General Administration of Sport of China released a national standard for Guandan, that Guandan was started in the Huai'an District of Huai'an City in the 1960s, that it became popular among Chinese citizens, that over 20 million people play the game in just the Jiangsu and Anhui provinces, and that 16 TV stations created programs about Guandan.
张家然 (2017-04-11). "江苏出台"掼蛋"规则背后：对裁判进行培训，今年办全省赛事" [Behind the introduction of Jiangsu's "Egg-breaking" rules: training of referees, this year's provincial competitions]. zh:澎湃新闻 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
From Google Translate:
"Broken Egg" originated from the people of Jiangsu Province, and is widely circulated in Jiangsu and surrounding provinces and cities. It is a mass sports project that uses playing cards as equipment and four pairs of pairs to conduct intellectual confrontation. The game ends with the player’s hand and decides to upgrade, and how much the two sides upgrade determines the outcome.
...
In February 2016, the 2016 International Intellectual Sports Federation Intellectual Sports Classic started in Huai'an, Jiangsu. On this comprehensive intellectual sports event platform that represents the highest level in the world, "Broken Egg" as the performance of this event, for the first time on the international competition stage. The three sessions of the International Intellectual Sports League Intellectual Sports Classic from 2017 to 2019 will still be held in Huai'an, which will facilitate the popularization and promotion of the "Broken Egg".
王瑞芳 (2019-11-25). "掼蛋赢"宝马"——第一届掼蛋世界超级联赛总决赛完美收官" [Egg-breaking wins "BMW"-the first egg-breaking World Super League finals] (in Chinese). China Internet Information Center. Archived from the original on 2020-07-12. Retrieved 2020-07-12.
From Google Translate:
In recent years, the egg that originated in Huai'an, Jiangsu, is gradually changing from a folk grassroots entertainment project to a national fitness program promoted by the government, and has embarked on a professional and industrialized development path. The "Egg Egg Economy" has also been out of Huai'an. In Jiangsu, Anhui and even further away, it has accurately targeted the consumer groups who can pay for this game. Fan Songli, the founder of the "1312 Big Game" game platform, made the egg-breaking industry and cooperated with a number of TV stations to promote the development of the egg-breaking business. Many professionals who beat eggs are aware of the "1312 big name" game platform.

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

Cunard (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guandan corresponds to the Chinese Wikipedia article zh:掼蛋. Some of the quotes below are translated from Chinese to English Google Translate.
From Xinhua News Agency, "Egg-breaking (Guandan) is a poker game that originated in Huai'an, Jiangsu. On December 8th, the release of the new book "Hanging Eggs" and the China Egg-breaking Culture Summit Forum were held in Nanjing. The event was co-sponsored by Nanjing Radio and TV Station, Modern Express and China Egg Research Institute." In 2019, a book was published about Guandan.
From another Xinhua News Agency article, the Chess and Card Sports Management Center of the General Administration of Sport of China released a national standard for Guandan in 2017, Guandan was started in the Huai'an District of Huai'an City in the 1960s, Guandan became popular among Chinese citizens, over 20 million people play the game in just the Jiangsu and Anhui provinces, and 16 TV stations created programs about Guandan.
From zh:澎湃新闻, "'Broken Egg' (Guandan) originated from the people of Jiangsu Province, and is widely circulated in Jiangsu and surrounding provinces and cities. It is a mass sports project that uses playing cards as equipment and four pairs of pairs to conduct intellectual confrontation. The game ends with the player’s hand and decides to upgrade, and how much the two sides upgrade determines the outcome."
From the China Internet Information Center, "In recent years, the egg (Guandan) that originated in Huai'an, Jiangsu, is gradually changing from a folk grassroots entertainment project to a national fitness program promoted by the government, and has embarked on a professional and industrialized development path."
From Jschina: "As a kind of poker game, Guandan originated in Huaian city years ago and got widely spread across China, becoming the favorite poker game of the general public at present."
From Guinness World Records, "The most people playing a card game simultaneously is 2992 and was achieved by Huai'an Guandan Culture Association (China) in Huai'an, Jiangsu, China on 16 October 2016."
Cunard (talk) 11:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep per sources found by Cunard. Hobit (talk) 06:49, 21 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PathSolutions[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:COMPANY. This article was previously deleted at AFD in 2009 and again in 2016 as spam under WP:CSD#G11. Over the course of eleven years, this company has still not garnered significant coverage from independent reliable sources. The references in the article, and searches to yield better results, show nothing but primary sources, press releases, and self-published blogs by enthusiasts. Aside from a single review from InfoWorld, PathSolutions has gone almost entirely unnoticed. Ə XPLICIT 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Ə XPLICIT 07:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*KEEP - Over 6 articles and product reviews have been published by 3rd parties showing it is in thei news; about 5 in the past 2 months. They can be gathered and placed at the end of the article. ( This was me.) Goldenrowley (talk) 11:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Articles I found were mainly press releases or mentions and do not fit the definition of WP:ORGCRIT. --CNMall41 (talk) 05:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~KEEP~~ - Article was improved with articles on the product, from different authorities, printed in many different publications. Goldenrowley (talk) 06:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: User has already expressed his "keep" argument above. Ə XPLICIT 06:46, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. the improvements to the article happened after CNMALL commented, so I was just trying to respond to his/her concern.Goldenrowley (talk) 17:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the most reputable coverage I found from "Yahoo! Finance" reprinting Business Wire. But isn't that pay-to-publish? --Ysangkok (talk) 22:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please consider the news cited in the article that are full feature articles: Tom Hollingsworth - GestaltIt. (2 separate articles); Justin Warren; Beggy Elliott; Rob Coote; Christopher Kusek; Zoe Rose; and Twit.tv. On Twit.tv, It was a news story one day. Some of them have huge followings. Goldenrowley (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Interop99 (talk) 03:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Interop99: it is WP:NOTAVOTE, you must provide a reason. --Ysangkok (talk) 00:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles referenced in SOC discussed various aspects of PathSolutions demonstrations at Security field day event with multiple perspectives on product set. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Interop99 (talk • contribs) 06:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that: a) Interop99 is a single-purpose account; b) the references added in this edit are nothing more than blogs and a stream, which are "largely not acceptable as sources". We have yet to see any user produce credible reliable sources that cover this company to any considerable extent. Ə XPLICIT 07:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources from Interop99 look like independent experts in the field; I looked up Christopher Kusek from Twitter at Twitter.com/cxi and he has 21700 followers. twit.tv is a large independent broadcast company (not just a 'stream') who airs a weekly podcast show on technology and so was my best pick as a source that meets all criteria. IMHO, just because a company was deleted 2 times in the past, doesn't mean it can't attain importance later. Goldenrowley (talk) 07:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was attempting to cite this policy: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter. " Goldenrowley (talk) 08:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A bunch of Twitter followers does not make someone an "expert". Sources fail WP:ORGCRIT – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you need to verify the blog author's status as expert-in-field, look at LinkedIn. They're all passing as tech cybersecurity experts: Justin Warren^[1] Christopher Kusek^[2], Zoe Rose^[3]. Becky Elliott^[4] I also added a recent quote from Brian Chee from Twit.tv that this product was one-of-kind, Podcaster, Senior Contributing Editor for InfoWorld. Goldenrowley (talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.linkedin.com/in/justinwarren/
^ https://www.linkedin.com/in/christopherkusek
^ https://www.linkedin.com/in/zo%C3%AB-rose/
^ https://www.linkedin.com/in/becky-elliott-3780b05/

Per WP:SPS: "Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established subject-matter expert, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications." You have not provided such evidence. Aside from Brian Chee, who happens to be the same author of the InfoWorld article, his quote from TWiT.tv does not present any significant coverage of the company, and is largely what he wrote in IW article to begin with. Ə XPLICIT 00:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I have a clearer picture what you are looking for then. Twit.tv is both independent and a huge company. I know Curtis Franklin is an established subject matter expert because he writes lots of pieces for darkmatter.com He is one who did the piece on PathSolutions call simulator recently. Brian Chee is also a subject matter expert/host at twit.tv. How come everyone is ignoring twit.tv ?Goldenrowley (talk) 09:30, 22 July 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WebGUI[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This was kept at AfD in 2007, but standards were so different then. I don't think it quite crosses the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: WP:VAGUEWAVE dithering hedge-beds nomination ... one of several put at AfD by nom. today.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment [[User:Djm-leighpark, thanks for putting up an interesting link, I'll bear its points in mind. You've recommended 'keep' but haven't actually given a reason why you think it is notable or how it meets the criteria. Could you please elaborate? Thanks for taking the time to join the discussion, Boleyn (talk) 12:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs. Best to stick to the old Pig racing. By [[ I read that I am been given the old extended test. If Boleyn does not mean to give the extended test then they should likely fix themselves. @Boleyn you as nom. have scrutinised the article and the previous AfD, whose views you have somewhat scummered, possibly without letting them know. The key point here is the nom. leaves the analysis in your head on not on this project page. Which if any sources do you find good or questionable? To not leave the benefit on the page but leaving everyone else to go over the same thing is bad. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk)

user:Djm-leighpark, I will try to answer your point but had difficulty understanding all of it. I have no idea what an 'extended test' is or your comment to Tough pigs. I am just asking you why you think this article passes notability, as you have stated not comment on nom but keep. For the sources, they are mainly primary and include a blog, of those in the article. From my own searches, I couldn't find the significant coverage in varied sources that I would expect for an article. Best wishes, Boleyn (talk) 06:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Balanced WP:VAGUEWAVE.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep There appears to be some reliable coverage here.★Trekker (talk) 22:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Sources in the article are, in order; a blogpost with release notes, a compilation of reviews about "the best Content Management Systems", the webpage of the company, the founder's bio on the same webpage, the WebGUI webpage, a webpage with a 502 error, and the WebGUI webpage regarding the mascot. Aside from this interview / Q&A with the company founder there's nothing in the news. Fails WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: (Yang & Lili, 2016); (Newwork World) and (Business.com) all ment WP:RS.Djm-leighpark (talk) 06:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Has some coverage and probably useful to have an article on this. North8000 (talk) 03:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, the content is probably useful and there is a fair amount of coverage in books and articles. Please note that the page is also visited on average 27/day. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A look at the articles covering this topic shows that they're just brief mentions. It's not enough to have reliable sources; the sources need to cover the topic in a significant way. Fails WP:GNG – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:33, 15 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juniper, Lassen County, California[edit]

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

Another place that Durham is the only source for. Searching in GNIS produces an extremely vague "Juniper Post Office (historical)" which corresponds to Durham's second post office period; the assertion they cite from a philately journal, however, says it only operated in the summer, and they do not give a location. Meanwhile I can find a couple of references to a Juniper mine, but again, no location (though one source gives a general area). Neither Gudde nor Fairfield mention the place, though each of them talks a bit about Juniper Lake and there's an extended passage in Fairfield about an encounter along Juniper Creek. There is of course no indication that Durham's Juniper and any of the other places similarly named have anything to do with each other. We're left with the all-too-common problem that we cannot accurately characterize the place, so I don't see how we can have an article on it. Mangoe (talk) 13:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject of the article fails WP:GNG (and through that WP:GEOLAND) by a long shot. In addition, per nom, it is unclear what "Juniper" even was. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to WP:V. Fails SNG and GNG. Lightburst (talk) 02:17, 20 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Naga Saga[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and therefore WP:NBOOK Spiderone 06:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 06:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable book.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- I do not know the book, but its thesis seems to be that there was a war between Nagaland and India 1945-2009, which is clearly false. There has certainly been conflict and a struggle for autonomy, but not a full scale war. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable book written on a dubious subject. desmay (talk) 19:13, 20 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natan (footballer, born 1991)[edit]

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

Soccer player who played a total of 6 minutes for a 2nd tier professional team back in 2010 when he was 19. Since then he has not been in fully professional leagues. Does not have SIGCOV. Mvqr (talk) 13:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets WP:NFOOTY as much as any player from the English football leagues through the 1900s with a solitary appearance in professional football, of which there are numerous articles. Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 13:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is absolutely never enough to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is plenty of consensus that says technically meeting NFOOTBALL (ie one game) is insufficient when it fails GNG so comprehensively. We afford greater leeway for pre-internet players, or players who are young, but the sole appearance was a decade ago. If sources can be found please ping me. Giant Snowman 11:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to argue this one too much, but I do strongly disagree with this notion of "presumed notability" afforded to pre-internet players. Would you not presume a player who has one appearance in the Brazilian second division in 2010 was more notable than a player with one appearance in the English fourth division in 1965? Davidlofgren1996 (talk) 12:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - one of those ones where the clear GNG failure takes precedence over the borderline passing of NFOOTY Spiderone 12:00, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie (Jameson) Wood[edit]

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

Might be a close call, but he is only noted for being Ronnie Wood's son. There are articles about him where he discusses his father, but nothing in depth about Jamie himself. Notability is not inherited and I think this is an example of a relative doing nothing notable in their own right but getting an article anyway. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 12:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Just nothing here which verifies anything notable about the subject. If he wasn’t the stepson of a Rolling Stone there would be nothing out of the very ordinary to say and that in itself is not enough.--Egghead06 (talk) 14:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is not there to justify a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability is not inherited, and there is nothing I can find to support his notability independent of his father. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to be only notable by association. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:21, 20 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zameer Akhtar Naqvi[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 16:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No secondary sources to support WP:BIO notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable indeed (Urdu sources), better known as "Ladan Jafry" in Pakistan.— Hammad (Talk!) 03:29, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Very trivial. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 16:57, 22 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

7 Seconds of Love[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This has been to AfD twice in 2008 (one delete, one keep), then after its re-creation it has sat in CAT:NN for over 11 years. In favour of its notability: it has a member (Joel Veitch) who appears to be notable as an individual. The article and the last AfD claimed an article in NME (but both links given are deadlinks/don't mention them). They did sue Coca Cola and this got international coverage but I'd say of a W:1E type. The WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Joel Veitch. Boleyn (talk) 12:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as they do have reliable sources coverage such as this staff written biography at AllMusic here as well as the NME review which I will try to fix tomorrow and look for more sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to weak keep as couldn't fix NME link and only found this, and this, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That seems a very doubtful keep-vote based on one weak web source.

Delete A search reveals extremely few hits of any kind, and nothing that could be used to establish notability. Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect - not the easiest band name to search for, as I kept returning articles on both 7 Seconds and ska, but couldn't really find anything beyond AllMusic (my personal AllMusic preference is that at least one album--and this band only has one?--is reviewed as well) and stories about Coke. Would reconsider if NME or newspaper coverage about their music could be found. Caro7200 (talk) 13:16, 14 July 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 merge to Internet censorship in India. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of mobile apps banned in India[edit]

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

A WP:POVFORK of Censorship in India, Internet censorship in India. There is clearly no need of this page and most of the entries on this page easily fails WP:LISTN. Tessaracter (talk) 11:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The topic actually easily meets WP:LISTN, having been "discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources". See below for source examples.

References

"List of 89 apps banned for Indian Army soldiers". Business Insider (India).
"List of 59 Chinese mobile apps banned in India". Jagran Josh.
"India Bans Nearly 60 Chinese Apps, Including TikTok and WeChat". The New York Times.
"Beijing says it's 'strongly concerned' by India's decision to ban Chinese apps". CNN.
"Explained: How ban of TikTok and other Chinese apps will be enforced; the impact for Indian users". The Indian Express.
"Examining the Legal and Policy Process Behind India's Ban on Chinese Apps". The Wire.

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5 of these sources are discussing about the same event. Per WP:LISTN, do you think that one can create page about every single app listed here? Orientls (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Orientls: Regarding "do you think that one can create page about every single app listed here": it appears that you are misinterpreting WP:LISTN. It states there that "the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable" (underline emphasis mine). North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Internet censorship in India. Orientls (talk) 16:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per above. There is no need of a list anyway. It can be better formatted in a paragraph. Shashank5988 (talk) 16:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list will grow or it will decrease, in better words there is no need to have a separate article for this subject. Every country bans apps after all but it is indeed a part of internet censorship. So I support Merge as well per above, and per WP:ATD. Santosh L (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Upon further consideration, I'm fine with a merge to Internet censorship in India, a decent WP:ATD-M in this case. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 20 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cryptopia[edit]

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

This seems like a Non-notable cryptocurrency exchange. All the coverage of it the article is extremely trivial, for instance a bank closing their account, and I wasn't able to find anything that would pass WP:NCORP in a before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:28, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

However, the user writing this text now disagrees with the notion that this is a non-notable cryptocurrency exchange, since he and many other users had significant money stolen by or through it. The entry should remain. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.113.248.72 (talk • contribs)

The fact that you had money stolen does not mean it is notable. Dozens and dozens of cryptocurrency articles have been robbed, it is quite common. What is the point of covering every single robbery with an article? --Ysangkok (talk) 16:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I agree with nominator. --Ysangkok (talk) 05:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL - an ordinary "crypto" exchange that existed for a few months. We are not a free web-host to list every single exchange ever, nor every online scam, which must be in the thousands. Sorry that anybody lost money, but our mission is not to warn people about scams - that's what the Better Business Bureau does, or for the attorney general. Caveat emptor. Bearian (talk) 20:21, 21 July 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 keep. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rogers Corporation[edit]

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

Non-notable corporation, horribly sourced, no credible assertions of notability; "article" maintained for two years by User:HolisticMarketing Orange Mike | Talk 14:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. It is listed on the NYSE, which WP:LISTED suggests that it is probably notable. A quick search does indeed find some coverage. - [7], [8], [9]. There are probably more out there, given that the company is almost 200 years old. A search of newspaper archives could help. MB 16:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Current article is in terrible shape, but I think the company is notable. As noted above, this is a large, listed company with an international footprint. For example, they've had production operations in Suzhou, China since 2002, according to this source. It was not easy finding references that were not company press releases, notices on corporate finances or stock price movements. However I did find this on a trade magazine, which talks about one their products. Similarly, here is an youTube interview of a Rogers representative about 5G. And here is a note about what appears to be recent intellectual property dispute with another company. I also found three wikilinks pointing to this page: Walter E. Boomer, List of S&P 1000 companies, Surface treatment of PTFE. So to summarize my vote, not a tremendous amount of reliable, relevant sources out there, but I believe there are enough to justify notability. Article needs a lot of work. I'll try to at least add the sources I found. Alan Islas (talk) 06:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Added some content from the sources mentioned above. I'm not sure about using YouTube videos as sources, so did not include that one. --Alan Islas (talk) 16:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This is a listed company that is covered by analysts (see here), whose reports could meet GNG. We need a new WP:NLISTEDCORP to short-circuit AfDs of major listed corporations (per NPROF). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 18:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY. It needs more TLC, but AfD is not for cleanup. Bearian (talk) 20:23, 21 July 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. BD2412 T 00:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Sholay[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, unsourced except to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2008. A WP:BEFORE search turned up some listing sites and offers to sell film or songs, but nothing more. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 14:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge it appears to be a dubbed version of Do Sher (which is notable but needs expansion).† Encyclopædius 09:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. No notable citations found during a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear WP:GNG failure Spiderone 22:23, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RTB House[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails to meet WP:CORP. Created by a SPA, the content is little more than a promotional piece, listing clients, branch offices and awards. References cited are primarily industry/marketing journals. Lacks sufficient mentions in truly independent, third party sources, thus no reliable sources. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 20:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. TheImaCow (talk) 11:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Devokewater (talk) 12:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Seems like WP:CORPSPAM. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:26, 17 July 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 redirect to Wyoming East High School. No consensus to keep this article, and a desire to redirect as an ATD (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 09:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herndon High School (West Virginia)[edit]

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

School doesn't seem notable. Very little information provided and I couldn't find any sources which is not too surprising as the school closed in 1992 so there's probably very little to find online. Suonii180 (talk) 10:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable high school with the article lacking sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Wyoming East High School, which is the last school in the consolidation. Per WP:ATD. John from Idegon (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as we have usually done. Bearian (talk) 20:24, 21 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammad Bozorgi[edit]

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

Not notable. Its a paid article and I didn't find any reliable source for this person. Also, the article is deleted in fawiki via AfD. ARASH PT talk 10:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ARASH PT talk 10:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arash.pt, is the deletion discussion on fawiki this one? Vexations (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Yes. ARASH PT talk 12:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment most sourcing seen in a search was poor; I did find this book mention and added it to the article. Non-English searches might help here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a place you pay your way into being included in.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT and WP:MILL. If this was paid for, they were robbed. It would need to be entirely re-written and sourced to be an article. This is not a notable artist. Sourcing is tangential and unreliable. Bearian (talk) 20:27, 21 July 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meena Harris[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Previously deleted. scope_creep^Talk 21:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Sourcing is no better than at the last AfD, and I cannot find enough elsewhere to justify an article here. Her mother and aunt are notable, but per WP:NOTINHERITED, she is not. Edwardx (talk) 10:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a writer or an activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep source in the NYT isn't just about her, but it's more than a passing mention. Glamor's coverage is an interview, but a pretty in-depth one. Businessinsider is a great article for the GNG, but the publisher has never struck me as ideal (it is the the subject of perennial discussions about if it's an RS, to no real conclusion). None of the sources is a slam dunk, but over the GNG bar as a group. Hobit (talk) 06:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NY article is one small paragraph to create context for another paragraph, i.e. is a passing mention and the Glamour entry is written by Meena Harris herself and per WP:NOT not usable as a reference.scope_creep^Talk 08:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair on Glamor, I'd thought it was more of an interview. But Marie Claire is an article on her. As is [10]. In-depth articles for sure. Feels like a PR firm was involved however. But both appear reliable. Hobit (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable lawyer. Lack of significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources. fails WP:NBIO. DMySon 04:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @DMySon: Could you comment on the sources listed above and in the article? Hobit (talk) 08:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 09:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Devokewater (talk) 15:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Devokewater: could you address the actual sources? Hobit (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I have googled + researched her, whilst there are a couple of articles regarding her career, yes she’s attended top Universities and has been involved in various organisations, then again so have other lawyers who do not get the same publicity. Although there are numerous articles regarding her however, this does not mean that she is a notable lawyer, and at the top of her profession maybe just good at PR. IMHO there is nothing notable about what she has done, there is nothing that distinguishes her from other lawyers. --Devokewater (talk) 18:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Devokewater: could you address the sources? They appear to meet the WP:GNG. We don't require that she has done anything that distinguishes her from other lawyers (though few lawyers have articles in Marie Claire and Glamour I'd think...), she just needs to meet WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 19:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hi Hobit If you google her there are some articles which talk about her starting; "Phenomenal Woman Action Campaign, a female-powered organization" does this make her notable? Again there is nothing I can see that makes her notable, maybe just good at PR. You mention Marie Claire + Glamour this suggests that she is good at PR IMHO. --Devokewater (talk) 19:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG as a clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Are you sure she doesn't mee the GNG? The sources seem to be over the bar by more than a small bit. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment

