Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 July	7 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 redirect to Hercules, California. Sandstein 07:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Herpoco, California[edit]

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

Herpoco was a railroad station serving the Hercules Powder Company. The associated company town, Hercules, California, took its name from the powder company and was never called Herpoco. Herpoco is not a community and does not meet basic notability criteria. Should be deleted or possibly redirected to either Hercules or Hercules Powder Company. Glendoremus (talk) 05:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 15:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Better to redirect to avoid future creation/confusion --James Richards (talk) 12:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirect to Hercules, California adding the note which I take from Gudde: "applied to the station in 1989 [typo?] by the Santa Fe to distinguish it from the Southern Pacific station Hercules." Mangoe (talk) 17:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears on topos as far back as 1949 and mentioned in books even earlier, but all sources point to this being nothing more than a railroad station. –dlthewave ☎ 20:03, 9 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 07:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dual Phase Steels Magnetism Modeling[edit]

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

It exists and has some coverage, but not enough to meet notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:43, 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 06:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as short paragraph to Dual-phase steel. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per Chiswick Chap. Mccapra (talk) 11:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What you gonna merge? This was supposed to be a four year project starting in 2009, so it should have had some results to show by 2013. Nothing has been reported since the article was created. If they had actually achieved something, there would be something to say in the dual-phase steel article, but at the moment it looks like they got zilch, or at least, nothing they cared to publish. Also, a big chunk of the article is an unattributed copy-paste of the project's submission statement so it potentially has copyvio problems as well. SpinningSpark 00:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Any further commentary on SpinningSpark's argument?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I have to agree: it's a project that would only be notable if there were a lot of ongoing coverage, or if it produced notable results. I'm seeing neither. Mangoe (talk) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge Not notable enough for its own article --James Richards (talk) 12:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I'd say merge, but there is nothing to merge.North8000 (talk) 02:47, 12 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 07:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jhean Carlo Aparicio[edit]

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

Non-notable boxer that fails NBOX and GNG. The sole reference in the article are details of a fight and the only other article I could find besides passing mentions of fight results (in English and Spanish) is this. Neither show significant coverage of the subject. ².O.^Boxing 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. ².O.^Boxing 23:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability requirements and poorly sourced. --James Richards (talk) 12:41, 7 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) 18:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Balcombe[edit]

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

This gentleman has conducted the orchestra at many important events, but unfortunately I can find no significant and reliable coverage that is specifically about him. The article is dependent on his own introductory sites or listings of events in which he was merely noted as being present (as also said in an edit tag placed by a previous editor). All of his media mentions are basic event listings from the classical community (e.g. [1]) or promotional sites generated by his agents and managers (e.g. [2]). ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Minimal coverage about this person from trusted sources. --James Richards (talk) 12:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the ways for a musician to be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 9 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 Air University (United States Air Force). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:41, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

School of Advanced Air and Space Studies[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. I was able to find this mere mention in thestrategybridge but even with the Air Force Times citation present in the article that's only two sources and not enough for GNG. The school, as a search term, shows up in publications by the school's students and the ROUTINE coverage of officers posted to lead the school, but nothing about the subject that's also independent of it. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 22:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Air University (United States Air Force), which needs some updating. Although the command structure of the Air Force's Air University is somewhat opaque, a 2008 Air Force Magazine article says, "AU is now organized like a flying wing. The Air War College, School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, Air Command and Staff College, Squadron Officer School, and Air and Space Basic Course center come under an umbrella organization which leaders hope will be called the Carl A. Spaatz Center for Officer Education." The WP article on the Air University does not mention the School of Advanced Air and Space Studies, and the Carl A. Spaatz Center has apparently been "disestablished", but Air University (scroll down the page) lists it among its officer education programs. Cheers! — Grand'mere Eugene (talk) 00:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Air University (United States Air Force). I think there may be sources out there (there sure are lots of sources naming graduates!), but with the current sourcing and length a marge is appropriate to the parent organizations. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - to Air University (United States Air Force)#Officer Professional Military Education. Per WP:ATD and that's what we'd do with a nn component school at a university. John from Idegon (talk) 20:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe I started the article some time ago, leaving it to others to expand. I did a bit of web searching just now. It's not too hard to find additional sources for this school. There's this web article from 2010. It's from Air University. (There appear to be a number of web articles available on this topic from the US Air Force and Air University, etc.) But there's also this article from Air Power Review in 2010: "The School of Advanced Air and Space Studies and its Impact on Air Power Thinking". And there's this 2008 article from Vol. No. 49 of Joint Force Quarterly by Stephen D. Chiabotti: "A Deeper Shade of Blue: The School of Advanced Air and Space Studies". If a consensus of editors feels a merge is best, fine. But I'm not convinced a lack of available sources should be the cause. Airborne84 (talk) 05:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The general practice for universities is that the component schools get discussed in the main article (with general exceptions for medical and law schools), until the point WP:FORK becomes appropriate. Not certain that applies here, but it seems logical it should. John from Idegon (talk) 06:03, 9 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) 18:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heathen City[edit]

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

Non-notable comic book series with probably no reliable coverage (if there were any coverage, most likely from furry fansites). Winning an Ursa Major Award doesn't count, as the award has been declare non-notable. This article needs to be gone. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 21:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As far as I can tell, no second issue was ever released. The "official website" is no longer active. Any "best comic" award given to a first issue is automatically dubious in my eyes. If the article were updated to remove the "coming soon in 2009" stuff, it would be reduced to "A comic was released. It looked promising and was supposed to be a series, but nothing came of it." Argento Surfer (talk) 13:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- If it were a comic book released by a major publisher which got lots and lots publicity, even if it was intended as a series but was cancelled, it would've deserved an article. However, since this is an indie comic book which only got brief exposure in the furry fandom, Wikipedia isn't the right place for an article about it. ❤︎PrincessPandaWiki (talk | contribs) 15:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. It won a minor award, but that's about all that can be said about it based on the reliable sources I see. I don't think that's enough per WP:NBOOK and such. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:50, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Collection of Previously Released Songs[edit]

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

A relatively unremarkable compilation album with no info beyond a track list. Not notable per WP:GNG and WP:NALBUMS ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Appears to be a German collection of Barlow recordings issued under assorted titles? The Barlow discography is often a confusing mess. Caro7200 (talk) 21:44, 6 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 Soundtrack from the Film Mabuta no Ura. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Bao A Qu (song)[edit]

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

No news coverage or discernible information beyond the track listing. The other information is speculation, unsourced/synthesis or commentary. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Soundtrack from the Film Mabuta no Ura. -- I am familiar with this band and their extensive discography. The creator of this song article probably assumed that it qualifies for its own article because the single version is significantly different from the album version. But this is already described at the album article. This band does that kind of thing a lot, but describing such shenanigans at the articles for the parent albums is sufficient. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Soundtrack from the Film Mabuta no Ura: Barely found anyhting about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:11, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per user doomsdayer520. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:06, 11 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 Dab. Consensus is that the topic is not notable, but this term could be a dab page. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 Great Songs[edit]

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

Although the LP has charted in the US (see billboard), the compilation album is rather unremarkable. It wasn't promoted with a single nor did it receive a tour or any coverage bar a small minor review in Allmusic. Redirect to Pat Benatar discography. Doesn't pass WP:GNG or WP:NALBUMS ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 21:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per nom, AllMusic is about the only RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 21:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to 10 Great Songs (Pat Benatar album), redirect to Pat Benatar discography, then delete this title or create a disambiguation page. 10 Great Songs is the name of other similarly-marketed budget compilations, many of which are mentioned in other artist pages or discographies, such as for Jethro Tull, Queensrÿche, Trace Adkins, Erasure). The first deletion discussion of an article at this title was a compilation by Selena. Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars^{Talk to me} 16:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Disambiguate: Per Starcheerspeaksnewslostwars. Barely found anything about the compilation album. Other albums from various artists & bands carry the title as well. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nominator. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 14:21, 10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rhythm Engineering[edit]

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

Reads like PR/advertisement. Fails WP:ORG: I can only find trivial coverage in business journals and local papers. Most references are dead: when salvaged, most don't even mention the company. Primary contributors One800jon and Jambovan are WP:SPA. (See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Reggie Chandra.) ~Sp K 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. ~Sp K 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ~Sp K 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. ~Sp K 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page for the same reasons as above: it appears to be the company's main/only product, and also does not appear to pass WP:ORG:

Delete and re-write, or userfy. Very much like an ad, but the notability is there in the articles. This is a case where the subject is notable (per WP:GNG and WP:IMPACT) but the article itself needs to be re-written due to WP:NPOV and WP:ADV.--Paul McDonald (talk) 20:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like an advertisement of a company. Excessive external linking. Resources are not properly sourced. DMySon 04:20, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WCCA-TV[edit]

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

Was proposed for deletion by Raymie (talk · contribs), with the reasoning "Non-notable community cable channel; fails WP:GNG and WP:BCAST." However, it was also tagged for PROD in 2018, also for failing the GNG, so procedurally an AfD is required. (I have no strong feelings myself, but do lean towards deletion.) WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 20:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did not see the prior PROD tag, Wcquidditch. For the record, delete. Raymie (t • c) 20:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Clear lack of notability, virtually unknown outside of a small geographic area.--Rusf10 (talk) 20:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 20:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment As it is I would say delete due to lack of any references used. However, should someone do some research and add references, then this might be notable enough to keep. I do see some news about it in Google news. It doesn't matter that is is a local station. It might have significance in this local area. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:52, 13 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. "Keep" voters, please fix the issues noted. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of deaf people[edit]

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

A list of people who were/are (allegedly) deaf, created in 2004 with only 12 names, half of which were redlinks, and none of them sourced. This was a "keep" in the 2005 AFD, mostly unsourced then. Wikipedia standards have leaned more towards reliable sourcing in 15 years. Tagged since 2015 as needing citations. Only 3 citations on the entire page. Most of the people on this list are not explained as to why they are on it. It is just an unsourced list of people. Some historical figures. Some WP:BLP issues. One redlink on the list, and no sourcing for it. Two section headings are repetitive: "Notable deaf people" and "Notable people who are deaf" I don't see the purpose of this list, that would not otherwise be better served with a category listing, such as Category:Deaf people. — Maile (talk) 19:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic. Lots of your issues are just SOFIXIT things. Also, people seem to think that if there is a category, there is no need for a list, or vise versa, that's not how it is.★Trekker (talk) 10:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete well I took up the sourcing issue and removed all unsourced entries. The lonh standing lack of sourcing is not a good sign for rigor. I think there is also an issue with some people only becoming death later in life.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note - I also question what is defined as "deaf" for this list. The only lead sentence there is, gives the definition a gray area of "deaf or hard-of-hearing people". Are they one and the same? As people get older, hearing on some level decreases. That's probably just a part of aging in general for a lot of the earth's population. This was an extensive list, before the above clean-up. Of the 7 people that remain after the above clean-up, Halle Berry has partial hearing loss in one ear, but other wise is able to hear. So, what use is this list serving? — Maile (talk) 23:00, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as index of articles by significant shared fact per WP:LISTPURP and as complement to Category:Deaf people per WP:CLN. As noted above, no issues have been raised that are not fixable. Blanking entries rather than copying sources from the linked articles is honestly the laziest and most disruptive to "fix" the lack of inline sourcing, and is akin to deleting misspelled words rather than correcting them. If the content belongs in the list, it should remain and be improved. postdlf (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The list quality is poor, but the subject is worthy of coverage as the deaf community is clearly notable enough for this form of coverage. Articles should not be deleted simply on the basis that they haven't been well taken care of. FYI - I have expanded the list to include deaf sportspeople. SFB 12:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sillyfolkboy: Look in the recent history, there were a lot more entries in this list that were indiscriminately blanked instead of just being fixed with inline citations from their own articles (including Helen Keller! I can't view that removal as a good faith attempt to improve the content), I unfortunately don't have the time to restore those myself. postdlf (talk) 15:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @Postdlf: That is clearly an overreach. Wikipedia:Verifiability only requires inline citation for material that is likely to challenged. Short, uncontroversial descriptions of people widely renowned as deaf, such as Helen Keller, do not need citation and I also find it hard to take that action in good faith. This is common practice across the community on such articles. People should also consider how such action can be interpreted as an attack on a disadvantaged group. I'll restore those now. SFB 15:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The same editor did that on another similar list currently nominated for deletion, again without regard to whether inclusion was accurate or whether the subject was dead so BLP couldn't even be used as a fig leaf to justify the blanking. I just migrated sources from their respective articles to moot the issue, which is clearly what should be done by anyone who thinks inline citations are necessary in the list. postdlf (talk) 15:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Postdlf: I realise we have a much bigger problem around deafness because previous discussions that sought to distinguish the topics of deafness and hearing impairment were undone with subsequent edits and this move by Doc James to again frame deafness primarily from a medical perspective rather than a cultural one. This deletion discussion is rooted in people's lack of knowledge of the deaf community and deaf identify. As someone with hands on experience of that, I sometimes forget that these things aren't common knowledge. Really we should have links like deaf and deafness go to a disambiguation rather than the medical-oriented hearing loss (which should be hearing impairment as in congenital cases the ability was never there to be lost). So many problems here... I've started a discussion. SFB 17:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Let's keep separate the issues of notability and quality of the article. The topic is certainly notable, even though the article requires a lot of work. If we deleted every article about a notable topic that was badly written, it would be a loss for Wikipedia. Sundayclose (talk) 20:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This is more like a directory than an article. I don't see a good reason to delete. It is a useful resource. Expertwikiguy (talk) 19:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NLIST aides navigation and provides information. Many blue links. Lightburst (talk) 23:50, 13 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) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 13:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danielle Hairston[edit]

