Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 25

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 24 June	26 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Taylor (attorney)

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

Fails WP:GNG as a lawyer only notable for his association with Theranos. The best source available on the page is a profile in Law.com. All other sources only mention him in passing. The page is also supported by his LinkedIn profile. KidAd (talk) 00:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable lawyer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nominator, fails notability. Nika2020 (talk) 01:36, 1 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleksi Godard

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 22:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Aleksi was featured in an independent industry magazine several times (Wikidrummers) and the artists he's worked with have met national acclaim (Rolling Stone India, Independent Music Awards.)--Silex158 (talk) 16:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited, so working with famous folk, doesn't necessarily make you famous. scope_creep^Talk 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found one entry at [1] There is nothing else and profile is only two sentences. It needs more coverage than 1 article. scope_creep^Talk 17:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't have to be famous to have an entry in Wikipedia especially as a drummer or sound engineer. There are other 3rd party sources that have featured AG. There is another entry in Rolling Stone regarding his work as a mixing engineer for example. [2]. Additionally, he has been nominated for a major music award, another wikipedia guideline for notability in music.[3] --Silex158 (talk) 18:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have to be notable. The first ref in that list has:

Essentially Entangled was recorded at The Edge Studios in Quincy, Massachusetts in the U.S. by Keith Assack and mixed by Aleksi Godard and Isaiah Weatherspoon

Having a single mention as mixed by doesn't really satisfy WP:V. The second ref doesn't mention him at all. So that is not a valid reference. So far it has been mix of passing mentions, none of it satisfies WP:MUSICBIO. There is no coverage. scope_creep^Talk 21:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed. Celestina007 (talk) 00:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added a reliable source (Le Parisien, a national newspaper in France with a circulation of 229,638) that mentions Alexis leading a drum masterclass.[4] --Silex158 (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is just a name drop, a passing mention. To be real secondary sources, they must be substantial. scope_creep^Talk 17:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Trivial mentions and no proper feature articles about the subject. — Infogapp1 (talk) 11:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Should it redirect to Boyish (band)?

I don't know, but I don't think so. He seemed to drum quite a few bands, so there is no real target as such. Certainly their site states he is their drummer. So I would say so. scope_creep^Talk 14:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tumpa Paul

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

Fails WP:NACTOR. Some minor coverage. scope_creep^Talk 22:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in addition to the underlying concerns about the subject's notability, there's several signs of undisclosed paid editing and attempts to game the system by repeatedly resubmitting the declined article at AfC and then attempting to sidestep AfC review and move the article to mainspace unilaterally. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sources presented that shows she has significant coverage, only passing mentions. This used to point to one of the shows but she's in two shows now. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 22:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Trivial mentions, no substantial coverage of the subject from reliable sources. — Infogapp1 (talk) 11:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Minor actress whom fails almost every notability guideline, occasional mentions in sources. Yikes. The method of creation also looks suspiciously close to that of promotional content. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:39, 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 Withdrawn. Ignoring meatpuppetry with no rationale, I think sufficient rationale has been provided here so I am withdrawing my nomination. Initially, I had missed the significant coverage in CNN: this source is what pushes me over the edge from delete to keep, as it isn't specialist news and mentions her name repeatedly. I will now be going to the article to clean it up. I encourage those monitoring this discussion that are new to Wikipedia to read WP:TUTORIAL, if they wish to edit Wikipedia in the future. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC) (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 01:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynnae Quick

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

Sorry, but I don't see notability under WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG here. Publishing papers and getting news coverage of those papers I don't think is enough to demonstrate notability. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:50, 25 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}}.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notability criteria for academics state that the researcher has made a significant impact on their field. Dr. Quick's publication record and her service on several NASA missions, all of which have gained press coverage, point to the impact of her work. Publishing papers and eliciting independent news coverage is evidence of notability. WebMZ (talk) 22:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WebMZ, the thing is though that most academics have this kind of press coverage. NASA is very good at getting press releases out. It's hard to gauge significant impact from just those. I think to rise to the level of "significant impact," there needs to be evidence (from reliable sources) that the work stands out amongst work of other academics in her field. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam-2727 that's actually not true. The vast majority of papers that are published are never covered by the press. And the reason NASA is good at attracting press coverage is because their work is high impact. By virtue of her being the lead author on several NASA publications, Dr. Quick has demonstrated her notability. Not everyone can be a NASA researcher after all! WebMZ (talk) Webmz (talk) 22:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I'm doing ok for myself in academia; I get specialist press attention about once a decade, give or take. This is clearly high impact research which is getting picked up repeatedly by high-quality independent news sources. DWeir (talk) 23:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DWeir and Webmz, I respctfully disagree. My colleagues and I get press attention for work connected to NASA, but I wouldn't consider myself notable. However, see my comment below which is why I'm withdrawing this nomination. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(in short, because some coverage goes beyond the trivial mentions I saw earlier) Sam-2727 (talk) 01:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources and seriousness. Yug (talk) 22:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yug, could you elaborate (I don't want this to seem like an attack or anything. I just want to understand which sources specifically indicate notability)? Sam-2727 (talk) 22:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would keep the article, there is notability. Laz~enwiki (talk) 22:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC) — Laz~enwiki (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep Well referenced for a starting page and easily meets notability requirements. Catwhoorg (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The work of Dr. Quick is notable by virtue not only of the significant number of research projects she either leads or is engaged in, but also I have read about her work on the popular astronomy/space website UniverseToday^[1]. The work she is progressing is extremely interesting and topical given all the current and future planned missions. I'd like to see more of this kind of article as it promotes careers in science to our school students as well as of course being an important public record. Grunthus (talk) 23:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC) — Grunthus (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Please Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.140.255.232 (talk • contribs) 12:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is serious work, and exoplanet hunting is a worldwide endeavor, where actors and contributors need to be acknowledged. Press coverage is very local, but the mission of wikipedia is global, and allows the dissemination of that kind of research. The relative junior status of the researcher provides a way to see how participating organizations are currently inter-related. Awojdyla (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! Keep! Please — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:6EF0:1CD0:245B:98C1:8C77:3E3 (talk) 22:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 166.181.80.27 (talk) 22:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:5C0:C001:59B0:A8:ECF6:97B2:81E7 (talk) 22:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valuable — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:1C2:1400:B590:1006:C6A7:47EC:2D55 (talk) 23:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG. The nominator's argument is that publishing papers and getting press coverage is routine, which is not the case. I think that the CNN and New York Post coverage demonstrate notability; it's just not true that any random academic paper gets headline coverage. — Toughpigs (talk) 23:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on at least WP:NACADEMIC ground 7 (repeatedly quoted in conventional media, e.g. CNN, Scientific American, Space.com, New York Post), as an expert and first-author on multiple, separate, impactful academic outputs) and possibly 1, as well. DWeir (talk) 23:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep based on current mainstream coverage of results of the latest paper [5]. She certainly does not satifsy notability requirements based on her citation record (this is not a "significant impact on the field"), and the ASoP paper is too fresh to have garnered any citations yet - but uptake in mainstream media on this is probably already good enough for WP:NPROF #7.

I'd also like to note that I'm quite disgusted with all the canvassed meatpuppetry on display above. If people are starting to get the impression that this type of uninformed clamouring has an impact on how decisions are made on WP, then we are in for some fun times at AfD. And some of the arguments from established editors who should know better are also quite baffling. We are not an academic incubator or career accelerator, people! --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 00:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

with all due respect, it would do all of us much good if we can just focus on the arguments and justifications provided here so far (and clearly articulate why they do or don't work). Meatpuppetry is a failed proposal and the canvassing Tweet has already been deleted. There are more substantial arguments here than "upvote" posts. Please keep the discussion civil and don't bite newcomers. FlybellFly (talk) 00:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well. As for "substantial arguments", I see five pointless pushbutton votes, five !votes that clearly have no clue what we are looking for re demonstrated notability in an academic, and three that seem to know what they are talking about. Bluntly, that is a crap demographic for decision-making. I'm quite happy to focus on the article-related arguments, but we are seeing a massive uptick of these crowd steamrolling attempts in the last few weeks, and unless they get called out and if necessary dealt with, we will be in trouble in the near future. So no, I'm not going to quietly ignore it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FlybellFly, I just found the twitter discussion. Just to clear up some potential misleading parts of it. Generally, when articles are nominated for deletion soon after being created, it is through the WP:NPP process. Specifically, I patrol all articles closely related to astronomy, which is how I came across this article. The arguments here (presented by Elmidae and others have convinced me that this is a weakly notable article. The passing coverage I saw when reviewing has been superseded in other sources (when I reviewed the article, most of the sources I looked at were primary sources i.e. her website). But Elmidae is right in that most of the votes here say, in essence, "the subject of this article is notable" without tying to specific guidelines. Most people believe that Wikipedia edits based off of "intuition" or "how much one likes the subject," but this is simply not the case. Wikipedia isn't the place for advocacy (well, for the most part): that should happen elsewhere and Wikipedia will respond to the coverage of that in reliable sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know this discussion is "closed" but one more thing: the notion that most articles that are nominated for deletion are people deserving of Wikipedia articles isn't correct: most biography articles I nominate for deletion and others too are poorly disguised paid-for articles of white male businessmen, at least based on my experiences. Sam-2727 (talk) 01:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.universetoday.com/146626/planets-with-large-oceans-are-probably-common-in-the-milky-way/

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) 23:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Coven (art collective)

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

Most sourcing leads to a tumblr site. A general search returns nothing. GNG fail. This came to my attention via a question at the Teahouse as to whether or not this group is notable. It's not.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I did find a few things, but not much. [[6]], [[7]], [[8]] TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 21:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtempleton: I'm amazed that you found those. Out of curiosity, what search phrase did you use? I came up with noting in a search. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ThatMontrealIP: the coven montreal art collective TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I worked at tidying this in 2016 and had my doubts then. Nothing since has persuaded me this is a notable topic, not least that almost all the refs are from the groups itself. Emeraude (talk) 08:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as far as I can tell, the existed for about four years, from 2012 to mid-2017. In that time, they have operated a tumblr site, https://the-coven.tumblr.com/ and an instagram account, https://www.instagram.com/thecovenartcollective/. They created a risographed tarot deck, launched at a one-day event, at the (now defunct) Dye House gallery in London, for which we have two sources. They produced a book, PINKD for which we also have a source (dazed). I've found an article on a show they had at Glass Door in Montreal, [9] I have not found sources that covert The Coven's first show in London 2014 at Gal Gallery, nor have I found anything for their "We, others" exhibition at POPOP gallery in Montreal. I also could not find anything that discusses their zines. I don't think there is sufficient coverage in independent, reliable sources to sustain an article about them. Vexations (talk) 15:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all. Johnbod (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudhar (film director)

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

This director only directed one film and I could not find any sources about him. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE as of now.Upcoming but not notable as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notable at all Spiderone 18:16, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike McPheters

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

For the records I created this article back in 2010. I had just read McPheters memoir of his time with the FBI then, and had a much looser definition of notability. Since then I have come to realize a few things. The coverage of the case that McPheters was involved in is mainly from primary sources, and even if it was a notable case, it would not prove that McPheters was notable. Nothing about his FBI career rises to a level that would make him notable. His memoir has not had the level of reviews or notice to make him notable, and his novels are even less impactful. So he is not notable as a writer, and is not notable as an FBI agent. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rocks and Honey. Content is in the history if anyone wants to review it for a merge, but nothing looks substantial so I'm closing as redirect. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Love Is the Knife

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

This article does not meet the criteria as per WP:MUS. It did not chart worldwide and the single has had no long-lasting impact. I'd suggest a redirect to Rocks and Honey where all of the article's contents can be summarised. Skyrack95 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to the album page Rocks and Honey, as not independently notable imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocks and Honey - for two reasons: it did not chart and it is only ever discussed in the context of its parent album. There is no need for this separate song article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect per Doomsdayer. Wareon (talk) 05:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocks and Honey: arely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Chico, California#Neighborhoods. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chapmantown, California

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

This is a neighborhood/subdivision of Chico: the NRHP nomination for the A. H. Chapman House says so. The only way it can be told from the rest of Chico is that the road grid is oriented differently. There's no evidence it was a separate town, even if it wasn't in the city limits originally. Mangoe (talk) 20:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chico, California#Neighborhoods. I did find some worthwhile sources about its relationship to Chico: [10], [11] However, there's nothing to indicate it was a community per se, and I don't see a need for anything longer than the paragraph already at Chico, California#Neighborhoods. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking at the target, there really is nothing to merge, especially considering that neither the material already in the section nor the material in the article has any meaningful sourcing (and isn't particularly encyclopedic. I could however go with a redirect to the section and paring down to what can be sourced encyclopedically (basically the material about Chapman and the house). Mangoe (talk) 22:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chico. Generally what we do with neighborhoods, can be recreated if more sources are available. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 12:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chico, California#Neighborhoods. Djflem (talk) 17:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chico, California#Neighborhoods, per above. Alex-h (talk) 08:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Chico, California#Neighborhoods per above. Even though it's technically unincorporated, it's a neighborhood of Chico for all intents and purposes. Thus it belongs in the Neighborhoods section of the Chico article. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 20:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National Italian American Foundation