She has not won a famous case

Has not acted for well-known clients

Not a respected professor of law

Not a senior partner in a prestigious law firm

She has good PR, non-notable - Delete Devokewater (talk) 08:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll remind you that none of those are inclusion guidelines. I appreciate you responding to my questions, but you've not really addressed anything involving WP:GNG. Hobit (talk) 19:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Hobit, her notability is based on GNG/WP:BASIC#1, and not due to her legal career? Britishfinance (talk) 10:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - FWIW, she fails my standards for lawyers, noting that she was a "commissioner on the San Francisco Commission on the Status of Women", which does not count as "service as chair of a major civic committee in a major city." She might pass as a writer. Can we discuss this further? Bearian (talk) 20:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, its is a children's book that was published three weeks ago. There is few independent reviews outside the usual places that sell children's books, and the video on YouTube to promote it, has 500 views. Its has been promoted by Senator Elizabeth Warren, contacted for an endorsement via her aunt, who is also a Senator. She is good at PR. I don't see much that makes it a standout show-piece children's book, that is automatically notable. scope_creep^Talk 21:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think any of the four criteria of WP:NAUTHOR are met. scope_creep^Talk 21:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She appears to meet GNG, with SIGCOV in enough RS: Elle Magazine, Fortune, NBC (Boston), Marie Claire, CBS (San Francisco), Forbes, Business Insider, People (magazine). These are many more (if needed). Per WP:BASIC#1, If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability; trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability. These are full pieces specifically on her – E.g. not trivial coverage. She therefore would meet BASIC#1. Whether ones thinks she is good at PR etc. is ot really the point, she is being covered extensively in good quality RS. Britishfinance (talk) 10:12, 22 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:19, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mochizuki Himari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Basing notabilty on 100k subscribers which is less than 250k needed. Non-notable. scope_creep^Talk 08:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 09:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 09:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL and WP:OUTCOMES. We have deleted articles about YouTubers with two million subscribers. How is this person notable? Bearian (talk) 20:29, 21 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nivedita Chandel (actress)[edit]

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

No significant roles or major achievements. References are interviews or passing mentions. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article fails to establish subject's notability -- Ab207 (talk) 18:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress and model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Sir Nivedita is a famous figure. From the beginning, there has been an attempt by his rival to misrepresent Nivedita's image. Every time social media was resorted to tarnishing his image. His Wikipedia was tried repeatedly by some miscreants, who always tried to make it in such a way that it was removed so that Nivedita's image could be tarnished. Nivedita is a leading actress who is highly respected in Bollywood. She has acted in several Bollywood films and acted in several albums. Efforts are being made day and night to tarnish his image as his rivals do not want to see him at the pinnacle of success. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ak56R (talk • contribs) 21:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Nivedita is a leading actress who is highly respected in Bollywood. He has acted in several Bollywood films and has produced several albums. Day and night efforts are being made by some miscreants to tarnish his image as his rivals do not want to see him at the pinnacle of success. Diya786 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Diya786 (talk • contribs) 04:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, WP:NACTOR. DMySon 04:53, 22 July 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 merge to Misquamicut, Rhode Island. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atlantic Beach, Rhode Island[edit]

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

It exists, but dosen't seem to meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. I can't see a reasonable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 01:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment The website for the place calls it "Atlantic Beach Park" (my emphasis). This is not an article about a settlement and needs to be renamed if kept. Personally I'm not terribly convinced of its notability but amusement parks are not my bailiwick. Mangoe (talk) 14:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having looked into this a little further, I'm going to suggest Merge to Misquamicut, Rhode Island. I've found plenty enough references to it, but what they say about it can be put in a not-terribly-ong paragraph. Mangoe (talk) 01:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to easy AtD: Misquamicut, Rhode Island, of which it is part and whose article would be improved with info, with addition of "Park" to subsection Djflem (talk) 18:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Merge according to Djflem's preferences. Because they've improved the article so much since the AfD tag went on. If kept, and if anybody wants to, ping me and I'll add this carousel to the list at Allan Herschell Company. --Lockley (talk) 22:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockley: Would go ahead and do that in any case.Djflem (talk) 05:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but better to wait for AfD discussion to close first. --Lockley (talk) 09:08, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Djflem. I wouldn't be opposed to a merge as per Lockley. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge: per Djflem. Looking over the sources that have been added, I don't see anything more than casual mentions -- a paragraph here, a paragraph there. Merging's entirely appropriate, though. Ravenswing 06:54, 25 July 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. Consensus is that this is an inappropriate topic for a separate article. The pronouncements of the Nepali Prime Minister can be covered in the article about him if there is editorial consensus to do so and if they are not given WP:UNDUE weight. Sandstein 13:49, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Controversial claims and punchlines by KP Sharma Oli[edit]

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

Not an appropriate topic for a stand-alone article per WP:SALAT. Can possibly merge into KP Sharma Oli. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 08:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 08:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - anything notable can be covered in individual's page. Pages like this could balloon until every controversial figure has a list of controversial things they've said. I'd rather avoid that. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The only entry in the "List of controversial punchlines" section says, "You cannot reach America riding a bullock cart." There is no context as to what joke this is supposed to be a punchline to or why it was controversial. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep:I am the one who started the article. Reasons below.

@ɴᴋᴏɴ21-I thought of that (i.e. to put it inside KP Sharma Oli) before starting, but due to nature of article, it could mislead the biography. Also, because this guy is the Prime minister since the last two elections, I feel, his controversial doings should be documented separately. One more thing, if you had intended to merge, you should have suggested it in the talk page. Right? Isn't delete the wrong tagging?

@ ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia: That is your personal preference. Not a valid reason to delete.

@Metropolitan90: I agree partially. The section has been emptied for now. But again, that is not the valid reason to delete nirmal (talk) 13:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I think it is a reason to delete, because the article was started from the premise that Oli has controversial punchlines, and yet no controversial punchlines are listed in the article. This article places undue weight upon the allegedly controversial statements of a politician, such that an article about four of his statements is about 20% of the size of the biography of his entire life at KP Sharma Oli. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOAPBOX. I note that Veracity of statements by Donald Trump exists but KP Sharma Oli is neither prolific enough nor his statements receive that much coverage. I am also not sure if this soapboxing would be accepted on main KP Sharma Oli page. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have to agree that KP Sharma Oli is not that popular that his controversial taunts deserve a standalone article. Riddhidev BISWAS (talk) 16:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Such a list is poorly defined and unmaintainable. KP Sharma Oli's statements are described as "controversial claims and punchlines" in the title and the "slang and proverbs" in the first line, but there are now only four examples, all of them taunting moments of counterfactual disinformation -- no punchlines, no slang, no proverbs. If he has a habit of doing this, and it's politically significant, that would belong in his rather short bio. Lastly as a practical matter, with the language barrier and cultural distance, much of the intended impact is lost on an English-language audience without further explanation, also problematic. For instance see #74 on this list of Nepali proverbs: "If you are not offended, enter the sugarcane field, if you are not in debt, stay as a guarantor!". --Lockley (talk) 06:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merging: Based on the comments, I am merging it to his bio. None of the reason seemed to qualify for deletion but pointing to an obvious merging. Thanks for the discussion. nirmal (talk) 03:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – any content copied to the main article would need cleaning up to meet Neutral Point of View standards and explain proper context for the statements. The source about the supercomputer makes no mention of the capacity or its limitations. For Indian coronavirus the infection and death rates in these countries is not mentioned, without which it is difficult to put the statement into perspective, also most of the source given is focussed on territorial disputes suggesting that just his mention of India would be hook for such coatrack reporting whether what he has said is actually controversial or not. Given the number of years that he has been a political figure it seems strange that all the examples are from within a very narrow amount of time. EdwardUK (talk) 11:49, 21 July 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 merge to Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Christchurch, as this appears to be the least objectionable resolution. BD2412 T 01:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament Choir and Orchestra[edit]

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

The church is most definitely notable but the choir and orchestra are not. They do not even get a mention on the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, Christchurch article. Nothing worth merging. Ajf773 (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to article on the Cathedral if anything is worth keeping.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the Cathedral article. Strange that the other article is near stub length.--Prisencolin (talk) 04:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just in reply to Ajf773, you mentioned that the CBS is not mentioned in the Catholic Cathedral's Wikipedia page. Granted, this is true. However, though it isn't much, the CBS is stated in the Wikipedia page of St Mary's Pro-Cathedral. The Basillica's Wikipedia page, I think should solely be about the building and its history, as to why the CBS has its own Wikipedia page ... just a thought. Also mentioned, the CBS aren't notable. I would disagree with this as they were given the status of cultural ambassadors by the New Zealand government and have been on numerous World tours, including performing for the Mass at St Peter's Basilica in the Vatican (..."80 members of the touring group were invited to lead the singing in St Peter’s for the Papal Christmas Midnight Mass to inaugurate the Holy Year of Jubilee." [11]) and at Notre Dame in Paris. If they weren't notable, I don't think they would have ever been given this permission or opportunity to do so. On a domestic/local level, the choir and orchestra are well known within the various church and music organisations in NZ, as well as some orchestral players even employed at the Christchurch Symphony Orchestra. I hope this has changed your mind somewhat, but I see two other wikipedians have suggested it be merged with a building that will in future be demolished - something the CBS will no longer be apart of. I hope you are well. Lord A.Nelson (talk) 04:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be notable due to the fact that they have gone numerous international tours. Patapsco913 (talk) 08:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The list of tours is not notable though and we are not a directory. Ajf773 (talk) 20:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to the Cathedral of the Blessed Sacrament, as there is rs coverage such as Catholic publications in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Cathedral article. Cathedral choirs are often remunerated making them "professional". If it were not the Cathedral having been damaged in the earthquake having a separate article on the choir would be out of the question. As it is, it seems to have acquired a life of its own, but, when a new Cathedral is eventually completed, it will no doubt again become the Cathedral choir. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:00, 19 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambar Das[edit]

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

Purely a promotional article WP:PROMO. Fails WP:GNG/WP:BIO. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy WP:GNG -- Ab207 (talk) 18:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 09:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lack reliable resources. Non-notable music producer. fails WP:MUSICBIO. DMySon 04:57, 22 July 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fuel pump (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Disambiguation is not required (WP:2DABS). There are only 2 proper entries and the primary topic Fuel pump has a hatnote to Fuel dispenser. Fuel primer pump is not known as "fuel pump" so I moved it to See also but was reverted. PROD was reverted by @Neel.arunabh: with no edit summary. A related discussion is at Talk:Fuel pump#Requested move 12 July 2020. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 07:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. WP:ONEOTHER is the relevant shortcut to the specific guideline. Tevildo (talk) 11:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not conform to WP:D Lightburst (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 15:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added another use in the disambiguation page. Relisting. Neel.arunabh (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 17:20, 14 July 2020‎
- Comment New addition (Turbopump) does not require disambiguation per WP:DABCONCEPT. A link to the turbopump article already appears on the main Fuel pump page. Tevildo (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - What about "Fuel pump equipped in an aircraft, controlled by one of the typical aircraft engine controls"?Neel.arunabh (talk) 00:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That's just a specific application of a fuel pump, not a separate topic. In any case, the redirect only goes to one sentence of Aircraft engine controls, not to an independent article. Tevildo (talk) 01:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Useless disambig page. Rreagan007 (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Note that the aircraft engine controls meaning is literally a fuel pump configured to be controlled by the pilot of an aircraft. BD2412 T 01:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Perfectly good and useful navigation page for readers. "Fuel pump" is a synonym for "fuel dispenser" and for "turbopump", as well as being mentioned twice in the 3rd entry as both a "fuel primer pump" and a "fuel boost pump". This page should stay in mainspace and be improved when possible. P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 21:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment This would be a valid keep rationale if we had multiple articles on the subject of fuel pumps. However, at present, we only have two (Fuel pump itself and Fuel dispenser), and WP:ONEOTHER applies. A Turbopump is a type of pump, not specifically a type of fuel pump (they're also used as oxidizer pumps in rocket engines), and should, IMO, be deleted from the dab page if it's retained. Fuel primer pump is a one-sentence WP:DICDEF that is unlikely to be expanded into its own article - were that to happen, then a dab page would be reasonable. But that isn't the case as things stand. Tevildo (talk) 22:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I remain unconvinced that ONEOTHER applies. Neither page views nor long term significance leads me to accept that Fuel pump is the primary topic. What other evidence is there that supports that assertion? P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 01:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. At most, there is only one other use, and even that is borderline. Station1 (talk) 23:43, 19 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ly Kimlong[edit]

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

~~Notability is not sure due to lack of citations Majun e Baqi (talk) 06:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete: An unotable chess player, the article could have deleted as an A7. EditQwerty (talk) 08:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it couldn't, being the first national master of a country is a credible claim of significance, even with no source. Could have been a WP:BLPPROD though.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly, per the discussion at COIN and his talk, this article should've been draftified. He might have local sources. In its current form, it's unacceptable for mainspace and AfC should've been followed. It's a bit late now, due to the AfD nomination, for me to draftify. Closer should consider deleting Draft:Ly Kimlong (Chess Player) as a (superseded) cut and paste move, and then draftify this article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: We can never be sure if the credible claim of significance is true or false because it has no references, which makes it hard to verify. I can't find any news or credible sources, to support that he is the national chess champion of Cambodia, can you? EditQwerty (talk) 17:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EditQwerty No I can't. I can find virtually nothing on him at all. There may be Khmer sources I suppose.-- P-K3 (talk) 17:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable player as per WP:SPORTBASIC also lacks WP:RS ~ Amkgp 💬 09:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am curious about this article, since if the claims are true there may be coverage somewhere. On the other hand, this edit looks like the article subject adding themselves to another article. In any case, I cleaned up the article a bit and added the Chess wikiproject, so perhaps that might draw some more attention.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 06:47, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, I did not find any credible sources or news. See yourself at Google search or here ~ Amkgp 💬 10:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~The FIDE profile record here makes it to believe what is presented in the article as FALSE~~ Correct profile is presented below ~ Amkgp 💬 10:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not the right profile. This is the correct one, and indicates that he is an Arena FIDE Master, an online only title, and there is no indication of any other title or even a FIDE rating.-- P-K3 (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment agreed with amkgpMajun e Baqi (talk) 10:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC) blocked as sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 12:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NCHESS. It's not clear what standard is meant by "national master" as these are not recognized by FIDE and I can find no information as to how the title is awarded.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Pawnkingthree, Agree with your point and thanks for the correction ~ Amkgp 💬 13:35, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've just noticed that there is also a draft version of this article at Draft:Ly Kimlong (Chess Player). It seems the article creator User:Hout Ly (who is the President of the Cambodian Chess Federation) was told to go through Articles for Creation by User:RickinBaltimore because of his COI but started this in mainspace as well.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pawnkingthree: yes it seems they made this article right after the AFC was declined. I put a speedy on the older draft article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: unnotable by any notability criteria, not even FIDE-rated (!), as already pointed out. Sophia91 (talk) 22:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No effective references. scope_creep^Talk 09:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Should this discussion be speedied as a G5? The editor who opened this seems to be a sock of Khadim ahlesunnah waljamaah. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 21:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not now that other editors have contributed to the discussion in good faith, no.-- P-K3 (talk) 21:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete sourcing has not been found, and RS does not seem to exist.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:42, 17 July 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. I believe there was consensus to delete before relisting, and the arguments here based on policy and guidelines strongly favour deletion. The additional keep vote doesn't shift the consensus away from deletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coins.ph[edit]

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

Notability not established. Company not mentioned in any reliable mainstream media as required per GNG. Only mentioned in passing in BBC. Ysangkok (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 07:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, too soon, too small, too insignificant at this point. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 07:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, only other source I can find online is about them being sold. Not notable. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and above votes. Nothing really notable about this one. dibbydib 08:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per nom and above votes. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't think this Philstar article, this article on partnership with Western Union, nor Rappler 2-part coverage on mobile payments in the Philippines (part 1 and part 2) are simply passing mentions. These articles prove the app's/service's notability. Article could still be improved, though. HiwilmsTalk 19:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hiwilms: How is that Rappler article not a passing mention? It is mentioned two times in the article. They dedicate a total of one sentence to describing what it is in part 1. The article is full of stock photos. Part 2 covers it in two sentences, dedicating the next seven sentences to explaining what blockchain is and how Coins.ph "probably" got a boost. --Ysangkok (talk) 16:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP:CORPDEPTH:

Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization.

The fact that the second part of the Rappler article discussed its functions and features well and compared it to other apps that provide similar services only means that these are not simply passing mentions. HiwilmsTalk 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The startup company is talked about in Manila Standard and Business World. The company is also known for its partnership with UnionBank; It was even acquired by Go-Jek last year. With these reliable sources, including the ones indicated by Hiwilms, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: Why does aquisition mean that it is notable? You cannot cite Coindesk. Manila Standard is local media, they will mention basically any local company. TechCrunch is a tech blog, all they do is do shout-outs, a mention there does not mean notability. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and the article did not meet the standards set per WP:ORGCRITE. Coverage is not that significant enough to sufficiently establish notability.--ERAMnc 09:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SPAM and per nom. I've been to the Philippines to meet my partner's family, and Manila is filled with scams like this one. Bearian (talk) 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have anything to prove that this is a scam when Western Union partnered with Coins.ph? HiwilmsTalk 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Selective Merge to Gojek. Quite disagree with fellow editor Bearian's views that it is a scam. Though I don't know much about Philippines you don't get coverage in BBC, Techcrunch, coinbase, Phillipine star, bussinesswire, et cetera through scam. The orgcrit criteria is much stricter. So a selective merge to acquirer company seems best. Go-Jek buys fintech startup Coins.ph for $72M ahead of Philippines expansion. - Harsh (talk) 17:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a reasonable compromise, thank you for that idea, Harsh 2580. --Ysangkok (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 06:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Tech Crunch is a reliable source per WP:RSP, and the dismissal of the Manila Standard as “local news” is ludicrous. Manila has an urban area with a population of over 21 Million people, dismissing it as local news is akin to dismissing The New York Times as local news. The sources given cause this article to pass GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: The Manila Standard doesn't have the same level of journalism that the New York Times does. Did you read the piece? It is fluff, and even has grammatical errors. Here is a list of exaggerated fluff wording that you'd never see in reputable media:

"What did Coins.ph do to be in such an enviable position and which other startups could learn from?"
"only had one goal in mind"
"huge potential"
"all of which strongly believed"
"build something bigger and better for their customers"
"allows users to easily send"
"faster than other developing markets in Southeast Asia" (this is part of a giant quote that they just pasted outright)
"the universally accepted indicators"
"one of the first large exits"
"It leads the way".