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

Promotional and CV like. Hairston does not meet GNG, NPOL (Black Caucus in APA), or any of the criteria in scholar. The article itself has a number of false claims:

Hairston did not co-author Racism and Psychiatry: Contemporary Issues and Interventions in the conventional meaning, as it has four other individuals named as editors on the jacket. She is a co-author of chapters 1 and 7 (each of which has 5 different named co-authors).
The "Select media" section (which presents the media pieces as "featuring" Hairston) contains every single media reference of Hairston, which also includes non-media sources such as podcasts. The most extensive piece in actual media is in NPR, [3], and is all of four questions in the beginning of a six minute segment before NPR moves on to interview other people. The "feature" on Huffpost - [4] - is two embedded tweets. Other pieces have even less coverage, or in the case of this link none at all.
Additional media on Hairston, and particularly in-depth media, is lacking. This is not close to passing GNG.

Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 09:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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}}.

Delete Case of Wp:Toosoon I think. I think we will see editors argue the case of wp:prof elected to major chair being president of Black caucus of APA but, this is a subdivision of APA so would not count. Agree with Eostrix on other points.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 09:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am having a hard time with the pages for physicians that are impactful in their medical communities, I figured her leadership within the APA and at Howard as the Director of Residency Program were honorable roles. I also thought that since she had been featured in so many news sources, it was significant coverage of her impact regarding her knowledge and expertise on the topics of racism and trauma and the effects on mental health. She is a leader in the advocacy and education on Racism and Trauma given her being one of the authors to write that book and the various news outlets that she is interviewed on regarding these topics. I am seeing that there are nuances to the notability criteria that I do not yet understand. Microglia145 (talk) 13:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not sure that I am writing this in the correct space. But, I (Danielle Hairston), did co-author the book. There are quite a few authors, it's an extensive and long book. The names listed on the cover are the EDITORS. I am the lead author for one of the chapters.

I do impact the mental health community and it's disheartening to have my accomplishments minimized. I'll be featured on Lifetime tonight (6/29 at 8pm EST), as being highlighted as one of Variety's Power of Women Frontline heroes during the COVID-19 pandemic. This is a repeat from the show that originally aired on 6/25.

Becoming a residency training director means something, and I am (I believe), the youngest Black, woman psychiatry residency training director in the country.

Publications:

Hairston, D. R., Gibbs, T. A., Wong, S. S., & Jordan, A. (2019). Clinician bias in diagnosis and treatment. In Racism and Psychiatry (pp. 105-137). Humana Press, Cham.
Hairston, D. R., de Similien, R. H., Himelhoch, S., & Forrester, A. (2019). Treatment of phantom shocks: A case report. The International Journal of Psychiatry in Medicine, 54(3), 181-187.
De Similien, R., Hairston, D. R., Kumari, S., Matthews, G. E., Wasser, T., Malik, M., & Manalai, P. (2018). Sociodemographic and clinical correlates of the frequently hospitalized African American patients with severe and persistent mental illness. Annals of Clinical Psychiatry.
Ralph de Similien, M. D., Lee, B. L., Hairston, D. R., & Sonje, S. (2019). Sick, or faking it?. Current Psychiatry, 18(9), 49.
Gordon-Achebe, K., Hairston, D. R., Miller, S., Legha, R., & Starks, S. (2019). Origins of Racism in American Medicine and Psychiatry. In Racism and Psychiatry (pp. 3-19). Humana Press, Cham.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.238.200.2 (talk) 20:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC) — Note: An editor has expressed a concern that 138.238.200.2 (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. per self-disclosed identity above and [5] [6].

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychiatry-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Contributions to scholarship by GS too tiny to pass WP:Prof: WP:Too soon. Maybe in ten years time. WP:GNG not passed yet either. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC),[reply]

KEEP She was recently honored on Lifetime and interviewed by Laverne Cox for the power of women series, honoring female physicians who have made a difference during the COVID-19 pandemic https://twitter.com/Variety/status/1276362853532921856?s=20. -Rdaneshjou — Rdaneshjou (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Twitter is not considered to be a reliable source. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Twitter isn't the source—the Twitter account of Variety is. Wikipedia frequently uses tweets posted on social media accounts of otherwise reliable media outlets as references. For Variety in particular, their Twitter account is used as a source in: Cardi B, A Beautiful Day in the Neighborhood, Hairspray (2007 film), Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles in film and Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Out of the Shadows. —Tom Morris (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't Variety the magazine, but rather a two minute segment on the Lifestyle cable channel in which Hairston has a very short interview segment in a feature covering multiple people.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is, in fact Variety the magazine. Variety is a reliable source which reported that Hairston was featured on Lifetime. pburka (talk) 16:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagged not a vote due to [7] [8].--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 05:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Respectfully disagree with the assessment of other editors regarding notability, I see more than enough between the scholarship, awards, and media coverage. Gamaliel (talk) 11:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing in VIAF, nothing substantial in Google Scholar, nothing in ORCID. May be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Closing admin please consider draftify'ing rather than deleting, since this is a good faith attempt to create an article about a subject who seems very likely to be notable soon. Stuartyeates (talk) 11:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added citations from Der Spiegel (the largest circulation magazine in Europe) and the Huffington Post.Lainx (talk) 11:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither cover Hairston in any depth. Huffington Post has two embedded tweets and a short paragraph with quotes. Der Spiegel has a couple of short quotes. This is a comprehensive SIGCOV fail, individuals do not become notable from around 10 short quotes in the media.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dr. Hairston is a vocal advocate for physicians! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2d80:d586:3700:a9d7:1cf:fcab:d83e (talk • contribs) 12:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking at references, she seems to pass (but not strongly) WP:GNG Ladsgroup^overleg 20:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Marginal on media coverage, but she does appear to have had a significant career, has held prominent positions within relevant professional organisations, is well known and respected in her field - sufficiently covered in relevant academia. She has had a notable career re scholarship and awards, coupled with the media coverage she has received I think she qualifies as notable. Bacondrum (talk) 00:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: clear but inconsistent passing of WP:GNG and as I see it more citations are being added to the article to bolster its sourcing with WP:RS. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 14:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In spite of the canvassing, an NPR article, a good chunk of a Der Spiegel article, and a not-insignificant quote in Business Insider, along with some fairly substantial coverage in Slate, together seem to me to get past WP:GNG. I'm unconvinced by the usefulness of the HuffPost article, considering that it's only listing some of Hairston's Tweets and not offering any further commentary, but we have far worse articles on-wiki than ones with the other sources. AfD is not cleanup, and I'm unconvinced that WP:TNT is needed here.
138.238.200.2, thank you for all of the important work that you do. I think that the article about you meets our criteria, but it's important to understand that a Wikipedia article isn't necessarily a good thing, and article deletion definitely isn't the same as saying your work is wrong, or that it's not valuable. Those above who've expressed opinions in favour of deletion are doing so on the basis of our notability policy, but it's important to remember that "notable" isn't the same as "important", or even correlated. Your work is clearly important, the question here is only over whether it's sufficiently notable for Wikipedia - which I think it is. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:18, 6 July 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)} 19:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep; just squeaks by on the strength of the NPR, Der Spiegel, and Slate coverage, helped by the APA Black Caucus presidency. —valereee (talk) 12:52, 11 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kang Rae-yeon[edit]

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

This article was declined at AfC a few times: [9] by User:AngusWOOF and [10] by User:DGG. This actress exists, and has been cast in supporting roles, but that does not make her notable. 11Fox11 (talk) 06:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello. You shouldn't delete the article because she is famous in korea and china. It was declined two times because of the sources, it was improperly sourced. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs) 08:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this still doesn't explain Kang's lead or starring roles to meet WP:ENT. The roles mentioned in the lead are not star billing, some are merely as guest stars and ntot even mentioned in the film/television series, so it is difficult to determine notability from there. The rest are bit roles. Editor was asked to supply WP:THREE of the best sources but that was not done. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 11:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She is well known in china and south korea she has articles on both sites, she has fans and is well known by people. I know she did supporting roles but there are other actors too who have done supporting roles too and are well known, they have articles, give it some time, it will improve in the future she may even get awards and nominations like the other actors. Lead role isn't everything. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs) 12:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BeauSuzanne: we're at a deletion discussion, so the time is now. You have seven days. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BeauSuzanne, WP:ENT calls for significant roles in significant productions, and multiple ones. If her supporting role doesn't have star billing, it needs to be big enough so that it makes news that she is noted for being that role in other news articles. Look at J. G. Hertzler's article. He's noted for portraying a supporting Star Trek: Deep Space Nine character, but many newspapers have written up articles about him. Is there a similar following for this person? AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 14:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A perfect example of WP:BIAS. There are a plethora of sources in Korean, and I've added a bit of content just now. There are a countless number of sources available where Kang's 22-year career is subject to widespread coverage. Ə XPLICIT 12:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which sources? Present WP:THREE of them please. They look like passive cast announcements, the ones that are already there. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 15:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found three sources about her its two TV Daily and Shina Ilbo, it has some details about her. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BeauSuzanne (talk • contribs) 19:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: To allow further analysis of the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:02, 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)} 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BeauSuzanne, please post the three sources here. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, here it is ^[1]^[2]^[3]

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. Sandstein 16:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Devil Sister[edit]

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

Short article, too soon and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 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} 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: 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 Military of Love, The Gifted: Graduation, Oh My Boss, Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area, Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated and A Tale of Thousand Stars. — Emperork (talk) 03:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:52, 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 05:32, 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) 02:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CommentToughpigs; notability is and can be used as a rationale an AFD. Believe WP:NFILM comes into play here. I wont close this, requires an administrator ideally. Nightfury 14:29, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wayne C. Doty[edit]

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

I nominated this article for deletion because it is a not notable person. pls complete the AFD process, thank you. 188.187.61.14 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 01:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Got a message from an IP's whose number is different than the person who asked me to complete this process:

Hi there

I got here after searching the name of a person who was the subject of a Netflix Special program. His name is Wayne Doty, and he’s a convicted double murderer awaiting execution on Florida’s death row. Not a nice individual.

I searched him up because I wanted to see if he’s still alive. I see that you’ve tagged his Wikipedia page for deletion because he’s not a notable person.

I disagree with this assertion. I think that anyone who has an hour-long Netflix special made about him is notable enough to have a Wikipedia entry. Not as notable as Stevie Wonder or Ghengis Khan, but surely a little bit notable. In addition, Doty is interesting to legal scholars because of his attempts to hasten his own execution and his rejection of legal counsel while doing so.

I respectfully submit that the deletion request for that Wikipedia page should be retracted.