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

Written like a resume, with very few reliable sources provided. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 22:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject clearly passes notability. The article can easily be reformed with a bit of rewriting and additional research. At present, it is not so flawed as to warrant deletion rather than keeping with existing tags. This seems like a rather clear-cut case of "keep". Ergo Sum 04:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You say that "the subject clearly passes notability". Can you point to at least 2-3 reliable independent sources which give the subject in-depth coverage? per WP:ORG and WP:MULTSOURCES? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per my above comment, I haven't yet seen the evidence of notability. I'll change this if I do. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:04, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&Manzanas: Some examples: [12], [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20]. Ergo Sum 23:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: Thanks for your reply @Ergo Sum:. Many of those sources don't seem to offer the in-depth coverage required by WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE and WP:MULTSOURCES. Furthermore, I think many of those sources are not reliable sources. For example: regarding your newsweek source: "post-2013 Newsweek articles are not generally reliable" per WP:RSP. Perhaps, for the purpose of better defining this discussion. Could you tell me the two or three sources you think are the best in terms of notability? This way we don't need to debate 9 sources at once, because after all, 2-3 high quality sources are sufficient. Quality matters, not quantity per the ORGDEPTH policy. (But a high quantity of sources can never compensate for the lack high quality sources, when determining notability). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never got a response, so for the benefit of the closing admin, I think I will definitively declare that it should be deleted on the grounds that I haven't found evidence that it has received (A) significant direct and in-depth coverage from (B) multiple (C) reliable sources. As required by WP:SIRS. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I have been rather preoccupied. Excepting the Newsweek article, I think the remaining 8 are rather self-explanatory, and indicate sufficient coverage; articles are routinely kept with less coverage than this. I leave them there for any others, such as a closing admin, to examine. Ergo Sum 15:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really better if you pointed to what you think are the 3 best sources for the purposes of notability. The relative policies make it very clear that a collection of trivial mentions do count towards notability. A source needs to provide significant coverage in its own right to count towards notability. Each individual source needs to make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" per WP:ORGDEPTH otherwise it does not count towards notability. There also needs to be multiple sources which each in their own right offer this in-depth coverage (WP:MULTSOURCES,WP:SIRS). In other words, the sources do not 'add up' together, this is made very clear in WP:ORGDEPTH,WP:SIRS,WP:MULTSOURCES...Each source must must offer significant and in-depth coverage in its own right. Look at the examples of what constitutes significant coverage in ORGDEPTH, your sources plainly fail all of those examples. Also note that there is a higher bar applied to proving notability for organizations than the GNG, a higher quality of sources is required to prove notability for organizations per WP:ORGCRITE. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for whatever it's worth, in addition to newsweek, i also question whether sources 1,3,8 are reliable sources. (And I dont think they offer significant coverage in my opinion either). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 07:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify what I meant about the Newsweek article: Newsweek is now evaluated on a case by case basis. For this article, I find no indicia of unreliability, and without any such evidence, I see nothing wrong with the article. Ergo Sum 16:44, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The relevant RFC (Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Newsweek_RfC) does say: "Note: This is not a "no consensus" close, because there is clear consensus that Newsweek is not generally reliable post–2013." Regardless, this is irrelevant, because the Newsweek source clearly does not offer anything close to the "significant" and "in-depth" coverage required by reliable sources. And moreover, the relevant policies also make it clear that multiple significant sources are required to prove notability. You didn't respond to what I had said at all. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry if my comment did not seem responsive. I don't have a whole lot to add beyond what I said above. I believe the 8 articles sufficiently establish notability, when considering the threshold for notability that other articles up for deletion pass. You are welcome to disagree. It appears this will come down to the decision of a closing admin. Ergo Sum 23:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: Just so you know, the quantity of sources is irrelevant here see WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:SIRS, the quality of the source is what matters. For a SINGLE source to be considered relevant for the purpose of notability it needs to make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" per ORGDEPTH. There also needs to be multiple sources which do this and each source must provide this level of significant coverage in its own right, the sources do not 'add up' together and become significant. How can sources which provide one or two sentences worth of coverage make it possible to "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Remember once again, that for the purposes of establishing notability EACH INDIVIDUAL source needs to make it possible to write more than a stub article. As for you saying that the other 8 sources seem sufficient, I assume you also didn't read me questioning whether 3 of those are actually reliable sources as well...As for you saying, "It appears this will come down to the decision of a closing admin", well...you could make the closing admin's job a lot more easy by simply agreeing that the article fails ORGDEPTH. Wikipedia is meant to work on consensus whereby people change their minds, and I see no valid reason for you not to change your mind here. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 23:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&Manzanas: I will not change my mind because I reject your reasoning. I'm sorry if you find this inadequate. Please understand that I must refrain from continuing this conversation, as I find it increasingly unproductive. In the nicest way possible, I might suggest you peruse WP:Stick. Ergo Sum 23:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not rejecting my reasoning, you're just rejecting the policies. You should probably just cite "Ignore all rules" as your reasoning. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 00:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NCORP, even if Newsweek is counted as a RS, which it isn't. b uidhe 19:46, 24 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📧) 20:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't see why this was relisted, except maybe as WP:RELISTBIAS. The keep !vote is very weak and the sources provided do not show GNG: 1) is a trivial mention; 2) is a transcript from a speech given at a gala (not an independent source); 3) is run of the mill coverage of a charity being charity; etc... Unless someone bothers to point if any of these sources actually supports notability, this should be deleted. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:11, 3 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 Standard Life Aberdeen. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:06, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Rutherford Davidson

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

Lacks WP:GNG, the ref describes the success of the company itself CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no sourcing that actually covers Davidson, plus all references only point to one source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect While all info comes from one source, that source was written using archival records held by the company, which include information on Davidson. Could this be redirected to the existing page for the company (The Standard Life Assurance Company (1825-2017)), rather than deleted? --MountainWaves (talk) 08:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST, WP:ATD, WP:BEFORE, WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE. The nomination is flawed because WP:SIGCOV states that the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material." and so the source about Standard Life is fine. It is easy to find more sources covering the subject such as this detailed obituary or this general history. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Suggest redirect to Standard Life Aberdeen. Dormskirk (talk) 08:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this one of several articles created by a recently joined apparently single-purpose account. WP:SIGCOV also says "multiple sources are generally expected", and the single source here closely resembles company-sponsored "history of our company" puff books, and thus does not constitute independent coverage. UnitedStatesian (talk) 15:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NEXIST states that "Editors evaluating notability should consider not only any sources currently named in an article, but also the possibility or existence of notability-indicating sources that are not currently named in the article." Other sources have been identified in this discussion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:22, 3 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 of the criteria in WP:PROF is rather subjective, so there is a healthy amount of disagreement over whether she clears the bar based on individual editors' interpretation of the guideline. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carrie Diaz Eaton

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

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

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

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

Potentially non-notable mathematician. Very low h-index, very low paper cites. scope_creep^Talk 20:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Sort of agree with nom. Only think is she is a director of Qubes, but how notable this is to meet nprof. I don't know. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 21:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an early career mathematician who does not meet notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Scope_creep is apt in his rationale & also per Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I agree that she does not pass WP:PROF#C1. She also does not pass #C3, as her doctoral fellowship, teaching-development fellowship, and leadership-institute fellowship are not the kinds of fellows described in that criterion (major scholarly societies for which fellowship is a highly selective honor). They look more like financial support for students and certificate of attendance in teaching and leadership programs than like honors for high scholarly achievement. So the only remaining question is whether she passes #C2 for the John Jungck Prize for Excellence in Education [21]. It appears to be an award at the national or international level; the question is whether it's a "highly prestigious" award as required by #C2. It does appear to be the top educational award of the SMB (their other awards are for service or research). Since it's an educational award, we can look at whether it's given for the kind of high achievement in education that would also pass #C4, or for lower-level work. The citation says that it's for her creation of an open-access web hub for educational materials (QUBES), for local mentorship, and for being the co-editor of an edited volume, among which only QUBES looks potentially significant to me. There's also some nontrivial (but non-independent) coverage of QUBES at [22]. It doesn't look like enough to me, but with better sourcing of QUBES I could be convinced to change my mind. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Associate professor since 2018 with a h-index of 3 ([23]). There is some media coverage, but mostly local, of a 380K$ grant for open education in QUBES/SCORE, but this is not sufficient for GNG.--Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 06:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Co-Founder of Qubes, first of its kind Open Educational Resource hub, making a major contribution to STEM education. Especially relevant in this time of pandemic (satisfies criteria 3&4.) Member of two under-represented groups in STEM: women and Latinx, notable w/o academic criteria. Nationally recognized, featured communicator at Mathematics Association of America [24]. FWIW: Google Scholar is a black box and as a librarian I don't find it reliable by itself. Impact factor measurements are also notoriously unreliable, especially for women and minorities. -Skome (talk) 14:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC) — Skome (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- None of those things are notability criteria. And it is irrelevant whether the impact factor is too low to pass notability or too unreliable to be used; either way we have no evidence of notability from it. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Project director of Math Mamas, a unique community for women in mathematics with children sponsored by the American Mathematical Society. Notable due to underrepresentation of women in math and relevant to criteria 1 and 4. Has been interviewed for notable media outlets including Washington Post [25] and Science Magazine [26] which also satisfies criteria 7. Agree with Skome regarding impact factor measurements. -Dany_waller (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC) — Dany_waller (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep. Math Mamas project has national prominence. PRIMUS is the highest profile journal for teaching of mathematics by mathematicians (as opposed to education journals focused on K-12 teaching). A position on the PRIMUS editorial board combined with a national teaching award is a clear profile of a notable collegiate mathematics teacher. As Dany_waller notes, Diaz Eaton's teaching expertise has also been recognized by general media outlets.-UrsulaGeorges (talk) 15:33, 27 Jun 2020 (UTC)
- A position on an editorial board is something true of most academics and useless for distinguishing the notable ones. A position as editor-in-chief would indicate notability through WP:PROF#C8 but she does not have that position. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ursulageorges: Do you have some independent sources for what the Math Mamas project is/does and that confirm the national prominence of the project? I tried to find background and sources using google search/google news and wasn't successful, but would be happy to take a look if you could point them out. Currently the page only cites the subjects profile page at her employ to support the existence/significance of this project and the role of the subject in the project. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 17:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Improve Agree with above Impact Factor has a bias that places like Wikipedia can choose to enhance or work around. I think she meets notability requirements for founding of Math Mamas and her work founding QUBES which can be amplified in the article. Jessamyn (talk) 16:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with regret. Just not passing WP:Prof. Maybe WP:Too soon. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete not notable as an academic, Qubes could be but the sources provided so far just do not show that.jraimbau (talk) 09:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Just to note that looks like this was mentioned on the subject's Twitter feed, but I don't think it's a case of WP:MEATPUPPET. Ignoring that, I'm uncertain as to notability, leaning slightly towards weak keep for QUBES work under WP:GNG. Borderline for the award. Simply being on a board isn't really a sufficient reason, and academic track record is a bit WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I placed a not a vote template on this page as a heated Twitter conversation is running in parallel to this AfD.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 10:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

could you give a link? Xxanthippe (talk) 11:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

User:Xxanthippe, this twitter thread which also has at least one personal attack against the nominator.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That twitter thread also makes clear that the creation of the article involves significant levels of self-promotion by the subject. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's not ding the subject or the AfD for her lack of Wikipedia knowledge. All I see is a woman who has no idea how this works asking questions like Kj cheetham was alluding to. The thread also has a Twitter user remind her not to edit her own entry. So "heated" is a matter of perspective. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 17:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete For the subject, I don't see the independent media coverage to meet the GNG standard, and looking at academic notability criteria, 3-6 and 8 clearly don't apply. Others have pointed out the lack of evidence for criterion 1. Mathematics is a low(er) citation field, but being an associate professor with an h-index of 3 still don't qualify. For criterion 2, her most significant award appears to be the John Jungck Prize for Excellence in Education, which appears to be a rather newly created prize where the suject is only the 3rd recipient. That leaves criterion 6: "The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity." I'm guessing this is where the users discussing Math Mamas are making their case? However I haven't been able to find independent coverage/sources indicating the impact of this organization or what the organization actually is. There was a special issue of a journal where the subject was one of several co-editors, and a recently launched blog with the same title but where the subject is not listed on the editors or about page. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 16:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Since this AfD has been subject to canvassing on Twitter it should be closed by an experienced administrator. The BLP seems to have been an outcome of an inadequately supervised editathon. The advice given should be always go first for the low hanging fruit i.e. those candidates whose notability is so well established that blowback will not occur, as it has in this case. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. Mathematics is a field with notoriously low h-indexes. #C2: The Society for Mathematical Biology is arguably the most important professional society in her field and she won the third ever John Jungck Prize for Excellence in Education award, which is the only award for outstanding teaching they have. The inaugural winner was James Keener, one of the most prominent living mathematical biologists. #C4 Diaz Eaton's work towards redesigning undergraduate quantitative mathematical biology education (through QUBES and other initiatives) has affected higher education at large, several institutions, and the field of mathematical biology and has been strongly supported by the National Science Foundation and others. #C7 Her work, teaching, and advocacy have taken center stage in prominent issues in mathematics education and the mathematics community, such as diversity initiatives, quantitative literacy, and misinformation. - AlwaysInRed (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & improve: Although issues of WP:TOOSOON are valid, I agree with Jessamyn & Skome. Its better to take a step back and improve the article IMHO, than summarily delete it. Donna Spencer^{talk-to-me⛅} 17:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - The content is interesting, substantial and verifiable, but fails a narrow pass/fail reading of WP:PROF. Since the article is close to the line and the subject seems well-placed professionally, I'm inclined to be generous and hope that the article improves as her career advances to reach notability. User:Xxanthippe raises a valid BLP maintenance concern: in the first instance, I am inclined to prune the article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 20:00, 1 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srikaran Kandadai