All of this hints that it is just an ad. --Ysangkok (talk) 05:13, 22 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Internal Suffering[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A7 — non notable band. The band is sick, but the only sources on the page are from uhh.... Discogs. 🤨 Plus googling the band name only brings reviews for their albums on fan webzine sites or their record label. I can’t find a single justified reason for this to be here other than being a cool brutal death metal band, but that isn’t gonna cut it. Second Skin (talk) 06:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a very lengthy debate for their deletion back in 2009 but I can’t say much has changed since then. The band still don’t seem to meet the criteria for inclusion. Perhaps even less now than back then. Second Skin (talk) 06:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the problem is that 10 years ago, the 'keep' votes never added the sources they claimed established notability to the page. Anyway, I looked at the sources from the prior AfD. There was one [dead] interview from a Colombian source, which looked legit - it is a dead link but Wayback has a copy. There is a [dead] German interview which appears to be on a blog-style website and from my view is not an RS. There is another [dead] German interview which is a permanent dead link without a Wayback page. Other than that it's just mentions.. mentions that they toured, mainly. There is also a link to Amazon.. ultimately, I don't see this being a notable band, not then, and not now. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Cool brutal death metal band indeed. From Colombia! But, they are not notable for Wikipedia, unfortunately. The sourcing is abysmal - Discogs entries, Myspace and a blank Allmusic page - none of them are reliable. But my Google search did not turn up very good either, as the results are the standard unreliable sites like databases, streaming service entries, social media pages, Wikipedia mirrors, blogs, download sites, retail sites, Youtube videos, trivial mentions/name checks and stuff where the two words appear separately but not in the band's context. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. Living in Colombia for ten years, I can say that this is not a name you see often on the metal scene here, probably because as the article says, they moved out of Colombia a long time ago. They played last year's edition of the annual Rock in the Park festival in Bogota [12], and apparently a dead poet influenced their lyrics [13], but none of this is any more than passing mentions. GhostDestroyer100: not so surprising that Colombia produces death metal bands, actually... Colombia and Latin America in general is very big on metal as the music of choice for people who want an alternative to pop or Latin music... there are far more metal fans and bands here than in my home country, the UK. @El cid, el campeador: I assume you are talking about Rockombia: this is a long-running website in Colombia, but I've never been convinced that it's anything more than a rock and metal blog, albeit a professionally-run one. In any case, the source is an interview which is a primary source. There is unlikely to be anything better in print unless anyone can get hold of print copies of Colombia's one music magazine, Shock, which is now entirely online and doesn't archive its back issues – the country's biggest newspaper, El Tiempo, does archive its articles, but the two articles I linked above, plus the mention as support to Cannibal Corpse stated in the first AfD, seem to be the only mentions of the band at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: You're right about that, I've forgotten to mention that the band have relocated to Spain in 2011. I don't know if bands representative of a genre from their home country increases notability, but if it does, this makes the difference between now and the 2009 nomination different and effectively makes the band even less noteworthy. I'm just gonna play Devils advocate and automatically assume that Spain has a larger death metal scene than Colombia; Wormed, Cerebral Effusion, Fixation on Suffering, Virulency... Those are just off of the top of my head (and the first two I mentioned here are just as famous, if not even more so, than Internal Suffering). Second Skin (talk) 15:23, 14 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Chung Kim[edit]

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

I cannot find WP:SUSTAINED coverage in WP:RS. Only one of the citations provided mentioned him and it's extremely trivial and questionably RS. My prod got removed, so bringing this to AfD. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Korea-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Practically unsourced BLP with no sustained coverage (per nom.) Ed6767 talk! 11:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Cdblachford added the following text to this discussion, but in the process disrupted the formatting of this page. I am re-adding the text without the formatting that caused the problem, so that the user's views can be included in the discussion, for what they are worth. See the page history. Note these are not my views, I am merely inserting them on behalf of Cdblachford DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 14:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ki Chung Kim was a highly notable Taekwondo philosopher and practitioner: Taekwondo Hall of Fame in 2013, national collegiate champion, and national champion. His philosophy applies to all combat sports – and many other sports. Clear mind helps baseball players in hitting. Participants all sports need to build a solid foundation, strive to do techniques perfectly, control minds and body. Combat participants need to know the principles of non-infringement and emphasis on humble and gentle. His thought on accuracy, speed, and timing, provides much clarification on these important parts of a technique. Ki Chung Kim’s direction to Taekwondo leaders is highly impressive: “Mentally, the black belt should not deviate from understanding, honesty, compassion, and the proper spirit of Taekwondo. The leaders must be straightforward in their manner.” His words for all practitioners are timeless. “Black belts seek to fully understand peace, love, benevolence, magnanimity and sympathy.” With approximately 700 million people practicing Taekwondo, his philosophy is important and there is no one else that explains it as he did. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cdblachford (talk • contribs)

Draftify I see that there are some mentions in a web search. I found http://spavloutaekwondo.com/about-us/ which has some relevant content, but I am not sure that I would call this a RS, and it certainly doesn't establish notability on its own. But it makes me suspect that this person might in fact be notable, if proper sources are found. I therefore propose that we Draftify this so that there is time for a better search for sources. I note that different people with somewhat similar names cluttered my search results. WEhat search parameters did you use, Jerodlycett, may I ask? DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DESiegel: Just the standard "Ki Chung Kim" -wikipedia. Most of what showed up were first party sources on their own business websites, the closest thing would be RS is an article in the August 1976 edition of Blackbelt, which itself is considered currently RS, however the article is written by Ki himself. The only one I could really find that was second party is the Tae Kwon Do Hall of Fame entry on there, and even that's questionable as to whether it has had the research done to verify the information. As for Draftifying it, it was deleted in 2009 and again June 27. The June 27 was the same user who recreated it this time. The categories state 1996 death, so taking that as is, he was dead over a decade before the 2009 deletion and they didn't have enough then. Jerod Lycett (talk) 15:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is a total lack of any significant independent coverage of him. Passing mentions and school websites do not constitute the coverage necessary to meet WP:GNG. Ranks and halls of fame have never been considered sufficient evidence to show notability in martial arts. I couldn't find any reliable sources that show he meets any of the notability criteria for martial artists. Papaursa (talk) 13:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I see no sources either and what I find interesting is 1)they have not engaged conversation or acknowledged any of the warnings on their talk page 2) they have tried naming the article to three different versions and 3) finally is the conversation here (which is the same topic just named differently) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:John_B123#Ki_Chung_Kim_Philosopher. I actually think it should be more of a speedy deletion because they have admitted they copied it from their Wordpress site (supposedly now shut down) and when that was pointed out they copied from a magazine article. There is also potentially a COI involved. Just my thoughts. Thanks, Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 00:54, 20 July 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 15:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idlebrain.com[edit]

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

No a notable company to be included on Wikipedia, Fail WP:GNG MRRaja001 (talk) 06:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: One of the most notable Telugu cinema news websites, and it has received substantial third-party coverage. Kailash29792 (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Its one of the earliest Telugu film-centric website, quoted often by reliable sources; consider adding a clean up tag instead of outright deletion -- Ab207 (talk) 08:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as it has reliable sources coverage such as The Hindu with two pieces referenced in the article, and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has received some coverage. Most of the sources in the article are reliable, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:30, 21 July 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 keep; withdrawn by nominator. BD2412 T 02:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ratonero Murciano de Huerta[edit]

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

Article fails GNG. Article has a single source of indeterminate reliability, but I can find no attributable mention of these dogs anywhere else. Cavalryman (talk) 05:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator – notability established by Neodop. Cavalryman (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Speedy Keep WP:Snow Keep ~~Keep~~ Lots of sources here and there. Meets WP:GNG. This is an example of language-based systemic bias in Wikipedia. No compliance with WP:Before. WP:Not paper and WP:Preserve. If it was to be deleted, should be merged with Rat Terrier and Feist. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to casting aspersions can you indicate any of these sources?

And do you have any particular reason to conduct a merger with with Feist or Rat terrier? It seems wholly inappropriate to me, according to the article these dogs are Spanish with some British infusions, whilst according to the Feist article (admittedly in dire need of a rewrite) Feists descend from British terriers. Cavalryman (talk) 23:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

These dogs have similar make up, disposition and mission. They are vermine (rat) killers. Lineage and countries of origins are but one factor. I've already added source. Deletion is supposed to be a last resort. See the links I listed above. WP:Before; WP:Preserve; WP:Not paper. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 00:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds a lot like WP:Original research, do you have any source indicating these dogs are in any way related beyond your statement that they have similar make up, disposition and mission? Cavalryman (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Do you have anything that says they aren't? And disregarding, of course, the Terrier navbox and all those articles. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you review some of the project's policies on sourcing, we don't include unsourced claims on Wikipedia because no sources specifically state that claim to be false. Further, Wikipedia articles and navboxes are not valid sources for other Wikipedia articles. Cavalryman (talk) 01:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I note you have added another source, dogzone.com, I assess it to be short of WP:RS:

the webpage appears to be self published with a number of contributors, the editor of the site's only qualification is she attended university, and the other listed staff member of the site is her pet beagle, there does not appear to be any other editorial oversight
whilst the articles appear to be written by vets, a degree in veterinary medicine may make you an expert in veterinary care, it in no way makes you an authority on domestic animal breeds or types, further WP:RSSELF states Self-published expert sources may be considered reliable when produced by an established expert on the subject matter, whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable, independent publications, I cannot find anything published by any of these authors beyond social media accounts
further to the last, the articles on veterinary care on the site would not meet WP:MEDRS and so should not be used as a source for any of our articles on veterinary care
Wikipedia appears to have been one of the major sources used in many of the articles, a clear example is their List of extinct dog breeds is almost identical to our List of dog breeds#Extinct breeds and varieties (even using our disambiguation) and most of photographs on the site are attributed to Wikipedia or Commons NB I have not taken the time to compare every dog breed on the site with our extant list

Therefore I do not assess it establishes notability for these dogs and I believe it should be removed from the page. If you can produce something reliable I would be more than happy to withdraw this request. Cavalryman (talk) 06:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thirteen, I have removed all of the clearly self-published, click-bait, non-RS from the article, giving rationale for each in the edit summaries, per WP:BRD if you wish to reintroduce any of them we should discuss first. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete. Lack of WP:RELIABLE sources, therefore lack of WP:NOTABILITY. "Notability requires only the existence of suitable independent, reliable sources" I do not regard dogzone.com and dogrell.com etc to meet these criteria. William Harristalk 10:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has multiple sources plus two books. The article also has a see also with 4 other notable Spanish ratters. The article may not have as many references as more popular mixed breed dogs like the very popular Labradoodle but it has enough to show WP:N. It serves our readers to include this dog breed in our encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 15:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I rebut the book on dog training immediately. It is produced by a publisher that prints a series of these books, and it is the same book under different "breed" names. It is in a similar class to I'm a Treat Givin' Belly Scratchin' Ratonero Murciano de Huerta Lovin' Kinda Girl. Links to other articles does not indicate notability, it indicates someone placed a link to other articles. William Harristalk 22:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I was expecting ARS to start popping up. See also sections do not impart notability, neither do further reading lists that contain self-published printed to order pamphlets, and most of the sources are clearly short of RS, can you indicate any RS? Not just self-published webpages etc. Further there is no need to have a see also section that includes breeds covered in both navboxes on the page, further still to claim there are five ratoneros breeds is OR without a WP:Verifiable source stating such, you have presented no such source. Cavalryman (talk) 23:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete - there are no reliable sources that I can find for verifiability, and I question if such a breed even exists. Most of the content in the article is dependent on this one PDF file which is titled (translated) Canine Association of the Autonomous Community of Murcia. It appears to me that it's one of those questionable rare breeds that is so rare it was never a true blood to begin with, and that it was probably a breed in the making that never developed. There are untold numbers of similar unestablished breeds. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 23:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Breed and its forebears existed sine the 16th and 17th century. Not "a breed in the making." If anything, it is a breed that barely escaped extinction, and may be seeing some resurgence. I assume you read the article, but maybe not. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you show a single reliable source that states that? Cavalryman (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment every once in a while I came to an AfD. I improve the article, and then the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion. I did quite a bit of work to the article, and the work of editors should stand until this AfD completes. If anyone disagrees lets discuss on the talk page. Lightburst (talk) 15:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not if that work is truely sloppy editing attempting to fool the casual observer, your work was a combination of WP:Original research and additions of clearly unWP:Reliable sources, every source removed was addressed in the edit summaries and a TP discussion was commenced. Every once in a while I observe the ARS at work and am truely underwhelmed. Address the issues already raised or you will be reverted. Note I have included a link to WP:OR in this response to you (now twice) as it appears you are unfamiliar with that policy, can I suggest you take the time to correct that? Cavalryman (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Thank you. I know what original research is. Your WP:PAs are noted, Every once in a while I observe the ARS at work and am truely underwhelmed., and I was expecting ARS to start popping up. and your WP:FOLLOWING is also noted. My comment was that it is not good form to diminish the article while at AfD. you are putting up walls of text. Perhaps both of us can allow the AfD to proceed organically. Lightburst (talk) 17:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just noticed this and I categorically deny following you anywhere, if you want to !vote in an AfD in my area of interest that was listed on one of the deletion lists I watch, there is a good chance I too will cast a !vote. I ask that you withdraw this PA. Cavalryman (talk) 08:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Cavalryman Your analysis and contention is wrong. We will have to agree to disagree. You are attempting to pollute and dictate a result by purging legitimate sources. Let the article stand or fall at AFD on its merits, not your wrong-headed analysis.

Your response also appears to be a breach of WP:Civil. It is a curious blend of stereotyping WP:Personal attacks and Ad hominem fallacy. It appears you are unfamiliar with WP:Civil; can I suggest you take the time to correct that. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen, stating the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion is a PA and I expect you will similarly counsel your comrade. Unfortunately the policy is quite clear, I have given detailed accounts of why each source fails as RS and you both have so far refused to discuss, I ask you do so. Regards, Cavalryman (talk) 18:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Further, as already stated if RS can be presented I would be more than happy to withdraw this proposal in a heartbeat, I have withdrawn AfDs before and have recreated articles I presented at AfD when sources become available, unfortunately but none have been presented here. Cavalryman (talk) 18:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

That "the AfD nominator eviscerates the article to favor deletion" is a fact. It is happening here. You make it your practice.

If you are right that the article as it stands should be deleted, then your point is made. But if not, what you are doing is poisoning the well and skewing this process up. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Removing non-RS & OR is what diligent editors do, I will leave it to you determine my opinion of editors who add such material. Cavalryman (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

You want reliable sources that substantiate the breed history:

"Historia de la Raza Rataenero Murciano" (in Spanish). Retrieved July 15, 2020.
Elliott, Pippa. "Ratonero Murciano de Huerta" (in Spanish). Retrieved July 14, 2020. However with changing farming practices the niche filled by the Murcian Ratter niche became redundant. The result being that this once popular dog is now considered a rare breed.
"Estudio sobre el ratonero murciano: Asociación canina de la comunidad autónoma de Murcia" (PDF) (in Spanish). Asociación oficial del ratonero murciano. Retrieved July 15, 2015.
Vandersteen, Francis. "Ratonero Murciano de Huerta" (in French). Retrieved July 15, 2020.</ref>

As I predicted earlier, you don't like Spanish sources, and can't read them. Wikipedia systemic bias. I know you won't withdraw this misbegotten nomination; and I know there is no pleasing you. We will have to let the process play out. Walls of text and nattering won't make this clearer. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 19:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen, I agree kennel club recognition is not the only way a dog breed is deemed to be notable, significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject is. And I refute you aspersions that I do not like Spanish sources, yesterday I cited this, this and this, all of them are reliable, all of them discuss a range of Spanish dog breeds that have no KC recognition and none of them mention these dogs.

To address the webpages you have cited: (I hope you do not object to me separating your last two webpages)

Not RS, non-notable “kennel club” with no official standing and not independent of the topic that strangely elsewhere does not include these dogs among their list of Spanish breeds, further it claims up front some form of legitimacy from Royal Decree 558/2001, neither the club nor these dogs are mentioned in that document
Not RS, as described above a self published webpage with several contributors who appear to use Wikipedia as their primary source
Is the one source already in the article and so not introduced by you, just the same like the first it is from a non-notable “kennel club” and probably not RS
Not RS - completely WP:RSSELF published website from an author with no established expertise on the subject matter

You are incorrect stating I will never withdraw this nomination, I have said numerous times that I would be happy to upon presentation of multiple RS, that has not yet occurred. Cavalryman (talk) 23:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Ok, we're all here for the same reason - to determine if this article warrants being a standalone. I've had happy collaborations with all of you, so let's take a closer look at the sources, and try to determine if it passes WP:GNG which clearly states: 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. ACCAM is a member of Real Sociedad Canina de España which is a member of FCI, the latter of which we recognize as a RS. We first have to establish notability of the breed, if indeed it is a purebred dog. From what I've read in the sources, the breed was being developed by ACCAM but was not officially recognized beyond the original breeders - first red flag. What I've read online that was published by ACCAM (which is not an independent source) it states the following (my bold underline): We will continue working for this native breed, for its improvement and selection, but we are pleased that this first and important step towards its official recognition as a pure breed has ended with the satisfaction of the work done with enthusiasm, enthusiasm and well done. They have not yet received official recognition as a purebred. They seem to think it's a purebred but we cannot use that as a source for establishing notability; therefore, the "breed" does not pass WP:GNG. A few other sources refer to it as a "rare breed" which indicates to me there's a reason for it being rare, most likely due to the fact that it was never officially established as a purebred - in all likelihood, it's because the dogs do not breed true. My concern is the online runaway train we know as the rare breed scam that organizations like the Humane Society, and even insurance companies warn consumers about. We need to be careful that we are not providing a platform to legitimize some of these outfits. I'm also wondering if it would qualify as a landrace breed of sorts since it was around prior to purpose breeding? ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Atsme:. I was involved breeding cats for many years. The Lykoi was a cat I encountered about 9 years ago. To me...it looked like a cat with mange and they called it the Werewolf cat. I thought there was no way this breed should ever be accepted into a registry, but to my dismay it was accepted into TICA. Next someone found a long hair recessive gene in Bengal cats and then bred and sold Cashmere Bengals. again I thought there was no way it would ever be accepted - however now steps are underway to accept this cat. I have several friends now breeding unrecognized dog breeds. Labradoodle's Aussiedoodles (which does not have an article yet), Goldendoodles... In any event there are several Spanish Ratters, and as you know I believe it serves our readers to have an article. I will continue to research the breed as the AfD deadline permits. Thanks for your careful consideration. Lightburst (talk) 21:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, please forgive me for responding above your most welcome thoughts, I wanted to address those websites directly.

Lightburst, it may well be that these dogs will become notable in time, but until sufficient sources are presented that time is not now. Cavalryman (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

FWIW I have a multivolume Encyclopedia of Dogs which has a large entry on the American Rat Terrier, which also mentions a couple of the English breeds. (I don't have it at this location, so I can't give you a better citation. It doesn't mention any of the Spanish breeds. It also mentions as part of the article on the American Rat Terrier Teddy Roosevelt Terrier, which here has its own separate article.

And there are so-called 'hybrid dogs' appearing every minute. Indeed, the Leonberger was derided as a bad knockoff of a Saint Bernard for many years. (I mean, really, creating a dog to look like the lion in the town crest. Really?) The Europeans had a fascination with creating breeds or rescuing them going back at least to the middle of the 19th Century.

FWIW, breed recognition by the American Kennel Club or the members of the FCI is itself a scam. At least in part is about 'stealing the registry' and generating dog sales and 'pure bred' registration fees. I was involved with the Leonberger Club of America, where many if not most of the members did not want AKC recognition, which happened anyway.

Parenthetically, the article I was referencing about American rat terriers said that one of the sports of owning them was making competitive wagers about whose dog could kill the most mice or rats within a given time. It specifically mentioned that one terrier was released into a barn, and in 7 hours it killed 2501 ~~2105 (it may have said 1205, if I inadvertently transposed the numbers~~ – the hard copy isn't here as I said) of rats in a single barn.2501 kills in 7 hours in one barn. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1993). Rat Terrier. Vol. 2 (4th ed.). Neptune, New Jersey: T.F.H. pp. 714–715. ISBN 0-86622-873-X. ISBN 0-86622-855-1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help)

In any event, recognition by kennel clubs is but one factor that should be considered. It is political and fraught with conflict of interest. 7&6=thirteen (☎)

No kidding!? I'm getting rid of the barn cats and getting a rat terrier.

My fat cats lay around and sleep most of the day, and occasionally come to the house to run the squirrels out of my front yard. 🐀🐈 As for the breed registries, corruption is darn near everywhere, and that's sad, but as a former breeder (horses, cattle & dogs) I appreciate the long standing breed registries. Sometimes we just have to take the bad with the good. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 21:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen, I feel your wall of natterings above are the pot calling the kettle black. And I am still mystified how you are confusing American Rat Terriers with these dogs, there are no sources I am aware of connecting them (if there were this AfD would be voided). Are you suggesting that because they have a similar name they are one? If so Wikipedia may as well delete all disambiguation pages. Cavalryman (talk) 23:30, 16 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

User:Atsme 2501 kills in 7 hours in one barn. Wilcox, Bonnie; Walkowicz, Chris (1993). Rat Terrier. Vol. 2 (4th ed.). Neptune, New Jersey: T.F.H. pp. 714–715. ISBN 0-86622-873-X. ISBN 0-86622-855-1. {{cite book}}: |work= ignored (help) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I don't see why the article at http://www.caninanacionalaccam.es shouldn't be regarded as a reliable source for the purposes of establishing notability. It seems to be one of several Spanish Ratters and likely worthy of an article on that basis.Patiodweller (talk) 23:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please provide a link to the article on this website, rather than a link to a website. William Harristalk 05:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep Here and here are newspaper articles on the breed and how the regional government of Murcia was seeking its official recognition. It is mentioned in this book as an unofficial breed. Neodop (talk) 16:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neodop, thank you for bringing those first two articles to the page, they are the first reliable sources that have been presented here or on the article confirming these dogs exist, and in my opinion they establish notability, the book appears to be self published and so is not usable unless we can establish the credibility of the author as an authority on the subject. I have withdrawn this nomination above. Cavalryman (talk) 00:00, 23 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

It would be good to add the sources to the article, not just this discussion. Just saying for future reference.

I did that.

Miércoles (September 30, 2009). "La asociación canina pide que el perro ratonero murciano se considere raza autóctona". La Verdad (in Spanish). Retrieved July 23, 2020. The Murcian canine association expects the Ministry of the Environment, Rural and Marine Affairs to approve the official breed standard of the native breed of the Murcian ratter dog, which will give recognition and pedigree to these small dogs that have been common in the Murcian orchard for centuries. The General Directorate of Livestock of the Government of Murcia has already recognized the Murcian [rat] terrier as an indigenous breed.
Gómez, Francisco (March 9, 2009). "Lorca:En busca del pedigrí del perro ratonero murciano La Asociación Canina espera que el Ministerio apruebe el estándar racial oficial de esta raza, habitual de la huerta". La Opinión de Murcia (in Spanish). Retrieved July 23, 2020.

As to the book Manuel, Jose; Veiga, Ferro (January 2020). Maltrato Animal (in Spanish). p. 122. the text can no longer be accessed on line. I added it to further reading.

As I said, this is an old, obscure and local breed.

Glad that the nominator has withdrawn this. His serial edits are self explanatory, and deserve scrutiny. Res ipsa loquitur 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that the large number of lesser-known dog articles will improve on Wikipedia is by someone challenging the WP:OR or un-WP:RELIABLE sources that some editors appear to find acceptable. This is what is now happening, as in this case. Be prepared for more, much more. William Harristalk 01:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment User:William Harris Here's a novel suggestion. Fix the articles yourself.

You have time to delete them, but not time to improve them.

Or get involved with the WP:TAFI (Wikipedia:Today's articles for improvement) project. You can: Nominate an article • Review nominations

This would be a much more fitting way to resolve this outcome, rather than this misbegotten nomination to delete a clearly notable subject. That's my gentle suggestion, FWIW.