Thanks Nik

--135.23.103.157 (talk) 09:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 03:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uncited BLP that has no business in article space; it seems vaguely possible that he might be notable (committing one murder and then later committing a second murder gets you past BLP1E, but I am skeptical that it gets you past NOTNEWS) so delete or draftify are both ok with me. --JBL (talk) 15:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, I’m the ‘Nik’ that asked for this deletion to be reconsidered. Just to clarify, I wouldn’t think that committing a murder (or two) would make someone ‘notable’, but a major network special broadcast and interest from legal scholars (presumed, since I have no proof of such interest in the form of published work) might get someone past the post. In any case I defer to the judgement of those who know Wikipedia rules better than I. I just hope I’m using this comment box correctly! 135.23.103.157 (talk) 05:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nik here again, I’ve just figured out how to post as my registered self. I’ll do this going forward TraderNik (talk) 05:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 03:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete Here is the guideline, the perp section #2 is what really matters imo. From what I saw, all of the coverage was either from the Netflix Documentary, or from the time of the 2nd murder, not much coverage "which persists beyond contemporaneous news coverage" Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:CRIMINAL 2. This case is not unusual, however it became part of the Hurst vs. Florida, and Doty is the first electric in the state. Also Netflix used in series (how many death rowers are there and he was only the 30th person they made a prog on) Added more refs to reflect coverageDavidstewartharvey (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I fail to see how it meets WP:CRIMINAL. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 21:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted to allow discussion of added sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per WP:CRIMINAL 2. Also per sources.BabbaQ (talk) 11:32, 12 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 St. Mary's University School of Law. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Scholar (journal)[edit]

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

Discovered during CAT:NN cleanup, this survived an AfD in 2008 but has been tagged with primary sources/notability since December 2008. I looked for secondary coverage and could not find any, and it's still sourced to primary sources. I'd support keeping this if other sources are found, but I can't find any easily and for now it seems to fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 18:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The previous AfD was under a different title, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/The Scholar: St. Mary's Law Review on Minority Issues. A significant amount of the current content appears copied from here. Normally, if a journal is legitimate but not much can be said about it, I'd suggest redirecting to the publisher, in this case St. Mary's University School of Law. Perhaps that could be done here. XOR'easter (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't think to do a copyvio, but you're right, most of the article is a copyvio. SportingFlyer T·C 21:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 21:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St. Mary's University School of Law. XOR'easter (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect There's nothing there except self-description because there are no sources except themselves. North8000 (talk) 13:51, 8 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) 18:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thisisnotashop[edit]

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

Self promotion, not notable, terribly made page. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 18:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not notable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NCORP. Theredproject (talk) 18:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 07:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Irish media coverage involves passing mentions such as here and here, as well as exhibition notes (e.g. [11]). The mention in this book is too brief and primary. Meeting WP:NCORP is never easy for independent art spaces and this is not exception, nor am I seeing enough assessment of lasting impact for WP:GNG. AllyD (talk) 15:00, 7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abhisar Sharma[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG at the very least. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 18:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to meet GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks only trivial coverage -- Ab207 (talk) 18:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:45, 12 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) 18:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emil Ernest Gloor[edit]

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

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Subject of the article is a non-notable individual fails WP:GNG guidelines. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of businesspeople out there, not all of them are worthy of an encyclopedia article. This is one is by a COI editor. Netherzone (talk) 19:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Emil Ernest Gloor is a good example of an someone who used Terracotta tile in a new way. He used the interlocking technique that is supported by secondary source on archive.org. In addition, his use of brick was written up in secondary source about building with brick and Hollow Tile. --Greg Henderson 20:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

@Greghenderson2006: is this another relative of ancestor of yours? Also why doesn't your signature have a link to anything?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, both sources mentioned above are half sentence name checks. The innovative interlocking terracotta was installed by the article subject; the article says they were the "brick contractors".ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - trivial mentions do not meet WP:GNG. Melcous (talk) 02:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. White & Gloor are credited as "terra cotta setters" or "masonry contractors". There's no claim to a patent or anything like that. No design credits visible. No relationship to the dominant terra cotta supplier Gladding, McBean. Not notable. --Lockley (talk) 22:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why not draftify the article and let Greghenderson2006 keep looking for more sources? Coverage of historical figures, even when it exists, is often limited to old news and magazine articles. Those are often stored offline, and with the COVID-19 crisis, we should be mindful that the libraries and archives that hold those sources are probably closed. If Greghenderson2006 is willing to keep researching – and he has been remarkably persistent – then I say we move the article to draftspace, with the proviso it may only be republished if it passes AfC. Altamel (talk) 04:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reasons to delete are a) not a notable subject, b) editors above have not come up with any more sources c) the ones Greghenderson2006 have offered so not offer any indication of notability and d) Presumably GH2006 would be the only person interested in this, and they have demonstrated an inability to understand SIGCOV. In short, there's nothing here to draftify. It's a guy who owned a masonry company.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 13:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:14, 12 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) 18:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zanker Recycling[edit]

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

Promotional, undisclosed paid editing of non notable company. Theroadislong (talk) 17:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and for failing WP:COMPANY notability guidelines. Ifnord (talk) 17:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing significant found by way of non-insider WP:RS on Google. Nothing in News, Books or recent search results. Dare I suggest that, rather than deletion, the letters and words used within this article are carefully disassembled and recycled into new content that actually meets WP:NCORP? Nick Moyes (talk) 22:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTPROMO. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:45, 13 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) 13:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. McCreight[edit]

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

Found during cleanup of CAT:NN as this has now been tagged for over a decade, I could not find any coverage of him that wasn't transactional (McCreight signs with Browns, McCreight signs with Cardinals, etc) in my WP:BEFORE search, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC) SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I did find a number of "articles" with passing mentions, but the sources seem to not be the typical reliable news sources to me. Further, the articles and mentions seem to be "transactional" in nature, and we've typically not considered such mentions as definitive toward notability. I don't really see any third party articles that meet WP:GNG and the coverage that I do find does not seem to provide any significant WP:IMPACT at this time. Naturally, that could all change based on other sources that I cannot find or future events--but based on what I can find and the article as it is currently presented I do not see any notability for the subject.--Paul McDonald (talk) 16:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I nominated this article for deletion in April (the discussion closed as "no consensus" after only three !voters participated), so I'm copying my rationale here again. Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. High-level NFL executive who has not yet been a general manager and no other claims to notability. It is rare for non-GM executives to receive significant enough coverage to pass GNG. This is his most up-to-date bio for reference as the article is hard to read. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:47, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Nom: A 2009 unsourced BLP that does not pass any notability criteria for inclusion. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:45, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Health Care For All New York[edit]

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

An interesting organisation, but I couldn't find it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. This is an orphaned page and I couldn't find an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with you on all those points. Hard to find any viable sources for it. Balle010 (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ORG. Because something exists doesn't mean it is notable. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:16, 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:51, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict of Heroes[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 08:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 16:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

[12], [13] and [14] all appear to be reliable sources, though most are quite small press. The Finnish one's author probably is enough of an expert in the field to meet WP:SPS even if it is almost a one-man blog. keep . In general, when nominating board games, is a good idea to look at the BGG page for external web links when doing the WP:BEFORE thing. Many of those are reviews. Hobit (talk) 17:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm not sure I really agree on that third source being automatically counted as an established expert so that his blog can be considered a valid WP:SPS, but the other two sources brought up by Hobit above seem solid enough. Note that there was also a video game adaptation of this board game a while back, as well, so there may be some additional sources floating around regarding that, though I was unable to find anything at the time of this writing. Rorshacma (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Leaning keep but please fix the article with the sources first.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 17:02, 6 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) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abstract Wikipedia[edit]

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

I do not see it being notable just yet. No doubt it will be in the future (hopefully), but currently, imho "No inherited notability" of WP:WEB applies. It is (or rather will be) created by notable organisation but that does not mean it is automatically notable itself. Most of the sources are not exactly independent. Base (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Base (talk) 16:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Wikimedia Foundation. There's just barely enough coverage (like [15] and [16]) to justify a paragraph there, but not nearly enough for a stand-alone article at present. XOR'easter (talk) 17:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I just added additional news coverage from France (an RSP-greenlit source), Vietnam, and Germany (×2), and that's in addition to the Neowin article in English and the article in Czech. I can't say I'm 100% sure that each of those is a RS, but they each appear to be from a news organization, so I'm pretty sure at least two of them are (and anyone who wants to check, feel free — several of them have WP pages in English, and I'd guess some others have a page in their native language). We should be careful not to introduce language bias here — it makes sense that most of the coverage so far is not in English, given that Abstract Wikipedia is being publicized as mostly something to help out non-English Wikipedias.

Regarding merging, WP:MERGEREASON states (emphasis added) If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. The page is certainly currently short, but I don't think we could say it's unlikely to be expanded soon (several of the sources I just added were published today). {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 18:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 18:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Will be notable after the project has gone online, but not yet now. May return later.--Aschmidt (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There's plenty enough at present to demonstrate in-depth reporting by a variety of sources to meet the WP:GNG threshold. Schwede 66 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep m:Special:MyLanguage/Abstract Wikipedia/July 2020 announcement.--Moxy 🍁 22:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I could see a concern if it was still a proposal and not approved. But it meets WP:GNG now, and we all know it will increase with time, a delete at this point would be pedantic. -- GreenC 17:32, 10 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) Nightfury 14:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of St. Stephen[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it has the coverage or significance to meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. I didn't find a suitable WP:ATD, but am open to suggestions, there may be somewhere it can be merged/redirected to? Boleyn (talk) 16:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How's this article from a late nineteenth-century glossary/encyclopedia? (Unclear if it's the same guild as the one in the article though?) I also found:

"The eight hundred servers of the Guild of St Stephen in their cassocks and cottas … all these led up in the most striking way to the imposing person of the Legate in his splendid Cardinal’s robes.” (599) source (Report of the 19th Eucharistic Congress, 1908)
"In May 1906 St Pius X gave his approbation to the canonical erection in Westminster Cathedral of the Guild of St Stephen for Altar Servers and in December of that year the Sacred Congregation of Rites made the Guild an Archconfraternity Prima Primaria, with power to affiliate to itself confraternities established elsewhere …" source (Catholics in Cambridge, 2003) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AleatoryPonderings (talk • contribs) 02:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 02:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It seems like both sources are talking about that guild, they both talk about altar servers. The second source even talks about its founding in 1906 by Hamilton Macdonald, and the Convent of the Sacred Heart, and the 1936 expansion to Cambridge by Pope Pius. I think that source verifies the article pretty well. Awsomaw (talk) 14:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the coverage in multiple reiable sources identified above so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:54, 11 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Innaiah Narisetti[edit]

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

Fails the GNG and WP:PROF. The only sources in the article are quotes from the subject (which by definition cannot be used to support the notability of the subject). A search turns up a classic hallmark of non-notability: this Wikipedia page, his Twitter feed, his Facebook page, various links selling his stuff, a YouTube link, but not enough by the way of the "substantial coverage of the subject" that the GNG requires. Article has been tagged for over a decade, far more than enough time for reliable sources to materialize. Ravenswing 16:44, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. In the given sources there is one quote of him and one interview of him about a particular topic. North8000 (talk) 13:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 12:42, 13 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Great Bust Ahead[edit]

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

It exists, but doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG - and there is no obvious WP:ATD as the author is non-notable. Boleyn (talk) 16:39, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 23:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:31, 11 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Konni (dog)[edit]

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

Pursuant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rubble (cat) -- Pets do not merit their own page per WP:BIO. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: erm, there's no mention of pets on WP:BIO, maybe because it's actually Wikipedia:Notability (people) and animals aren't people. That aside, the article has a wealth of pertinent information and bears no relationship to Rubble (cat), whose sole claim to fame is longevity. Leutha (talk) 18:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It looks like Konni has received quite a bit of coverage over the years as Putin's dog, especially the incident with Angela Merkel in 2007 which has been discussed in Der Spiegel (cited in the article) as expressing a chill in German/Russian relations. Rubble, the cat referred to in the nomination, is up for deletion because they're just an old cat who had the title of "longest living cat" for a little while. Konni is clearly a different case. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:19, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Anti-Zionists[edit]

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

Poorly sourced page full of original research. James Richards (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete too political Devokewater (talk) 15:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No explanation on page for why this is important, and sources are all cherry-picked from right/left wing outlets. Yoninah (talk) 15:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like a magnet for WP:OR. MarnetteD|Talk 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. An overly subjective list (who exactly counts as an anti-zionist? since many people who are don't self-identify with the term) driven by WP:OR. HAWTH OFF HEAD TALK 18:40, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Varlamov, Ruslan[edit]

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

Not able to find adequate coverage about this user, looks like a promotional article. James Richards (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 15:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails GNG and NARTIST guidelines for notability. Netherzone (talk) 15:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The only indication of notability: he is a winner of an exhibition "Ships in the sea". But is anything significant? And indeed, there is no coverage in sources. My very best wishes (talk) 01:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:23, 11 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. Two relists failed to generate a clear consensus. Defaulting to Keep, w/o prejudice to a future renomination. (non-admin closure) Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 16:31, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heremba Bailung[edit]