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

Bringing this article back for deletion. Fails WP:NSPORTS. Also lack of sources. Was reinstated due to a challenge of a soft deletion. However, since then only a maintenance template has been added to the article and no improvement has been made. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable raquetball player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 07:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG easily as well. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Autry Pruitt

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

Lacks WP:GNG, a Trump Supporter - what else?! CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Pruitt is not notable, too many of these sources are things by Pruitt, not about him. On the other hand, Bo Snerdley whose real name is James Golden (I have no clue why he does not go by that name, it just plain sounds better) is clearly notable. We do have an article on Golden/Snerdley, who if you look at the sources on Pruitt seems to be as much if not more of the mover behind the Make Black Americans Republican Again PAC, the think is we have no discussion of this PAC on the article on Golden/Snerdley, and we lack do not even have a listed birth year on Golden/Snderley and lack other information we would want to flesh the article out, such as an family information etc. I have not listened to Limbaugh's radio program much since the late 1990s, but the name Bo Snerdley does ring a bell, so I suspect some of the information of the article may not adequately cover how long Snerdley has been a key player in Limbaugh's media actions, although it does mention he was connected with Limbaugh's TV show, which I never saw, I only listened to him on air during the 1990s, actually most heavily in the summers of 1992, 1993 and 1994. I was in school other times, and by the time I entered high school had moved on to other things like reading the works of Hugh Nibley, so I do not think I listened to Limbaugh much after the summer of 1994, yet I remember occasional references to Mr. Snerdley on the program.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm just not seeing coverage that meets WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable individual. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG. Nika2020 (talk) 01:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 19:27, 1 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 Finneas O'Connell. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Girl (Finneas song)

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

The article fails the Notability guidelines for songs in wikipedia as not only none of the three bullet points in the guidelines are met, but also there is not a single "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Furthermore, in the links there is one interview with the artist "This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work", and the only source that could be considered here "One to watch" is under a discussion for being unreliable, See here. There is only one source that is reliable "Billboard", however, it should be multiple according to the guidelines above, which it is not the case. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 18:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 16:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is a close call because the song's video got noticed by a few magazines for its production values, including Billboard (already cited) and a few others like this: [27]. But those are still relatively brief mentions, and the song is discussed occasionally in media reports on the singer overall. Those do not add up to sufficient notability for this song. I would not be opposed to a basic redirect to the singer's article if anyone thinks it's a good idea; note that this is a standalone single and there is no parent album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finneas O'Connell: The song has been mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - No coverage in reliable secondary sources, not enough quality information to justify an article.—N Ø 19:27, 1 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)} 13:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noah Pollak

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

Google returns exactly 129 unique hits for "Noah Pollak", including this article. All the sources are primary, mostly of the form "he has written in X, source, an article in X by him". Some of the things he's written for don't even have articles. Guy (help!) 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to be a clear WP:NAUTHOR and/or WP:NCREATIVE fail, not to mention WP:GNG. A WorldCat search for his work came up with exactly one result, held in six libraries. I got 123 unique entries, but essentially the same thing on google, while search results aren't the be-all-end-all of notability, they can show when somebody is a minor figure. Sources like militarist monitor don't establish notability. He doesn't seem to be a very well known writer, hasn't won any major awards. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As other editors nothing found in secondary sources so does not meet gng. However he seems to be pretty well known - he writes for the Hill and is on PBS news hour, just not reviewed or discussed. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 15:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Super Bowl LX

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

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. 5.5 years away and we don't even know what city this will be in yet. Not enough is known about this future event to write an article about it. Hog Farm (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is nothing to write about aside from the trivially obvious (Superbowl LX is the 60th) and a bunch of speculation. -- Whpq (talk) 17:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete crystal clear WP:CRYSTAL failure. SportingFlyer T·C 17:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete historically we have only created "the next one" in advance for games like the Super Bowl. Easily WP:TOOSOON.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too soon for this article. We already have Superbowl articles out to 2024 (not convinced those are individually notable either). There's nothing to say in this article, it simply doesn't meet WP:GNG, not to mention that there's no way to tell what 2026 might look like. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Cbl62 (talk) 04:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree, WP:TOOSOON for a page on this Super Bowl.TH1980 (talk) 02:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with all above, WP:TOOSOON for an article before the location is even known. Ejgreen77 (talk) 04:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with all of the people here as it clearly fails WP:TOOSOON and even if that wasn't the case, then WP:GNG is also a major factor here. HawkAussie (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, WP:TOOSOON, not satiafying WP:GNG, and all above. Alex-h (talk) 09:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete way too soon, no information at all, not even a venue. Joseph2302 (talk) 16:26, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:56, 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) 00:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Stuart Lloyd

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

This AfD is submitted on behalf of the subject through an OTRS ticket with their permission. The subject feels that there is insufficient sourcing, which they also believe is inaccurate.

I will submit my personal !vote on the AfD below. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't feel there is sufficient sourcing that is both reliable and in-depth enough to prove BASIC is met. The Daily Mirror is not particularly reliable as a tabloid, and without it, I really struggle to find significant coverage that is reliable and in-depth. Even with it, it's dubious. That alone would be sufficient to warrant a delete, but given the subject's desire to be removed even an borderline case should default to being deleted. Nosebagbear (talk) 17:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not notable enough to justify an article over the subject not wanting one.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 1) doesn't seem to meet WP:NPERSON with little clearly reliable coverage, and 2) in not clearly notable private individual cases where the blp requests deletion the article should be deleted. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable, the subject is not supported by independent reliable sources. Nika2020 (talk) 01:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 05:10, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muhammad Ahmad Khalafallah

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

Not notable person. Only An University refused his doctoral dissertation إسلام (talk) 17:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely notable, without even looking for Arabic sources. See 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5. Mccapra (talk) 18:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There are plenty of sources on Google book which mention his name. --Gazal world (talk) 11:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's a more thorough account of his accomplishments here. His Al-Qur’an wa-al-dawlah (The Qur’an and the State) seems to have been quite influential, based on a quick gbooks search. pburka (talk) 13:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks everybody, but the article doesn't mention this informations.--إسلام (talk) 14:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That means you've got an opportunity to improve the page! See WP:ATD and WP:BEFORE for more information about when articles should be deleted vs. improved. pburka (talk) 14:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Bonnie Tyler discography. Further discussion can take place at WP:RFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Desert Is in Your Heart

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

The single may have reached no. 1 in Greece, but there are currently no ways to verify this. Recommend redirecting to Bonnie Tyler discography. Skyrack95 (talk) 17:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect Can't verify either from Greek sources that it actually reached No1 in Greece, although the album probably went gold, or even platinum (some sources mention this, but are not considered RS). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Bonnie Tyler: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Do not redirect to Bonnie Tyler because it is technically a release by Sofia Arvaniti and Tyler made a guest appearance. I can find no confirmation that the song reached number one in Greece; I admit that I am unable to detect Greek-language sites in which such a fact might be confirmed, though I did find that no reliable online biography of Sophia Arvaniti mentions that she had a number one song. In Wikipedia's terms, this song does not get past WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, what, it still is a possible search term so an alternative should be sought. I'd have suggested redirecting it to Sophia Arvaniti but that's a poorly sourced stub so I don't know... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maybe a redirect to Bonnie Tyler discography for the time being? I'm hoping that an archivist will one day publish a reliable Greek charts resource, in which case the song could then have its own article. Skyrack95 (talk) 14:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The song is currently listed at Bonnie Tyler discography as one of her own singles, where it is described as having a guest appearance by Arvaniti; but then the song ended up on Arvaniti's album Parafora where it is described as having a guest appearance by Tyler. This may be the result of an old cross-promotion scheme, or the creators of these articles confused the matter. My vote is still to delete as said above, but if admins think that redirecting is the way to go, I recommend sending it to Sofia Arvaniti and then fixing the Bonnie Tyler discography so it describes what is really going on with this song. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent point. Maybe a delete would be best in this case, or at least a redirect to Sofia Arvaniti. Her discography appears to be notable enough that she warrants an article, but I'm not sure how many reliable sources are currently available to support. Skyrack95 (talk) 15:46, 3 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 Wings (Bonnie Tyler album). (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Louise (Bonnie Tyler song)

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

This article was nominated for deletion in 2011, and I think it still fails WP:MUS. It should redirect to Wings (Bonnie Tyler album). The song has no notability, and its two chart placings are unverified and probably false. Skyrack95 (talk) 16:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Wings (Bonnie Tyler album): Barely found anything about the song. It was voted to be redirected in the previous AfD. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:42, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wings (Bonnie Tyler album) because it did not chart and it is only ever discussed in relation to its parent album. If it gets un-redirected again by a user who thinks all Bonnie Tyler songs need their own articles, a salt operation may be merited. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Goodbye to the Island. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm Just a Woman

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

The song clearly fails to meet the criteria as per WP:MUS. It did not chart worldwide, and the article only features one citation. Skyrack95 (talk) 16:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goodbye to the Island#Track listing. Fails the notability criteria for songs. Coverage in the article that is about the song is very limited - it was released as a single, had cover art, and failed to chart. A WP:BEFORE search brings up discogs (unreliable) and a variety of unreliable lyrics sites. No evidence this song has gained coverage apart from the album, so redirect to the album's page. Hog Farm (talk) 17:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Goodbye to the Island: Barely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goodbye to the Island because it did not chart and it is only ever discussed in relation to its parent album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Goodbye to the Island.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:05, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sustainability 2.0

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

Non-notable term. No reliable and independent sources discuss it. It's just a phrase used in some book. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable neologism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There was excessive focus in the book, and not in the concept that as you will see evolves and is even consolidated as a strategy of some companies. I Removed therefore the specific references to the content of the book and added more references to show the usage of the term. Quintovp — Quintovp (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Delete Cant see how it can survive when it is a neologism and not a particularly well known one. It is promotional by its very defintion, by using business speak which is anathema to Wikipedia, people who are not notable, and dodgy references, which alone would get it deleted. scope_creep^Talk 15:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And it mentions it 6 times in a 5 sentence article, which is an example of NLP and is clearly promotional spam. scope_creep^Talk 15:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion, it is not "just a phrase used in some book", it is the title of a book that has analyzed the confluence of to currents that braid together, the web 2.0, and the awakening to sustainability. It deepens into the development of the concept, triggering discussions and awareness in this respect, as confirmed by the links already mentioned. If you see my recent contribution today the concept seems to have finally entered the agenda. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Luesnaola (talk • contribs) — Luesnaola (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
Weak delete. The term does appear to be used, but whether it was really coined by this book, I am unsure. That claim is unreferenced. Then we have a definition sourced to a press release. Then another definition sourced to a minor trade magazine ([28]). And a CITEBOMB of 'works that use this term'. I think this merits a WP:TNT. The topic may be notable, but the execution is terrible; this should be written from scratch using reliable, academic sources. PS. See related AfD: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ernesto van Peborgh (2nd nomination) - article claims he is the author of this term. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's an obvious enough term to coin that it's doubtless been invented many times independently, and the different coinages won't necessarily all have the same meaning. It's not our job to sort out that kind of thing; we're not lexicographers tracing the history of a word through primary sources. Also, frankly, the sources are pretty garbage. A LinkedIn blog post? SlideShare? WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 19:16, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dina Siegel Vann

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

This article may not comply with WP:GNG. Refs are poor (mainly just P.R.). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 16:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sources are internal staff biographies from her employers. The article lacks any 3rd party sources at all, let alone ones that are secondary and reliable and that provide indepth coverage, we need multiple sources that fit all of those criteria to justify an article especially about a living person. Just having your employer create staff bios on you does not show you are in any way notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latin America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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.. Not a great rationale, but the sourcing in the article is atrocious and no one has disputed the deletion nomination. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allerta

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

Notability not shown. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Currently none of the content in the article is salvageable. No prejudice against recreation with sourced content, as this is a potentially notable topic. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Indian wikis

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

Non-notable list. These wikis are not notable, and they don't meet WP:SOURCELIST. Some barely even have any edits. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. Ajf773 (talk) 20:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_not_use_deletion_process?, WP:LISTPURP, Wikipedia:Contents/Lists, WP:SAL, WP:AOAL. My suggestion is to, instead, move it to WP:STUB and WP:CLEANUP. I also invite comments of @Pokai who created this page. Dhawangupta (talk) 14:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've just spammed a bunch of random links, and I don't think you've read any of them. The deletion process is absolutely used for notability issues. LISTPURP is a MOS guideline and not relevant to this, Wikipedia:Contents/Lists is not even close to being relevant, same for the last link, and I don't think you've read SAL. The comment below is from the creator and doesn't even try to address policy. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article must be keep. I can say it with full confidence, yeah it can be move to another section. Pok aiᗙ Happy New Year! 13:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why must it be kept? Spiderone 14:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Spiderone 14:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dewey Lake Monster

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

Whereas this isnt a WP:HOAX, it is a hoax. Eliminate the pop culture section, which simply lists the local event staged in 2017 (has it occured again?) and a commercial product named after the subject of the article (a beer from an area craft brewer). The only journalistic source is a very very small local paper, written coincidentally in 2017. If this is notable and happened in 1964, why did it take until 2017 to write about it? Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:NEVENT and the only source that even speaks to notability fails WP:RS John from Idegon (talk) 15:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)*[reply]