We are supposed to be building an encyclopedia; not tearing up the tracks. It's on you; it's your moral choice. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:39, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thirteen, it is very good of you to have included those two sources into the article, that is the first positive contributions you or your comrade have made. And your claims of clear notability or snow keep are truely laughable, yes notability has now been established, but not by you or your chum. Cavalryman (talk) 01:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

CM, Your opinion is duly noted. For what it is worth. My opinion stands. No thanks to you and this wasted exercise. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:54, 24 July 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 redirect to List of New Warriors members. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donyell Taylor[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book character. Currently sourced to a fansite that looks unreliable and the comics themselves. A Google search brings up fansites, blogs, and sundry other unreliable coverage. Google scholar brings up nothing about this character, unsurprisingly. Skipping PROD, as comics characters have a tendency to be deprodded with no rationale for some reason. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of New Warriors members. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, mentioned in the target list. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 18 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jellico, California[edit]

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

A former passing siding and (according to Gudde) section camp (i.e., base of operations for railroad maintenance) at an isolated spot in Lassen National Forest. I see no evidence there was ever a settlement here, and there's nothing at all now except a single track. Mangoe (talk) 04:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per nom. One of many California phantom placenames. --Lockley (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another railroad facility mis-identified as a community. Doesn't meet basic notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 19:24, 21 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Brandon (actor)[edit]

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

Journeyman actor fails WP:NACTOR. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable actor. Lack of reliable coverage, article is completely without reliable sources atm, and could not find much when running a simple search. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 08:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:ENT. I couldn't any secondary sources that provided enough proof of notability. Suonii180 (talk) 12:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not every actor is notable just because they had a few roles, there is more to it than that.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 14 July 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 redirect to List of New Warriors members#Support staff. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 15:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sprocket (comics)[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book character. The reference to Wizard appears to be an interview with the writer who created this character, so that really isn't a secondary source. The other references are too the comics themselves. A Google search brings up nothing in reliable source. 0 Google scholar hits for the string "Sprocket Amelia Barnhardt" [14]. No notability here. Related to Meteorite (comics) in universe, which is also up for deletion. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Light Merge to New Warriors - Not independently notable, but probably worth a mention on the main article on the team. The single interview in Wizard is not enough for independent notability, but could be used at the main article to add a sentence or two of information on the character there. Rorshacma (talk) 16:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Warriors members#Support staff. Argento Surfer (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of New Warriors members#Support staff, as he is mentioned in a table there. Sourced exclusively to the comics, with the exception of an interview which is also a primary source, meaning he fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Sprocket's a woman. Argento Surfer (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above, redirects are cheap, but the article clearly does not defend itself per NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:42, 18 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gateley, California[edit]

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

Durham's "Place-Names of the San Francisco Bay Area" calls it a locality. Satellite photo shows a railroad siding. No hits indicating notability of any sort. Now part of Pinole, could do a redirect but not sure why anyone would search for it. Glendoremus (talk) 05:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Topos show a passing siding, not a town. It's hard to imagine that this was ever considered distinct from SF itself, as it's a rock's throw from Nob Hill. Mangoe (talk) 13:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Clearly nothing more than an old railroad siding. Not mentioned in the Gately article that I can tell, so no use in redirecting there. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:46, 14 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abus Kransysteme[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Abus Kransysteme

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

I'm not sure what's notable about this company. The only source in the article is primary and I can't find anything that would pass WP:NCORP in a search for it. There are a few other sources in the German article, but they don't seem to pass the notability standards either. Adamant1 (talk) 06:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete badly wriiten article, with no sources + references. It appears to be advertising. Devokewater (talk) 09:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notable and the article is not reported by reliable secondary sources. KRtau16 ^«Talk» 07:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, [[User:KRtau16|''' KRtau16 ''']][[User talk:KRtau16|'''''«Talk»''''']] (talk) 07:45, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. No significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the german wp article on this company is here, it has a more info, but not much in the way of sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:48, 17 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pia Arhar[edit]

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

The one source her is a primary source, Wikipedia is meant to be based on secondary sources. My previous proposed deletion tag was removed on the grounds that I had not shown any search for sources, but no indication that person had either, or even understood what Wikipedia is supposed to be. I did a search for sources and came up with unuseable non-reliable stuff like Youtube videos and Wikipedia mirrors. I was not even able to come up with one reliable secondary source. I can see no way to bring this article to a state of meeting the GNG, so it needs to be deleted. John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reference link does not work (competing at the highest level is a proof of notability, though, if it can be sourced). I found some Slovenian references that she was crowned Miss Sport in 2008, but that is not a particularly notable achievement. I'd say delete unless it can be properly sourced. --Tone 16:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; Its WP:TOOSOON. -Hatchens (talk) 03:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments It's not too soon--she's 30 years old, so she's not going to get more notable as a gymnast. More importantly, I have corrected the link to her bio at the FIG website. It shows she did compete at the world championships, although she wasn't close to making the finals (which is what the FIG uses to declare someone a "world class gymnast"). The notability criteria at WP:NSPORT#Gymnastics specifically state the criteria only for artistic gymnasts, not rhythmic ones, so I don't know whether or not the same criteria apply. Even if the same criteria apply, that only carries a presumption of notability and my search for coverage didn't find enough to show WP:GNG is met. However, that doesn't mean Slovenian sources don't exist. I'm leaning towards a delete, but I am waiting to see the opinions of others now that her results can be viewed by all. I'll admit I'm far more familiar with martial arts, where just competing at a world championship does not grant notability (even for Olympic sports like judo). Papaursa (talk) 15:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's been a week since I posted my previous comment and no one has presented any evidence that shows WP:BASIC is met. Combined with the fact that my search didn't find significant independent coverage, I don't think finishing 83rd in the world rhythmic gymnastics championships is enough to grant automatic WP notability. Papaursa (talk) 12:53, 19 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:35, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dym (band)[edit]

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

Tricky to assess, hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. The Deutsche Alternative Charts appear to be non-notable, as do the other charts they have charted in, so that doesn't help towards WP:NBAND, neither do the labels, which do not appear to meet #5: a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable. COP International could possibly help them meet this, but I don't think it does. Boleyn (talk) 13:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did not find anything besides the usual unreliable things like databases, social media pages, Wikipedia mirrors and stuff where the words appear separately. I have never heard about this "COP International" label either, but it seems they have a name so at least they are signed to a major indie label. But the sourcing is poor and my Google search results were not the best either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:39, 14 July 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Encroachment[edit]

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

They exist, they have been going for over 20 years and they sound interesting. They do not meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. This article was also clearly written to promote them, so is full of inflated claims. Boleyn (talk) 13:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I found this source. It's an interview. Aside from this, the rest of the results were concert sites, stuff where the words appear separately and sites that are not independent from the subject. (I like the name of this band btw.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete this is a very marginal page that looks like a WP:CRUFT job. One college newspaper story, is a questionable source for an assertion of WP:N.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:39, 14 July 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G Force (TV series)[edit]

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

It was on CBBC, which might be considered proof of notability in itself. If not, nothing else pushes it past the post. Boleyn (talk) 14:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:38, 14 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hip-Hop Docktrine: The Official Boondocks Mixtape[edit]

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

Non-notable album. Since it's a mixtape, there's no one artist discography to redirect to. The two sources in the article are bandcamp (unreliable) and Rawkus, which looks like a blog. A WP:BEFORE search is bringing up Last.fm (deprecated), more Bandcamp, some wikia sites, and various blogs. [15] is about a different, but similarly titled, mixtape. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 12:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:NALBUM. We have tended to delete articles about a mixtape, unless there is clear notability from significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 21 July 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:37, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hosem Animation Studio[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ORG. I was unable to source this being a subsidiary of Hong Ying Animation, so a merge may not be appropriate. There may be sources in Chinese, but it's difficult to know where to look. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hong Ying Animation. Adam9007 (talk) 14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the creator of the article ought to be well aware by now that articles about corporations should be extensively sourced, yet continues to create articles without sourcing them. Hong Ying Animation, Sandman Animation Studio, Horseman Cao. And I'm not even mentioning the articles that have already been deleted. Maybe sources exist in Chinese, but it is entirely unreasonable to create unsourced stubs and expect other editors to perform WP:BEFORE and come up non-English sources. Recreation, once sources become available, is not hindered by deletion because there is no usable information in these articles to start with. Vexations (talk) 14:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's going to be either delete, or merge into Hong Ying Animation, depending on whether the latter survives its own AfD discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. There is nothing out there in English. I'd feel more comfortable if we had a Chinese-speaking editor to review the sources, but at the very least there is the red flag of no interwiki to zh wiki, so there's that. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:36, 14 July 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. The keep arguments have not rebutted the synth concerns. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison[edit]

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

I am at a loss of what this article is trying to achieve, I have a couple of concerns of, failing WP:GNG, WP:SNYTH, WP:OR. This just seems like a collection of statistics thrown together like some weird almanac and as far as I am aware, we aren't an almanac. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I like the overview and the football CL has a similar list.~Do you want also to delete this one?-Malo95 (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This vote is basically a WP:ILIKEIT. HawkAussie (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is a lack of sources which doesn't help in having the article pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 06:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @HawkAussie: I have add some sources.--Malo95 (talk) 06:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If this Article will be deleted I 'm forced to Afd following articles: UEFA Champions League clubs performance comparison, UEFA Europa League clubs performance comparison, AFC Champions League clubs performance comparison, Performance record of clubs in the Premier League, EuroLeague clubs performance comparison, Copa Sudamericana clubs performance comparison, Euro Hockey League clubs performance comparison and similar lists. So this will be a general discussion if performance comparison lists are notable or not. Malo95 (talk) 07:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Complete synthesis, and extremely unwieldy for the user. Get rid of all those others too. Harrias ^talk 08:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Like others, I note the lack of sourcing, and the failures of the GNG, NOR, SYNTH. I am also entirely unmoved by implied fearmongering, and am not shaking in my boots in horror at the prospect of deleting any other such comparison articles that likewise fail these key guidelines and policies ... which no one editor would be "forced" to do. Ravenswing 09:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All this does is summarise the performance timeline of results in the competition in a format easy for a user to digest. This sort of thing is common across Wikipedia e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines. It is clearly false to describe this as WP:OR as this is basic factual statistics without any arbitrary threshold e.g. 100 clean sheets in List of Premier League goalkeepers with 100 or more clean sheets. It is clearly false to describe this as WP:SNYTH, the description of which talks about merging source text in a way to create a false conclusion. It clearly meets WP:GNG, as there is significant coverage about teams historical performances, and there are a multitude of reliable sources. WP:ILIKEIT is an essay, not a policy page, but even so I fail to see how this fits that description. Jopal22 (talk) 09:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Malo95: 52 sources all from one website does not pass GNG. Govvy (talk) 09:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Govvy: Using one reliable source does not mean other reliable sources do not exist. It's just practical. Jopal22 (talk) 10:16, 20 July 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. I considered a redirect but the name as it is is an implausible search string. Tone 17:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Greenwood (soldier)[edit]

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

Sounds like he had an interesting life, but didn't meet any aspect of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a redirect to Tottenham Cemetery or Harry Greenwood as an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Greenwood, clearly not notable. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Harry Greenwood#Early life. Fails WP:NSOLDIER and GNG, even the source in the article is more about his son. He can't inherit notability from his kinfolk. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Hog Farm. Notability cannot be inherited. --Danre98^{(talk|contribs)} 14:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTINHERITED. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Don't see any reason for a redirect, as no one will be looking for him. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 23:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There must be some WP:PRINT sources that confirm this subjects notability.--Prisencolin (talk)

See Wikipedia:Credible claim of significance. In one sentence, you need to be able to state why you think a person is notable. Being a relative of a famous person does not make you notable. Being a colour sergeant or a Yeomen of the Guard does not make you notable. Being buried in Tottenham cemetery does not make you notable. That leaves only his participation in ceremonies. So what makes you think he was worthy of an article? Hawkeye7 (discuss) 05:10, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No idea what this means but it seems at least like a claim of significance to me: "he took part in royal ceremonies and stood guard at the lying in state of King Edward VII. "--Prisencolin (talk) 07:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll assume that "he took part in royal ceremonies and stood guard at the lying in state of King Edward VII" is a credible claim of significance. But that does not mean the subject is notable: those criteria generally only apply to whether an article can be speedily deleted or not under WP:A7, WP:A9, or WP:A11. This dude fails both the general notability guidelines (WP:GNG) and the subject-specific ones at WP:NSOLDIER. In order for Charles to be notable, he must stand out, or distinguish himself from his unit (e.g. be the first member, or revolutionize the force, etc.) so that he gets significant coverage per the GNG. He has no uniqueness among the probably couple thousand of past and present Yeomen, or among the soldiers that stood guard at the lying-in-state. If those subjects are notable, articles should be made on Yeomen of the Guard and the ceremony of lying in state at Edward's death, but not a single individual involved in both. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NEXIST, especially the last sentence. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 13:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn't meet WP:GNG, IMO. He could be mentioned at the son's article (if reliably sourced). I could live with a redirect, but I agree with Hawkeye, unfortunately no one will be searching for this fellow. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 11:12, 17 July 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood Outlaw Movie[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, but possibly merge into the existing page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Balle010 (talk • contribs) 18:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Bitter Jester as this is a director's cut of that film and so does not really warrant a standalone article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. I'm opposed to a redirect, simply because there's no obvious connection between the title and the parent article; it's considerably more reasonable that someone is going to search for "Hollywood outlaw movies" as a generic search term than that someone will search for this particular obscure title. Ravenswing 12:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: No references are provided. Should someone add more references then this maybe notable enough to keep. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:33, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, the reviews that are just straight up listed without any sourcing are all for that documentary, not this directors cut. As a result, it fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Even if it was notable, the article is such a mess WP:TNT would apply. I oppose a redirect per WP:SURPRISE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with no redirect. No notability to this found in online searches. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:18, 20 July 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 keep. BD2412 T 02:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freimann Hotel Building[edit]

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

Removed prod. Someone put a Historical Marker on the building (there is no evidence whom, possibly the owner). So it is in a historical marker database and in the database of the Wisconsin Historical Society (according to their site, they have 140,000 entries in their database). But it has not be recognized as historic by any actual authority and searching finds almost nothing - so it does not meet GNG. MB 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. MB 18:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Green Bay's oldest commercial establishment is notable whether it has a historic designation or not.
WHS
WSG
Landmark Hunter

There is more WP:NEXIST Lightburst (talk) 20:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

These are all just directory type listing. There needs to be in-depth sig coverage in RS to meet GNG. The above prove it exists and is about 120 years old, like lots of other buildings. Implying there are actual sources without showing them is pointless. MB 20:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. I'm not seeing the claim as the oldest commercial establishment in Green Bay, only "one of the oldest continuing establishments". I've looked, with a friendly predisposition towards old brick buildings and Midwestern towns both, and I don't see anything that needs its own article. --Lockley (talk) 22:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockley: Please check out the article's improvements when you get a chance. It is a work in progress and i have begun to improve the article. Thanks! Lightburst (talk) 23:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Lightburst: - you've done good work on the article, it's now cogent & well-organized & convincing. Unfortunately I must be honest and say that your work hasn't improved the notability of the hotel itself. But that's only my opinion, I've been wrong before, and this goes with best wishes to you. --Lockley (talk) 03:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to a new section in Fox River State Recreational Trail. It is indeed on the trail, I checked, the trail's northern end is at CityDeck about six blocks north along the river. I change my !vote because the hotel is still not notable by itself, IMO, but surely this material is savable somewhere, why waste the constructive energy? --Lockley (talk) 22:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @MB: I always find it to be bad form for a nominator to constantly diminish the article during an AfD. Please stop. and allow the AfD process to complete. It is clear that you favor deletion so diminishing the article to favor your desired outcome is not good form. Lightburst (talk) 15:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Lockley. The added sources are largely just database-style entries (some of which don't even mention the building itself, just the restaurant that is there now) or sources that are non-reliable for establishing notability (i.e., the website for the restaurant that is the current tenant). There is no actual WP:SIGCOV regarding the building itself, and being really old does not mean that it gets a free pass on not needing to pass the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 16:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep They do mention the building. WP:Not paper. Meets WP:GNG. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Really? Care to point out where, in this source that any information that the building the restaurant is located in is mentioned? Or this one? Or how either of those, or this, or this could be considered significant coverage? The only source that actually has any real coverage is this one, and the site is WP:UGC and thus inadmissible as a WP:RS. Rorshacma (talk) 18:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Rorshacma: I am adding newspaper entries from the 100+ years of archives. Just added Sturgeon Bay Door County Advocate. I will continue to add more.

I appreciate the effort you are putting forth in finding sources, but they are all pretty much just mentions, oftentimes in questionable sources. The Sturgeon Bay Door source you mentioned, for example, is an advertisement, which cannot be used to establish notability. Having WP:SIGCOV in reliable sources is pretty much the foundation of establishing notability on Wikipedia, and there really does not appear to be that for this building. Rorshacma (talk) 20:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:NBUILDING. I think that the historical marker designation is significant, and certainly not a surprising designation given the building's age and importance to the community. A number of sources to back this up have been added, and I expect there will be more if local history books are consulted. It can be built up over time and shouldn't be deleted at this point. Patiodweller (talk) 21:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NBUILDING says "they require significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources to establish notability". This is lacking. The historical marker designation is not significant because it is not a RS - it may well have been put there by the owner of the building to raise its value. Anyone can buy those. MB 21:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Historical subjects may not get the coverage that popular culture articles get, however this is an encyclopedia. Dream Focus 18:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Historic bdlg w/ state designation.Djflem (talk) 18:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per 7&6=thirteen and Patiodweller. Royal broil 00:41, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Being " listed in the Wisconsin Historical Society Register" seems enough for me, I think all historical buildings (that have some kind of proof they are historical) should be kept as notable landmarks. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piotrus, did you notice the Wisconsin Historical Society says their register has "records on more than 140,000 historic buildings, structures and objects throughout Wisconsin". Are you saying we should have 140,000 articles on old buildings in Wisconsin alone? There are only about 70,000 articles on places on the NRHP that covers the entire country. MB 17:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hence the week keep. NOTPAPER means we can have 140,00 entries. Through I am open for a wider debate if the WHS's register is reliable and sufficient for establishing notability. See WP:MAPOUTCOMES which is kind of unclear on lower level listings. But while I am well aware WP:ITSUSEFUL is a bad argument overall, I think that listings of such tourist attractions meets the educational purpose of encyclopedia quite well, and it is useful for tourists and scholars. So I lean keep here, despite being more of a deletionists those years... --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep-- this article has multiple, active contributes. It seems likely to improve in the near future; also note that the Wisconsin Historical Society Register listing qualifies it for having an article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:42, 19 July 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Gifted: Graduation[edit]

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

too soon, short article and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:45, 20 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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep: I started the article and I'd like to clear up some points here re: article is (1) too short, (2) too soon and (3) needs more reference. For (1), I'm not sure if there is a specific amount of words needed for an article when stub articles even exist. For (2), while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this and the other TV programmes being AFD'ed were already announced including the artists who are taking part of the series which leads me to (3) the additional references (as published in Thai reliable sources) are as follows:

It would have also been better if concerns raised were discussed on the page's talk page and WP:BEFORE was done. Other articles being AFD'ed in relation to this are Devil Sister, Military of Love, Oh My Boss, Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area, Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated and A Tale of Thousand Stars. — Emperork (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 28 June 2020 (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)} 19:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area that nobody actually knows the premiere date for this show, or the others nominated with the same rationale. The only real rationale given is TOOSOON, but the nominator doesn't know how soon it will actually be. "Short article" and "Not notability" are not acceptable rationales. Keep on all of these thoughtless nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:31, 14 July 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 keep. There is a consensus that this entity narrowly passes WP:BCAST, although substantial work is required to establish an informative non-promotional article. BD2412 T 02:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Mango 91.9[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Also, content is fully promotional in nature WP:PROMOTION. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, anything promotional in the article shall be removed. Other than that, the station has received some coverage. I also found some reliable sources about the station: [16], [17], [18], [19], [20] and [21]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:BCAST. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:46, 28 June 2020 (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)} 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - All 6 references mentioned by Superastig are seems to be paid/sponsored ones which constitute press releases/pseudo press releases at radioandmusic.com, Emirates 24/7 and exchange4media.com. Again, out of all these references, the number 4 is coming from its parent media group Malayala Manorama which happens to own this radio station in the first place. It's the case of WP:COI and at this time its fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:BCAST until and unless it is proven otherwise by bringing in relevant and credible third-party references. -Hatchens (talk) 03:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How does it fail BCAST? It seems to originate its own programming. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The criteria in NCORP were tightened significantly in early 2019 and all organizations must have references that are Independent - including containing Independent Content. There is nothing to suggest (and I'm sure isn't the intention of BCAST) that a media company (such as a radio station) can avoid the requirements of NCORP so long as it meets some lesser criteria in BCAST. BCAST is not a replacement for NCORP but has additional guidance. It should also be noted that unlike NCORP, BCAST is not an official set of guidelines. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from the fact that my question was completely ignored, it has been longstanding Wikipedia practice that broadcasters have cultural significance in ways that NCORP is not designed to address. My question remains, how is BCAST not met? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 20:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your question wasn't completely ignored but perhaps my answer isn't clear. You are correct that I didn't address BCAST but there was a reason for that. I'm paraphrasing so hopefully I'm not incorrectly describing where you're coming from but your position suggests that BCAST somehow takes precedence over ORGIND when it comes to references. I don't believe that is the case at all. BCAST does not have any official standing and does not take precedence over ORGIND. Therefore, in my opinion, there's no point in looking at BCAST without first ensuring that NCORP has been met (especially wrt references). So if this radio station met the criteria in BCAST (as per Hatchens below) but failed on the references requirement in NCORP, that's still a fail for notability regardless of what BCAST says. You say there is a "longstanding Wikipedia practice" that broadcasters have cultural significance in way that NCORP is not designed to address but if that were the case and have the support of the community, I would expect to see a specific entry in NCORP dealing with this. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear 78.26, As per WP:BCAST - "Notability can be established by either a large audience (Fails, No third party reach data available for this radio station), established broadcast history (Fails, as its a very new radio station), or being the originator of some programming (Borderline Pass)" -Hatchens (talk) 03:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. Happy editing! 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 04:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a single reference contains "Independent Content" (please see WP:ORGIND) as they all rely on information provided by the company/connected sources. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but revert to non promo Per WP:before The article was updated over the past few years but an older non promo version of article exists. Seems radio station has been around since at least 2008. Older version has sources. See previous afd and related versions. Sources indicate meets GNG. PainProf (talk) 23:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear PainProf, Thanks for dropping by. I was expecting your help in this AfD thread. -Hatchens (talk) 02:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The sources that were cited in previous revisions of the article do demonstrate that the station has received significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the subject. The subject passes both WP:BCAST and WP:GNG. Furthermore, any content that could be considered overtly promotional has been removed from the article.--Tdl1060 (talk) 09:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Whatever you have removed had made this a barebone article. It had no significant third-party coverage earlier (as per WP:SIGCOV), and as of today, it has none either. Kindly feel free to update the article with relevant sources and keep us updated over this discussion thread. -Hatchens (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article in Gulf News is most certainly WP:SIGCOV and the article in The Hindu, while short, does address Radio Mango directly and in detail, which means it qualifies as SIGCOV as well.--Tdl1060 (talk) 07:53, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Two editors have referred to the sources cited in the previous revision of the articles above. The previous AfD was dated 2008 and at that time, there were three references. This from MSN (archived copy) contains a single mention-in-passing that the radio station would launch under Phase II, no in-depth information on the company is provided, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This from exchange4media (archived copy) is a forward looking statement that the station is "all set to launch" and is clearly based on a PR campaign to generate interest in the new station at the time. Most of the contents of the article are duplicated in this earlier article (archive copy) where it is clear that the information was provided by connected individuals. This reference fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, this from Khaleej Times (archived copy) is published by "IANS" which is a newswire. It was not written by an Independent journalist but was written and transmitted on the newswire by the company itself. The article is PR, fails WP:ORGIND. As far as I can determine, none of the earlier versions meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:Bludgeon. PainProf (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose and intention of the AfD process is to discuss the merits of each other's arguments. Quoting BLUDGEON (which is an essay, not policy) in a misguided manner in an attempt to shut down *appropriate* discussion (I've pointed out the appropriate policies for organizations and provided an analysis of references that were put forward) is pretty lame and demonstrates to me that you don't understand BLUDGEON. Your time would be better served answering the criticisms - such as the utter lack of references that meet the criteria for notability - rather than shutting down discussion. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep has about enough coverage to pass WP:GNG. Also the appropriate particular notability guideline for it would be WP:BCAST and not WP:NCORP. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 08:38, 22 July 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 redirect to Forester Universe. Sandstein 13:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Fairy (novel)[edit]