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

Procedural nomination, came across at NPP and I am unsure if this person meets WP:NPROF. According to Google Scholar,[17] their highest cited papers are 569 (as second author) and 430 (as first author); they work in plasma physics. b uidhe 05:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. b uidhe 05:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this seems like a huge number of citations in physics! It seems there is a fundamental discovery, the discovery of peregrine solitons in plasma and he is listed as academic director of this institute, Institute of Advanced Study in Science and Technology http://iasst.gov.in/ PainProf (talk) 04:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PainProf, The organization appears to be non notable so I nominated it for deletion as well. b uidhe 04:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Not sure see https://dst.gov.in/autonomous-st-institution. I think this basically may rest on whether that's a notable institute then, Physics its quite hard to tell with because the citations are never as high as biology, his papers continue to be popular which suggests its an important topic, although I'm guessing you will never find much popular science coverage of that. PainProf (talk) 04:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Over 2000 citations seems like a lot to me, and they seem to be in a senior post, but I'm not sure if it counts as a "major institution". Kj cheetham (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He has only two highly cited publications on Google Scholar, but both are with significantly more well-cited coauthors (PK Shukla and Y Nakamura) and when I checked who is citing the top one, among the first 20 citations Google showed me, fully half were by one or the other of those two coauthors. To me that significantly weakens the evidence of academic impact, and without that we don't have much. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per David Eppstein unless evidence of impact is forthcoming. b uidhe 04:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Striking 2nd !vote by Buidhe, your nom is your !vote. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Britishfinance, it is not a "second vote" as I clearly stated in the nom that I wasn't sure if it was notable and it was a procedural nomination. Since I have formed an opinion it is completly appropriate to state it. Please do not strike such !votes without reading the nomination first. b uidhe 19:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline, and not clear whether the refs support either NPROF and/or GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist since previous attempt did not generate any new discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:16, 6 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoVoteMiami[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:ORG. This just tells about the organization and what it does much like a brochure put out by the organization would. The sources given are not significant coverage in independent reliable sources; one is an interview with the leader of the organization, two others simply cite factual information, and the Library source is just a link to its website. This has gone back and forth between draft and main space with the creator moving it to mainspace twice. The creator(who validly changed their username) states that they are a supporter of the organization though not associated with it and wants to spread the word about what they do. Helping people vote is a worthy cause, but Wikipedia is not for telling the world about worthy causes. 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC) 331dot (talk) 15:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The GoVoteMiami article presents a 1) neutrally written summary of existing mainstream knowledge 2) in a fair and accurate manner with a straightforward, "just-the-facts style". 3) is not argumentative, promotional or opinionated writing. Independent sources have been added and primary sources or suggested primary sources including items which may have appeared promotional have been removed. Current Sources and cites include 1) Independent of the subject 2) Reliable 3) Verifiable according to the Wikipedia, General notability guidelines. Cites and sources are Independent sources based on Wikipedia guidelines. An extreme effort has been made to follow the wikipedia guidelines for publishing the article. Any sources which wiki editors believed to be a primary source or promotional has been removed. This is not a paid or promotional article. It focus on facts and verifiable information. This article meets the same guidelines and standards as other non-profits which are and have been active articles on Wikipedia for years. This article should not be deleted because of a Wikipedia volunteers bias regarding non-profits, elections and opinion of voting in America or due to party affiliation in Florida. This article is a about a bipartisan, Non-Profit, written without author opinion solely based on facts. As author, I hope wikipedia volunteers are able to also have an unbiased approach. jonscott239Jonscott239 (talk) 16:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonscott239 I am not biased against non-profits or elections, nor Floridian party affiliations. Non-profits are treated no differently than for-profits on Wikipedia. I've tried to explain what the issues are with the sources, but you seem to have disregarded my explanations or misunderstand me. 331dot (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made adjustments with each recommendation . I followed advice and recommendations. Other articles of nonprofits relating to voting are approved, active and meet the same standards and requirements as the other non-profits which shows a bias or ulterior motive to be selective with this article and not other organizations. jonscott239Jonscott239 (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonscott239 This is a volunteer project with 6 million plus articles, it's possible to get inappropriate articles past us. We can only address what we know about. If you'd care to share these other articles, we can evaluate them as well. See other stuff exists. There is no "ulterior motive". 331dot (talk) 17:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other articles include.... Nonprofit Vote , Project Vote , Vote Smart , Independent voter project , and a 100 more. I fixed the issues pointed out and removed the article which was an interview however the other Islander article is independent along with the miami herald article and other sources/references are independent. The changes were made based on recommendations and detail of the article is listed on my previous response written on 16:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC). Reasons for submitting article for deletion include 1. "just tells about the organization and what it does" 2. "simply cite factual information" 3. included its mission, goals. If wikipedia articles are not suppose to list facts, about the organizations including its mission and goals, or to provide information about worthy causes, then what should they tell? -The article has been adjusted according to feedback from multiple wikipedia volunteers/editors. It meets the same standards of other articles and according to wiki guidelines. jonscott239Jonscott239 (talk) 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Nonprofit Vote article has some of the same problems as this one. The other three are a bit better but nothing like this article. The purposes you describe are not what Wikipedia is for. Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources with significant coverage have chosen to say about a subject, showing how it meets the special Wikipedia definition of a notable organization. Not every organization merits an article, even within the same field. It all depends on what sources say about them, with significant coverage. In this case, your sources, in order:

cites the mere fact that this organization is registered with the State of Florida
cites a Q&A from the DOJ regarding the National Voter Registration Act
cites (once you removed reference to the interview) that the Mayor of Miami supports the goals of the organization
seems to link to a registration form
cites the existence of the Miami Public Library system

None of these are significant coverage of this organization itself in independent reliable sources that have chosen on their own to do so- which is what the article should primarily consist of. "Missions" are wholly unencyclopedic as it is impossible to independently verify what an organization's "mission" is, as it can change at any time. I hope you find the right forum to tell the world or at least Miami-Dade about this group, which performs a worthy service. However, you can't use Wikipedia to tell the world about it. 331dot (talk) 16:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree that the subject does not meet WP:NCORP. The sources currently listed in the article are not adequate (they're primary sources or not significant or not independent) with the possible exception of this one (however, I echo 331dot's assessment of that source in the discussion above); I did a quick search for other sources that might be possible to use and was unable to locate any. Aoi (青い) (talk) 20:33, 6 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 Procedural closure. This is redundant to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Elbrus Together which is still open but seems to have fallen off the log pages. I'll attend to it. Sandstein 12:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elbrus Together[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Renominating since this was inappropriately closed via a NAC I didn't notice at the time. Same thing applies (and the last afd only had discussion in terms of keeps by two people who have heavily edited hte article and appear to be SPAs)

non-notable film, absolutely no meaningful coverage. fails WP:NFILM Praxidicae (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, the NAC was just reverted on the first nomination, which has created a bit of a mess. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – The previous AfD discussion has received commentary as of 2 July 2020 (UTC), and remains in an unclosed state. As such, I have transcluded it below, so it can be seen here and taken into consideration. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous AfD discussion, which remains unclosed

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. Eggishorn is correct that an assumption that sources exist is not enough - but the article does now cite numerous sources (not only Youtube and ImdB) , and nobody here discusses why these aren't sufficient. Sandstein 13:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elbrus Together[edit]

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

non-notable film, absolutely no meaningful coverage. fails WP:NFILM Praxidicae (talk) 15:40, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:57, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Praxidicae and CAPTAIN RAJU. Thanks for taking the time to read the article I edited and to help improve Wikipedia articles in general. I understand that you nominated the Elbrus Together article for deletion according to the Notability (films) guideline. I respect your opinion, so I did further work to improve the article. I explained what I did and how the article, in my opinion, now satisfies the 5 points of General notability guideline as a comment in the article source code. I understand that the article can be improved greatly with the help of other Wikipedia editors so please don't delete it. Let's try to find more details on the film online and in published magazines. I might do that a little later. Thanks again and have a great day! Keep Tom Mark Alexis (talk) 16:15, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also found a few references of the film on a New York film production company website. I'll put one reference in the article now. Thanks Tom Mark Alexis (talk) 12:57, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 06:18, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:31, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No independent secondary sources discussing the film points towards it not being notable Smanworld (talk) 21:33, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm gonna go with Keep under the assumption that there is a lot of film coverage in the Russian and Ukrainian speaking websites/magazines/etc. This film premiered in theaters in Ukraine, so it should say that this is a Ukrainian film, not an American film. Sam1529 (talk) 05:09, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:01, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I want to apologise to User:Praxidicae for the two inappropriate BADNAC. This page is now open. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sign of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. The assumption that there must be coverage in Ukrainian or Russian sources needs to actually be demonstrated - there is no presumption in favor of notability based on existence. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:20, 2 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) 15:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dublin Street Art Walking Tour & Graffiti Workshop[edit]

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

Self promotion of non-longer existing micro-project Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I am not sure how a walking tour is ever going to be notable. Obvious promotion. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable Devokewater (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails GNG. And as mentioned above, WP:PROMO, does not belong in an encyclopedia. Netherzone (talk) 16:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think it exists anymore, but whatever it was never received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 15:15, 7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Get Outta My Face[edit]

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

A tricky one, hence sitting in CAT:NN for over 11 years. It is hard for a non-specialist to know what is and isn't a reliable source in this area. It has some coverage, but not the in-depth coverage in reliable sources to meet GNG and doesn't meet any other part of WP:NOTABILITY that I could find. Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For video games, there is a specialized search engine found via WP:VG/SE for only reliable sources. Of course, not all reliable sources are covered by this engine, but it is expansive enough to give off the general feel for notability. Using this engine, one can find three sources: an interview, a press release, and a database entry (on a website specializing in arcade games). While all three are reliable, the first two are not independent (one of the primary) and the last one is not authored, so none of them count towards notability. Hence, the topic fails WP:GNG and WP:NVG. IceWelder [✉] 15:09, 6 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. Consensus for notability. (non-admin closure) feminist (talk) 06:32, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camilo Prieto Valderrama[edit]

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

Colombian plastic surgeon turned environmentalist. Some minor coverage. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. Has an article on another Wikipedia, es. scope_creep^Talk 12:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete way too much newsy coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hang on User:Johnpacklambert, in the two minutes you had after your delete vote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Barbara Snellenburg (2nd nomination), how did you have time to look at the 21 foreign language references here, and determine that they were all "too newsy" to meet GNG? That's not possible, and I once again have to question your competence to edit in the AFD area. Can you please explain your justification in detail, as I really think your topic ban on AFD participation needs to be expanded. Nfitz (talk) 23:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Nfitz: That really doesn't make sense and sounds a wee bit too aggressive. What happened to WP:AGF?? scope_creep^Talk 01:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AGF has limitations - I've pointed out these 20-second judgements time and time again, but nothing changes. At some point, it becomes a question of competence. See also the discussion at their topic ban - since then, they seem to have replaced the creation of far too many AFDs with voting delete at discussions with no discrimination and clearly not enough time for judgement. Enough is enough - this one is particularly blatant given the number of Spanish articles they'd have had to have looked at, in no time. I'd like a better understanding. Nfitz (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article has been posted for 26 hours so your argument makes no sense.scope_creep^Talk 08:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The important thing about this doctor is his work as an environmentalist, participating in Colombia's environmental policy. I am going to refine the article by focusing on this facet. There are many references in main colombian newspapers with interviews. He has published several books and is quite popular on Colombian television, in addition to having received important awards in his country. He is also an outstanding activist --3erres (talk) 15:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: references are from relevant media: Diario El Tiempo, El Espectador, Radio Caracol, in addition to the Titanes award. Perhaps it requires a cleaning to be more encyclopedic.--Pesca59 (talk) 19:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He's a well-known Colombian. References are proper.--Fittipaldi92 (talk) 15:14, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How well know is he?scope_creep^Talk 01:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article has been trimmed of unencyclopedic material in the past week. Appears notable per Pesca59. Jusdafax (talk) 07:50, 12 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) 15:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noel Kelly (arts management)[edit]

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

Fails to meet notability Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 14:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable art consultant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 07:56, 7 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 Western New England University#Athletics. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George E. Trelease Memorial Baseball Park[edit]