Delete if better sourcing cannot be found. Keep now that more sources have been discovered. :bloodofox: (talk) 16:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NEXIST: It is important to remember that the sources cited in a Wikipedia article are not the existing sources in the world. There are newspaper sources that go back to 1964:
- "Dewey Lake 'Monster Is Nonexistent'", The South Bend Tribune (June 12, 1964)
- "Monster Still Paying Dividends", The Benton Harbor News-Palladium (June 16, 1964)
- "Populace Up in Arms Over Parke County 'Bear'", The South Bend Tribune (Oct 1, 1972) -- a story about a similar hoax that the paper compares to the Dewey Lake Monster hoax, showing that the original event was still remembered eight years later
- "Action Line", The Sound Bend Tribune (Aug 18, 1983) -- a "do you remember this?" paragraph about the 1964 event, showing again that it's still in public memory

I believe that this demonstrates notability. I'll add these to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep One of the local papers mentions that UPI picked up the story in 1964. Like a lot of silly ufo/monster stories of the 1960s, this one probably did see some national press outside of Michigan. This article is actually a decent example of how Wikipedia should cover these local monster legends and press flaps; making clear their legendary status and treating the various wild claims in a completely un-sensational way. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, meets WP:GNG, covered by a number of sources over an extended period, as brought out above and in the article. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, local legend that meets GNG with continuing coverage from the 60s and even local parade events. The creature doesn't exist, but the cultural phenomena is notable.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 06:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. If kept, content and tone should regard gorilla/grizzly/wild boar chimeras (or whatever) with some editorial distance. --Lockley (talk) 19:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1977 Arizona armored car robbery

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

Article has been unsourced forever (though obviously sources do exist). Topic is a not-unusually-significant crime, covered in the style of a tabloid newspaper in violation of WP:SENSATIONAL. Clear-cut violation of WP:NOTNEWS. JBL (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 14:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Its notable as per refs I have now added. I can't find coverage from time but can find stuff afterwards - Wp:before. Why it had to come to afd before anyone did anything? Davidstewartharvey (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Definitely notable, significant, sustained coverage exists for this case (particularly its aftermath, the stays of execution etc.), See, e.g., 1 2 3 4. Also Rename to Murder of Russell Dempsey and Cecil Newkirk or something similar, since the reason this case is notable is the murders, not the robbery. Agree the nom should have done WP:BEFORE and added the refs themselves - some people just have the attitude that if an an article has no refs then it should be deleted without ever considering adding refs themselves, thanks to Davidstewartharvey for doing the necessary work. FOARP (talk) 19:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Close as Keep With the new sources, there is no question that it meets notability criteria. Early closure should be considered Acebulf (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, article now reflects this with the sources added (thanks to above editors), suggest though, that article is too detailed and needs some pruning. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Coolabahapple I agree, just didn't have the time to rewrite. A lot of detail in article which is not available in reliable refs on the net, think article was written by someone writing the storyline of the FBI files. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep May need more sources but with only two other brothers ending the same way in Arizona, I can say it is encyclopedic. Nika2020 (talk) 01:43, 1 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sealand nobles

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

Fake nobility titles for sale or given away as jokes / promotion for this unrecognised micronation. Even the "princess of Sealand" is a redlink who has received nothing but a few passing mentions in reliable sources, and other "nobles" have been in the news as typical joke / novelty news items, and don't even have these "titles" discussed in their own articles.

Entries in the article are unverifiable and thus BLP violations, e.g. there is not a single source about a "Thomas Chidley IV" or any source relating a "Tracey Kemble" to Sealand. Fram (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 14:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tgec17 Response to Fram

In what sense do you mean fake? In Sealand the titles are legally recognized so they are not fake, similar to how some titles are only recognized in certain countries. Making a claim that Sealand is not a real sovereign country because it does not have international recognition is an opinion, not a fact. This is because:

1. According to a simple google search (the information panel which pops up when you type in "What is the definition of a country") the definition of a country is "a nation with its own government, occupying a particular territory."

2. According to Merriam-Webster it is "a political state or nation or its territory"

3. According to Cambridge "an area of land that has its own government, army, etc.:"

4. According to Collins Dictionary "A country is one of the political units which the world is divided into, covering a particular area of land."

You will notice that Sealand fits all these definitions: It occupies territory independent of any other country, it has its own form of government, it has an army (Military Order of the Knights of Sealand). To go further it mints coins, issues passports, etc. You will also notice that nowhere does it say that an entity must have international recognition to be considered a country. So calling the titles fake is actually false because it is under the assumption that Sealand is not a country, but by definition it is a country.

There are three reasons why some members of the Sealand nobility might not have the title in their article. they are usually celebrities or famous and there articles are not centered around their titles and honors, the article did include this information but an editor such as yourself decided to delete this information, or three, this information is missing simply because the editors of the articles were not aware of this persons title. But since you raised this, It really should be added to their articles and I will do it, thanks for bringing it up.

Finally regardless of what you believe about Sealand, personal opinion should not play a role in what is deemed important information (I hope we can both agree). Although some people might not think it worthy of its own articles, many others probably do think its worthy of its article and since it is providing potentially useful and interesting information about the nobility of a country in an encyclopedic manner it should not be deleted. The only possible argument which you could make is the one you originally made that the article lacked sufficient sources, but this has changed since you made this allegation and the article is backed up by sources which sufficiently prove its claims. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgec17 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Nobility where you don't need to be a citizen of the country, nor do you need to have done anything for the country, nor do you even need to have done anything worthwhile in general (you or an ancestor), is fake nobility. Any "award" that can be openly bought is not an award or recognition. Furthermore, this "country" has no land, no recognition, no actual citizens, no army... no nothing. The sources you provide are indicative of the joke nature of these "titles", which is strengthened by the fact that the only times a reliable source gives attention to these is because they need some "human interest" about someone who already was notable. No one has become notable because they "recieved" a title from Sealand, they are either independently notable and their "noble title" is totally irrelevant to their biography, or they simply aren't notable (like Chidley, Crouch, Kemble or Mei Shi). Fram (talk) 16:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to this I (the author) have several points to make:

1.first and foremost regardless of whether you personally consider Sealand a country is irrelevant to the article itself which provides basic encyclopedic information on the nobility of an independent state. To say that this is not worthy of an article is to discriminate against a state based on its size, furthermore it provides information which can be, and is useful and interesting to people. I think it is against the basic principles of Wikipedia to try and delete this article, a factual list which allows for the sharing of knowledge.

2. As mentioned earlier Sealand does have land: the land which supports the base and the base itself constitute land a property. Additionally Sealand has citizens, mints money, and has received recogniztion from a judge in Britain as being outside the uks legal jurisdiction. Additionally a German diplomat is known to have visited Sealand. Finally as I mentioned earlier Sealand does have an army: the military order of the knights of Sealand.

3. Your definition of nobility is not on par with the general consensus which is that nobility is “the group of people belonging to the noble class in a country, especially those with a hereditary or honorary title.”

I fail to see even a single valid point you’ve made regarding Sealands status and based on your remarks I doubt you have done any research into Sealand. Your point about notability being solely reliant on a reliable source is not actually a relevant or meaningful point because many references of people on lists do not cite reliable sources. With all of this in mind I would be surprised if you continued to push this, which is something of a waste of time for both of us and is petty and inconsequential. Having a list of nobles of a micro nation does nothing to weaken Wikipedia or Wikipedia’s prestige and is of significant interest to many readers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgec17 (talk • contribs)

David Stewart Harvey's Comments

Delete That Sealand exists and sells titles of nobility is notable. The individuals who have purchased these titles are not inherently notable. pburka (talk) 17:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable. How can titles bought from a nation not recognised be an article? Refs are all puff on YouTube or Instagram. Only bbc article be accepted as secondary but really does not show wp:gng. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tgec17's Response to David's Comments

(Author) In Response to David: I don't know why you have written delete twice before your statements but I suppose you are in favor of deleting the article. I do not understand your first statement, it seems you tried to write it in shorthand. I would appreciate it if you explained exactly what you mean in a clearer way. As for the second statement, why would I delete background knowledge from the article? This makes no sense. You make a point about Instagram and YouTube, however you should not fall into the trap of only ever trusting and using reliable sources; such sources will be added as the article develops but if you actually look at the sources its pretty clear that they are reliable (guys holding up their sealand nobility documents). If you really want to get technical and say the article cannot exist without a reliable source (which will be added soon), then I can just add some now and end this nonsense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgec17 (talk • contribs) 19:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Principality of Sealand already mentions the novelty in the main article, and the BBC article is cited there. None of the other sources in this article are from reliable sources, and there's no support for notability for the fact that Sealand has sold some titles. Schazjmd (talk) 20:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Tgec17 response -

So far as I am aware, and I have read the page on notability, a wikipedia article does not require a reliable source; take stubs for example. As I said earlier, even if a reliable source is required I would happily supply one. From what I understand a source is only required if a user challenges a statement... so are you challenging the statement that Sealand sells noble titles? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tgec17 (talk • contribs) 21:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tgec17, I'm not challenging the statement that Sealand sells noble titles. I'm saying the fact that they sell titles is not notable, and that a list of people who bought them is not notable. (Also, please read and follow WP:INDENT in discussions, it helps.) Schazjmd (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete and a barrage of WP:TROUT to those who have spent so many words on what is so patently not notable. Mangoe (talk) 21:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, and it's really not close. Sealand is a 'country' within the UK. Actually, it's within UK waters, and it's a UK built structure. You cannot just declare ownership of some unused man-made structure, and then start handing out nobility titles. Policy-wise, the fact of the matter here is that this article has 5 sources, 4 of them are Instagram. The fifth might as well be humour. This has no encyclopaedic value. Despite the passionate argument made, it doesn't change the fact that ~~WP:GNG~~WP:LISTN isn't even close to being met here. Sidenote: this AfD is an absolute pain to read due to the formatting. Also, kindly stop bludgeoning the process. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guidelines you mentioned are not applicable to lists "The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists". The article which I am attempting to make is essentially a list so it is not bound by the same rules.--Tgec17 (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability guidelines still apply, and here specifically, WP:LISTN is applicable, and evaluated under similar criteria for the topic as a whole. I don't see that being met. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:19, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll type it again for you "'The criteria applied to the creation or retention of an article are not the same as those applied to the content inside it. The notability guidelines do not apply to contents of articles or lists'"

Also this: "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been."

And this "Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. "

So yeah basically not ever name on the list needs to be cited, and the list fufills the recognized informational purpose of providing information about the current nobility of a country (It doesnt actually matter what your personal opinion of Sealand is in this case because many people see it as a country and are interested in the information this list provides).--Tgec17 (talk) 21:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly the country is not recognised internationally. The Principality of Sealand is allowed on Wikipedia because it has achieved the notability rules. Secondly, lists have to prove that the subject of the list is notable - there is not enough evidence of this as per wikipedia rules as stated by all editors here. Thirdly, because someone has a title it does not make them notable as per Wikipedia rules (wp:bio). Fourthly, trying to bludgeon editors will get you to WP:ANI. Fifthly - This is not a vote all process. At the end of this an admin will look at the arguement, look to see who has put the arguement against all wikipedia policies and then make a decision - Bludgeoning, altering the format, and statements like "As I said earlier, even if a reliable source is required I would happily supply one" will be ignored. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I altered the format I wasn't aware there was a specific format and for talk pages and I was just trying to make it more clear. As far as bludgeoning, Im not trying to Bludgeon anyone, I'm simply trying to reason with some of the comments that I've seen. As I do not want to spam I'll just point again to the quotations I've taken from the notability essay right before you made this comment David. I will say I have added sources to the article which are generally considered reliable (from BBC and ITV). I put the quotations in bold so its easier for people to read as it seems to be an issue. --Tgec17 (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of People-related deletion discussions. More specific delsort category already added. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are now several "noteworthy" people on the list, some of whom were awarded noble titles rather than purchasing them. For example, members of the Sealand "Royal family", or Richard Royal (who was the first person to swim from Sealand to England^[1])

In fact, this specific person is a strong argument against this claim made above: "No one has become notable because they 'received' a title from Sealand, they are either independently notable and their 'noble title' is totally irrelevant to their biography, or they simply aren't notable". For this individual, the awarding of their title played a significant role in their biography. --Tomthecool (talk) 16:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:BLUDGEON by the article creator set aside, I fail to see any significant coverage about these joke titles or why we should have a list about these; besides the BBC article the only other thing I can find from a quick google search is an interview on CBC with it's current "ruler" who is named there as "King of Sealand"; but there's no coverage whatsoever about the titles besides this mention (and an interview is not an OK source for notability anyway). Oh, and article creator should not that this AfD is not about Sealand but List of Sealand nobles, so arguments about Sealand being an independent state or not or whatever have absolutely no bearing on this. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:30, 3 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Visual Arts Center of Richmond

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

Promotional article of a local group of local interest of local notability, thus does not pass WP:NORG or WP:NONPROFIT. It shouldn't have been re-created after it was deleted the first time. Graywalls (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - After checking the sourcing on this article, almost all of the sources point to 404 pages or to 404 forbidden sites. The others are basically listings that they had shows (which does not contribute to notability), or point to the fact that they have received a grant, or are listed in Guidestar as a non-profit (also do not contribute to notability). I'm not sure that it is the purpose of the wikipedia project to list every nonprofit art space in the world, isn't that what the yellow pages are for? I'll continue to look, but am leaning towards delete. Netherzone (talk) 15:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christoph Wulf