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

Non-notable book. Only citations on Article are to an Amazon page, the author's personal blog, and Ursa Major Awards, which is non-notable. Couldn't find any reliable secondary sources. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: So far I'm leaning towards redirecting this to the author's page. It's mentioned offhand in academic press books like this one, where they discuss the author, but so far I'm not finding much. I did find a review at Flayrah, which seems to be well thought of in the furry world and looks like it could be a reliable source per its use as a RS in academic press books like this one. However that's just one review and wouldn't be enough to keep on that basis alone. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 01:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Flayrah most likely isn't a reliable source due to its acceptation of WP:UGC, albeit with a set of guidelines. It qualifies as WP:FANSITE at best. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kyell Gold or to Forester Universe, where it's listed. All I was able to find was the Flayrah review and a ALA post stating that it was nominated for - but was not selected - the ALA's 2012 Over the Rainbow list, which serves as a list of the "best of the best" works that feature LGBT+ representation for the given year. Because of this and because it's is his first non-adult novel, so it would definitely merit a couple of lines in the author's article. In the universe specific section it would be best to focus on the trilogy as a whole, but mention that it was his first non-adult book and was nominated for an ALA honor. The question here is which page it should redirect to. Normally I'd just say the universe page but that needs some work on sourcing and whatnot. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 02:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, isfdb shows no awards/reviews, not good. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The book is, for sure, not independently notable, with a complete lack of reliable sources discussing it. And, I'm not liking the looks of either of the two Redirect proposals. Forester Universe is certainly non-notable itself with the same lack of reliable sources, and its looking like Kyell Gold may not pass the WP:GNG bar as well. Out of those two, though, the author's page is certainly the better choice. I'd advocate for outright deletion, personally though. Rorshacma (talk) 22:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Forester Universe article could see a nomination for deletion, I agree. The Kyell Gold article meets WP:BARE in my view and could be salvageable, but I wouldn't be surprised if someone nominated for deletion. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 01:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect would be the logical solution. scope_creep^Talk 22:44, 15 July 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 11:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Scottish Cup hat-tricks[edit]

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

All three lists fail WP:GNG and WP:NLIST as none are fully professional. The first two are cup matches and the last one is a youth league. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'm fairly neutral on whether they're kept or not. What I would say is that for the Scottish Cup, the article currently suffers badly from Recentism as it only lists hat-tricks from the 2010s. It should really cover the entire history of the competition, but that goes back to the 1870s, bringing its own problems with sourcing. The competition, very important in terms of the historical development of football, is lacking in content generally, with many of the season articles sometimes including only scorelines even for the final, with an external link to something equally generic in terms of its content like Soccerbase or Statto; it's not up to me or anyone else what editors focus their time on, but personally I think there are other aspects of Scottish Cup coverage that could be improved upon before stuff like hat-tricks are added. Crowsus (talk) 22:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. ChrisTheDude (talk) 08:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - these kinds of lists can be notable (see FA List of Premier League hat-tricks), bit only when supported by in-depth coverage of the topic. I see nothing that makes these notable. if there are sources there, please ping me. Giant Snowman 10:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draft as GiantSnowman said these type of articles can be notable if well sourced. I would suggest drafting this article until sources can be found. If no one can be bothered to find any sources then it gets deleted. That at least is my take on it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 17:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:13, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I thought the above was fairly conclusive but i suppose i didn't vote, so there we go. Crowsus (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nobody seems to look after these pages. If they did and they were actively maintained then they could be kept. The Scottish Cup ones in particular do not go back very far and it's an immense effort to unearth the stats if they are not readily available somewhere. GrimRob (talk) 11:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Crowsus Spiderone 07:33, 20 July 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 keep. There appears to be consensus that the newly identified sources indicate that the subject of the article meets the threshold of notability. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 08:32, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JoAnn Giordano[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unfortunately I am not able to find significant coverage that will warrant the keeping of this article. --James Richards (talk) 12:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is not enough on its own to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 03:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the more extensive coverage found by Vexations and Netherzone. --Lockley (talk) 22:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I added some more sources. It's not a lot, but enough to sustain a stubby entry. Vexations (talk) 12:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per the sources added by Vexations. Curiocurio (talk) 13:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think this is a case of a notable woman artist who slipped through the cracks of history. The article as it now stands is not enough to pass WP:NARTIST but I'm convinced that WP:NEXIST. I searched online and found that her work work is in the Ohio Craft Museum, so if another collection shows up she will pass. The Smithsonian Archives of American Art contains an archive file from the Women's Building. The contents show that she had a solo show at the Women's Building, and the announcement for the show states that "JoAnn Giordano has exhibited her textiles nationally at the AMerican Craft Museum, New York (now called the MAD Museum), the Textile Museum, Wash DC, and some galleries. It also mentions that her work was features in Fiberarts Magazine, Surface Design Journal and Attenzione.[22] Her CV from the 80's is also in the archive box, and altho it's a primary source, it mentions that she's in the collection of the Lafayette Museum of Art, Indianna and the Century Center in South Bend, Indianna. The CV shows numerous group shows in museums, some regional award/grants, and more press coverage. I'm pretty sure she is notable, but it will take work to improve the article and find the collections and sourcing for the reference section. Netherzone (talk) 19:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: The archive cited above also has a five page feature article on her by Janet Koplos in Surface Design Magazine; a review of a 3-person show at Artemisia Gallery in Chicago; and a two page feature article in FiberArts Magazine. Netherzone (talk) 20:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Seems to be sufficiently notable based on new sources people have found here. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on the significant coverage in Surface Design Journal. The Smithsonian archive doesn't hurt, either. Thank you, Netherzone. pburka (talk) 00:15, 22 July 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 13:51, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subedar Sansar Chand[edit]

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

Subedar is an OR-8 rank according to Army ranks and insignia of India, which doesn't qualify under WP:NSOLDIER, and MVC is a second level award, which also isn't enough for NSOLDIER, and there otherwise doesn't seem to be enough coverage of him to meet WP:GNG or WP:NPERSON Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for soldiers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 04:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG per this, this, etc. as these quality reliable sources provide significant coverage to the subject. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh, those sources seem to be listings of PVC and MVC recipients as heroes (which they are)-- but we explicitly only include top-level recipients in the notability guideline. Using Stories of Heroism as SIGCOV would a large number of MVC recipients a claim to notability that they don't really have. The book doesn't call out Chand as particularly more heroic than other MVC recipients, which is what we would expect for notability to be substantiated. If there really is the other coverage that you allude to, I'd be interested to see it as it might establish his notability more clearly. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. A standalone article is justified for the subject. desmay (talk) 14:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Based on sources available, I don't believe this person is notable enough for their own article. --James Richards (talk) 12:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm afraid I can't see any notability guideline that he meets. Run of the mill coverage for the recipient of a second-level gallantry decoration. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:13, 14 July 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. I see this was listed for rescue by a COI editor and a bunch of rescue regulars voted to keep with assertive arguments. I'm not going to give those votes much weight. The delete side has given a detailed source analysis showing they fall short and has reviewed their votes after improvement. Consensus to delete is therefore solid Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cary S. Cox[edit]

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

He was born, he got married, he invented a "raisin seeder, a cotton gin, and a pressure fruit grinder"; he died. There is a claim in the article that he is most famous for his inventions, but six of seven article sources are all patent office entries or similar. There is no independent coverage to prove the claim of his notability. The best I fond in a search was a mention in Cotton Growing Review, (Volume 8 - Page 62). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete asserting that someone is notable doesn't make it so. The sources do not appear to exist that show that someone actually took note. There is no evidence that these inventions were successful, influential, or were produced at all. Vexations (talk) 11:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A non-notable inventor, does not meet WP guidelines for GNG. Netherzone (talk) 16:54, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment per: an editor's request for a second look: my !vote is still delete, I say that without hesitation. Netherzone (talk) 12:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Please see secondary sources: Raisin Seeder Review, Cary S. Cox, and the Cary S. Cox New Patents; and Cox gets Patent on Gin article. Please let me know if I can improve the article by adding these sources to show that he was noteworthy as an inventor. Greg Henderson (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest you familiarize yourself with the difference between trivial and significant coverage. You can read about that in WP:RS.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 12:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the patents by themselves aren't really notable. What's needed is independent, in-depth coverage, by reliable sources. Glendoremus (talk) 04:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Patents by themselves are not notable. There is no coverage on this guy from independent, reliable sources per WP:GNG. In addition, the inventions themselves probably aren't notable either. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still delete. All they are is an obituary listing him as a merchant (note: not an inventor), patent announcements, a gravefinder, and an articles of incorporation. I don't find that any of those tells the significance of his inventions (per WP:ANYBIO criteria 2) so no. I also find that it is all trivial coverage (bar the obituary, which is routine coverage), so it also still fails WP:GNG. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 12:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In order for Cox to get notability from inventing stuff, his inventions actually have to work (or be useful) and have an impact on the world (or part of it) in some way. In order for him to get it from having a company (being a "merchant"), he needs to have more than one article about a raisin fire. Finally, the obituary (and articles of incorporation) is WP:ROUTINE. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Greywalls that the sources improve WP:V but not notability. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 00:57, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please see 3 request edits on Talk:Cary S. Cox. --Greg Henderson (talk) 21:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greghenderson2006, you have been asked several times to identify yourself as a COI involved editor. Netherzone (talk) 23:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem Netherzone. We have the COI on the talk page and it is already on the main page. How would you propose to do it here? --Greg Henderson (talk) 23:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As another editor has requested, when you weigh in on your own COI articles in an AfD discussion, clearly state after your !vote, "I have a conflict of interest with this article." That transparancy helps non-involved editors understand your contributions within the discussion/debate with deeper understanding. It's no different than the way transparency as a principle works in any other area within one's life. Simple. Netherzone (talk) 23:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got it. I'll add "I have a conflict of interest with this article" in my AfD discussions.--Greg Henderson (talk) 23:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greghenderson2006, the veracity of your statement just above this one is undermined by your unwillingness to declare your COI in your edits, as in your last one in this AfD where you listed with Rescue Squad without declaring. You may want consider reading WP:CANVAS. Netherzone (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let me add it there as well. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see two of the sources as they are paywalled and the third one ("B") has him as a trivial mention. I'd prefer to have another editor give their opinion on the sources. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I looked at two, they are just perfunctory patent announcements. Trivial coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, thanks. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 01:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I would like the editors to take another look. I am adding RS from newspapers and will continue after dinner. And the article is not the same article which was nominated. User:ThatMontrealIP Netherzone User:Glendoremus User:Danre98 Lightburst (talk) 22:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nope. It is still just a bunch of perfunctory patent announcements and a very short obituary. Some of the claims did not check out for the sources provided, for example the DOB is not included in the Marietta Georgia article (which is about his father, not the son who is the article subject). ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the birthday and place, I found and added his obituary- so it is cited now. Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:ThatMontrealIP I have added more about his company, i found several obituaries. I also find that he is found in many publications as far away as Indiana. The books I have found are only perfunctory, but I have found more substantial items in newspapers. Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll look at it in a little bit. This is a last minute thing. Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightburst, I have taken another look. No he is not notable, millions of patents have been filed, and announced in publications, few have long-lasting impact, and these certainly do not. WP:PATENTS states: Noting the existence of patents or patent applications is a common form of puffery for businesses. Avoid giving too much emphasis to their existence or contents. This article is a blatant example of that exaggeration. The inflated sense of importance of this individual has grown to comical proportions. We should not be squeezing minuscule drops of raisin juice out of every trivial mention of a person's life to substantiate their importance. Even if he were "famous for his inventions" as the article states, which he is not, fame is not equivalent to notability. Basing articles on such trivia compromises the integrity of the encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Scientific America and others writing about his makes him notable. They don't mention every invention, had to be significant accomplishments. Dream Focus 00:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Scientific American Back then, it was a four page weekly paper focused on the happenings at the US Patents Office. Appearing in the latest happenings is like appearing in the crime blotter, obituaries, and other routine announcement. So, despite the big name now, it falls under triviality. It doesn't carry anything like the weight of being featured as an article today. Graywalls (talk) 08:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His patents haven't been substantially been covered in any substance in intellectually independent secondary sources. A summary in Scientific American back when they were weekly and focused on publishing the happenings at the patent office does not represent the same thing as discussion in length about his patent. Having the patents granted by the patent office is a matter of drafting things in the way they're supposed to be written and following the procedures. There's no indication that he was notable whatsoever as an inventor; and there's no substantial notability worthy of a worldwide encyclopedia. Graywalls (talk) 07:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC) So, the changes improves verifiability. He was born, was a merchant, applied for and received patents, then died. Graywalls (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP No longer the article it was when nominated. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 13:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Dream Focus is mistaken; a mention in the old weekly version of Scientific American was nothing special way back then. It seems from what I've read that the article creator's only goal on Wikipedia may be to promote his ancestors and his self-published book; but that's not what Wikipedia is for. —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In all fairness, I don't think WP:NOTFORPROMOTION applies because it is written in a neutral tone and well sourced. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Untrue. I am the author and although COI, I published the article from WP:RS to highlight his patents and accomplishments. Nothing more. Scientific America and others writings about his makes him notable.--Greg Henderson (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nah. They were mostly writing about his patents, not himself, so I don't see how it meets the WP:GNG. Per WP:ANYBIO, for an inventor to be considered notable, it (the inventions) has to have have some historical significance, and I just don't see that. Scientific America back in the day was focused on reporting what patents were filed, so it doesn't really give any notability (it's WP:ROUTINE). The Indiana thing is just one article (It's paywalled, so I can't tell how in depth it is. Seems to be more about his company than himself). The article is decent, but it belongs somewhere other than wikipedia under current notability policy (for example, one of them Wikipedia forks). --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 16:37, 23 July 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. Consensus is clearly established that the sources identified as supporting this article either lack sufficient depth or are from sources not considered reliable for our purposes. As noted in the discussion, Wikipedia has numerous articles on porn stars who do, in fact, meet our standards for sourcing. I have redirected the title to List of Penthouse Pets per WP:PRESERVE, and have edit-protected it against further recreation. BD2412 T 04:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lana Rhoades[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Procedural relist per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 17. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 03:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 17:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have tried to fix this BLP up having come across it at the last DRV. Importantly, I have RS on the fact she was the most searched for pornstar in 2019 (#2 of WP:NACTOR), and her circa 250 films (#1 of WP:NACTOR). Her awards could be #3 of WP:NACTOR. Her RS is still not great imho, but she gets a very high volume of non-trivial coverage in general global media (per WP:BASIC#1). Ultimately, I think the most downloaded pornstar (345 million views) on the world's largest porn-site, is something that our readers would expect to find on Wikipedia. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I don't know if this means anything, but her Wikidata page registers 26 versions of her BLP on various Wikipedia language sites. Britishfinance (talk) 19:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a circular source. Several of the other language Wikipedia articles appear to be translations of one another. It is likely they originated from an old version of the en.Wikipedia article. They also cite the same low quality sources, especially adultfilmdatabase.com. • Gene93k (talk) 21:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My point is that this could apply to all WP articles, and yet not many I have come across have been translated 25 times? Anyway, I hope this 4th re-incarnation of the BLP is a better effort than the last three. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a reliable reference for its own content. Notability and verifiability come from external published sources that have good reputations for fact checking and are independent of the subject. 4th effort or 100th, if the references are low quality, notability is still not established. • Gene93k (talk) 02:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have RS from The Daily Beast, and I also linked to a Playboy Plus interview (it is behind a paywall unfortunately). Both are Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The most viewed pornographic performer in 2019 (per the RS), is a "non-notable pornographic performer"? Britishfinance (talk) 20:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While a "just not notable" !vote is not encouraged, being a porn site's most popular star is not a guarantee of notability. I'm not yet convinced of the reliability of the sources. I see one deprecated source, Daily Star (UK), which is considered even less reliable than the WP:DAILYMAIL per WP:RSPS. • Gene93k (talk) 21:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is the most downloaded actress on the largest porn site in the world – although non-standard, that is in itself a level of notability (WP:NACTOR#2 says Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following.). Also, if you read the Talk Page, I only used the ~~Daily Mail~~ Daily Star source to verify a fact from a video she did (which I verified myself by watching the video); the Daily Mail RS is not needed for meeting GNG, which I think she meets under WP:BASIC#1 (high volume of non-trivial coverage). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tabloids are low quality sources. Claims of significance that rely on them are dubious. The Daily Mail, per the WP:RSPS guideline supplement, is not to be trusted as a reference for facts or as evidence of notability. The Daily Star, one of the most disreputable tabloids in Britain, is even worse. Sheer Internet traffic and Google hits regarding porn are notoriously unreliable. Reliable sources tend to note the petabytes moved. Tabloids note the "superstars" that draw that traffic. • Gene93k (talk) 02:29, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't use the Daily Mail (my mistake, and struck above). Apart from the Daily Star (per Talk Page), I don't have any tabloids in this article? Britishfinance (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 20:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability still not established. Number of views and downloads from a pornography website is not a reliable or measurable statistic, it cannot be independently verified. The intent of the "large fan base or cult following" criteria, it seems, is to catch edge cases such as impactful viral sensations, people with a large base outside of traditional media venues, etc... Trying to use data provided by pornhub, xhamster, etc...on which sex worker is allegedly more popular than another in a given time frame is problematic. Zaathras (talk) 00:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable pornographic performer. Not sure why we're back here for the 4th time, with her having the same notability in RS the last two times this was listed. The need for RS coverage required for pornographic performers has been reiterated in many AfDs and DRVs, especially Lana Rhoades's previous 3 AfDs and 3(?) DRVs, as well as a recent AfD of this performer, which is on a similar level of "popularity" as this one. I'll save restating the arguments in AfD #2, but they still apply.