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

It doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY though it gets many mentions within context of the team. WP:ATD possibly is redirect/merge or just redirect to Western New England University#Athletics. Boleyn (talk) 14:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Flori4nK: I'm sorry, people? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oops... fixed. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 18:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge: Nothing more than WNEC's ballfield, and I very much doubt there are secondary sources that do anything more than "X is playing Y at 7:30 PM Friday at Trelease Park." Ravenswing 16:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We can include this information safely on the WNEC article's page without needing a separate article. Should not be a standalone. SportingFlyer T·C 18:01, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:01, 9 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kajal Pisal[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability - all the refs appear to be based on a single press release. No evidence that any TV roles have been significant. Searches reveal only the usual crop of social media and reprints of the same press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked through the sources, and you're definitely right that most come from some syndicated feed that sounds like it's basically just repeating a press release. At least one other source in the article is from 2017, and covers something different, her joining of the cast for another show. Also, I found this article from the Times of India within the last 24 hours about her as well. So there are at least three independent events covered in multiple news outlets about her, which seems to qualify as notable, if barely. (Also pinging creator of article, @Lily Flingg:, to see if they have anything to add. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- After reading about the actress in times of India. I came to Wikipedia to get information about her. But I saw the page was redirected to another page which mentioned that she was part of it cast, Bade Acche Lagte Hai. I was free as it was sunday so I took my time to update the article. Found many links on google. I'll respect decision taken by you guys but still I'm trying to update it. As of now I have attach two sources of two different occasions.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily Flingg (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:30, 6 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defastenism[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Self promotion of an unknown art project supported primarily by blog entries. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC) P.S. Also amongst limited sources are a few dead links, primary sources, and passing mentions. Think this may have created a little buzz in a corner of the Dublin art world at the time, but 15 years on is largely forgettable. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 17:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Hesperian Nguyen (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non notable "art movement" and manifesto. Perhaps this belongs in an alumni newsletter rather than an encyclopedia. Does not pass WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 16:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Strikes me as half way between a hoax and neologism. There are a couple articles at most; not enough SIGCOV for this 'movement'. It is time to defasten this article from our servers. 02:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

European Administrative School[edit]

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

It exists, but isn't a college or university. It doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:NOTABILITY, or the level of significance. It has articles in two other WPs, but they don't establish its notability either. Boleyn (talk) 14:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In doing a WP:BEFORE check, I found plenty of sources talking about the EAS; I've added just a few of them to the article. AfD is not cleanup, sufficient sources do seem to exist to meet GNG. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 12:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The new sources certainly help. The pl. version of the article suggests more about the potential importance of a Pan-Europe diplomatic training program like this. Admittedly it's also unsourced. If kept, it might be a good addition to this template: Template:European Commission administration. --Lockley (talk) 22:09, 7 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) 15:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garth Dyke[edit]

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

He has won non-notable awards and has worked in film and television for a number of years. I can't see enough to meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG, though he's clearly had a good career. Seems to have been written by a colleague, so it is hard to see the encyclopaedic information in amongst the flattery but I didn't find evidence of notability elsewhere either. Boleyn (talk) 13:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 22:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the awards won by the subject are not notable either. Pratyush (talk) 07:00, 10 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 WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 16:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emilio Pucci[edit]

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

Please review the sources. If researched meticulously enough, many are inconclusive and not backed up. "WayBackMachine" is used for a lot of sources, however sources are not found on the real websites. My suspicion is, that this persons deeds are made up or overinflated in order to attract customers/promote to listed website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.199.86.19 (talk) 12:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedual nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep meets GNG, NARTIST and then some. Archive.org is a perfectly fine archive for WP:RS. Here are just the first three monographic books about his work that I found:

Arezzi Boza, Alessandra., Friedman, Vanessa. Emilio Pucci. Germany: Taschen, 2013.
Casadio, Mariuccia. Emilio Pucci (Universe of Fashion). United Kingdom: Universe/Vendome, 1998.
Flaccavento, Angelo., Pucci, Laudomia., Menkes, Suzy., Lissoni, Piero. Unexpected Pucci: Interiors: Furniture, Ceramics and Art Pieces. Italy: Rizzoli International Publications, Incorporated, 2019.

I will put these into the article. And over a thousand entries in Google Scholar [18]. The article should probably better cover what seems like a complicated relationship with fascism, which is addressed in these two articles [19] [20]Theredproject (talk) 13:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There were indeed two references that didn't have anything to do with the subject or were very broken and didn't seem to have anything to do with the subject. Tony Cragg?? No. A playstation? Well yes, a crocodile PSP case for the so rich we don't know what to do with it audience. Vexations (talk) 14:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I added another source, a 1972 Baltimore Sun article titled "Emilio Pucci a designer for all seasons". Pucci is obviously notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep - Emilio Pucci is one of the most well known Italian fashion designers and textile designers in the world who has made many contributions to haute couture throughout his life. WP:NEXIST! Sources are out there, the article needs improving, not deletion. Netherzone (talk) 15:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, obviously flawed nomination. There are numerous books about him, including those listed above and Il marchese rampante by Enrico Mannucci. His entry in the Dizionario Biografico degli Italiani, the reference national biography of Italy, is here. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 17:52, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep and Snowball -- wait, you're talking about THE Emilio Pucci, the one who went to Reed College? Don't be silly. --Lockley (talk) 22:18, 7 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 Messages (Apple). (non-admin closure) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text (iOS)[edit]

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

No sources, seems to be useless. Thanoscar21_{talk, contribs} 23:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Messages (Apple). There is nothing in this article worth keeping, but it is conceivable that someone might search for this when looking for Apple's messaging service. The target article does mention Text, so the redirect will make sense. "The mobile version of Messages on iOS used on iPhone and iPad also supports SMS and MMS due to replacing the older text messaging Text app since iPhone OS 3." --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Messages (Apple) per Puzzledvegetable. {{u|Sdkb}} ^talk 00:37, 7 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) 15:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pay Phone (Edson Song)[edit]

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

Borderline A9, but does not qualify in my mind since it has alleged chart hits. I am unable to verify these chart hits. In any event does not meet Wikipedia:Notability (music)#Singles or GNG. With the exception of a YouTube channel with 31 subscribers, I have found little on "Pay Phone" (by Edson) when searching for sources. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 12:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have tagged the article for speedy deletion as a hoax given that this song never actually has been charted and that the article creator manipulated links to look like Billboard had charted the song. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I have removed the G3 tag because the article is not a blatant hoax - in other words, there actually is such a song. Other deletion criteria may apply. -- MelanieN (talk) 21:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case then Delete. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete: Per G3. If it is not a hoax, then it fails WP:NMUSIC. The "cover art" just looks somebody put text over a stock image of a woman talking on a pay phone, so I tagged that with speedy deletion. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 18:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It certainly should be deleted, however the song does exist on YouTube: [21] (157 views), [22] (313 views), [23] (149 views), as well as Apple Music, Spotify, and few other sites (see external links in the article). So while elements in the article fail verification (the charts), the existence of this song itself is not a hoax. So this is not a G3, and due to non-verifiable content it is not an A9. It would be nice if there were speedy deletion criteria for such obvious cases as this song (where the non-verifiable content precludes an A9), but that is a matter of wider policy.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 06:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:NSONG. Eostrix is correct, this doesn't qualify for a speedy deletion per G3 because the song definitely exists – however, there is absolutely no indication that it is notable in any way. The chart positions are definitely all fake – the "year-end chart" was supposedly accessed four months before the chart was published, and the year-end chart is only a top 50 anyway. Richard3120 (talk) 15:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The song may exist, but any claims of notability (chart positions) fails verification. -- Whpq (talk) 20:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - It's not hoax but likely fails verification and WP:NSONG. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:43, 11 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. Wizardman 20:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adrian Chivers[edit]

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

Non-notable music person, does not pass MUSICBIO or GNG. He has filled a role as an engineer, producer, etc. for notable musicians but he is not notable himself. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Daniel Pennie. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:56, 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📧) 12:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is PR --Devokewater (talk) 15:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable background person in music development.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:03, 6 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) 15:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniel Pennie[edit]

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

Borderline A7, but article does assert some significance. Not close to meeting GNG or MUSICBIO. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:50, 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📧) 12:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not mentioned much in reliable sources. I don’t think the subject even meets WP:GNG. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could find no third-party in-depth sources. Narky Blert (talk) 10:54, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oliver Aquino[edit]

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

Possibly non-notable actor. No reference provided in article and non could be found. Checking Google news, I only found reviews about films he starred in (or at least I think he starred in). An example is https://news.abs-cbn.com/life/04/05/19/movie-review-jino-to-mari-will-make-you-feel-dirty-and-guilty, but I'm not too sure if it's the same guy as this film didn't appear in his IMDB. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 6 July 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) 11:43, 6 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) 11:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It is way past time we got rid of every single article on Wikipedia sourced only to GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable actor, no claim to notability, one single poor source. --Lockley (talk) 03:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from his lead role in an LGBT movie. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:47, 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 redirect's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zala/Jhala Rajput’s[edit]

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

Delete as the topic already exists Jhala_(clan). Should be work on the existing article. No Redirect because the naming is not proper. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 10:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 08:36, 12 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tone Okrogar Primary School[edit]

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

Deproded article. No notability given for this primary school, apart from the fact that it was the primary school of Janez Drnovšek, which is not really a claim for notability. Citing WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Tone 10:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete primary schools are not generally notable. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 12:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary schools are almost never notable, even if they were founded over 150 years ago. We would clearly need sources that add up to actual notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovenia-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:27, 9 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 Java (programming language). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deterministic Parallel Java[edit]

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

Does this have the coverage or significance to meet WP:NOTABILITY? I couldn't establish that it does, but it is borderline. Plenty of sources to prove it exists. Possible ATD is merge/redirect or redirect to Java (programming language). Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Java (programming language). I just think there's enough there as a topic or when it comes to sourcing for it to have a separate article, but it's worth mentioning in the Java (programming language) article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:58, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge seems sensible. Quite a few sources, but I don't think there'll be sufficient bulk of content to require a separate article. If that turns out to be the case, can always be split out again. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:25, 7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DeadXheaD[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. I'm aware that there may be Russian-language sources I have missed, although I have tried through Google translate and there is no Russian WP article. It has a review on Metal Archives, but so seems to have every notable or non-notable metal band. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 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📧) 09:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable band. Metal Archives is not a reliable source. The article is sourced to databases and social media pages only which is always a bad sign. I did a Google search and I did not found anything reliable. It does not have an article on the Russian Wikipedia either. There might be some reliable sources in Russian but I don't speak Russian. This article has been sitting here since 2007. One of their albums apparently has an article as well, I think it can go to AfD too. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:15, 6 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 16:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of film series by director[edit]

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

I have a very very hard time seeing what purpose this exactly serves, the vast majority of film series are not bound to a single creator. ★Trekker (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ★Trekker (talk) 07:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. You may have just answered your own question... postdlf (talk) 14:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be a nonsensical list that doesn't have any clear purpose or inclusion criteria besides "directors of films." Which is way to broad. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete film series are not often held together by a director. Note that even in the original Star Wars trilogy Lucas was not the director of all the films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 6 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) 18:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaders of the Syrian Civil War[edit]

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

Unsalvageable original research. If kept, Donald Trump and Emanuel Macron must be added. Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:OR Cabayi (talk) 07:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - this is a very low quality article of no value. Nick-D (talk) 23:49, 10 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life:) Belarus[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish it is WP:NOTABLE. Possible redirect to Turkcell. Boleyn (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 16:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2014-12 move to → Life Belarus (Telecom)