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

Currently, basically the whole article consists of copyright-violating material (translation of the subject's website) that was added in 2012 and is tricky to revert; before that, all there was was a sourceless promotional mess written by the subject himself. No revision of this article is worth saving. PJvanMill (talk) 14:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete Autobiographies violate Wikipedia terms of use. We should proactively strike every article that began as an autobiography.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Terms of Use does not prohibit autobiographies, nor does the COI guidelines outright ban from COI editors from editing pages where they have one. Unless the article meets one of the reasons for deletion, for instance, the notability guidelines, then it should be kept. I don't have much time for a detail review of the article so I'll !vote on this later. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 23:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT unless someone would like to take the effort to stub this down and rewrite from scratch. I think he passes WP:AUTHOR with multiple published reviews of his works on JSTOR [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] but we can't keep it in this form. If someone does rewrite it please ping me so I can change my opinion here. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@David Eppstein:, take a look now as it is now a functional stub.--Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 07:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep per WP:AUTHOR and the reviews listed in my earlier comment (and per WP:PROF#C1 and the citations listed below by Eostrix) now that this has been stubbed down. The books and their reviews should be added to the article, eventually, but that does not rise to the level of a deletion discussion. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify it, clean it up in draft space, bring it back when done. That article right there is most likely good content. Now don't delete it because a COI editor was involved. The COI guidelines does not prohibit COI editing, but rather states that it's just discoraged. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 05:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So we are at AfD since the PROD by PJvanMill was contested—BY HIMSELF? WHO DOES THAT other than an actual ineligible PROD or relizing it's controversial. This was a BLPPROD, and it was apparently ineligible for BLPPROD since it somehow had sources. There was never a PROD, so a it would still be eligible. Now it was PRODed, and later contested by the PRODer himself. SInce it was an eligible PROD, all I can say other than criticizing him is, why? {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 05:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Can I Log In I saw just after proposing deletion that it had been proposed for deletion before: [43]. My prod was therefore invalid, and I admit that it was a dumb prod, I shouldn't have rushed it. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or wait, are you saying that that prod doesn't count as a former prod because it was a BLPPROD? In that case, I had no idea. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 11:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, as easily meeting WP:NACADEMIC criteria 1 with his work cited over 14 thousand times with a h-index of 55 [44]. As for the copyvio and overly long content I have performed the following two edits to resolve them: [45] [46]. I am unable to ascertain which page exactly this is alleged to come from, but I suggest PJvanMill place a Template:Copyvio-revdel with supporting links so that copyrighted material is revision deleted. The photograph of the subject is useful, and a short stub is functional.--Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 07:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Eostrix. In hindsight, this is probably what I should have done in the first place. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 12:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Heimoff

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

It seems to me that Steve Heimoff falls pretty short of WP:BIO/WP:AUTHOR, with very few WP:SECONDARY sources. It does not seem like this person is widely cited, and searches on the web seem to mostly turn up their own writing, and some quotes in news articles where they were asked for their opinion.

It's been a while since I was active on Wikipedia and I mostly stumbled across this article in a different context, but it seems pretty non-notable to me. ManishEarth^{Talk • Stalk} 19:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Huffington Post called him "one of America's most famous wine critics and wine bloggers." and considered him "among the most thoughtful and cosmopolitan journalists writing about wine today" here. Not only is Steve Heimoff widely cited on wine issues, there are a fair number of reviews of his books in places like the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, the San Francisco Chronicle, and the Los Angeles Daily News, not to mention wine magazines. For example read this independent review by Deborah Mines. Steve Heimoff has also become a political commentator. --Bejnar (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahant Nirmal Das

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

Subject fails WP:NPOL (he was a losing candidate in an election; I see no evidence he held statewide office) and fails WP:GNG. The news coverage only mentions him as a candidate for office. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 14:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete pretty clearly non-notable, also tagged CSD G4. Regardless, I don't see coverage to meet WP:NPERSON or NPOL. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for politicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhuban Bijoy Majumder

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL. By the article's admittance, the subject contested some seats (got 0.5% of the total vote), but never held a position. The "significant press coverage" alternative is also not met. Subject does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. Every person to run in any election isn't notable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails both NPOL conditions. - Harsh 14:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate for public office.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Majumder is an unremarkable, unelected candidate. LefcentrerightDiscuss 05:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:06, 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. Tone 20:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

N. Jehangir

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

Routine coverage. There's a fair amount of routine coverage, but I wasn't able to find any significant coverage with actual independent analysis of the subject. Doesn't meet WP:GNG DMySon 13:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Not every businessman is notable. Does not satisfy general notability. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 07:59, 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. Tone 20:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilburne Henry Mathurin

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

Per WP:SINGER. Possible COI with the single purpose account of the same name. - Harsh 12:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 12:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Caribbean-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 12:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We clearly need to do something to stop single purpose accounts from creating new articles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article was created by a user named "Wilburne" so see WP:DUCK. All that can be found on the singer are a few basic self-promotional sites in the Gospel community. This Wikipedia article is an attempt to do the same, created by the singer himself as he tries to get his career off the ground. Good luck to him but his autobiography can be reprinted elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Good day, sorry for the delay in replying. I am just seeing all of this today. First of all, I would like Mr. Lambert to explain what a "single purpose account" is. I thought that each article was created by a user on Wikipedia with the "single purpose" of providing information on a specific topic. So in that regard, I'm lost.

Also, I thought that autobiography articles were accepted on here. Maybe I was mistaken. If not, then would someone else sending you the same factual information I sent on myself suffice? I sent links that confirm that the information I sent is true.

The comments by Doomsdayer520: Firstly, thanks for the good luck. However, I don't understand what you meant by saying my article is "self-promotional". I provided information on where I was born, where I started singing, where I performed like any other artiste on here has done in theirs. For example, take one of my biggest inspirations, Kirk Franklin: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirk_Franklin . I am not as popular as Kirk Franklin, don't have as much information as he does, but I have 1 album and just like him, I have a website. He has the same information I have, and more. So does that make Mr. Franklin's article simply "promotional" as well? Also, you said my "autobiography can be reprinted elsewhere". I came to Wikipedia because of it's stellar reputation in providing information and I also thought that autobiographies were accepted on here. Where are you suggesting I reprint my autobiography then? Please expound these points because I am not understanding them.

In conclusion, I must say I am very disappointed. I followed the instructions given on how to create the wikipedia article to the T only to find out my article was deleted. Is the real issue that I wrote the article myself? Is that why it is being considered "self-promotional" and "single purpose"? If so, I do not recall reading that the article is required to be written by someone else. So instead of just deleting my article, the alternative would be to advise me where I went wrong and how to make it better because it took time to prepare. Reading your comments have not indicated where I went wrong or anything. I am just as lost now after reading your comments as I was when I found out my article was deleted. So please do a better job at explaining. I am not as big an artiste as Kirk Franklin and others, but I am a real person and I just wanted to share information on myself, my history, my accomplishments just like any other artiste on here. Awaiting your responses and explanations.

Wilburne — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wilburne (talk • contribs) 20:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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. Tone 20:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Guzman

AfDs for this article:

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

Article on a vlogger / "Internet celebrity" which does not meet notability guidelines and is purely promotional.

There was a no-consensus AfD on this 3 years ago here. Not much has improved since. There's a lot of fitness YouTubers out there, we don't give articles to each one. The sources here are pretty weak, some are simply gossip sources, others are his own YouTube channel / LinkedIn, and some are company publicity press releases. The rest seem to be gossip. The strongest article from the last AfD, on People's Magazine, is literally about "YouTube’s hottest fitness couple may be back on.". ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either an entertainer or as a businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Not to mention it's a common name. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Law of social cycle

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

While AfD is WP:NOT cleanup, this article is so singularly terrible, without proper citations, or any indication of standalone notability, I think we are in WP:TNT territory here. A vanishingly small amount of content may be worth including at Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, but most of what is here is not noticed by independent sources and has not hope of being written as WP:NPOV. It's just gotta go and the content doesn't even deserve saving. jps (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 11:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar.Slatersteven (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Smerge. One-man theory with no evidence of wider acceptance. Guy (help!) 12:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge per JzG. Most of the content which can be saved already seems to be in Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, so perhaps just delete. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 13:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't stand on its own, and there's nothing worth saving by way of a merge. XOR'easter (talk) 14:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't see anything worth keeping either Spiderone 18:15, 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. Tone 20:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gaurav Arya

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements to pass WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. --Arunudoy 11:11, 25 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 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 07:59, 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 redirect to Finneas O'Connell. As a valid alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in Love Without You

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

The article fails the Notability guidelines for songs in wikipedia as not only none of the three bullet points in the guidelines are met, but also there is not a single "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label." Furthermore, the links are ot interviews with the artist "This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work", and the only source that could be consider here "One to watch" is under a discussion for being unreliable. See here MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 11:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Originally reviewed the article for GAN and decided it didn't fit the profile due to its reliable on a independent coverage beyond primary interviews. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 13:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Finneas O'Connell: The song was mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (my preference) or Redirect to Finneas O'Connell - The song comes up in several softball promotional interviews with the singer, but those are more useful for his article rather than a separate article for this song, which has not achieved sufficient notability in its own right. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - So this article has 7 references, namely Tidal, iTunes, two instances of YouTube, and three interviews. No coverage in reliable secondary sources? And this was GA nominated?? Mind-blown.—N Ø 11:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MaranoFan Lol Mind blown! To funny. 🤣 ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ DarklyShadows (talk) 16:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect due to a lack of coverage from third-party, reliable sources. I recommend a redirect over an outright deletion as this could be a viable search term. Aoba47 (talk) 21:10, 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. Fenix down (talk) 16:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Winn

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

Article fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 11:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - not voting but WP:NFOOTBALL is biased to mens game? Says notable if they have played in a professional league. As per the wikiproject WP:FPL there are only two professional leagues for women. Others are semi pro.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 13:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's certainly huge WP:BIAS, User:Davidstewartharvey and potentially non-systemic bias as well. But in this case, I literally can't find any English-language reference at all since they left college, and even those were absolutely trivial. And in Russian, all I can find is her photo, here. There's nothing to write an article with. Nfitz (talk) 21:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

its not right. I just wanted to make the point.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability criteria for soccer players. Contrary to the claims above, football notability is not biased towards men, it is based on real levels of coverage since we follow actual coverage, we do not create articles on people who have never been covered in secondary sources. It also has a ludicously low level of notability, and should be scapped for something that is a little more discerning.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - article about semi-pro soccer player which doesn't satisfy the GNG. There is no significant online coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 14:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rex Chandler

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

there is no trace of notability for this subject. the sources are 3 and none of them can be considered in any length a reliable cover of the subject. I did some extra research and nothing significative came out. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Aside from scene-related win of a minor porn award, the article's references are to vague to verify the content. An independent search for sources yielded a trivial mention in a Playbill listicle and a user comment in Queerty. No strong evidence of passing WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 12:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pronographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jawaharlal Nehru Vidyapith

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

Primary school for boys (grades 1 through 4). No indication of importance beyond existing. Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 08:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have decided that primary schools are almost never notable enough to merit an article, nothing suggests this is one of the extremely rare exceptions.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 09:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Zakharyaev

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

Non-notable footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Previously PRODded as Alfred Zakharyayev. BlameRuiner (talk) 07:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about amateur footballer which doesn't satisfy NFOOTBALL or GNG. The only online Russian-language coverage I can find is routine or superficial (e.g., inclusion of his name in a list of call-ups for the Azerbaijan U-19 team). Jogurney (talk) 14:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Look for any reference and I am struggling to find any which would hve this pass WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 00:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hussein Sadeq

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

Youth footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Mezher

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No national team caps or appearances in fully-pro leagues. --BlameRuiner (talk) 07:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:12, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify - currently fails notability guidelines but subject has been called up to Iraq's national team and will likely pass WP:NFOOTY in the near future.SFletcher06 (talk) 13:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sudip Dutta

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

Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of People-related deletion discussions (already included in more specific deletion sorting categories). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - at best, one reliable source Spiderone 08:00, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonu Ratra

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

Pure promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of People-related deletion discussions (already included in more specific deletion sorting categories). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:24, 25 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, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2014-10 ✗ A7

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) 09:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harkirat Singh Paras

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. Classic Self-promotion article. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All refs are advertising.IndiaBulez (talk) 08:16, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete and in the spirit of the article: because it's vanity spam about a non-notable person and has 0 reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 10:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Multiple unreliable sources, eg linkedin etc --FFS19 (talk | contribs) 16:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 11:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One Child

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

~~Borderline, but I don't think it meets WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:30, 25 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lack of refs before did make it a delete, but I think I have added enough to show that it meets notability. Was a best selling paperback, has been quoted in research. Author is certainly notable, and as this is her first book. User:Davidstewartharvey
Keep. Two academic reviews, one already linked, I found one more at [47] (page 91, several paragraphs long, text at LibGen). I suggest User:Boleyn withdraws this now. FYI both reviews were very easy to find using LibGen search, I used the phrase '"One Child" hayden'. I suggest using this search engine in addition to Google ones, it is pretty solid for finding academic reviews. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent comments above. Thanks for the tip on LibGen. Boleyn (talk) 06:26, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No Coins, Please