Being popular doesn't (automatically) meet notability. WP:NACTOR has been raised many times for popular people, and AfD has not treat it as overriding criteria. If they don't have the RS to back their 'notability', they're deleted regardless. The same criteria is applied for YouTubers. We delete incredibly popular YouTubers for lack of coverage, which would otherwise "meet WP:NACTOR" (eg SSSniperWolf, also see this). If keep votes cannot supply the RS, we're in exactly the same position as AfD #2. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:38, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see we are back to special pleading and vague handwaves to some non policy based argument. If the best source we have is a UK tabloid then we are clearly well into the territory of this being yet another porn BLP that doesn't get anywhere close to minimum sourcing levels. Spartaz ^Humbug! 18:33, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. My first time editing this BLP, but I have replaced a lot of the RS and given two policy-based arguments above (NACTOR and BASIC). Perhaps we are also in the zone of AfD !voters who just don't like BLPs of pornstars regardless of the policy-based arguments or RS provided. Britishfinance (talk) 19:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Casting aspersions against editors with whom one disagrees is probably not going to be a wise path to take. Policy-based reasons have been given for deletion as well, and the citations in the present version of the article...tabloids, passing mentions, a light blurb in Fox Sports.AU, ar not really adding up to a convincing picture of notability. Zaathras (talk) 00:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Sports, which is an RS, has a whole article on her. I could paste hundreds of such RS into this article, which would emphasize WP:BASIC#1 (anybody can confirm on Google). It is not unsurprising that the most downloaded pornstar on the world's largest pornsite has a lot of articles on her from RS around the world. For example: Puerto Rico (El Imparcial), Portugal (Correio da Manhã), Spain (Marca), Hong Kong (Indonesia) (Suara), UK (PC Magazine), India, (Punjab Kesari), Russia, (Sputnik News), Finland (7 päivää), Ecuador (El Commercio), Mexico (El Debate), Turkey (Haberler.com [tr]), USA (Daily Beast), USA (The Morning After (Hulu)), Germany (Rheinische Post). I could list hundreds more articles of which she is the sole subject (i.e. non-trivial) from around the world. That is WP:BASIC#1. Britishfinance (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- A couple there are highlighted in red by my unreliable sources script. I can only speak for the English sources, none of those give rise to GNG here. PC Mag doesn't have significant coverage (it mentions her name once, as an example of an actress with many views on a porn site, it doesn't talk about her otherwise). The Daily Beast suggests a few sentences should be added to Pierre Woodman. insidestl.com doesn't look reliable at a glance, indeed, it doesn't have any discussions on WP:RSN and your article link for the source is to a TV show, so I'm not sure what's going on there.
As for FoxSports.au I hope we're not saying their gossip celebrity coverage is evidence of notability. I mean... surely the argument here isn't that Pornstar Lana Rhoades reveals football star slid into her Insta DMs is encyclopaedic? ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:22, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The section of the Fox article you cite is basically the Page Six of Fox Sports Australia. Sputnik is literal Russian propaganda and cannot be used to source anything in this project. Most everything else appear to be Daily Mail-like booty shots with no substance or depth. You can't add up every namedrop and scant mention and add it up to notability. Zaathras (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not mentioned Fox in the above list? That ref is in the article, but if you are concerned about Fox, then here is the same story from News.com.au (also owned by NewsCorp, and an RS), with News.com.au. She is a pornstar, so her articles are not going to be about politics or quantum physics. However, as anybody can prove to themselves, her global coverage (e.g. article about her in large daily newspapers, and not all tabloids), is very (very) high (per WP:BASIC#1). Britishfinance (talk) 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One third of the The Daily Beast article is about her (it is not a few lines), and it is a WP:RS/P, I also linked to a Playboy Plus interview (it is behind a paywall unfortunately), another WP:RS/P. There are many sources above which are find RS (and they don't have to be in English for AfD), such as Germany (Rheinische Post), and Spain (Marca), and Puerto Rico (El Imparcial), and Portugal (Correio da Manhã). However, in addition to the RS that support her GNG, the fact remains that she gets full articles in an extreme amount of RS around the world, which is WP:BASIC#1. Britishfinance (talk) 14:25, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When the only person arguing a position is making no headway with anyone, then it's time they asked themselves whether they might be wrong. Spartaz ^Humbug! 19:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You dismiss any talk of sources – even the WP:RS/P ones. I don’t think that is fair advice given the only participants so far are editors who !vote delete at almost all pornstar AfDs, and seem to have no intention of changing regardless how substantially the referencing on the BLP has changed? Britishfinance (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:BASIC, "trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may not be sufficient to establish notability" is where this subject falls, actually. Zaathras (talk) 20:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of these articles are trivial mentions - she is the sole subject of almost all of them (per above). She is a pornstar so the articles are not about politics or quantum physics. However, that is non-trivial coverage. She passes WP:BASIC#1 Britishfinance (talk) 23:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: sources offered in this AfD do not meet WP:BASIC. For example, The Daily Beast source is not about Rhoades but about the coercion in the adult film industry: "The Sexual Coercion Epidemic in Porn". Rhoades is quoted from her social media accounts; this is not a source about her, let alone in-depth. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On top of Britishfinance's argument and sources, there are multiple articles on AVN that cover Rhoades in depth and describe her as the most popular pornographic actress in the world.^[1]^[2]^[3] AVN is probably the most reliable source that you can use for information on the adult industry, described by The New York Times as "an industry magazine that is to pornographic films what the trade publication Billboard is to records".^[4] It has also been referenced in newspaper articles, books, and research studies on numerous occasions^[5] There are also several articles on XBIZ that cover her and back up her notability.^[6]^[7]^[8] XBIZ is also one of the largest resources for information on the adult industry and has been used as a reference many times.^[9] Rhoades is also mentioned briefly in an article by the New York Daily News, where she is described as one of the top porn stars in the world.^[10] WP:RSPS classifies the New York Daily News as "generally reliable". Due to obscenity laws in the US, it is very unlikely that an article about a porn star would be published in something like CNN or The Washington Post. Therefore, these sources are not "low-quality" just because they aren't mainstream. These are some of the best sources that you can use for an article regarding the porn industry, and they meet all of the guidelines at WP:RELIABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES. These sources also contain enough information so that no original research would need to be conducted. Momo824 (talk) 08:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://avn.com/business/articles/video/brazzers-recruits-lana-rhoades-as-creative-collaborator-872413.html
^ https://avn.com/business/articles/video/lana-rhoades-854161.html
^ https://avn.com/business/articles/video/angela-white-to-interview-lana-rhoades-live-on-playboys-ig-882379.html
^ https://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/us/erotica-special-report-technology-sent-wall-street-into-market-for-pornography.html
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22avn.com%22&btnG=
^ https://www.xbiz.com/news/250558/lana-rhoades-is-newly-crowned-brazzers-creative-collaborator
^ https://www.xbiz.com/news/235542/lana-rhoades-takes-the-plunge-with-fancentro
^ https://www.xbiz.com/news/246121/op-ed-heres-what-happened-with-the-mia-khalifa-interview
^ https://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22xbiz.com%22&btnG=
^ https://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-stormy-daniels-most-searched-porn-star-20181211-story.html

someone needs to read the Wp:GNG & WP:RS more carefully. This is a BLP. Provide high quality reliable sources or this will be deleted again. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone needs to read WP:EMPTYASSERTION more carefully. Please explain why these aren't good sources. Momo824 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AVN and XBIZ aren't really accepted to show notability. And, as a sidenote, I believe that AVN's physical publication is better than their online stuff. If we did change to accepting AVN/XBIZ as sources for notability again, we'd end up with thousands of pornographic biographies again, which was seen as undesirable before. It's pretty hard to source information for them, due to their lack of coverage in RS, even if they did have an article. Whether due to obscenity laws or something else, it's not our fault they have to do something noteworthy aside from porno acting, or become established in their career for decades, to get actual RS coverage. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, where is your proof that "AVN and XBIZ aren't really accepted to show notability."? They meet all of the guidelines at WP:RELIABLE and WP:BLPSOURCES, and have already been referenced hundreds of times on Wikipedia. Also, your third sentence is simply an appeal to consequences. Accepting AVN/XBIZ as sources would not result in thousands of pornographic biographies because not every single person that these sources mention is automatically notable. But if the mentioned person is the most popular porn star in the world, then yes, they are notable. Lastly, in regards to your ending statements, I already explained why these sources are reliable, so please explain your view. Momo824 (talk) 11:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AVN and XBIZ "articles" are essentially press releases, sources that are not independent of the subject are unacceptable, which knocks your list of source does to the NY Daily News. Within there is a single line, "The Top 10 was rounded out by Riley Reid, Lana Rhoades...". You do not appear to have added anything to this discussion, in terms of establishing notability of the subject. Zaathras (talk) 12:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean? They are clearly news articles, not press releases, and they are definitely independent of the subject. Please stop making baseless claims and actually back them up (See: WP:EMPTYASSERTION). Momo824 (talk) 13:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are free to peruse hundreds of past cases at Wikipedia:WikiProject Pornography/Deletion, where "articles" by AVN and XBIZ have been explicitly rejected by the community. Zaathras (talk) 14:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the articles that were kept included AVN and XBIZ as sources. The ones that were deleted weren’t deleted simply because the sources were AVN and XBIZ. They were deleted because AVN and XBIZ did not provide any information that regarded them as notable. However, this is not the case here. These sources clearly provide evidence that shows the notability of Rhoades. The porn stars that had their articles deleted were random, non-notable pornstars, not the #1 pornstar in the world. Momo824 (talk)

That is not a truthful statement, many of these bio have had many editors try to use AVN and similar to establish notability, and ever since the subject-specific wp:pornBio was deleted, those arguments have been for naught. Porn is a closed, circular, self-referential industry of self-promotion, unverified claims for sales, "most downloaded or viewed" and so on. Despite a passing reference by a lone NYT writer 2 decades ago, it is not at all analogous to the Oscars. So what we are left with is yet another porn actress with mentions in bad sources and scant, mentions in otherwise reliable sources, which do not add up to supporting the notability of this individual. At the risk of further bludgeoning the discussion further, this shall me the last word. Zaathras (talk) 17:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As a matter of fact, it is a truthful statement. Check out the following articles: Ramón Nomar, Markus Dupree, Shyla Stylez, J. D. Slater, Riley Reid, & Carlo Masi. Each of them have had recent AfD nominations that the community decided to keep and each of them rely heavily on references to AVN and XBIZ. These are just a few of the many examples. Come on man, don't just pull up WP:BLUDGEON in order to avoid a discussion in which I have provided several backed-up claims with references while you've simply refuted my claims without providing any references. Momo824 (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see this page and follow the links to discussion about deleted perforners. Once you have educated yourself and put forward a reality based argument we might take your ridiculous claims more seriously. Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I already looked at that page. That’s where I got the links to all of the articles that I listed in my previous comment. Did you look at them? Momo824 (talk) 22:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So apart from cherry picking cases that go the way you wanted, what did you learn from the discussions of the much larger set of articles with these "sources" that was deleted? Spartaz ^Humbug! 17:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the references listed above count as non-trivial coverage by a reliable sources independent of the subject. NYT is there only to prop up AVN as a reliable source. The AVN references and all but one of the XBIZ references are press releases. The remaining XBIZ article is in op-ed which only briefly mentions Rhodes. NY Daily News article is about Stormy Daniels with only a brief mention of Rhodes. Finally, raw Google searches are of little value, especially when the hits are citations to porn trade press. • Gene93k (talk) 18:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In addition to my comments above, the only new fact considered since the 2nd nomination is the subject's popularity on one porn site. The sources that acknowledge its significance appear to be tabloids. None of this amounts to sufficient RS coverage to satisfy WP:BASIC or prove WP:ENT notability. • Gene93k (talk) 18:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. New content from The Daily Beast (third of the article) and Playboy interview (both WP:RS/Ps), and new non-tabloid RS to verify that she was the most downloaded porn actress on the world's largest porn site in 2019, an issue at the last DRV . In addition, non-tabloid RS from around the world (not produced at any past nomination), shows that she meets all three criteria of WP:NACTOR. There is obviously a core group who don't like pornstars (and !voted at her past nominations), but I have taken the time to fix this BLP (having never seen it for the first three noms), and your representation of my work in not really fair. Wikipedia may want to ignore the world's most downloaded porn actor in 2019 (Mia Khalifa was 2018). Britishfinance (talk) 19:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Interviews are primary sources that rarely fact-check in real time. They don't count towards WP:BASIC notability. The Daily Beast article is an contributor piece/op-ed by a porn star. This was addressed in the 2nd AfD debate. Articles need to be written in their sources' journalistic news-gathering/fact-finding voice to be considered reliable. Guidelines are clear on this. • Gene93k (talk)
Regarding Mia Khalifa, a look at the citations shows she gained coverage in a large number of reliable sources (WaPo, CNN, BBC, etc). I think if this subject had that, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Indeed, this has had 4 nominations now, whilst Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mia Khalifa is still a redlink. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:02, 21 July 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 redirect to List of political parties in Wales. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 17:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cymru Sovereign[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties. There is no evidence of notability for Cymru Sovereign, and sources only prove the party exists, not that party is important, or has proven electoral success. Notability is not automatically awarded and this article has no features which validate claims of importance. doktorb _words^deeds 11:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 11:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 11:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 11:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as there's no "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources" - WP:ORGCRIT. I can't find any mentions other than in its own social media and lists of parties. It's registered as a party with the Electoral Commission but anyone can do that for £150. asnac (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep noted in Welsh here ^[1] and ^[2] and in English ^[3]. This page should be kept because the party has stood in Senedd Cymru elections but we're unsuccessful, this is something that many other political parties have done and are still noted on Wikipedia. This party is significant because it has a different view on Welsh Independence than most other parties that support Welsh Independence, EU Independence. With Welsh Independence coming out of the fringes these parties will have more support in new elections, and therefore pages should be kept, and improved. Cwmcafit (talk) 11:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ [1], Y Cymro.
^ [2], Golwg360.
^ [3], NationCymru.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cwmcafit can you show significant coverage in independent reliable sources? Your 3rd source is an opinion piece, the 2nd doesn’t seem reliable either and not sure about the first. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ per nom, not notable. Further to the comment from ProcrastinatingReader, the first source definitely does not support notability. It is written by Gruff Meredith, the founder (and possibly sole member) of the party. SpinningSpark 01:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: there's no evidence of notability. If the party goes on to have success in the future, the page can be recreated. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Minor Party in Wales that has stood elections. Coverage in Golwg360 and NationCymru makes it notable in my opinion. Regional parties do not get much national coverage outside of those regions. Wales is a constituent nation of the UK and has it's own assembly and therefore its own national politics. I propose to @Cwmcafit: that this article be translated to Welsh, especially if the overall consensus is Delete. UaMaol (talk) 00:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: certainly I will be making a Welsh language page for this article. Cwmcafit (talk) 08:12, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Golwg is absolutely a reliable source and should be treated as such. Y Cymro normally would be but as pointed out the article is written by the party leader in this case. The subject is also cited in independent pieces such as this piece on Medium. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the party has participated in elections, so it should be redirected to the List of political parties in Wales. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I can live with that redirect since the inclusion criterion of the list is all parties that have stood candidates, not notability, which this party assuredly does not have. SpinningSpark 15:54, 22 July 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 11:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hail Sagan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC No significant or reliable coverage. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - They have a cool name but this article is clearly an attempted promotion that copies biographical text from several promotional websites. Also note the link-bombing to people with whom they are only tangentially associated, many of them in red. The band has not received significant and reliable coverage in the music media and can only be found in the typical streaming and social media services. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:36, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 03:41, 14 July 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 keep. (non-admin closure) DMySon 04:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subscription business model[edit]

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

Talk page issues on reliable sources dated back up to 2012. No improvment on reliable sources has been made since then WP:DEL#7. Contains Original Research. Nightvour (talk) 02:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

speedy keep in the name of WP:NOTCLEANUP. I doubt this is WP:TNT-bad, and serching shows it endless explained and discussed. Mangoe (talk) 03:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. WP:NOTCLEANUP. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per common sense. This is obviously a notable topic for which the article needs improvement, not deletion. Why, just a couple of days ago I had to provide direct debit instructions to the Zoological Society of London to enable me and my wife to take our grandson to Whipsnade and Regent's Park zoos as often as we want, and examples of this business model appear all over the place. The only problem is in deciding which sources to use, not whether they exist. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 16 July 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 redirect to Calormen. Sandstein 11:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tisroc[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Calormen. The current, completely unsourced, article is comprised of plot information and WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH. The former is already covered pretty extensively at the main article on the fictional country that the Tisroc is the leader of, and the latter does not belong on Wikipedia. Rorshacma (talk) 02:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calormen per WP:PLOT. The rest of the article is made up of WP:ORIGINALRESEARCH, subject to WP:NOTFANSITE. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition, article does not meet WP:GNG --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an unsourced article making all sorts of unsourced claims, many of them are either thin air assumptions about Lewis's thought process or pagarism. This article has existed over 16 years. It is exhibit A in why we have no grandfather clauses in Wikipedia. The article has only primary sourcing, which even at that cannot back up the claims. Some of it points more to point out plot wholes and lack of adequate development of the greater world than anything else. Which at a step deeper goes to show exactly why the fact we would have an article on the subject if it was in the real world does not lend itself easily to forcing an article on a similar concept in fiction. I have to admit I doubt that even Rabadash merits an article. That such junk stands for 16 years is an outrage. To be fair there seem to have been no notability standards in Wikipedia for fiction pre-2006. In 2004 using published primary sources that are the fiction that discusses the subject might have been justified, but it is not today. I know enough of Wikipedia to know that there are some historical state leader titles who may in the final balance of things have had swap over more territory than the fictional Tisroc (although the boundaries of Crlomen are unclear) whose articles are much less developed than this one. Carlomen is one of the parts of the Narnia books that make it very clear they were not written with the end known from the beginning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Calormen, this article is nothing but a bunch of original research that fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and/or redirect as per nom. You could remove the WP:OR, but there are no reliable independent sources to create a notable article that meets the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 01:54, 15 July 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 10:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miraz's Castle[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( And given that this article is one of the most obvious failures at our policies, I feel deprodding this is a clear WP:POINT violation. (Yes, it can be deprodded per policy, and it is a clear waste of time to discuss this here). Sigh. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No evidence of real-world significance, and I don't anticipate any being turned up. That we would even need to discuss this one leads me to wonder whether the editor who deprodded the article even looked at it first.DonIago (talk) 02:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Very minor fictional location, with virtually no significant coverage in reliable sources using either of the names given in the article. Its so non-notable that even this stub of an article barely talks about the location itself, with more time spent discussing characters than the castle. Its not even worth a redirect, as "Miraz's castle" is just a descriptor for it after he became its ruler, and not an actual proper name for the place. Rorshacma (talk) 02:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is easy to find detailed coverage of the topic such as details of the real-world locations which have been used for the various adaptions, including Pembroke Castle and Château de Pierrefonds. The place has an entry in The A-Z of C. S. Lewis: An Encyclopaedia of His Life, Thought, and Writings and this is primae facie evidence of the topic's encyclopaedic nature. The nomination's cookie-cutter claims are thus refuted and shown to be false. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unconvinced that "In this adaptation, this real-world location is used to portray Mraz's castle" is evidence that the fictional castle itself is notable. Similarly, the castle being discussed in a single allegedly-encyclopedic book about Lewis is unremarkable because it would be more remarkable if it wasn't discussed in such a work (that said, I'd be curious to review the specific text). Given the ease with which you claim detailed coverage can be found, can you provide any independent or at least additional sources that discuss it in detail? DonIago (talk) 13:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Of course, I can. For example, see The Mother of all Miniatures in which we learn that a replica of the castle was "largest single piece ever constructed" by the Weta Workshop. We see from this that the nomination and its supporters are making false claims and assumptions without doing the work required by WP:BEFORE and WP:NEXIST. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Were this article more fully fleshed-out I would say that that might be an interesting point of trivia. As-is, I don't see that point of trivia as being a reason to retain the article. If you feel the article should be kept, might I suggest that you add this information into the article to better demonstrate its potential? DonIago (talk) 15:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This page has existed for 11 years without sourcing. The fact that there is one discussion of what place was used for it in a film, and one other source somewhere that gives it some discussion is not worth noting. This is not a place that has gotten significant sustained discussion in multiple sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a couple of passing mentions have been dug up, but nothing that would help this fictional location pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete lacking significant coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 02:06, 15 July 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 10:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lantern Waste[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no useful rationale despite my explicit request to add one or comment on talk :( _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support: No evidence of real-world significance, and I don't anticipate any being turned up. DonIago (talk) 02:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are not secondary sources. This is not even an actually used term in the works on Narnia. Lewis is not Tolkien, the Chronicles of Narnia are not the Lord of the Rings. Even in the later we have gone too crazy in creating articles, but in the former it is even harder to justify mass creation of articles because it lacks many of the factors in background development and lending itself to normal study that make The Lord of the Rings such that substantial articles can be created on the places in it. There are places in the Chronicles of Narnia that have sourcing and analysis to merit articles, this is not one of them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:PLOT. There are no reliable sources or analysis for this topic. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 15:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence this fictional location passes GNG, as it is completely unsourced and a search brought up nothing usable, and it also fails PLOT as it is described from an entirely in-universe perspective. There is no good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unsourced and entirely in-universe. see WP:PLOT Archrogue (talk) 19:25, 19 July 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 keep. Sandstein 10:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kandor (comics)[edit]

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

Superman location. Expired PROD restored at REFUND and expanded, but sadly, it still seems to fail NFICTION/GNG. While it is now nicely referenced, it is still almost all PLOT plus a list of appearances in various media. Despite all the efforts to expand this, the reception section is limited to a three-sentence quotation, which seems to be about the entire extent of the literary analysis (if plot-speculation can be called this), which is unsurprising given that in the end this is a very obscure minor comic book location. If anyone cares (and I know some people do), I'd suggest copying parts of our articles to https://dc.fandom.com/wiki/Kandor so the work put into this is not wasted, but IMHO this topic is clearly not suited for Wikipedia per GNG/NFICTION (lacks significance as there is no in-depth coverage in non-primary sources outside plot summaries). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I haven't looked too much into additional sources, but I do want to point out that the Grant Morrison book Supergods (which despite its title and author, is actually a non-fiction book discussing the history and analysis of superhero comics, and is not a comic itself) currently used in the intro of the article is actually a good source that talks about it in a way that analyzes it beyond simple plot summary, and should be moved to the "Reception" section as part of that discussion. I also found this New York Times article that talks extensively about an art exhibition that was themed entirely around the fictional bottled city - though admittedly the information is more on the artist and the work than the location it was inspired by. Rorshacma (talk) 03:09, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The sources are almost entirely published non-fiction books, and there is discussion about both the larger themes and the creators' creative process. For example, this paragraph shows that writers have discussed Kandor as an important part of the way that Superman is characterized and understood:

The conceit helped to humanize the god-like Superman, and enrich his characterization. In Superman: The Complete History, Les Daniels observed, "Showing Superman so much at home in the bottle emphasized the extent to which he was as much an alien as an American." In Superman: The High-Flying History of America's Most Enduring Hero, Larry Tye said that Kandor "made clear that even Superman couldn't get everything he wanted, since there was nothing he wanted more than to restore the Kandorians to their rightful size."

Those are not plot descriptions; they're literary discussions of what Kandor means — to the character, and to the series.

There's also this paragraph:

Len Wein, writer of this final Kandor story, said in a 2006 interview that he regretted restoring the city to normal size. "Although I like the ending of the story, I'm sorry I did the story," he said. "I don't think that any of us realized at the time that what was old to us was new to somebody just coming in... I came at Kandor thinking: 'I'm so tired of this. It's been 20 years, 30 years, of that stupid city.' So I came up with a story I thought might have some emotional impact... I regret that, because the idea of a bottle city of tiny people is a much cooler idea than what I left it as."