Comment per above I would recommend relisting again rather than soft deletion. This is an article on a non-English language topic and it has WP articles in 5 languages, as well as having existed for several years. None of this proves notability at all, but means it is worth careful consideration. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 06:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As per nominator's rationale and no other !vote made
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Harsh 06:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This lacks sources in English to establish notability. I know that's a de facto reason to delete something, but doing a quick glance over of sources in other languages it seems like they are all extremely trivial topics that don't pass WP:NCORP. For instance them opening new stores or costumers complaining about their service sucking. Which could apply to any mobile operator. Maybe there's a speck of gold in there somewhere, but it's doubtful and un-realistic to expect anyone who only speaks English like me to find it. It's fine though since there are other language articles about it, that would be relevant and readable to people where the company operates. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a brief search of the web shows mentions of the company's existence and coverage is trivial, does not go beyond the existence or services of the company. Coverage of Belarusian topics is difficult due to the lack of media infrastructure. Might be better suited to a local version of wikipedia. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:55, 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. Some coverage is noted, but no clear consensus one way or the other whether this meets GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:16, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iñaki Peña[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Subject fails both WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY, never played in a WP:FPL. MYS 77 ^✉ 03:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep played 38 games in the Spanish Second Division. SportingFlyer T·C 04:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL; his appearances for Barcelona B were in the third-tier Segunda División B as confirmed by this. @SportingFlyer: you might wish to reconsider. Giant Snowman 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahhh right, they were relegated. Still potentially satisfies WP:GNG as there have been at least four feature articles written on him, but they're Euro-style and short such as [24]. Very weak keep or draftify, but at worst WP:TOOSOON. SportingFlyer T·C 05:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 14:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment he actually does meet WP:GNG, and he's been promoted to become Barcelona's second choice goalkeeper, which is very notable [25], even if he doesn't technically pass WP:NFOOTY yet. Stuff like: [26] [27]. At worst this is WP:TOOSOON for a few days. SportingFlyer T·C 00:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG with references provided above. Sometimes I wonder if we should have different guidelines for backup keepers ... he has some 20+ games on the bench as the backup keeper for one of the best teams on the planet. And yet doesn't meet NFOOTBALL. On the other hand, such players will always meet GNG, with a little searching. Nfitz (talk) 21:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need a review of SportingFlyer's soruces.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dps04 (talk) 03:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - seems about enough to pass GNG Spiderone 07:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He doesn't meet NFOOTBALL and most or all of the articles are just about how he played backup for other injured players. There doesn't seem to be anything notable about his career though, like tournaments won or any notable stats about him. The justification that the article should be kept because there must be sources about him is rather weak also. I'm pretty sure people looked for proper sources. It's not like the article can't be recreated once he's actually notable for something if he ever is. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's been the backup goalkeeper for the biggest team in the world for the last seven games, ever since COVID took. I did look for, and found, proper sources, which makes sense considering he's one of I think 18 people listed on the teamsheet week in week out for one of the top five most important football teams anywhere. SportingFlyer T·C 16:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SportingFlyer. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Currently second-choice keeper for one of the best teams on the planet (F.C. Barcelona). Also passes WP:GNG. It seems a bit ridiculous to me that playing 5 minutes for a League 2 team in the Johnstone's Paint Trophy infront of 500 people 10 years ago gets you a WP:NFOOTY pass, but sitting on the bench for 7 games at F.C. Barcelona doesn't. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 18:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlessandroTiandelli333: Arnau Tenas was on the bench yesterday, not Peña, aside from Neto (footballer, born 1989). So who's the "third-choice"? As @Adamant1 said, he doesn't pass NFOOTBALL, most of the articles talking about him are stating that he will be on the bench or something like that. If we allow pages that pass NFOOTBALL per the amount of coverage (which is gigantic in the case of Barcelona, Real Madrid, Manchester United and so on), then all players of the B-team will pass NFOOTBALL as well. MYS 77 ^✉ 00:10, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be honest I'm fine with that. All but 4 of the players on the B Team roster have articles anyway. Players playing for Barcelona B would definetely be full time as well so should really pass WP:NFOOTBALL. If someone can get an article for a substitute appearance in a minor competition for a League Two team then Barcelona's temporary second choice keeper should get an article too. They are much more notable in my eyes. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 00:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, as I edited the article to cover the good sources on him, not these unimportant "matchday list" references which add nothing to the article substancially, in my opinion. As you all can see, there's not much aside from those normal matchday lists to make him pass WP:GNG. He's mainly a promising goalkeeper whose status is currently growing due to the rumours of his promotion to the first team squad next season. For now, I still think it's WP:TOOSOON. MYS 77 ^✉ 03:20, 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) (t · c) buidhe 12:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Radziner[edit]

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

partial promotional duplicate of Marmol Radziner DGG ( talk ) 18:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable architect. --Micky (talk) 02:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge >Marmol Radziner, where bio of founder would be appropriate.07:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)
Move to draft. As far as I can recall, there was mention of a significant award that was removed from the article on the firm because it was about this subject as an individual, not the firm. If that can be tracked down and properly sourced, the subject probably meets WP:ARCHITECT, but this certainly doesn't belong in mainspace until that question is resolved, and the article is generally improved. BD2412 T 15:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Noting the "keep" votes below, I would change my !vote to keep if it is apparent that the improvements suggested will be implemented in the article. BD2412 T 03:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Does Radziner qualify to have an individual article outside of the firm? I believe he does. It comes down to significant coverage in reliable sources and if they are about him or the firm. There are many about him alone but it is hard to find as they are buried in articles about the firm. Here are some LA Mag, New York Times, Architectural Digest, Southbay, Curbed LA. I am in the middle of studies and don't have time to fully update the article with these so if it is going to be removed, please move it to draft so I can work on it when I am finished with exams. --RTotzke (talk) 03:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - there appear to be many print sources where Ron Radziner is the primary topic (him specifically and not Marmol Radziner) (e.g. [28] [29]) also his separate notability as a board member of the Mojave Desert Land Trust ([30] [31]) which would be an awkward inclusion in an article in the firm. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:13, 6 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. It appears that the sourcing exists to support an independent article, but ultimately it is an editorial decision whether to merge the various articles on proposals for a federal China, which doesn't have to be decided at AfD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The New Federal State of China[edit]

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

Cross-wiki spamming. Mys_721tx (talk) 09:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but heavily re-write or TNT. It's a notable subject - a proposed new government for China made by emigres and Steve Bannon that has received WP:SIGCOV in recent months (see, e.g., 1 2 3) and will likely continue to receive some coverage. However, as it stand the article is POV garbage and as the nom says, spam. FOARP (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in my User Talk, my page has reputable secondary independent sources, namely, Taiwan News which is established in 1949, Asia Power Watch launched in 2019 by Nicolas Michelon who is a 20-year veteran of Asia-Pacific business, finance and economic research, NTD News which is based in New York with correspondents in over 70 cities worldwide, Mr. Stephen Kevin Bannon's own Youtube Channel, etc.) --Tigmo9098 (talk) 21:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hope Wikipedia does not tolerate trash talk and bad behavior ruin its reputation. Thanks for your helpful attention. --Tigmo9098 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NTD is not an RS, neither is Taiwan News really if you're familiar with it. Bannon's Youtube channel is also not a reliable source. Reliance on these sources for points of fact is part of why the article needs a heavy re-write. FOARP (talk) 11:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or back to Draft, indeed cross-wiki spamming and lacks of reliable sources. CommanderWaterford (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 13:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I've attempted a re-write. There are reliable sources covering the declaration and their coverage does amount to enough content to fill a small article. My main concern at the moment is whether this article covering what ultimately is an WP:EVENT is going to be WP:LASTING, but this will take some months to become clear. FOARP (talk) 13:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Report Abuse - There is an on-going deletion of sections of my entry. Now it is reduced to three paragraphs. --Tigmo9098 (talk) 14:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleting parts of the article that are written in unencyclopedic fashion relying on unreliable sources and replacing them with better-written text relying on better sources is simply part of the editing process. If you don't want to let people improve this article, you are going to have a hard time stopping it being deleted in this AFD. If you feel that people are "abusing" you, you are free to report them at WP:ANI. FOARP (talk) 14:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi..NOT agree delete this article. Fox News , NYPost and NYtimes all report the The New Federal State of China ..its fact that real happened in real world, delete this article is against wiki’s neutral rule .. maybe some part need improve.. but NOT delete — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.228.254.68 (talk) 13:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Completely rewrite or delete - at the moment it is mostly pure promotion and reads like a press release for the originators.Orenburg1 (talk) 06:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t delete unless can’t be rewritten - receiving coverage, but needs to be rewritten drastically and needs editors to go about hunting for reliable citations. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:19, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rewrite- The subject is receiving coverage from media, but article needs clearer citations and much of the content initially in the article before it was removed was unsourced. Wikipedians could go looking for citations to improve the article. Heyoostorm (talk) 14:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to be a subsection of an article discussing 爆料革命 (with the article title being Baoliao geming / Whistleblower Movement / Exposé Revolution / whatever translation is the most common in the press), or put the article back into draft space. As per the equivalent Chinese wiki article, this is a small part of a larger movement. There seems to be significant media coverage for The New Federal State of China, but describing it as a government in exile or a micronation is misrepresenting what the group actually is/how it functions. In an article Steve Bannon calls it a government, but describes it as an advocacy group, and the WSJ calls it a campaign. Based on the sources, this group doesn't seem to function anything like a government/govt in exile/micronation at all (yet - it might do in the future but that's WP:CRYSTALBALL). --Prosperosity (talk) 02:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Human rights in China, or delete; this group appears to exist as a political statement of criticism of human rights in China. BD2412 T 03:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - No good WP:DELREASON or merger reason is stated here. Human rights in China is a massive topic and the article is clearly already too big. Whilst this involves some people who are also involved in the Whistleblower movement, others involved in the declaration (e.g., Hao) are different. "Government in exile" is just a descriptor used in the article and can be replaced with any other descriptor through ordinary editing - I think the topic is essentially an WP:EVENT in nature. A distinct WP:GNG notability for this topic separate to Human rights in China and the Whistleblower Movement has already been established - I've got doubts about how WP:SUSTAINED coverage will be, but that will take months to become clear. FOARP (talk) 09:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Human rights in China with chance of recreation later when it's actually a thing and not just being mentioned in the news because Bannon is associated with it. If it wasn't for that, I doubt it would have gotten any national coverage at all and notability isn't by association. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't make sense. That something is notable for a particular reason (because Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui are behind it) doesn't mean it cannot be notable. A piece of music is not automatically non-notable because it was written by a couple of notable musicians. No-one here is trying to argue WP:INHERITED notability - the subject is clearly standing on its own two legs in the coverage of it. Finally, the connection of this subject to human rights in China is basically non-existent and the Human rights in China article is already way too long even if it was connected to it - discussing this topic on that page would also clearly be WP:UNDUE. FOARP (talk) 17:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense to me. Most of the coverage seems to have happened within the week span of a single event in early June. The flying of a banner in New York that said “Congratulations to Federal State of New China!”. That's mostly it. To take a quote from someone in one of the articles, who happens to be the Asia advocacy director at the nonprofit Human Rights Watch BTW, ""None of us have any idea what the f is going on,” he tweeted after consulting his colleagues. “Apparently it has something to do with Steve Bannon but it still makes no sense.”" Now, does "I don't know what's going on, but hey Steve Bannon is involved in it somehow" sound like something that's notable on it's own or something that's notable because of the connection to Steve Bannon? Not to me. Especially when someone like the Asia advocacy director at the nonprofit Human Rights Watch is only tweeting about it because of Bannon being involved. If some random person flew the same banner over a small Midwestern town would it have gotten any national coverage? Probably not. The articles are clear it only did because of Steve Bannon. Otherwise, people like the one I quoted would have just been confused for a minute and gone about their day. The fact that there wasn't sustained coverage of it after the week of the banner waving proves that. It also means the whole thing violates the WP:NOTNEWS guidelines. If it was actually meaningful (sourcing wise) beyond being a Bannon stunt news outlets would still be covering it and without mention it's connection to Bannon repeatedly, but they aren't. So it's not. Again, no one even seems to have known what it was or cared about it except for that. That is the definition of WP:INHERITED notability. It doesn't matter if people are trying to argue it or not. My point was that it's the only reason it's being covered as a topic. Last time I checked we are evaluating notability based on the sources, not on the AfD discussion. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:58, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is an WP:EVENT-type article so I think it's right to ask whether it will be lasting, but we won't know that for a while longer (per WP:LASTING it takes months for this to become known, and it's plausible that more might come out of this) and it is still being talked about (in the WSJ no less - which notably gives Guo Wengui and Bannon equal billing). People saying it's something to do with Bannon doesn't mean it should be redirected to his article since he is quite possibly not the most important person involved (Guo Wengui might well be, as he is a billionaire and is also mentioned repeatedly in connection with it, or Hao or any of the others). Asking "would this be notable if it weren't for the things that make it notable?" seems unlikely to result in productive debate. FOARP (talk) 17:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A few things, first obviously everything "might" get lasting coverage when it gets lasting coverage. That's just circular reasoning though and it's not the point of WP:EVENT anyway. What is if this has lasting a lasting effect and that just can't be determined right now. My opinion is that it won't, but my opinion doesn't matter. What does is that like WP:EVENT says "An event that is a precedent or catalyst for something else of lasting significance is likely to be notable." Which it's currently WP:TOSOON to tell and recreation when (or if) it does become a lasting event occurs. A single news source that has had a sustained far right anti-Chinese bent for a while now continuing to beat a dead horse about it doesn't count as sustained coverage IMO. It has to be multiple sources and especially neutral ones. I'm fine with using the Wall Street Journal for this in tandem with other sources, but not on it's own. The same goes for a single left leaning news paper being the only one continuing to cover a left leaning event though. There just has to be more then that.