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG; possibly worth a redirect to author. Boleyn (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepFound contemporary reviews and added them. WP:Before is an issue as launched in 84.User:Davidstewartharvey
Redirect to Gordon Korman. Not particularly notable. I don't think we need an article for every single children's book, unless it has recieved extensive coverage like Harry Potter. Otherwise, redirect to the author. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the writer. Some of Korman's books have clear stand alone notability, this one does not. I say this as someone who was first exposed to Korman's works over 30 years ago and had their understanding of high school too heavily influenced by "Don't Care High" for their own good.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect The addition of the reviews puts this over the top, IMO. --Auric talk 21:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NBOOK: Perfectly acceptable sources. Saying that a children's book is only notable if it's at the level of Harry Potter would basically leave us with 1 article about a children's book. Whatever your personal opinion of the book or what you think the standards should be, the actual standards written in NBOOK are easily met. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to clarify the intent of my !vote, I did mean that we should delete every children's book that isn't as popular as Harry Potter. I was just giving an example of a notable book. My point is that there is nothing particularly notable about this book. There are hundreds of books like these, and we should not in fact have an article for each one. This article's only inline citations are links to the book's entry on the publisher's website, and a self published website. This book unambiguously does not conform to WP:NBOOK. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 01:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. If this article is kept, I think a lot of it needs to be removed, specifically the overdetailed plot description and character list. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Speedy delete. Article speedily deleted per WP:G12 by Jimfbleak. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sidnei Tendler

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There may be some coverage in Portugese, but I am pretty sure it will not match the puffed-up claims in the article, which has no sources at all. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a copy/paste effort. https://copyvios.toolforge.org/?lang=en&project=wikipedia&title=Sidnei+Tendler&oldid=&use_engine=0&use_links=0&turnitin=0&action=compare&url=https%3A%2F%2Fateliersidneitendler.wordpress.com%2Fabout%2F Vexations (talk) 16:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Clear copyright violation of this website. Tagged for CSD G12 —Jack Frost (talk) 11:57, 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. Tone 20:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Day (Navy SEAL)

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

Non notable author and fails WP:SOLDIER - this article is purely for self promotion Gbawden (talk) 07:00, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails every head of WP:SOLDIER and fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single award of the Navy Cross doesn't meet SOLDIER, neither does his rank. I'm not seeing much other than his autobio that would help it meet GNG, looks like promotion of the book to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He was covered before the book (which just came out), for instance: [48] [49] [50]. He's notable for being shot 27 times and surviving. Vici Vidi (talk) 08:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no claim of notability under WP:SOLDIER or WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 09:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hawkeye7 don't you mean delete then? Mztourist (talk) 09:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Ooops. My mistake. Changed to delete. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 10:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete notable neither as a writer nor as a soldier.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There seems to be no disagreement that the two clubs have merged, but there is a lack of clarity on what the new name of the club will be. Since there is not a strong consensus within this discussion, I think it's best to wait for more clarity (i.e. if the club itself makes an official announcement about its new name) and then do any moves/merges/redirects that are required. This problem will be far easier to solve when there is clear evidence of the club's name. ‑Scottywong | [confabulate] || 07:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ATK–Mohun Bagan

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

Procedural nomination. The subject seems to exist and has many Google News hits, but there have been claims that this is nevertheless a hoax. Adam9007 (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per WP:HOAX, WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RUMOUR. No such club exists. The existing Mohun Bagan A.C. article will be updated when something is annoucned from the club. A rumour based article, total hoax. Status of the clubs will be revealed after a board meeting of both the clubs, nothing is official yet and meeting is yet to take place. reference for clarification. Drat8sub (talk) 16:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007, I don't understand why XFD is done here instead of the speedy deletion. When no such club exist and when those article on google are just speculation and rumours why there is a need of discussion. I would also like to invite most experienced editors from WP:IFTF, ArsenalFan700, Coderzombie and MBlaze Lightning to put their thoughts. Drat8sub (talk) 16:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any reason to believe that this article was created in bad faith? A hoax is a deliberate attempt to deceive. From what I can see, this is probably just a misunderstanding. Adam9007 (talk) 17:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I've enough reason for that, you will simply understand the POV pushing happening at both club articles and can go through the talk pages of the articles. This was not a misunderstanding but a deliberate attempt that we have seen in the respective articles and social media. Because in clear words everything is mentioned in the Mohun Bagan and ATK articles' talk pages. Drat8sub (talk) 17:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We go by what reliable sources say, not editors' own opinions. This name is confirmed by [51], [52], [53] and many others found by the Google News search linked at the top of this discussion. Maybe there are inaccuracies in the article, but it is nothing like a hoax, and the fact that an editor chose to edit-war over the speedy deletion tag casts doubt on the good faith being shown here. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And just I was looking for further sources the first I saw was "ATK Mohun Bagan Private Limited incorporated with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs", published today by Goal.com. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, this is not my opinion, the club has said after a board meeting they will reveal name, then those article does not count. More than that the article is not saying it is the official name, they just said the clubs are merged, well written in the Mhun Bagan and ATK articles. These are all speculation. I have added a ciation for clarification also. Secondly, the articles that you have mentioned says ATK-Mohun Bagan will play in the continental, no doubt they will but not as new entity, because a new entity cannot play in the continental level, this is a fact, rules of AFC. That's why said, you should have consulted with the editors who are working on Indian football articles. No official meeting yet, no official name annoucnement, no official owners revealed and even when new name will be there, there is no need for new articles, the existing Mohun Bagan article will be updated with the new names. Drat8sub (talk) 17:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Goal areticle is total crap. Reason I've mentioned much before at the article talk page. Nothing is official, the club will reveal everything. Since when wikipedia is creating articles on speculation. Above that it violated WP:NOTNEWS, WP:RUMOUR. Drat8sub (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment At best, this is the case of WP:TOOSOON, at worst this should be deleted. Though the club may have been created as new entity, it's just ATK investor taking controlling share in Mohun Bagan club. In my opinion, when more details emerge, Mohun Bagan A.C. should be moved to new page, with whatever the new name is. Coderzombie (talk) 04:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - on the basis that a new club called 'ATK-Mohun Bagan' exists per this and other sources. It is standard when two existing clubs merge to create a new article, see eg Dagenham F.C. + Redbridge Forest F.C. = Dagenham & Redbridge F.C.... Giant Snowman 11:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, Did you read all the comments above? First, since when articles are created on specualtion? Show me one article where the clubs say that the name is ATK-Mohun Bagan. Show me one citation where the clubs say this will be a new club. Citations can say anything, untill and unless there is any offical annoucement from club, that the new name will be this or there will be a new club, we even cannot write anything, creating new article far from this. The merger thing is well written in the clubs article? Giant you are one from whom I used to learn, but this is gross violation of WP:NPOV to show an example of another club to justify another situation where the borad meeting are yet to take place and official announcemnet are yet to be there. Is wikipedia now creating on WP:CRYSTALBALL/WP:NOTRUMOR/WP:NOTNEWS ? This one is a classic case of cystalball for sure. Drat8sub (talk) 13:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And more then that Coderzombie and me re-iterated the same thing, we know Indian football much better than anyone else, because we are well aware of facts and rules. Mohun Bagan got the continental slot, so they will play in the AFC Cup, but to play in the continental level a new club cannot play there, for a new club it has to play from lower division to higher division. So there will be new name, but new club, they will go with the history of either ATK or Mohub Bagan, to justify that they are not new club. And thats why once the borad meeting will be there an dthere is an official announcemnt from the meeting, we can create write and do anything else, not before that. This is not official !!! Period. If anybody counter, show me one proof that the clubs officially named it as ATK-Mohun Bagan and they annoucned it will be a new entity. Drat8sub (talk) 13:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK literally in the strapline of the article I shared - "The new entity will be called ATK-Mohun Bagan and will come into existence from June 1". Giant Snowman 14:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman, the new entity "will be", who told them that it will be called this, the clubs are yet to tell the official name, they are yet to take decision, no matter if this will be the same name they keep. Let's accept its a crystball. Drat8sub (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drat8sub, you seem not to accept anything written by an independent secondary source in the absense of an announcement on one of these clubs' web site. That is not how Wikipedia works. We prefer such independent secondary sources to primary sources such as club web sites. And your statement about the AFC Cup is pure original research. We don't go by your interpretation of the rules, but by what is written in reliable sources such as I linked above. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger, such an absurdity. Written in the article "ISL winners ATK Mohun Bagan", ISL winner is ATK not ATK-MohunBagan 1, this is fact manupulation to justify the later satement, in the same article where they've written "since Mohun Bagan and ATK to merge". So, still you want to go with such a crap citation where they are delivering a false information, a winner's name and manipulating to justify their opinion to look like a fact. I am disgusted. And FYI anyone can write on goal.com, many football enthusiat write on goal.com. Drat8sub (talk) 15:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And no one questioning merge, that why the merging things are well written in the clubs' article. The question here is the name, which is not an official and these citation failed to justify why they ahve written it. Its just for publication purpose to bring more readers to read. Drat8sub (talk) 15:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Bridger and GiantSnowman, here for you, hope will convince finally, most credible news atleast not like a crap source like Goal.com(it has several times spread rumours regarding players and club), this one from yesterday, TOI through PTI says clearly, an official announcement of the name and logo of the club, which was earlier slated for a June 1 launch, is expected to to be unveiled soon. So, this article is simple out of crystalball and rumours, nothing fact based. Drat8sub (talk) 15:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You haven't actually read/understood CRYSTALBALL have you? It clearly says "it is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced [...] Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place". Will this topic be notable? Yes. It is likely to happen? Yes. Therefore the article remains. In short, topics which might or are going to happen can be notable, and that extends to events or entities which might never materialise, see e.g. List of future stadiums. I have made my point, you have made your point, you cannot persuade me otherwise, please stop pinging me. Giant Snowman 16:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one questioning the merging, no one questioning the notability, but it is notable and likely to happen, that a new name will be revealed but the subject of the article is not merging event, but a new club, if the title of the article is kept as "Merging of ATK and Mohun Bagan" then your argument justifies. We are talking about the name of club, which is not justified by Cball where it says almost certain to take place. No one is certain that the club name will be ATK-Mohunbangan. And list of future stadium is there because names are proposed for every construction project. Drat8sub (talk) 16:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, for the repeated ping, it must have gone becasue of repeated correction, apologise for that. Drat8sub (talk) 00:43, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) Phil Bridger (talk · contribs) I wouldn't rely on that article. Indian journalism is... well, not always perfect. First, from all official sources and other independent sources, this isn't a "merger", this is more RPSG Group buying an 80% stake in Mohun Bagan and will merge the ATK brand with the Mohun Bagan one and also form a new corporation for Mohun Bagan. This is from sources such as from The Hindu where they say "The new football club will have brand names of ATK and Mohun Bagan." meaning that the club hasn't even come up with a name yet. Outlook India states the same. This article from Scroll has the press release which literally says "The new football club will have brand names of ATK and Mohun Bagan". On June 1, we were supposed to get the new name, the new brand, the new logo... everything. But of course, that was postponed. It could be ATK Mohun Bagan (which would be the same as the usual when Mohun Bagan has a sponsor in their name) or ATK-Mohun Bagan or something else. I think we should wait until then and for now Delete this article and re-direct this to Mohun Bagan. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm not understanding this nomination. Consensus is that the club exists, but the name isn't final? There's been many a team article for a new team in a top league created after the team is announced, but before it is named. As such, shouldn't this be an article name discussion, not a delete discussion? Is there something about the notability that I'm missing? Nfitz (talk) 22:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz To provide some clarity... we don't know what is going on. Coming into 2020 we had two clubs, ATK and Mohun Bagan. In January 2020, ATK's owners RPSG Group bought an 80% ownership stake into Mohun Bagan with Mohun Bagan owning the other 20%. It was said officially that the "new club" would involve a "merger" of the two brands ATK and Mohun Bagan. Nothing more has been said other than that on June 1, 2020 the official name, brand, and everything else would be announced. Due to Covid, that didn't happen and we don't know when it will. As of this moment, we don't know if this is a new club or not. It could be a brand new club but it could also just be ATK folding and Mohun Bagan continuing but with a different name. This is not like Major League Soccer where they announce a new expansion club and all of a sudden we get an article for Charlotte MLS team or something. We don't know what this is yet officially.