That is one of the writers talking about his creative inspiration for the story, and how he evaluates it now. If you're looking at these and you don't see the difference between critique, real-world creative information and plot summary, then I think there's a problem with your understanding of what PLOT means. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I see a notable art project created because of this. https://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/arts/design/review-mike-kelley-uncorks-supermans-kandor-city-in-a-bottle.html https://latimesblogs.latimes.com/culturemonster/2011/01/art-review-mike-kelley-at-gagosian-gallery.html The art project alone gets significant coverage in reliable sources. This notable location is mentioned in comic book reviews and elsewhere at times. Dream Focus 05:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The art project may be notable, but the topic does not have to be. WP:NOTINHERITED. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The problem is there are too many search results for Kandor to sort through all of them. https://www.economist.com/1843/2015/09/25/the-dark-side-of-superman seems to give some mention to it, but most of the article is hidden behind a paywall. If you Google news search for "Kandor" and "superman" you get 2,350 results. Dream Focus 07:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I actually subscribe to TE so I can read this. The article is about the art project; it does contain a plot summary of the city. Analysis is limited to the description of the city by the artist as “a perpetual reminder of his inability to escape the past, and his alienated relationship to his present world.” It's all in the second paragraph, everything else is about the artist and his exhibition. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

not much about it in my search results. Did you consider merging or redirecting? GizzyCatBella🍁 02:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would be the same as deletion. Anything merged over would be deleted down to a single sentence like Source Wall was [23] Dream Focus 03:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs. I can see both sides of the argument here, but I think Kandor is an important enough aspect of the Superman mythos to warrant an article, and it contains enough real-world analysis and is not all plot. Rhino131 (talk) 10:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's no pleasing some people. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by the above comment? It seems like you have no arguments to keep the article..GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have time to search for sources right now, but at minimum it should be merged to List of locations of the DC Universe. It's undeniably notable within the fiction and should have some coverage here. Argento Surfer (talk) 11:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs rationale Lightburst (talk) 14:56, 14 July 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 10:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selim Erdoğan[edit]

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

Tricky, hence sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. He doesn't have an article in Turkish WP, but does in Persian and Arabic. He is a poet with some success but I couldn't find evidence of WP:GNG or WP:WRITER. The article at it stands is also written in a promotional tone and has no references, despite being a biography of a living person, although it has links to his poetry and an external link. I'm aware I may be missing something due to the poor state of the article and not being able to read Turkish. Boleyn (talk) 14:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the only present source is a blog that in no way shows notability. This long delay does not show anything is tricky, it just shows Wikipedia has an inbalance between ease of creating articles and difficulty in removing them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:32, 14 July 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 08:56, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris Grainger[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG, though has worked with some notable artists. Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Concerns over whether the subject actually meets notability guidelines has been cast since 2009, and since then it still has not satisfied GNG. Could not find much reliable coverage after running a few searches. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:02, 14 July 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 10:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cecy B[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, and WP:MUSICBIO. Unable to locate any significant biographical details in secondary sources. No indication of awards or charted songs. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our notability and inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Absolutely a promotion piece and no real notability. I just went through all the citations, deleting primary sources, wholely-promotional links, etc. What is left is one archived article, one link to her IMDb page, and a mention (name only) on an archived show promotion. That leaves only one source actually covering Cecy B with any depth (I am unable to tell if it's really a press release or not). Does not pass WP:MUSICBIO notability requirements. Delete it. Normal Op (talk) 21:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While the artist does have links, the links are unfortunately not those of reliable sources. WikiFixer337 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 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 10:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Institute of American and Talmudic Law[edit]

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

Borderline, hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years, but I couldn't establish that it passes the threshold of notability. It does have mentions, but mainly in advert-like articles and primary sources. I'm not sure this would count as a college as such. Boleyn (talk) 06:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is not a college; it's an organization that runs seminars for continuing legal education. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES is not applicable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely, it offers qualifications though which made it a subject I hadn't assessed the notability of before. Boleyn (talk) 07:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The organization does not have inherent notability and a search of Google doesn't turn up reliable and verifiable sources about the organization to establish notability. Alansohn (talk) 01:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It might pass WP:ORG, as there are multiple reliable secondary sources mentioning it (even Antonin Scalia attended one of their conferences according to The New York Times).[24] They are also mentioned in The Forward, but I don't know how significant the coverage is because I experienced difficulty opening the link that is in the article. StonyBrook (talk) 19:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete, sources exist that demonstrate the existence of the organisation but coverage is trivial. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:53, 14 July 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 10:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Gray (bishop)[edit]

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

There is no coverage to establish he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. This is currently an unref blp. From my understanding bishop in the Moravian Church is not the equivalent title of bishop in i.e. Catholic Church, though I'm happy to be corrected if I'm wrong. Boleyn (talk) 16:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This person is one of six bishops within a province of 15,000 members. That is never going to really be enough to establish notability, many Catholic bishop's lead dioceses with over 1 million members. The other key is having independent 3rd party sourcing which is lacking here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 23:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: subject fails WP:GNG have searched for sources that could be used to build its notability, unfortunately nothing came up. Maco Paco (talk) 6:25,18 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete -- I expected to be voting to keep, but for the statistical reasons given by JPL - 6 bishops for a province with 55 congregations and 15,000 members according to Moravian Church, I cannot accept that he is notable. I had expected they would be a larger denomination. Possibly redirect to that article, but that does noyt list the bishops. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:53, 19 July 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond Culos[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable local historian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Book reviews published in reliable sources do look promising, let's see some more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely someone who gets proper reviews in one of the most well-know newspapers in the world is not really best described as "local historian", which indicates a merely local interest? A writer's relevance doesn't depend on the breadth of their subject. /Julle (talk) 22:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 14 July 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 10:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ykee Benda[edit]

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

Non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. A before search shows him mentioned in websites where musicians upload their music. Doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG also. I should also add that a major claim to fame here is allegedly collaborating with Jason Derulo on a project, I’m not sure that counts for much.Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:26, 14 July 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 Weak Keep. No consensus to delete this article, and a consensus that it just about meets WP:PROF#C3 (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zenia Kotval[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPROF. No real claim of notability in the article. MB 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. MB 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. MB 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. MB 01:25, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Keep I concur with nom. Does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:BIO or WP:NPROF. I have engaged repeatedly with its original author since its creation but they have not attempted to expand it to meet the above criteria other than to strip out the original WP:COPYVIO to satisfy the CSD I placed on it. They promised User:DoubleGrazing and I more, so we gave them time to improve — DoubleGrazing provided sources to satisfy the BLPPROD I had placed on it, but the original author brought no more to the table. A Web search on the name of the username of the original author and the subject doesn't inspire confidence with regard an undeclared WP:COI, especially given the original bio copy and paste WP:COPYVIO of the initial version. WP:BEFORE? All I have seen so far is the glimmer of possibility in the paywalled "Book Review: Recycling the City: The Use and Reuse of Urban Land" in Economic Development Quarterly. -Lopifalko (talk) 05:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I changed my vote based on David Eppstein's comments regarding WP:PROF#C3 and the status of the American Institute of Certified Planners. _Independent_ reliable sources would be preferred but are not necessary to satisfy WP:PROF#C3. -Lopifalko (talk) 06:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Dear all, I made the changes to the page as required by both Lopifalko and DoubleGrazing, following their guidance, as I am not an expert in these subjects of wikipedia. Mentioned that, with time, I would add more content. But, can't dedicate many hours per day to this task. Assumed that I and others will end dup populating the article with more content. Elisabete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 05:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Regrettably, as it currently stands, this probably does fail WP:NACADEMIC. However, rather than deleting the article, I would prefer to see it moved to drafts, to allow a bit more time to investigate and demonstrate notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We should be able to judge from here whether the subject satisfies WP:NACADEMIC. It is a straight forward definition to compare them against. To my reading they do not. -Lopifalko (talk) 11:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'm not disagreeing. I just thought that draftifying rather than deleting would be a less drastic move, for now. Is there any harm in that? -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 12:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm sympathetic to that view in general. My preference here is to cut the chase, so we're not back here again soon, if it's possible to see that the subject doesn't meet the bar. I believe the author has been given ample opportunity and assistance to describe in just a couple of lines why the subject has a credible claim of importance or significance. I'm not sure draftifying is even an option at AfD — we can delete without prejudice to the article being recreated in future. -Lopifalko (talk) 13:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Draftify or Keep The induction as a Fellow by the American Institute of Certified Planners a part of the American Planning Association should satisfy criteria 2 of WP:NACADEMIC as it would be on the scale of the Association of Computing Machinery or other Professional Fellowship recognition. Just be cause an academic profession intersects with applied work it does not make it less notable. Additionally across disciplines what constitutes a contribution to the field vary thus the 100+ books in the planning field probably is in higher regard than peer reviewed publications. Thus Criteria 1 is partially met as well and with a little more investigation and probably expertise in the subject could be a better judge how criteria 1 is met. I disagree with the position that content should be deleted rather than made a draft or kept as a stub for future improvement. I speak from my personal experience that I'd rather take a single line article the expand upon that has one or two sources than have to start by establishing the same facts to start. It is like growing sugar crystals, a slight imperfection allows the greater structure to grow. Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 14:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        @Wolfgang8741: My argument has been based on my impression that the American Institute of Certified Planners does not satisfy WP:NACADEMIC criteria 3. However if I am wrong then I will change my Delete to Keep. How do we judge whether it is so? I don't see any independent reliable sources to satisfy WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1, only a lot of primary sources. -Lopifalko (talk) 09:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Dear all, I am not sure if I am suppose to say something more (I will declare an interest as I was the one creating this page). But just to add to the Discussion:

To be a Fellow of the American Institute of certified Planners it is a VERY prestigious award. At the Level of the UK Royal Society, etc, etc. Very few people get that award/distinction and even fewer are women. So in this point Wolfgang8741| is absolutely correct.
The world of Regional Economics has very few women again, and someone that links economic development to the subject areas of inclusion and community participation has even less people - particularly academics that are also practitioners and that implement that in practice - i.e. they see economic development not just a profitable enterprise but link it with community improvements,
To have a Full Professor, a Fellow of the American Institute of Certifies Planners, a woman linking economic development and community development, that is also part of the 'Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) communities' in a top position in the USA it is even more unusual,
Publication in planning is demanding and double-blind peer reviewed. An H index of 5 is considered very good for promotion in may Universities across the world. Articles have dozens of pages and need to have robust theory, methods and results, so in planning it is not easy to publish and even harder to publish in top peer review journals, top Publishers, etc.
Finally I would like to express my disappointment at the comment "I believe the author has been given ample opportunity and assistance to describe in just a couple of lines why the subject has a credible claim of importance or significance."

I agree that I was given good feedback from Lopifalko, and I have been trying to make the changes, but I don't seem to be given the time to implement them (and that I am starting to find it very bizarre). I am doing this as a voluntary action to improve the visibility of areas that I consider are missing in Wikipedia. I am not paid to do this work and have nothing to win with it, besides increasing the visibility of key subject areas...after all we live and work in cities that are studied, managed and planned by planners...nevertheless there are very few pages about those doing the research and the project work to make those cities function.

I am surprised by this immediate deletions of Lopifalko, as I think I am following the guidance and when compared with other pages online that need more content people seem to be given weeks/months, not just days. I was hoping to see a page as a live evolving articule where many people (not just me) would add content and expand. I really can't work one entire day in one page, albeit I would love to do that.

For those not being (or wanting) to be paid or being able to working full time on this, just wanting to make sure that key people and research areas are highlighted and given proper recognition, this seems a bit unfair.

But I think you have more experience and clearly are more knowledgeable in these areas, so I will wait for the next developments and your decision.

I only felt that I had to clarify a couple of points as, we all have different knowledge about different areas, and while I fully recognize your expertise in Wikipedia, I think after 25 years of work in the field of urban planning I also have a bit of knowledge about key people and key fields in urban spatial analysis and planning.

Regards, Elisabete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 20:52, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elisabete A Silva: Thanks for your thoughts, you are most welcome to make them here. Notability in this case boils down to only whether the subject meets WP:NPROF or some other subject-specific criteria, or has 2 or more independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. No-one else is getting paid here either. I respect what you wish to bring to Wikipedia, to flesh out where it might be lacking. In terms of respecting the Wikipedia process, new articles are subject to review, which is what I did to this article when first published a week ago. Biographies of living people need to pass a certain bar if they are to exist in article space, otherwise they should be worked on as drafts until they do. It was not I that put it forward for deletion here. A Wikipedia article can indeed be an evolving work in progress, but the basic claim to notability needs to be satisfied first, and that is what we are doing here. Hopefully this process here will give you more of an understanding of how Wikipedia works, and help you in expanding the encyclopedia, rather than put you off. I am always happy to help. -Lopifalko (talk) 10:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:23, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lopifalko: I meant criteria 3 above and I understand your point. Given my limited exposure to the Planning field, I'd say the clearest answer would be to reach out and ask a few academic Planning department chairs of their perception of the Association's and Institutes notability though I think Elisabete's insight should be admitted as support too. Reading the history of American Planning Association (on their website) which is the parent of the Institute and the linked Archive at MIT it has over 100 years as an association which I'd grant as being established and notable legacy which should satisfy criteria 3. As the association also publishes the Journal of the American Institute of Planners (since 1935 if you account for a name change). It reminds me of ASIS&T and other professional associations that intersect with applied research which is my area of research. Based on these I'd say the organization clearly meets criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC.

@Elisabete A Silva: Thank you for the input on the notability. If you are not aware there are multiple routes to creating an new article that let you work in a sandbox or draft space that won't receive such quick deletes or other on of these is the Article Wizard and are outlined on the how to which also incorporate a review workflow to help get feedback before reaching mainspace via the draft process. It might provide what you are looking for. I am with you that too few female academics get the recognition they deserve and it is one of the reasons why I made sure to take a closer look at this deletion proposal.

Wolfgang8741 says: If not you, then who? (talk) 10:11, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>>> Elisabete: Many thanks to both. I will try to answer to your comments in the following points:

@Lopifalko: Many thanks for your comments and for realizing Prof. Kotval clearly qualifies to be added to Wikipedia as it fully satisfies criteria 3, bot in terms of the research areas innovation, the ACSP and also the PAB. Very few people are considered for those nominations and awards.

Please see the new link to the PAB - in the link of the PAB members: https://www.planningaccreditationboard.org/index.php?id=105 that there are 9 members that accredit all programmes across all the USA...from what I could see, only two are female. And I would say that, independently of being male of female, to be given such a responsibility is an award in itself.

I will also link to other pages. While thinking about other pages realized that one more person in the more qualitative realm of spatial planning are also missing (Note: just found Arnstein page in the Wikipedia search and added the link). Sherry Arnstein that in 1969 proposed a key paper for our areas -a ladder of public participation' is missing and Prof. Kotval and other working in community participation build on her work (so I will add her to the list of people I would like to build a page) but I saw that Prof. Patsy Healey has a page created https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Patsy_Healey . Kotval brings those ideas of both Patsy Healey and Sherry Arnstein to regional economics, etc. But in this more qualitative are of spatial analysis and planning it is still very obvious that the Wikipedia world of Urban Planning, Civil and Environmental Engineering, Architecture, Urban Economics, etc …. it is still mostly a men's world. As said to one of your colleagues DGG, I think those men certainly deserve to be in Wikipedia, but it is such a pity that women are very, very underrepresented and minority groups are almost non-existent.

When I started this I decided to select form my list of aprox. 20 one man and one woman, assuming this wouldn't take much time and I could do one or two each time... it is obviously proven to be a bit difficult so if these end up being successful I think I will do one page each time. Two articles take a really huge amount of time to research and build arguments.

But for the Clarke page and answering to DGG I built the following argument that I now copy-past here just as a way to explain. How these areas are underpresented in Wikipedia as very top/top people don-t seem to be considered:

ES answer to DGG in Clarke's draft page: "Elisabete: hi DGG many thanks for this help, I has already included a link in reference 3 to his wikipedia page and now I made it more clear in the page (H-index statistics tend to be dynamic, but I don-t know ho to create a 'live' link to e.g. a googlescholar page that upates numbers if the stats chnage, if you know how to make this and could let me know I would be very thnakful). I did some work some time ago on H-index accross subjects in my area and I found that they vary a lot depending if it is an very specific area of a more generic area, if its is more quantitative or if it is more qualitative. For instance, in some areas of Urban Planning, Civil/Environmental Engineering linked with urban planning, architecture, urban economics, etc the more qualitative areas tend to have lower H-index while Quantitative areas tend to have higher H/index. Nevertheless, if people are in a quantitative area with a very narrow scope they tend to have lower H-index too. In the Social Sciences and Humanities I realized some time ago that an H-index of 5 tend to grant Promotion across areas, but if people are in key quantiative areas, that number increases. To have a 30 H-index is to be a outstanding researcher. The gap between these numbers and a H-index of 60 as Prof. Ckarke has is a very big jump, that I would consider stellar resercher (of there wer nobel laureates in our area these people would have it). To have a i10 index of 152 as Prof. Clarke has I would say it is 'stellar-stellar'. There are very few people in that group, and I would like to do the pages of those missing. In this group, so far I didn't find one single woman that has a Wikipedia page, so far I only found men and they all deserve these Wikipedia articules, I saw a small reference to a female researcher that I keep citing but doesn't have a Wikipedia page (so I plan to do an article for her - she did the first article on CA during the 80s calling the attention for a new modelling approach) and I don't seem to see any references to two more women in Europe that were pivotal in urban computation spatial analysis/planning and two more women in the USA seem to be also missing. At that time this was mostly a men's world, but there was a group of women doing very good work too, so I plan to their articles. I hope I understood your request and answered it. I hope this explanations help a bit more. Once you ok my changes I plan to delete this answer as it doesn't make sense to have it in the page. "

I will change the Kotval page to include your suggestions if I miss something can you please let me know.

@Wolfgang8741: Many thanks for your suggestions. I am also doing the second article of Clarke in the draft section following one suggestion from RichSmith that moved the page to the Drafts.

This has been a bit of a difficult start for me, and things can happen so fast that it is difficult to address all issues, but I think I am starting to understand the system a bit better.

@Lopifalko: Follong your requests I added more references to the reference list now with 10 references, I added more links to Wikipedia pages from 4 links I think there are now 8 being that two of them are of key researchers in the field. I think from your and Wolfgang8741 comments and logic argument criteria 3 is answered "Based on these I'd say the organization clearly meets criteria 3 of WP:NACADEMIC."

Therefore, can I please ask you to confirm that all is well now and this discussion is closed and the scheduled for deletion is removed. With time I think more references, Wikipedia links, etc will be added by me (and by others in the field), but for now, (and when I compare to other pages) I think this articule seems to have more references and links information than many others in wikepedia. Can you please let me know if you concur with me, that we are all ok with this and are able to close this discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs)

The discussion will be closed at the appropriate time by a Wikipedia administrator who judges the consensus of the discussion regarding whether the article passes Wikipedia's notability guidelines. It is not closed yet, and cannot be closed by participants within the discussion. However, in its current state, none of the so-called "references" in the article meet Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, which should be properly-published documents that are independent of the subject and cover her in-depth. In particular, we have (1) MSU faculty profile, not independent, (2) Fulbright scholar listing, not in-depth, (3) Google scholar profile, not published and (because curated by the subject) not independent, (4) AICP fellows listing, not in-depth, (5) duplicate Fulbright listing, (6-10) publications by Kotval, not about her and (because not independent) not even usable as sources to describe her research contributions, and (11) board member profile, not independent. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Many thanks for the feedback on how to open/close discussions. I wasn't aware.

Regarding your question about Wikipedia's standards for reliable sources, that I am not sure if I understand as the same page seems to point to:

"What counts as a reliable source Further information: Wikipedia:Reliable sources The word "source" when citing sources on Wikipedia has three related meanings: The piece of work itself (the article, book) The creator of the work (the writer, journalist) The publisher of the work (for example, Random House or Cambridge University Press) All three can affect reliability. Base articles on reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. Source material must have been published, the definition of which for our purposes is "made available to the public in some form".[7] Unpublished materials are not considered reliable. Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made. The appropriateness of any source depends on the context. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments. The greater the degree of scrutiny given to these issues, the more reliable the source. Be especially careful when sourcing content related to living people or medicine. If available, academic and peer-reviewed publications are usually the most reliable sources in topics such as history, medicine, and science. Editors may also use material from reliable non-academic sources, particularly if it appears in respected mainstream publications. Other reliable sources include: University-level textbooks Books published by respected publishing houses Magazines Academic journals Mainstream newspapers Editors may also use electronic media, subject to the same criteria. See details in Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources and Wikipedia:Search engine test."

In this listing here from Wikipedia that I just copy-pasted, I think the two articles I created fully classify and report reliable sources. For the arguments exposed in my answers above.

As we are both academics, I think we both can trust top peer review papers, top publishers, organizations with more than 100 years. Otherwise I would worry very much.

In that point, we both need to agree that we disagree in what we consider as a reliable source - at least in Urban planning related fields.

Four us in urban planning a double blind peer review paper is reliable source, a Journal Citation Report about a journal is reliable, institutions that accredited degrees are reliable, and research published in those contexts is reliable. But I don't know about Computer Science so I will not try to argue that is the case in Computer Science, but in Urban Planning it is.

In urban planning a newspaper articule will never be considered as a reputable source of research or the indication that a person is a good researcher (while I can understand that newspaper articules can be good for politicians' Wikipedia webpages, but these are Academics Webpages). In urban planning a conference paper is less important than a journal paper and a book, etc , etc. I accept that can be different in Computer Science, but the landscape in Urban Planning is what I described.

Nobody will be promoted or made a job offer because he/she has many newspaper articles about her/him. The same goes for conference paper, nobody will be offered a job or be promoted because he/she has many conference papers, but zero peer review papers and/or zero books. Those sources are not reliable and would be completely disregarded in a committee or jury.

As stated this happens in Urban Planning, I don't know what happens in Computer Science, but these are articles about Urban planning people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 05:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elisabete A. Silva

This is not about me and it's not about computer science. It's about Wikipedia having and maintaining its own standards for what information its editors believe to be reliable, in a way that is intended to work even when those editors do not have professional expertise in the subject they are discussing. Your disagreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing is noted, but we can't have individual standards for each academic discipline — it's difficult enough just getting Wikipedia editors at large to respect the standards for academics and not try to apply the same publicity-based standards they use for actors and businesspeople. However, this is supposed to be a discussion about whether the subject meets the Wikipedia standards, so the main effect of refusing to engage with those standards is likely to be causing your opinions here to be discounted. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. AICP lists being a fellow as its highest honor for members [25], and out of roughly 17k members [26] only 636 are fellows [27], 3%-4%, which is in the same range as other scholarly societies for whom we consider membership to pass WP:PROF#C3. I think those numbers also demonstrate that it's a major society. I imagine that most of its members are working urban planners, not academics, and the breakdown of fellows by nomination category in the linked document shows that actually a much smaller of them become fellows for their research accomplishments, so I'm inclined to accept this as a significant honor. The Fulbright is also suggestive although it wouldn't be enough for notability by itself. The citation counts on Google Scholar aren't enough to convince me of a second pass of WP:PROF#C1 (in contrast for instance to Silva's higher numbers) but that isn't a reason to delete the article, just a block of a second path to keeping it. The keep is weak because the sourcing for the article is still very weak, though. But the AICP fellow and Fulbright are not in any doubt, and we do also have a cv [28] which while not usable for evaluative content (like the significance of her research) at least better covers the basic facts of her education and career. Her co-edited volume also has multiple published reviews [29] [30] [31], which don't really add to notability (because edited not authored) but are enough to say something about it in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>> reply to: David Eppstein: Thank you very much for the clarification about who/when the discussion will be closed.

Regarding your comment "your disagreement with Wikipedia's standards for reliable sourcing is noted,"

I don't disagree with Wikipedia David, I disagree with you and your understanding of what Wikipedia is stating.

My view is that: my understanding of what wkipedia page is stating in the copy-past I made and your understanding of what the wikipedia is stating in that same copy-past seems to be different.

Therefore, and given some of what I read so far, I think it is time to let Wikipedia decide on the two articles I created and the arguments I built.