Second, I assume the article is about an event or WP:EVENT and WP:TOSOON wouldn't matter. Plus, the article is called "The New Federal State of China", not "Steve Bannon and Guo Wengui's The New Federal State of China." So the notability isn't about them. It's about the The New Federal State of China and the events surrounding it. Otherwise, it should just be mentioned in Steve Bannon's or Guo Wengui article. This isn't at all comparable to something like the plane crash of Buddy Holly or the 2020 Calabasas helicopter crash where it's appropriate to have separate articles from the celebrates involved because the events themselves had lasting impact. No one except the Wall Street Journal is continuing to carry this and even then not a bunch. As is, it was obviously a failed anti-Chinese publicity stunt that went no where. I'm not saying that's good or bad, just that it doesn't meet the notability standard in it's current state. Like I said, it's not like it can't be recreated when or if it does get more long-term coverage in sources besides the WSJ. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: There are already 2 existing articles like this one. United States of China and Federal Republic of China. This new one should probably be merged under those articles. It'd actually be best to merge all three articles into one comprehensive article... there's absolutely no need to have 3 articles on Wikipedia all talking about possibility of federal China. Makes little sense.--Jamie Tubers (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's actually a good call. It looks like the sources for the other two are kind of questionable, but they would probably all be notable enough as a single "federal China" topic with it's own article. Someone just needs to create one I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:10, 11 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 mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List. While the current consensus is to redirect, should coverage prove to be ongoing the article content and history will still be there for future improvement and work. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Bluff shooting[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. A shooting with such low casualty numbers (two deaths including the gunman and four injuries) is absolutely non-notable, especially in a country with a gun violence epidemic like the United States. This Associate Press article pretty much makes it clear that those are the only numbers we're going to get, so I can't imagine this event getting any worse. Love of Corey (talk) 06:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this happened yesterday. WP:RAPID - suggest search for sources again in a few days once other news sources have covered it (or have not, confirming its not notable) --DannyS712 (talk) 07:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep current sourcing indicates that this meets GNG DannyS712 (talk) 05:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How? Low-casualty incidents like this are a dime a dozen in the U.S. What makes this one stand out aside from the news coverage, which is always typical for a breaking news event such as this? Love of Corey (talk) 05:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Love of Corey: This doesn't necessarily "stard out" - those mass shootings, if they have the coverage, are all likely notable DannyS712 (talk) 22:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Read my excerpt below. Love of Corey (talk) 23:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is no universally-accepted metric for difining a “mass shooting.” The FBI, however, defines “mass murder” as an incident in which four or more people are either killed or injured. In this case, there were six. Apart from that, the shooting has received enough coverage from reliable sources to meet WP:SIGCOV. KidAd (talk) 08:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - In response to KidAd, how long do you think that news coverage is going to last, especially with those casualty numbers? The 24-hour news cycle is definitely going to drop this in the blink of an eye. Love of Corey (talk) 09:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t really understand what you’re getting at. A notable event doesn’t need to permanantly remain until the news to maintain notability. KidAd (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:EVENTCRITERIA. Love of Corey (talk) 09:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meets WP:GNG. KidAd (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Editors should bear in mind recentism, the tendency for new and current matters to seem more important than they might seem in a few years time. Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally. A violent crime, accidental death, or other media events may be interesting enough to reporters and news editors to justify coverage, but this will not always translate into sufficient notability for a Wikipedia article." Love of Corey (talk) 09:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My question is what exactly does this event have that makes it sufficiently notable, aside from the coverage as of now? What do we have that would cause a source like CNN to revisit it in the days and weeks ahead? Love of Corey (talk) 09:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Let me also invoke WP:MILL. Love of Corey (talk) 09:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge - Keep, or merge per WP:CHEAP to Red Bluff, California#History or List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List. --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd endorse a merge if needs be. I can't imagine this article being expanded any further based on the information we have. Love of Corey (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning to Keep Article appears to meet WP:GNG as a quick google search shows that there has been significant coverage by reliable third party sources. I'm inclined to to agree with KidAd. Looking at the comments by Love of Corey I don't think that WP:MILL applies here, looking at the examples of when WP:MILL should apply (as shown on that page) this is not the kind of article that this is aimed at. Possibly WP:NOTNP or WP:EVENT could apply here depending on the depth of coverage and whether there is any lasting impact but I have not researched sufficiently to determine whether these are likely to apply and it is unlikely we are going to be able to do so until some days have past.Tracland (talk) 17:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This was another case of a disgruntled worker. Can't get any more routine than this. Love of Corey (talk) 18:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your flippancy is concerning. KidAd (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How so? Love of Corey (talk) 18:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a therapist, but your stance of "not enough people died/just another case of a disgruntled worker" seems a bit cold. And neither are notability standards. While the most heinous examples of gun violence often receive significant coverage, it is also important to spotlight incidents with lower casualty numbers. KidAd (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't get to dictate which events should get spotlighted; the amount and kind of news coverage does. Events with smaller casualty numbers like the Poway synagogue shooting and the Saugus High School shooting got substantial articles because they nevertheless received significant attention from politicians and other figures in addition to news sources. There's no sign of that kind of attention here. Love of Corey (talk) 18:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List. This is a cut and paste of every shooting response ever.... the media reports on it, and there are people who offer their condolences. I do not see what stands out about this shooting that makes it any different than the dozens of other mass shootings on the list. There isn't even any international coverage of this event... - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - It's been over a week since the shooting occurred, and according to this Google search, all national coverage has completely stopped after a day or two. Local coverage persisted for a little while longer, but even those sources don't have any new articles posted in the past 48 hours, which tells me they're starting to lose interest too. At this point, Knowledgekid87's suggestion is the most reasonable outcome, along with a possible brief mention on the Red Bluff, California article. Other than that, I don't see how this event deserves its own article. It hasn't even received any notable reaction from third-party figures of importance like politicians or celebrities, not even once. Love of Corey (talk) 21:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For me things like this come down to how much regional or national news coverage the event receives. I see there's a few articles from the Sacramento Bee and Yahoo News, but I'm not sure that's enough. Maybe if Record Searchlight was considered regional, but they have came up as a source a few times and I've never been able to figure it out definitively. If someone can't make a case that they are or provide other national news articles about the indecent that aren't already in the article I'd be more then willing to vote keep though. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~delete~~ An unfortunately routine workplace shooting, with all of the standard features and coverage. Mangoe (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On further consideration I recommend Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List per below. Mangoe (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List. This is clearly a very tragic event, and it did get articles in national news sources, including The New York Times and CNN, but it's not clear that it merits a stand alone article. Events such as these should be shown to have a lasting effect and both a depth and continuance of coverage to indicate notability. It seems that the news cycle has largely stopped reporting on the shooting, and it isn't shown to be any more notable or lasting than any other mass shooting. Wikipedia is not news, and this event doesn't seem to have lasting notability. Again, this doesn't make the event any less tragic, just means that it doesn't merit its own article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of mass shootings in the United States in 2020#List. After looking into it more I think that's the reasonable thing to do. It was notable enough for some national coverage when it happened. So it's worth a mention somewhere. But it isn't sustained enough to warrant an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Good sourcing. Substantial article that would not benefit from a merge. Also per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because a topic is well-sourced doesn't mean it's inherently notable. You'd think this would have persisting coverage if this wasn't so notable. Love of Corey (talk) 18:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please be careful not to WP:BLUDGEON the discussion: "The more often you express the same reason in a given discussion, the less effective your words become." - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Love of Corey (talk) 09:37, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshman Ganesh Thatte[edit]

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

A politician who never elected as an MLA or MP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 05:21, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete per nom Spiderone 15:47, 11 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. There is ample disagreement over whether the sourcing constitutes significant coverage, and the fact that much of it is in Hindi doesn't make it any easier. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adesh Kumar Gupta[edit]

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

A politician who never elected as an MLA or MP. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As per WP:POLOUTCOMES; he was the mayor of one of the largest municipalities in India ("mayors of cities of at least regional prominence have usually survived AFD"), he is an elected councillor of a "main citywide government of internationally famous metropolitan area" i.e. Delhi and he is the president of a sub-region of one of the 2 major political parties in India. As per WP:BASIC; he has "received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources" in both English and Hindi national newspapers (variant of name in English and Hindi).--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Deepak G Goswami. Not being elected as MLA/MP cannot solely be criteria for deletion -- Ab207 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the Municipal Corporations in Delhi are by far the most insignificant elected body in the city due to the existence of the Legislative Assembly of Delhi and the fact that the city is an Union Territory. Councillors of the MCD can't be considered notable and the mayorial status of the 5 individual municipal corporations are also largely ceremonial. The only criteria which remains is if he has had significant coverage as an individual which he has not, there are only passing mentions in relation to the Bharatiya Janata Party which he is a part of; notability is not inherited by individuals from being part of any organisation however notable the org maybe. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is rather an ill-informed argument. Firstly, you are wrong that there are 5 municipal corporations in Delhi (there's a difference between a "corporation", a "council" and a "cantonment board"; and, the most important difference is that while the representatives of corporations are elected through universal suffrage, members of the councils and cantonment boards are appointed). Secondly, this is your point of view that "municipal corporations in Delhi are by far the most insignificant elected body in the city"; all municipal corporations in India have 2 two types of responsibilities: obligatory and discretionary, and in the case of Delhi the municipal bodies share these responsibilities with the Government of NCT of Delhi. Both—the government and the corporations—have clear demarcation in their roles and if we go by your logic that because Delhi is a union territory the corporations are "insignificant" then the Govt. of Delhi also becomes "insignificant" as its responsibilities are overwhelmingly limited by the federally-owned bodies including Delhi Police, Delhi Development Authority and the Office of the Lieutenant Governor of Delhi. Similarly, the Chief Minister of Delhi also becomes a "ceremonial" position. It is a flawed argument because in the case of Delhi multiple agencies (owned by the Federal Govt., the State Govt., and the Corporations) have their different roles and responsibilities like in many parts of the world where the national capitals are federal territories, be that Washington, D.C. or Islamabad. The mayor of any corporation in Delhi is not some "nominal" person as he or she is the executive head of different agencies in Delhi which provide number of amenities to millions of people. Finally, coming to your second argument that "there are only passing mentions in relation to the Bharatiya Janata Party which he is a part of", you are wrong again unless you consider in-depth coverage of a person from his academic life to progress into political career in different national newspapers as "passing mentions" (Dainik Jagran, Hindustan, Navbharat Times, Aaj Tak, The Indian Express, and so many others!). Moreover, even his actions and statements are covered by multiple news sources which, IMHO, do not belittle the notability of subject as "passing mentions" in relation to the organisation he is a part of.--Deepak G Goswami (talk) 12:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non elected politician. fails WP:POLITICIAN. DMySon 04:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sourcing in article indicates subject passes BASIC/GNG, which makes failing NPOL irrelevant. --Goldsztajn (talk) 03:59, 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 List of crossings of the Minnesota River. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I-494 Minnesota River Bridge[edit]

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

A WP:MILL unnamed highway bridge. Nothing notable in the description. One source is looks like an individuals blog, the other are certainly not independent. Insufficient in-depth independent coverage in RS, does not meet WP:GNG MB 02:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 02:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MB 02:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Seems to be an ordinary deck plate highway bridge, with no claim for notability in the article. Mangoe (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~Redirect to the list per WP:Mill and GNG. Your standard highway bridge, of which there are millions on the United States. Also doesn't seem to have garnered coverage outside of the blogosphere and a few Minnesota DOT primary sources. Hog Farm _Bacon 04:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC). Didn't see the list, redirect to where mentioned as a logical search term. Hog Farm _Bacon 00:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable Devokewater (talk) 09:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ ~~No claim of significance. Bingobro (Chat) 14:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]
Redirect Well, this list exists so, it'd be better to redirect this to the list per WP:ATD-R. Bingobro (Chat) 14:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unsure The pedestrian walkway is unique on an interstate bridge in 1982, and the said blogger is a bridge engineer of some sort. Is there a notability guideline for bridges? Looks as though the author was attempting to work on this list: List of crossings of the Minnesota River Comm260 ncu (talk) 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think bridges are judged under GNG. Hog Farm _Bacon 17:15, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of crossings of the Minnesota River, the right target, since alternatives to deletion are best.23:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of crossings of the Minnesota River, it is covered in a table there, so redirecting is the best choice. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:22, 11 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fitri Department[edit]