In the end, what should happen is we delete this page and redirect to Mohun Bagan for now. We update the Mohun Bagan history section to include recent events plus maybe stating that an announcement did not occur due to Covid-19. Because that is literally what is happening. There is no new club yet. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 03:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, yes club exists and the article for that club already exists, its the Mohun Bagan A.C.. The owner of the ATK (football club), RPSG Group bought share of Mohun Bagan and decided that their newly formed club ATK will be merged to Mohun Bagan and a new name, new brand name, new board will be there as happen in all club for example when some comapny buys shares. For e.g when Quess Group bought share of East Bengal team they named the East Bangal team as Quess East Bengal for sponsorship. Similarly, here also the Mohun Bagan team will be named with a prefix or suffix of the company/their club (which no one knows) who bought share. Now, so called football websites/Indian media get this whole thing wrong or deliberately done to get views or to create rumours, that it will be totaly a new club which is not the case, as if you go through The Hindu or TOI, you will find exact description not these Goal.com or KhelNow as described above by other editors too. This is not a new club, this is renaming of existing club with a prefix or suffix as a company bought a share who have a club and merged their club to the existing club. Not a new club popping out. Drat8sub (talk) 00:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notice: This page has been semi-protected to prevent further block evasion of 78.1.13.211 and 78.0.160.0/19. This discussion is contentious and contains removed comments. It should only be closed by an administrator who has also evaluated the removed comments. Please do not non-admin close this discussion. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 13:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I just want to point out here that both the ATK social media channels and the Mohun Bagan social media channels are still posting as if they are separate clubs. Nothing has been rebranded yet or merged. Meanwhile, on the official Indian Super League channels, it is still mentioned as ATK and using the ATK logo. The league website itself still has them listed as just "ATK". This is why I think this article is very premature. The Covid-19 situation has made the situation complicated but what is known right now is that for now, both ATK and Mohun Bagan are separate. In regards to the future, no one knows for sure what is going on. We don't know if this will be a brand new club (like how Seattle Sounders (1994–2008) became Seattle Sounders FC) or a merger/keeping the history of one of the club's.

I notice this conversation has become dormant so I would like to wake it up and call on Adam9007 (talk · contribs) Coderzombie (talk · contribs) Phil_Bridger (talk · contribs) and GiantSnowman (talk · contribs) to provide some further discussion. There are also points above that have not been responded too. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 19:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Initially Drat8sub annoyed me by firstly claiming that this was a hoax, which it certainly wasn't, and then by edit-warring the speedy deletion template back into the article after I had removed it, so my opinion might be prejudiced by this. There has certainly been plenty of discussion of this which I still think probably amounts to notability even if this doesn't go through in the end. The title can be changed if needed, but the important issue is that we should have coverage of this proposed merger. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed with Phil Bridger. Hoaxes (which this is not) and events that never happen (as this might be) can still be notable. Badgering us isn't going to change that fact, or our opinions. Giant Snowman 20:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever may be wrong with this article, the merge (whether it actually happens or not) has plenty of coverage in the media, and therefore seems to meet WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 21:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look, I am not trying to badger you guys. Drat's comments are his own and he shouldn't have gone off the handle the way he did. The reason I tagged you guys again is because it was almost a week since the last comment and there were points not commented on. I agree, there should be a section covering this "merger" but the thing is... there is no proof that this is an actual merger yet. All we know officially is that ATK's owner, RSPG Group, bought an 80% stake in Mohun Bagan. That is all. We don't have any further official details other than that. I think we need a section in the ATK (football club) article describing what is happening from an ATK perspective and a section in the Mohun Bagan page from that perspective and then leave it at that. Thoughts? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 00:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil_Bridger, I did not do any edit warring, reverting once, is not edit waring at all. I did not make any single edit in the article after that. And when you have opened the thread I did participate in that, to get to know if I did anything wrong or what is the reason behind your edit. You simply add a citation which is giving false fact, as written above claiming the champion of the ISL as ATK-Mohun Bagan, where as the champion is ATK and so how can you trust sources like that. So, please don't take anything personal just because we've differences, I don't think alleging is working here in anyway and we need to think staright and work together. Drat8sub (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giant, I always look up to you here. If you says its not hoax, fine. But let me know one thing, when the concerned club article is already exist along with the new name is yet to be decided and annoucned, does this article belong here? Atleast isn't it belong to TOOSOON, isn't it NOTNEWS? See, fake news/rumour are very big issue in India, a simple google search will tell you how its affecting every thing, check what IFCN tells about Indian media. And in football, rumours is common and very big deal that we often see about signing of players and often have to deal in wikipedia articles. For example, do we annouce any Presidential/PM canditate as elected based on opinions polls or post election polls, no, the similar case happening here, its a general opinion of all website that the following the merger the name, logo staus etc will be this and that and an wikipedia article is creating on this kind of opinion. We simply not badging. I've said anyone can write in such website, no accountability. My suggestion was we could have wait for it, due to Covid situation the meeting could not have happened on the scheduled time which further ignite these rumours, and as the TOI article says everything will soon be annouced, if such article needed to be created we can create, the article itself helping those rumours now. Even if you think I did any mistake I'm simply sorry for that. Drat8sub (talk) 01:49, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ATK Mohun Bagan F.C. - Koridas 📣 22:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Oh jesus christ, there is another page!? Can someone explain to me why this one should be the redirected to page? There is no source that says that the team name will be "ATK Mohun Bagan F.C.". This is starting to become ridiculous. You have editors on here who are not responding and editors from Kolkata who quite frankly are fanatics in the worst way who just want to create a page so they can say they have. Can someone just tell us, once and for all, where is the proof that there is an actual merger and that the name will be ATK Mohun Bagan. That is all I want. Right now, officially, from what I know, something was supposed to happen on June 1... but nothing did. The Indian Super League is still referring to ATK as ATK and other media is referring to Mohun Bagan as Mohun Bagan. We have goal.com mentioning a registry name but nothing official about the club name, for the club playing in the 2020–21 Indian Super League season, being ATK-Mohun Bagan or ATK Mohun Bagan F.C. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 22:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan700, but AIFF is mentioning ATK Mohunbagan. and the ATK Mohun Bagan F.C. is older and more factual. ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it isn't. Where has it ever been mentioned that there is an "F.C." in the name? Also, has an official name been announced formally? Do we have any branding? Is this even a separate club or a continuation of Mohun Bagan or ATK? None of this has been answered yet. The AIFF mentioned ATK Mohun Bagan in one article and just discussed them as a joint venture. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan700, it is a football club. so, fc will be there. mohunbagan was established as athletic club, so they mention AC ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That makes no sense! I support the New York Red Bulls and they don't have FC or anything like that. Just because they are a football club doesn't mean they get "FC". --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan700, That's not a huge issue. It can be moved later. also, American soccer clubs don't use FC/SC. but, almost every association football clubs use. ❯❯❯ S A H A 17:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American clubs do use FC. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan700, 50-50. but other than that, almost all association football clubs use fc/sc/ac whatever. ❯❯❯ S A H A 18:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool... so does it make sense that F.C. is automatically included here? I get you want to create the article for the sake of it but don't add something that has never been said officially. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 18:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan700, as I said, not a huge issue. it can be easily moved. ❯❯❯ S A H A 19:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to ATK Mohun Bagan F.C.: created before, properly sourced and more factual. citations- ^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]^[7]^[8]^[9] ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ Royal, Mark. "Arise Sir Richard: Sealand swimmer knighted". Ipswich Star. Retrieved 27 June 2020.
^ "ATK Mohun Bagan - The name ISL and I-League champions would play as | Goal.com". www.goal.com. Retrieved 2020-06-08.
^ "Participation of Indian clubs in AFC Club competitions in 2021". www.the-aiff.com. Retrieved 2020-06-30.
^ "RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group acquires majority stake in Mohun Bagan Football Club (India) Private Limited". Mohun Bagan Athletic Club. 2020-01-16. Retrieved 2020-04-16.
^ "Sourav Ganguly: ATK-Mohun Bagan a fantastic collaboration for football". Indian Super League. Retrieved 2020-04-28.
^ "ATK Mohun Bagan Private Limited incorporated with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs | Goal.com". www.goal.com. Retrieved 2020-06-22.
^ সংবাদদাতা, নিজস্ব. "এটিকে-বাগান সংযুক্তির প্রক্রিয়া". anandabazar.com (in Bengali). Retrieved 2020-04-19.
^ "What the Coach Fiasco Tells Us About Future of Mohun Bagan After M̶e̶r̶g̶e̶r̶ Takeover by ATK". NewsClick. 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-04-19.
^ "I hope Mohun Bagan fans will continue to support ATK-MB, says Sanjoy Sen". The Bridge. 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

Redirect both this page and ATK Mohun Bagan F.C. to Mohun Bagan A.C. – until a formal announcement is made, both articles should be redirected to the Mohun Bagan page. Nothing has been announced yet. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ArsenalFan700: Why MB, and why not ATK? ATK is the major shareholder. and I didnt revert. I am new to the conflict resolving tool. ❯❯❯ S A H A 17:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and, if necessary, Move should a different name be announced at a later date. Spike 'em (talk) 18:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The existence of the football club, to the best of my knowledge, is hardly in doubt; rather it is the name. The name of the club should not be a reason to delete, and it is no difficult task to move it to the right name if the final name is different. This isn't a hoax at any rate. Java Hurricane 02:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't think it is just the name that is in doubt but the status of a new club. Will this "new team" be Mohun Bagan but rebranded with ATK in the name or will this be a brand new club. That is my argument. At the end of the day, we might not need a new page, just a rename of the Mohun Bagan page. The reason I think that is because the ATK owners, RPSG Group bought a stake in Mohun Bagan. Not the club, but the club's owners bought a stake in Bagan. We hear the word merger but is it a merger of the two clubs or is it just a "faux merger" in that the only merging done is ATK's name being added to Mohun Bagan's name? We have precedence for this before, with Mohun Bagan being known as McDowell's Mohun Bagan at one point due to them being partly owned by Vijay Mallya and his United Breweries Group. That is why I think this article is a bit premature right now. It was created after 1 June when the "merger" was supposed to take place but didn't due to Covid-19. Nothing was announced or finalized. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 14:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan700, mcdowell mb is not the same as atk MB. city group bought shares in Mumbai city, but the clubs didn't merge. they are operating multiple clubs simultaneously. now, if goenka have operated 2 clubs, then the situation would have been different. but, this is a case of club merger like psg. ❯❯❯ S A H A 11:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll say this one more time and then I'm leaving this discussion to a closing admin... this is like McDowell and Mohun Bagan. ATK isn't buying into Mohun Bagan and this is not a classic "merger". In this situation, the owners of ATK separately have bought an 80% stake in Mohun Bagan. ATK is going to disband but the branding will be worked into Mohun Bagan, to what extent, we will see. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 16:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - @ArsenalFan700: has been canvassing. Giant Snowman 11:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note that is not my intention at all to sway. Almost a week went with no response, even after the AfD was relisted. I wanted to provide some context and I provided sources to do so. If people read it and decide keep, that is fine and I am more than happy to go with consensus in the end. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 13:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per all the discussion here, it seems clear to me that the merger in question has not taken place. Articles and previous announcements may say this was going to happen on June 1st but due to ongoing circumstances that came into doubt and nothing further was mentioned. This club, effectively, does not exist yet. Until an announcement or official release is put out, this is a case of WP:TOOSOON.
Redirect to ATK Mohun Bagan F.C.. There's no doubt that there's notability here, and there's no doubt that ATK Mohun Bagan F.C. is a better location for an article. What the final name of the article should be is unknown ... but this shouldn't be a deletion debate. But no prejudice against future redirect, renaming, or merging discussions when more is known. But perhaps hold off until there's some news? Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Reading over these comments, and looking at this article, I guess the question I now have is, whatever the page is between this one and ATK Mohun Bagan F.C., should we rename one of them to New Kolkata ISL club. This would basically be the same as in Major League Soccer, when they announce new expansion clubs but there is no name yet... so like Charlotte MLS team and St. Louis MLS team. The article above pretty much mentions that there probably will be a new team but with nothing confirmed, I think the best course of action, from an encyclopedia perspective, is to say New Kolkata ISL team. Thoughts? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So basically have an opener along the lines of this with more relevant information. If it does turn out to be just Mohun Bagan continuing as one entity then we can merge, if not, we can push on with the new article. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ArsenalFan700, it was clearly mentioned in the press release of mohunbagan, that it will be both clubs and not one. so, there's no question whether mohunbagan will be continuing as one entity. ❯❯❯ S A H A 06:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: most probably the board meeting will be held on 10th of this month. so, we should wait before taking any other step. ❯❯❯ S A H A 06:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
source ❯❯❯ S A H A 11:38, 3 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 2020 Singaporean general election. Tone 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shawn Huang Wei Zhong

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

Nothing better than mere-mentions in independent sources. Does not meet WP:GNG. Awards won do not meet WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree does not meet WP:GNG. Modest military career. Modest post-military accomplishments. David notMD (talk) 14:11, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree -- subject is not notable.
Delete Nothing that he's done is sufficiently distinguished, fails WP:NSOLDIER as well as WP:NBIO, a search reveals no coverage that would establish notability Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources cited provide no evidence of notability. Maproom (talk) 22:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Postpone AFD The People's Action Party have just announced him as a candidate for the 2020 Singaporean general election on 10 July, which is just two weeks away. If he wins (which is likely), he will almost certainly be notable as a member of a national parliament, and if he loses, the election coverage will help us better evaluate his notability. That the primary contributor Thang324 appears to be Huang himself or closely connected to him does not automatically mean he is not notable, but does mean that the article will need to be rewritten if kept. --Hildanknight (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to 2020 Singaporean general election now that he's a candidate in the election. He won't be notable until (if) he wins. We don't postpone AFDs, but the redirect will easily allow the article to be recreated should he win. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as suggested. The redirect can be reverted if and when he wins the election. – robertsky (talk) 05:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, redirect is the way to go. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 05:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Mostly edited by himself or his friends. Clearly self-promotion. BlueD954 (talk) 14:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article, which by the way, he wrote it himself, does not sound like bibliography using peacock terms and violates WP:NPOV guidelines. Pls expedite the deletion before this goes too far. SecretSquirrel78 (talk) 15:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete On second thoughts, editors can request WP:REFUND if and when he wins the elections. Speedy, as such articles should not have been created in the first place as it is jumping the gun. – robertsky (talk) 03:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Robertsky, the decision for redirect vs delete is based on the longstanding convention that it's appropriate to redirect a non-notable candidate to an election page. The fact that the article should not have been created has nothing to do with it, both outcomes agree that it should not have been created. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 03:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rosguill: okie. redirect then. apologies about the flip-flop. – robertsky (talk) 06:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per longstanding practice to redirect candidate's names to the article about the corresponding election. If he wins, the article can be recreated immediately. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 04:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as per redirect reasons above