As stated I think the subject of spatial analysis and planning is under represented in Wikipedia (and cities are important for all of us). And while this seems to happen for both genders, the number of female researchers is very, very small - and in my view, that is a pity a true shame.

Elisabete

Weak keep The sourcing could stand to be improved, but I think there's a decent case for passing WP:PROF#C3. XOR'easter (talk) 06:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

>>>>> Edited reply to : David Eppstein: Just read your reply David. I am not sure if I agree with the 'weak keep- but many thanks for the improvement on the views. I was starting to be a bit shocked/worried. I agree that you don't know ACSP, PAB, AAG, APA, etc. but these are really big, old organizations - to be a Fellow there is an AMAZING achievement. Regarding my publication list and H-index, please have in mind that in m case, as in the case of Keith Clarke, Mike Batty and others we are all in a more quantitative analysis of what could be called urban computation in spatial analysis while Kotval is in a more qualitative area. For instance in promotion committees we need to be very careful with that when trying to compare people in very multidisciplinary field. I will wait for the final decision, I feel that there isn't much I can do I think I put my argument forward and I am thankful to those that helped. If these articules are accepted, with time, I can populate with more information and I am sure others will do that too and these are to people in their respective fields. Sincerely, Elisabete — Preceding unsigned comment added by Elisabete A Silva (talk • contribs) 06:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as per the argument put forward by David Eppstein. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I feel like there's a bit of WP:BLUDGEON going on on this page to be honest. -Kj cheetham (talk) 11:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've not read the whole discussion, just the article. But she appears to meet WP:PROF#3 if nothing else. The GNG claims are weak IMO. weak keep Hobit (talk) 08:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

== Contacted by Prof. Kotval that requested the page to be removed

Dear all,

This is a small world and questioning 100 year old Associations, without proper research done and without knowing the field, can hurt those involved

Prof. Zenia Kotval just contacted me stating that she was made aware of this discussion and after reading the comments she felt that this discussion was unacceptable and wanted no part in Wikipedia, asking for a speedy deletion of the page I created

I agree that these behind-the-scene discussions are obviously/necessarily very public and it is important to be careful with questions that seem like statements without supporting evidence, and that are obviously wrong

I will therefor delete her article and will ask the managers to please close this discussion

Elisabete A Silva (talk) 14:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)Elisabete A. Silva[reply]

@Elisabete A Silva: I got my PhD from MSU and work just down the road from her. She could reach out to me via Wikipedia mail if she wishes to and we can discuss things. But basically here are the options:
- She can request that the page be deleted. A way to do that is to use the e-mail at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Contact_us/Article_subjects. She could use the e-mail in that link to request deletion under WP:BLPDEL which basically says that people not regarded as "public figures" may request deletion of their own pages. She will have to prove who she is (control of her MSU e-mail account would likely be enough, but I don't know the process).
- She can ignore it. That's what I'd recommend. Wikipedia's "back room discussions" can be a bit rough on the subject of a BLP. And yeah, it's a lot of clueless people discussing things, but with the power of the Internet we can figure out if our policies for having an article on a subject are met. In her case, she does. I think it's good for her, her department, and MSU to have more faculty have Wikipedia pages. But at the end of the day, it's her call (assuming there is consensus she isn't a public person, which I can't imagine she is not).

Good luck to the two of you. As I said, she's welcome to reach out to me if she wants to know more--either via my talk page or e-mail. Hobit (talk) 22:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's also an option to blank this deletion discussion page after the discussion is closed. The discussion would still be reachable via the history but that way it would be less likely for random people browsing the web to reach it. I think it might be a good idea in this case. —David Eppstein (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NPROF C3. If the subject contacts Wikipedia through channels and requests deletion, then I'd support it, but I'd counsel the subject not to do so. This discussion will not be prominent for long. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:10, 20 July 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Festival for Cinema of the Deaf[edit]

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

Some coverage, but not enough to pass the threshold of GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:24, 14 July 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 no consensus. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science Inc.[edit]

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

insufficient evidence for notability by WP:NCORP. The references refer entirely to funding. , and acquisition of other firms. There are the usual promotional interviews in references 1,3, and 4, where he ceo can give his intentions.. But there's nothing substantial, because the firm has done nothing substantial to write about, but fund and buy (and sometimes sell) other companies. Some of those others are possibly worth articles. DGG ( talk ) 22:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 22:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Dave, Paresh (2015-07-30). "'Start-up studio' Science helps entrepreneurs find a path to profitability". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Butt, Ameera (2013-08-13). "Incubator planting seeds of success". Santa Monica Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Loizos, Connie (2018-02-01). "Science, the L.A.-based incubator, just closed on $75 million for its first real venture fund". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Shamout, Omar (2015-06-28). "Incubator Turns Up Heat With Additional Services". Los Angeles Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Primack, Dan (2015-02-18). "Exclusive: Startup studio Science Inc. raises $20 million from Silver Lake". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Kaplan, David (2011-11-16). "Ex-Myspace CEO Mike Jones' New Company Is Part VC Firm, Part Digital Studio". Gigaom. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
Geron, Tomio (2017-03-27). "Los Angeles Startup Studio Science Raising $60 Million Fund". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.

Sources with quotes

Dave, Paresh (2015-07-30). "'Start-up studio' Science helps entrepreneurs find a path to profitability". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
The most successful start-up so far: Dollar Shave Club, an online retailer of men’s grooming products that received $100,000 from Science in 2012, had $65 million in sales in 2014. Others include DogVacay — a dog-sitting app that’s processed millions of overnight stays in three years — and FameBit, a social media marketing company that works with more than 3,000 advertisers.
Science also supports entrepreneurs selling underwear and candles online, and businesses peddling smartphone-controlled locks and horoscopes delivered daily through mobile video.
At a time when start-up studios are multiplying (Zuma Ventures, MobLabs and VentureLab are recent additions in L.A.), Science’s early record hints at the potential for the model if all goes well.
The articles includes quotes from the company's founder.
Butt, Ameera (2013-08-13). "Incubator planting seeds of success". Santa Monica Daily Press. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Santa Monica-based Science Media Inc., is a hybrid company and incubator that assembles, advises and acquires talented startups with the premise of working with entrepreneurs to help build their businesses or creating its own in-house companies.
Science, which will be two years old in October and is located on Second Street in Downtown, originally raised $10 million in venture capital to get off the ground, and a supplemental $30 million in February of this year.
Since its formation, Science has amassed various startups — 13 total — that include Let’s Date, a mobile dating app that connects people, and Fresh Dish, an in-house company that’s an on-demand personal chef service, providing restaurant quality meals directly to homes.
The articles includes quotes from the company's founder.
Loizos, Connie (2018-02-01). "Science, the L.A.-based incubator, just closed on $75 million for its first real venture fund". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Science Inc, the Santa Monica, Ca.-based incubator and investment firm, has closed a new venture capital fund with $75 million in commitments, shows a new SEC filing.
...
We weren’t able to talk tonight with Science’s team, which includes Mike Jones, Peter Pham, Greg Gilman and Tom Dare. But the fund is a bit of a departure for the ambitious outfit, which was strongly modeled at the outset after New York-based Betaworks, which develops its own ideas, acquires companies and invests in nascent startups and early on, did so strictly off its balance sheet.
...
Science has never publicly shared its annual budget for startups (not with us, anyway). But even before raising this new fund, it had co-founded and invested in many dozens of companies. Among them is Earny, a mobile application that Science launched in 2016 and which helps users get money back on purchases if the price has dropped.
Shamout, Omar (2015-06-28). "Incubator Turns Up Heat With Additional Services". Los Angeles Business Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Science was Dollar Shave Club’s first investor, stepping up before the startup raised its $1 million seed round in March 2012.
...
What makes Science unique is its in-house team of 30-plus employees who provide expertise in finance, media buying, campaign management, data analytics, design and social media to its portfolio of more than two dozen businesses. The idea is to have the full-time staff work closely with founders to scale the business by acquiring customers as quickly and efficiently as possible. Many of the companies work under the same roof at Science’s Second Street headquarters.
...
Science was co-founded in 2011 by former Myspace Chief Executive Michael Jones and Peter Pham, a sales and business development executive at businesses such as Denver image-hosting company Photobucket.
“It’s like a whole army of people who have learned lessons in very similar companies,” said Buck Jordan, managing partner at Santa Monica venture capital firm Canyon Creek Capital. “There’s some tribal knowledge that translates to new Science companies.”
The articles includes quotes from people affiliated with Science Inc.
Primack, Dan (2015-02-18). "Exclusive: Startup studio Science Inc. raises $20 million from Silver Lake". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
‘Science Inc., the Los Angeles-based digital media and commerce “studio” whose portfolio includes Dollar Shave Club and DogVacay, has quietly secured $20 million in debt financing from Silver Lake Waterman.
The deal had its genesis last July at Fortune Brainstorm Tech, when Science partner Jason Rapp and Silver Lake managing partner Mike Bingle first got to chatting at Aspen’s Hotel Jerome. Bingle had interest in what Science was doing, particularly its efforts to move away from a model whereby they invested in outside companies and toward one where they create and (at least initially) fund almost everything in-house.
Kaplan, David (2011-11-16). "Ex-Myspace CEO Mike Jones' New Company Is Part VC Firm, Part Digital Studio". Gigaom. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Barely two months after slowly exiting Myspace as its last CEO under News Corp. (NSDQ: NWS), Mike Jones is debuting his new company, Science Inc., which is, in parts, a hybrid venture capital firm, technology studio and consultancy. And in some important ways, Jones tells paidContent, the Los Angeles-based venture, which has raised $10 million from investors including Eric Schmidt’s Tomorrow Ventures, News Corp. digital media head Jonathan Miller, is none of those things.
Other investors in Science Inc. include Rustic Canyon, White Star Capital, The Social+Capital Partnership, Jean-Marie Messier, Philippe Camus and Dennis Phelps.
Geron, Tomio (2017-03-27). "Los Angeles Startup Studio Science Raising $60 Million Fund". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-21. Retrieved 2020-06-21.
The article notes:
Science Inc., the Los Angeles-based startup studio, is raising a $60 million fund, according to a regulatory filing.
...
Science has backed startups including Dollar Shave Club, which was acquired by Unilever PLC for $1 billion, DogVacay, Wishbone and Earny.

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

Cunard (talk) 09:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:30, 28 June 2020 (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)} 19:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:17, 14 July 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avetik Chalabyan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Page was deleted once before for questionable notoriety, appears new version has none of the puff, but also not enough content to merit an article. Nightenbelle (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Nightenbelle (talk) 00:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a politician nor as a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all. -Hatchens (talk) 04:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Created stub to give more visibility to current opposition figures in Armenia. While there’s no default notability like with Artur Vanetsyan, another stub that I created at the same time, he is actually very active in opposition politics in the country as of late and has amassed a significant following (for Armenia that is) albeit this can only be sourced with either local media or social media (back to him or his party, ie: https://www.facebook.com/AvetikNationalAgenda/ ) which is why I’m merely commenting for you guys to sort it out. - Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 22:56, 16 July 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 keep as withdrawn by nominator. BD2412 T 02:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazimierz Cwojdziński[edit]

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

This article has been unsourced since 2014, and provides no indication of any notability. I tried prodding it, but Phil Bridger unprodded, without improvements, on the basis that the subject has many Google Books hits. Hits are not notability, and as far as I can see (not reading Polish) most or all of those hits are either trivial mentions or instances of his name as an author of a publication rather than sources about him. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:20, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. Sorry to say this, but this is a failure of BEFORE. You don't need to read Polish, Google Translate is simple - and you could have just Google Translated the interwiki'd Polish article, which clearly cites two in-depth sources, encyclopedias/biographical dictionaries that seem to have an entry on him. That said, I am a bit puzzled I get nothing outside wiki mirrors and such for my search "Kazimierz Cwojdziński" 1878 1948, I'd expect something to come up. Guess his biographies have not been digitized yet? Not a hoax though, I see enough to confirm that there was such a mathematician, dob/dod seems to be in [32]. One Polish source [33] describes him as an "exemplary mathematician" (wybitny matematyk). I'll copy the two in-depth RS form pl wiki, speedy keep, let's move on. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The Polish article in translation, and now-expanded English sub-stub, still do not list any noteworthy accomplishments. What has he done to avoid being a candidate for WP:CSD#A7? —David Eppstein (talk) 04:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - First, WP:PROF/GNG have other requirements to listing 'noteworthy achievements', a lot of encyclopedic people don't have them. He has been a subject of at least two dedicated biographical entries in Polish dictionaries/encyclopedias, and at least one source calls him 'exemplary'. He clearly passes GNG (in-depth coverage in at leat two RS). I don't understand your concern? Do you doubt those sources exist? Do you think they are unreliable? PS. I also found one English language source ([34]) that discusses his life in several paragraphs (and seems to be based on his biography in the Słownik biograficzny matematyków polskich (Biographical Dictionary of Polish Mathematicians)). Ping User:Russ Woodroofe, User:Jean Raimbault, User:XOR'easter. I think GNG is satisfied. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You're avoiding the question. Just like GNG and PROF have different requirements, A7 also has different requirements. It allows an article to be deleted when it "does not indicate why its subject is important or significant". As is true of the current article on Cwojdziński. It does not provide exceptions for articles that have content-free but in-depth sourcing. It is true that we are here at an AfD rather than trying to decide what to do with a speedy deletion tag, but here we are, and AfDs often return speedy delete decisions. So why is Cwojdziński important or significant? Is he just "famous for being famous" or is there something we can add to the article to reassure baffled readers that there was a reason we had an article on him? Usually for academics, even early academics, this is a very low bar to meet — we can point to some research publication and say "they discovered this". —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The PhD dissertation that User:Piotrus found seems to suggest that the subject had a significant role in shaping mathematics education in Poland in the 1930s. I don't think that the dissertation on its own is enough for GNG, but it's a reasonable start. I'd like to know more about these dictionary/encyclopedia entries, which I wasn't able to verify anything about. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - (edit conflict) As we are at AfD and not CSD and GNG (to be precise, WP:BASIC) is clearly met, I really don't see your point. I am not avoiding any question; I don't know and particularly care what he is famous for, it is sufficient to me that he has been written about in two other reference works, both of which are now cited in the article. Case closed, speedy keep.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete. As per WP:SD A7, there is no importance for this person. There is no citations, there is nothing that this person did, and the only information that is useful is birth and death. Sorry, this cannot be kept. --Guitarist28 (talk) 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this guy passes GNG, the suggestion of an A7 is ludicrous. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:44, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rather than laughing and offering an empty keep argument, maybe you could state what he is known for? What, specifically, could we add to the article to indicate why its subject is important or significant? —David Eppstein (talk) 00:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment A machine translation of the Polish article doesn't reveal any claims of significance. It's short and contains stuff like He obtained post-war employment based on scientific achievements in the field of projective geometry. He published scientific works, among others in Mathematical News, Museum in Lviv, and Parameters in Warsaw. He was also the author of works in German in "Archiv der Mathematik und Physik". Merely publishing isn't enough for wiki-notability; there must be evidence that the work was influential. XOR'easter (talk) 04:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Soft delete~~, with no prejudice against recreation if sources can be found or verified to contain significant coverage. Polish wikipedia has different standards than English wikipedia. While there is no requirement that sources be in English or online, it is difficult to tell what is in the sources listed, or whether they constitute significant coverage for GNG. It looks likely to me that these source are closer to passing mentions than to significant coverage. WP:NPROF is unlikely to apply for this mathematician working 100 years ago, but for what it's worth, his zbMath profile lists 9 papers published between 1900 and 1910 [35]. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 08:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Weak keep. The thesis together with the sources added by Phil Bridger convince me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete reading the (google-tranlated) polish article his research work in mathematics does not appear significant nor does he seem to have had a significant role at the higher education establishments in Poznań where he lectured. In the article his teaching work is emphasised; this does not seem at present sufficent to keep but if it can be shown with reliable sources that he was influential in the teaching of mathematics in Poland the article should be kept. jraimbau (talk) 08:46, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete without prejudice against recreation if evidence of notability is found at a later date.~~ I'll note that WP:PROF is mostly geared towards the living and currently active researchers, and applying it to those working a century or more ago is tricky, but treating him as a historical figure, there just doesn't appear to be enough to warrant a biography here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Neutral The thesis mentioned above is helpful, but if the biographical information it provides is the entirety of what the Słownik biograficzny matematyków polskich had to say, then that entry would not be very substantial. The discussion in that thesis of Cwojdziński's writings about mathematics education would be a good supplement to the bare biographical sketch, but that discussion is also rather brief. Consequently, the article seems rather firmly planted in a gray area. (WP:BASIC: Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included.) XOR'easter (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added an English language reference which has a little background on him. He seems to be a significant contributor to a number of journals which I am not familiar. I would lean towards keeping since there is a fuller article on Polish wikipedia (which relies on two polish language biographical encyclopedias) but unfortunately does not have inline citations. Patapsco913 (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- All mathematicians publish in journals. It's a basic activity of the job. In order to establish notability, we have to have evidence that those publications were influential. XOR'easter (talk) 16:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The evidence of notability is that the subject passes WP:GNG by virtue of entries in Wielkopolski słownik biograficzny and Słownik biograficzny matematyków polskich, a general encyclopedia and a mathematical encyclopedia respectively. It seems that various people are rejecting these sources by the fact that they are in Polish, but there is nothing in our notability guidelines that mandates sources in English. Maybe not everyone taking part in this discussion understands Polish, but Piotrus and I do, and I, for one, would appreciate it if others could assume good faith in this matter. It has long been accepted that people who have entries in such print encyclopedias from independent reliable sources should have Wikipedia entries. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Where is your evidence that anyone in the discussion is unwilling to allow Polish-language sources? It seems to me that what the discussion is unwilling to allow is sources that say that the subject existed but provide no detail about what he is known for. And before you go pointing to my nomination statement again, read it this time and note that my objection to the sources was not over their language, but rather that from my necessarily-somewhat-superficial scan of them they did not appear to provide substantive coverage of them. The language affected how deeply I could investigate them, but not my reason for objecting to them. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per my statement above. Yes, it's true that I didn't improve this article when I contested WP:PROD deletion, but that was simply because I have other demands on my time, such as looking after my grandson, and thought that this was such an obvious notability pass that nobody would consider bringing the article to AfD without at least checking whether the available sources in Polish show notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Other things you don't appear to have time for include at least checking what the AfD nomination actually says about checking sources. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I don't get why you are criticising me here, as you usually seem to be quite a level headed chap who doesn't take the all-too-common line that only modern anglophone white males can be notable. You said in the deletion nomination that you don't read Polish. Then maybe it would be better to check with people who do before moving from WP:PROD to WP:AFD? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I am also puzzled along the same lines. I speak Polish, I am hardly known as an inclusionist, and I explained above why the sources are reliable and why the subject passes BASIC. I don't understand why David has not withdrawn this nom yet. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Because despite all of your content-free blustering about how this should be a speedy keep or withdrawn, neither you nor anyone else have managed to dig up a single noteworthy thing that Cwojdziński actually did. You keep saying that there are sources, but you won't say what's in those sources that makes him noteworthy. And the Polish article, read through translation, is similarly lacking in any reason to think of him as noteworthy. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Phil Bridger, a concern I have is that the sources seem to have been copied over from the Polish wikipedia without examination. I am unable to determine the depth, and from what I can tell it may be just a brief listing of a line or two. Have you actually been able to look at the sources? (If so, perhaps you would expand the citation information in the article?) Russ Woodroofe (talk) 20:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I already explained, one of the sources is clearly enough to be used in the cited open access English thesis to discuss the life of the subject in several paragraphs. We don't need to look at the sources when it is clear they are reliable and contain in-depth discussion, expected to be at least one paragraph long and likely, several to dozens. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty of sources with a simple google search, seems notable too.GizzyCatBella 🍁 01:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm not very strongly in favor of deletion as indicated by my comments but I'm shocked by those people suggesting a content-free article should be kept just because "there are references"---if you cant clearly explain why those references establish notability of the subject (and there was no serious attempt to do so in the response to David Eppstein's and others' questions) then they most likely do not. jraimbau (talk) 10:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability, per WP:GNG, is about the existence of content in sources, not what the sources say. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've added a couple of sources to the article, but I'm afraid, because of time constraints, I can't accede to demands to provide sourced content immediately. Deletion for lack of notability is supposed to be about the available sources, of which there are many, rather than what is currently in the article. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw per WP:HEY. The existence of in-depth sources about him has been clear for some time in this debate, but newly-added sourced content about being prominent as an underground teacher in WWII is enough to satisfy me that there's actually something he can be notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Probably I should have said this earlier to prevent the premature closure that just happened and was then undone: There is still a delete opinion here by jraimbau (talk · contribs). AfD rules allow speedy closure of withdrawn AfDs only when no participants disagree. So unless jraimbau wishes to change opinions, this should still run the usual period of time for an AfD, although the eventual outcome does not appear to be in much doubt. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:43, 19 July 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.

[1] ttps://www.linkedin.com/in/justinwarren/

[2] ttps://www.linkedin.com/in/christopherkusek

[3] ttps://www.linkedin.com/in/zo%C3%AB-rose/

[4] ttps://www.linkedin.com/in/becky-elliott-3780b05/

[5] ttps://avn.com/business/articles/video/brazzers-recruits-lana-rhoades-as-creative-collaborator-872413.html

[6] ttps://avn.com/business/articles/video/lana-rhoades-854161.html

[7] ttps://avn.com/business/articles/video/angela-white-to-interview-lana-rhoades-live-on-playboys-ig-882379.html

[8] ttps://www.nytimes.com/2000/10/23/us/erotica-special-report-technology-sent-wall-street-into-market-for-pornography.html

[9] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22avn.com%22&btnG=

[10] ttps://www.xbiz.com/news/250558/lana-rhoades-is-newly-crowned-brazzers-creative-collaborator

[11] ttps://www.xbiz.com/news/235542/lana-rhoades-takes-the-plunge-with-fancentro

[12] ttps://www.xbiz.com/news/246121/op-ed-heres-what-happened-with-the-mia-khalifa-interview

[13] ttps://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=%22xbiz.com%22&btnG=

[14] ttps://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/ny-news-stormy-daniels-most-searched-porn-star-20181211-story.html

[15] [1], Y Cymro.

[16] [2], Golwg360.

[17] [3], NationCymru.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[1]

[2]

[3]