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

Sourceless stub Thanks, (talk) 02:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as sources exist: 1, 2, 3. Mccapra (talk) 03:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
maybe keep It clearly is a department; the question is whether departments are inherently notable in Chad. The few articles on them that I've looked at had no real content beyond identifying them, so it is possible a map and list of the lot is preferable. Mangoe (talk) 03:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this is good enough. If we can't say anything significant about these departments as individuals, if all we can do is present a map and what would fit into a table of data about the lot, then a map and a table within the main article is a better presentation, and this should just redirect to it. 13:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obviously, per WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:16, 13 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 Art+Feminism. Useful content can be merged to that article. Consensus is that the subject doesn't meet WP:N at this time. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 12:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacqueline Mabey[edit]

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

Non-noteworthy individual Thanks, (talk) 02:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know the subject, so I have a CoI, but I'm no so sure about "non-noteworthy". Foreign Policy Magazine has listed her as one of the "Chroniclers" in their 2014 list of Global Thinkers. [32] Someone, at some point, took note. Vexations (talk) 10:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete can't see any evidence the subject meets the general notability guideline, while there is coverage it's interviews and passing mentions in articles about Wikipedia editathons. Given the nature of the subject I would expect any references to be easily available online. The Foreign Policy mention would only count if it is a "well-known and significant award or honor" (WP:BIO) and even then it would only indicate that she was likely to be notable. Hut 8.5 12:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Foreign Policy and other sources provide notability for the article. The Wikipedia Art and Feminism project is already a notable topic, and as a major co-founder Mabey passes the bar and is likely mentioned in many more sources on that page. And per WP:BLUEGREENHAIR. Randy Kryn (talk) 13:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to avoid navel gazing. If someone is most notable for work related to Wikipedia, I see no reason to have an article on them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- So, we can delete Jimbo Wales, then? XOR'easter (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, "we" don't. Please remember that Wikipedia is the world's largest and likely most accurate encyclopedia (except, often, when covering recent news events) and the world's largest volunteer collaboration project. Its notability is well established, so articles about Wikipedia are not about "us" but about a major and notable educational force in the world. Randy Kryn (talk) 23:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 18:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Art+Feminism - There are sources about the article's subject, but not with the necessary scope and breadth of in-depth coverage. This interview is useful, but not sufficient and they've written various pieces, but that too is not enough to meet the notability standard. The interviews are in the context of Art+Feminism and that should be the target of the redirect. There may well be independent notability in the future, and I have no objection to recreation of a standalone article in the future if that happens. Alansohn (talk) 00:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Art+Feminism. There are quite a few passing mentions, and a couple of interviews, but I'm not seeing the sort of coverage that would help pass GNG, and that award is clearly not enough for an NBIO pass. When she is mentioned, it is mostly briefly as part of larger coverage of the project. However, there are a couple of sources here that would be useful at the target article, so a selective merge seems like the best approach. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:33, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Art+Feminism as co-founder.Djflem (talk) 10:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have added 13 potential new sources at the talk page Talk:Jacqueline Mabey that could be used to expand the page and improve its sourcing to meet WP:GNG. (talk) 21:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment First let me declare I have a COI, as a co-founder of Art+Feminism, and will not be !voting, just leaving this comment. I want to point out a few big picture considerations regarding the discussion as it has evolved, and may evolve after my comment.

The "Art+Feminism already has a page” and “subject is already covered there” argument is a misapplication of WP:NOTINHEIRITED. This is a misunderstanding of the relationship between creators and the things they create. For example, there are countless artists, actors, writers, curators, musicians whose notability derives purely from the artwork they made, TV shows/movies they were in, book they wrote, exhibition they curated, or band that they were in and who have far less WP:RS than is the case here.
Wikipedia is not apart from culture, it is a part of culture. It is surreal to argue that because someone became notable because of their advocacy and activism work to change the gender gap on Wikipedia, that Wikipedia shouldn't "navel gaze" and write about them. I will point out that when Wikipedia does include articles about Wikipedia people, the trend is to prioritize technical and editing work, and deprioritize organizing and community work. You can see that here at the List of Wikipedia people or the Category:Wikipedia people. This dialectic of course reflects the biases of the community's own values (see RfA discussions re edit count! edit count! edit count!) and also reflects the implicit biases of Wikipedia's Gender Gap.
Discounting either of these two points by pointing to WP:OTHERSTUFF is a way of avoiding reckoning with Wikipedia’s systemic biases; by Wikipedia, I mean the both Encyclopedia and the community. Treating every single question or discussion as isolated from a system, reproduces systemic problems.
This discussion is missing some key participants. Firstly, there are dozens of gender gap editors who, like me, cannot !vote here precisely because the subject and the project/organization/movement they co-founded has had such an impact that all of them have a COI. But also, because this article wasn’t sorted right: it should have been sorted to Arts, Sexuality and gender given that the article subject’s area of work is literally Art and Feminism but also because the article subject uses they/them pronouns (and has been misgendered throughout this discussion.)

Lastly, I want to raise the consideration that this nomination itself was not made in good faith. The nominator is a very new account that very quickly began edit warring over contentious edits to Gamergate protected gender and sexuality articles, such as adding deadnames in to trans people’s pages [33] Very quickly they were warned, though they deleted these warnings from their talk page [34] and [35]. The user was able to fire off this nomination in between their first [36] and second block. [37] And the user is now apparently Retired [38]. While that doesn’t change the fact that the article has been nominated, and is being discussed, it does point back to the above points. Theredproject (talk) 01:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and Redirect to Art+Feminism. One of 4 co-founders of a fairly minor "edit-a-thon" that seemingly only took place between 2014 and 2017. All of the references are for WP:ONEVENT which does have a justifiable level of coverage to have an article on its own, but this co-founder hasn't received coverage for anything else. To be honest, 3/4 of the co-founders probably aren't notable. I don't think we should have articles on everyone who co-founds an event because they got interviewed about it. This seems largely a place for this person to put their resume. Per the user's concerns, we can't just keep articles with poor or no sourcing in an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, otherwise, we could end up putting out false information. I don't see how the nominator's support of the Gamergate movement is relevant. If this article goes to delete I will list Siân Evans (librarian) as well as she is also only notable for co-founding this event. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:34, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlessandroTiandelli333, umm.. a fairly minor "edit-a-thon" that seemingly only took place between 2014 and 2017 isn't correct. There have been many, and they're still being organized. Check your sources.

Also: People who organize such edit-a-thons, or, more just generally women who engage in on-line speech in general, are frequently harassed in an attempt to silence them. I think the the mention of Gamergate refers to such behaviour; some people may feel this nomination for deletion is a form of harassment, and I do. One could make the argument that the motivation of the nominator is irrelevant, of course, and even continue that behaviour, insisting that such nominations simply reflect the lack of sources. From a self-identied paleoconservative, I find that unconvincing. If you're really concerned about lack of sourcingin wikipedia article, I have a list of video game companies with no sources at all you might want to tackle, instead of under-sourced article of people whose politics you oppose. Vexations (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't addressed any of the arguments on this afd. We don't change wiki guidelines because someone thinks they are being poorly treated. The only point you have made is that WP:OSE. The point remains that this person is only notable for WP:ONEEVENT, i.e co-founding the editathon, so, therefore, fails WP:GNG. If you can find other sources of this person getting coverage for other things I and other editors may be willing to reconsider. Did the person that listed this article have the intentions to remove this person as they disagree with them? Perhaps. Is it relevant? No. If someone fails wiki notability guidelines then they shouldn't have an article. If you think that constitutes "harassment" then perhaps you should take it up with an admin and try to remove the afd process. And yes, I'm a conservative, what of it? I've voted to keep articles of people "whose ideology I oppose" multiple times, even when the majority voted delete, for instance, this from just last week: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sarah Iannarone. Has Wiki passed a rule that people can't vote on articles about people from different ideologies? I saw this article listed at afd, and this person has only received coverage for WP:ONEVENT so I don't think they pass WP:GNG. Lastly, I don't think Edmund Burke ever spoke about women having articles on Wikipedia, so I don't think I'm "opposed" to this person, but you can get back to me about that one. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlessandroTiandelli333, I addressed the factual error you made, and I'll clarify that Art + Feminism is not WP:ONEVENT. Misrepresentation of facts and and policy are pertinent to this AfD. You're guilty of both. Vexations (talk) 22:18, 13 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) 18:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milton Trajano[edit]

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

The article currently does not suggest that the subject is notable (WP:GNG, WP:NARTIST). There is no Portuguese interwiki, which is a REDFLAG, nor did I find anything on GNews or GBooks. There are some regular Ghits, mostly in Portuguese, but nothing that stands out like a reliable, in-depth source (but I don't read PG). Can anyone find any good sources to rescue this? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 6 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} 02:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing found in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 03:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable Devokewater (talk) 10:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete one source is never enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:04, 6 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 redirect to Cookin'. Nomination withdrawn with universal agreement that this is the most sensible outcome. ~ mazca ^talk 00:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cookin[edit]

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

Title was previously a redirect to each of the two entries in this dab, neither of which are close matches to the title. I don't think this is a valid dab, "cookin" may be slang for "cooking" but that is beyond the purpose of dab pages. I think this should be returned to a redirect to the album MB 02:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator - Speedy consensus to redirect to Cookin' MB 19:18, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. MB 02:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be clear, the article was created in 2006 as a redirect to the album, which is reasonable because the album is often referred to that way. In 2010 the article was changed to a redirect to Cooking, which seems kind of pointless. When I searched for Cookin yesterday and landed on Cooking, I wasn't happy, since I was looking for the album. In deference to the 2010 editor, however, I turned the page into a dab, rather than just reverting it to a redirect to the album. Eleuther (talk) 03:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cookin'.—ShelfSkewed Talk 02:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hadn't noticed this. Redirecting to Cookin' is even better. MB 04:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I hadn't noticed it either. Eleuther (talk) 04:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cookin'. Could @MB: just withdraw this AfD and make the redirect, as everyone who has contributed so far agrees it's the thing to do, to save time all round? PamD 08:39, 6 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cathode Ray[edit]

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

There is some coverage of their songs, but I don't see it making WP:GNG. They definitely don't meet any part of WP:NBAND - didn't chart, no long-term significance. Boleyn (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I looked them up and found an album review in Herald Scotland. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment again Yeah, but not much else. There are still some album reviews/announcements/interviews but those sites look like blogs. I also found a Bandcamp site which is not a reliable source. The rest of the results were not about this. So I am neutral about this now. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the Herald Scotland piece there is also an extensive article in the Guardian here so there is significant coverage in reliable sources. Will look for more later, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:20, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Found some extra coverage: here from Narc Magazine, an additional piece from Herald Scotland, and this from Louder than War. I believe that Narc Magazine and Louder than War are likely reliable sources as they both have a physical magazine and staff experienced in the music industry, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relist to enable further discussion of new sources and generation of clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 01:45, 6 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) 03:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quaygame[edit]

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

Non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO & lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him hence WP:GNG isnt satisfied also. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 00:33, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This one doesn't have any secondary sources and the only sources I could find are either not independent, links to streaming websites, or user-generated content. Username⁶⁸⁹² 05:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non notable Devokewater (talk) 09:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as a singer nor as a songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable at all. I rejected this outright at AfC and the creator has now put it to mainspace. Defeats the objective.   Kadzi   (talk) 19:14, 6 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) 18:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WYOU (Madison, Wisconsin)[edit]

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

Non-notable public access cable channel; fails WP:NCORP Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mvcg66b3r (talk) 00:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete 107.77.169.28 (talk) 00:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thanks, (talk) 02:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Raymie (t • c) 03:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete AKK-700 (talk) 04:21, 7 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.

^ "소유진 절친 강래연, '너사시'부터 '내딸금사월'까지 맹활약 중". TV Daily.
^ "강래연은 누구? 원조 '베이글녀' 등장에 누리꾼 시선집중". TV Daily.
^ "강래연은 누구? 소유진과 절친인 화교 3세 배우". Shina Ilbo.

[1] "소유진 절친 강래연, '너사시'부터 '내딸금사월'까지 맹활약 중". TV Daily.

[2] "강래연은 누구? 원조 '베이글녀' 등장에 누리꾼 시선집중". TV Daily.

[3] "강래연은 누구? 소유진과 절친인 화교 3세 배우". Shina Ilbo.

[1]

[2]

[3]