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) 09:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Colby Cosh

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

Not independently notable. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 05:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose, he is a well known columnist in Canada.--A.S. Brown (talk) 02:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: That's irrelevant. Wikipedia policies make it very clear that there's no such thing as inherent notability. J.J. McCullough is much much more notable than Colby Cosh in Canada and his article was deleted for the same reasons Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/J._J._McCullough_(2nd_nomination) -- because there's no such thing as inherent notability. If you want to vote to keep this article, you need to prove that multiple independent reliable sources have covered Colby Cosh, as individual, with in-depth coverage. Note: The sources need to have covered Colby Cosh himself, not just referred to whatever articles he has written about. Not that this is particularly relevant to the AFD anyway, but I'd also dispute your characterisation of Colby Cosh being a "well known columnist in Canada", he has 13.5k twitter followers, that's hardly notable... Apples&Manzanas (talk) 09:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability detected. --Lockley (talk) 23:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a very prolific columnist ... but I can't find ANYTHING that's actually about him, other than that 2007 Oilers thing, that briefly mentions that he's a fan - which just isn't enough. Ping me if more stuff is found, but I think I've been pretty thorough. Nfitz (talk) 18:05, 1 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) 09:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murdim Project

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

no sources or evidence of notability Tdslk (talk) 05:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find evidence of notability either. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 06:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete how did this survive since 2009? All I could find is this Rhizome entry, which is more of primary source than actual coverage. It's also barely possible to discern what this Murdim Project is, based on the current article text.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per above, not notable. TheImaCow (talk) 10:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article is near incomprehensible, there is one source that is user-contributed, the artist doesn't appear to be notable himself. This is not an artwork that has received any critical attention. Vexations (talk) 21:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG, wonder how it survived so long. Antila ✉ 05:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, does not meet WP:GNG, no wikiuseable sources found. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ragini Chandran

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

Unknown actress. She is not notable because she hasn't starred in any film yet. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 05:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of People-related deletion discussions (already included in more specific deletion sorting categories). 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the notable significant roles in notable productions needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR as of now.Upcoming but not notable as of now.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly WP:TOOSOON Spiderone 07:58, 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) 04:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jarvis (gamer)

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

Appears to fail WP:BLP1E. Coverage from reliable sources is essentially exclusively on the ban and reaction to the ban. The song fails WP:NMUSIC as well. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 04:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not really notable for anything other than the ban, and it's covered in the Fortnite Battle Royale article. That's enough coverage on the incident, and the name isn't really a plausible redirect. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Person does not offer significant coverage from reliable sources. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unable to locate detailed biographical details in secondary sources. Notable for one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Maybe his ban could be made into a page instead of him himself? 2019AlwaysLit (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Jarvis has an odd headshape Epicgamespro (talk) 08:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him aside from being banned from a certain gaming community. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:27, 1 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vic Gerami

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

Does not meet WP:GNG, insufficient coverage in independent sources. The only source provided that might include significant independent coverage is this WSJ article, which I am unable to access. Even if it does, however, we're still far short of meeting GNG. Searching online, the only coverage in non-affiliated sources that I was able to find was trivial coverage such as [54] where Gerami is quoted as a spokesperson on behalf of a company. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Gerami is mentioned in the above-referenced WSJ article as "a leading gay activist in West Hollywood, Calif." and quoted briefly three times. I wouldn't call it significant coverage for Gerami. Glendoremus (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Definitely is notable in California. I think that the article is relevant enough to be in Wikipedia. He's one of the top Armenian-American LGBTQ activist in West Hollywood. And to have a quoted to be used by the Supreme Court shouldn't taken lightly. There is no need to delete this. Some rewrite may help to make it better. So keep it with some revision. Livinginthepink (talk) 15:53, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. I found nothing. Google News Search turns up Windy City times, an interview, and Armenian Weekly, News articles and lots of press release for some reason. He has a mention in WSJ. Nothing apart from that. No effective coverage. scope_creep^Talk 15:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KeepThank you for creating a Wikipedia page about me. I am grateful, humbled, and flattered, but I see that it has been nominated for deletion. I am not much of a Wikipedia editor, so I do not know the intricacies of this site. But with the risk of sounding pompous and pretentious, let me make a case to let my page stay.

I believe that the original edit covers most of what I am known for. But just in case, I am a well-known journalist and a queer and human rights activist. Due to my activism and community organizing prior to Prop 8, I was interviewed by The Wall Street Journal and called a ‘leading gay activist.’

Several years later, I was referenced in the landmark Supreme Court civil rights case, Obergefell v. Hodges, which made marriage-equality possible. The court held in a 5–4 decision that the fundamental right to marry is guaranteed to same-sex couples by both the Due Process and the Equal Protection Clauses of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution.

Every week, at least one, sometimes two members of Congress are guests on my show, THE BLUNT POST with VIC, on the nation’s longest-running public radio, KPFK 90.7 FM. In addition to being a founding board member of Equality Armenia, I am one of the best known gay Armenian-American activists who has written long-form investigative stories for The Advocate, country’s longest-running LGBTQIA+ publication, as well as the three largest Armenian-American publications, Asbarez, Armenian Weekly, and The California Courier. I dared to criticize the regime of the current Prime Minister of Armenia, Nikol Pashinyan, and their failure to curtail homophobia. I have received numerous death threats against me via email, messenger and social media for being an out gay Armenian. Thank you for your time, consideration, and kind regards, vic Vicgerami (talk) 01:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs in depth sources but the consensus isn't quite there.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus has clearly shifted in that direction, tracking improvement in the article. There is no reasonable prospect of a consensus for deletion at this point. BD2412 T 03:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Beddome

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

Does not meet WP:POLITICIAN. Has never been elected, lead a party that has never held a seat.--User19004 (talk) 02:36, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 03:07, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a never elected politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:19, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Unelected candidate and leader of a small provincial party. LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:27, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Strictly speaking, the question of whether the party has ever held a seat in the legislature is not in and of itself controlling on whether the leader qualifies for an article or not — some minor or fringe parties have held one or two legislative seats in their day without making all of their leaders notable, and some minor party leaders get enough reliable source coverage to clear WP:GNG regardless of whether they technically passed or failed WP:NPOL on the letter of the law. But this article literally depends 50 per cent on primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and even the half that is real media still isn't all about James Beddome, so the article is not well-sourced enough to make him one of the latter. Bearcat (talk) 18:44, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with easily found references that are significant and primarily about the person. Such as CTV News, Global News, CBC News, Winnipeg Free Press. Even some of the references in the article meet GNG - such as this one from 2007 which means he's been getting significant coverage for over a decade! Article needs improving. Nfitz (talk) 05:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Please note nominator has been blocked for sockpuppetry and has done little but AFD articles since they created their account - all of which that I've carefully checked seem to be notable. Nfitz (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable 3rd party leader. KidAd (talk) 06:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand this comment. How is GNG not met, User:KidAd? And what has 3rd party leader got to do with anything - the third party is always notable. Though surely the Manitoba Green Party isn't the third party. Nfitz (talk) 09:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Whether or not NPOL is met (consensus would be no on this), the GNG aspect of this topic should be further discussed, per sources presented by Nfitz.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:38, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while it is clear that he does not meet the categories in WP:POLITICIAN that would presume/guarantee notability, I believe he nonetheless meets WP:GNG. He has been the leader of the Green Party of Manitoba off and on for more than a decade, and received a lot of coverage in WP:RS both included here and not (as noted by Nfitz). While some of this coverage is "courtesy" election coverage, there is a lot of it over a long period of time. As he now works as a defence attorney there seems to also be more and more peripheral coverage of him in that context. Also given the increasing fortunes of the Greens federally, in BC (where they are in a supply and confidence agreement with the governing NDP), PEI (where they are the official opposition), Ontario and New Brunswick (where they have elected MPPs/MLAs) and in Vancouver and Burnaby where they have elected City Councillors, I am not sure it is a great idea for us to go around deleting articles about their provincial leaders, where there is a reasonable case to be made that they have reached GNG status.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIIW, I have updated the article a bit, and added some citations over the last few days. It is also worth noting that Beddome is included in the infobox for the 2016 Manitoba general election because the Greens won 5.07% of the province-wide vote in that election. He is also included in the infobox for the next Manitoba election. For some reason, he was omitted from the infobox for the 2019 election, despite the fact that the party increased their support to 6.43% in the election last year. I have now added him to the infobox there, and started a discussion on the talk page there, since usually we include party leaders in those boxes if they receive >5%.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I have also listed this on Wikipedia:Canadian Wikipedians' notice board as suggested on the Canadian portal.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources presented here seem to be mostly interviews. Delete per Bearcat. SportingFlyer T·C 16:39, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Darryl Kerrigan seems to have improved the article enough to make it pass GNG in my opinion. -- Earl Andrew - talk 19:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:HEY. Meets GNG with WP:SIGCOV pieces in good RS here, and here, and here; plus others. Britishfinance (talk) 17:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Seems to have been improved enough to lean towards keep. Hopefully another week of discussion will make that consensus clearer.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In addition to the above, another SIGCOV full interview piece on CTV News here, and (another) interview on CBC News here. Britishfinance (talk) 10:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets GNG as per Britishfinance's, Darryl Kerrigan's, and Nfitz's arguments. Samsmachado (talk) 04:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per existing sources. When you pile up this many interviews, the "interviews don't count for notability" argument looks pretty thin. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Fraser (character)

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

Non-notable fictional character. The GNG applies here, and we don't have anything that discusses this character's development or influence outside of the scope of the fiction. The references discuss a bit of inspiration to the author, but are superficial and don't demonstrate notability. The character isn't influential for other fiction writers, and isn't used as an allegorical sense, and so on. (Note that the actor being nominated for awards is about the actor, not the character.) Mikeblas (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per common sense. This is the main character of a very popular, long-running book series and a very popular, long-running television show. As it says in the article, the actor has been nominated for two Saturn Awards, two People's Choice Awards, a BAFTA and a Critic's Choice Award for playing this character. Mikeblas says that that's "about the actor, not the character," and if I squint really hard I can almost understand where that's coming from, but nobody is nominated for six major awards in a world where nobody has ever written about the character. The presumption that no coverage exists is just not sensible. I'll go ahead and quote just two:
- "The stories the show told during the second half of the first season deepened [Claire and Jamie's] bond and their need for each other. Jamie in particular was made to confront his personal and cultural attitudes about gender roles, understand how they impact Claire, and recognize the value to him of having a wife that was his equal in every way." — "How the Outlander finale handled its disturbing rape scene", Entertainment Weekly (May 31, 2015)
- "According to author Gabaldon the character of Jamie Fraser was developed from an account in the book Prince in the Heather, which describes how 19 wounded Jacobites hid in a farmhouse after the battle. After two days they were executed under the Red Coat’s command for No Quarter, “except one man, a Fraser of the Master of Lovet's regiment, who survived the slaughter.”", "How historically accurate is Outlander?", The History Press

This character is obviously notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Outlander (book series). I don't see how the subject passes WP:NFICTION; a sentence in passing here and there is not sufficient to establish notability. The above argument clearly ignores WP:NOTINHERITED.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG as the subject of substantial sources such as Gazing at Jamie Fraser. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:22, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually... that's a good source. If we can find one more like this, I'd change my vote to keep, per the GNG requirement of multiple quality sources.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Toughpigs and Andrew and additional references such as The Symbolism and Sources of Outlander. pburka (talk) 15:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think that the subject is discussed here in depth, unfortunately. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You don't think a 205 page analysis of the symbolism and sources of Outlander discusses the protagonist of Outlander in depth? pburka (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The character is clearly notable as the "leading man" of the franchise, though I agree that the article is slim and underdeveloped. No matter that the current sourcing may not satisfy WP:NFICTION, the sources we need are definitely out there.— TAnthony^Talk 16:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are many books and articles written about the book and tv series, and within them I'm sure there is much discussion about this central character, in particular the fact that he was raped. Two sources I've found include Adoring Outlander: Essays on Fandom, Genre and the Female Audience (pages 170-173 discuss the character specifically), and this article, which is not free but this abstract indicates the character is discussed in detail. Rhino131 (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reliable sources others have mentioned give this character significant coverage. Dream Focus 13:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachna industrial park sheikhupura

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

This draft has ping-ponged in and out of draftspace a few times, has been declined and rejected at AfC, and proposed for deletion. Per WP:GEOFEAT, commercial developments must have received significant coverage in reliable independent sources to be notable. This industrial park has not received such coverage. The sources in the article are almost all either self-published or press releases. The one reliable independent source only mentions this project in passing. A search for other articles turned up only a few more press releases. This makes it clear that the topic does not meet the GNG. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**Source assessment table:**
Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
https://eproperty.pk/lahore-rachna-industrial-park-to-generate-25-mw-power-from-waste/	Real estate agent	? May be copied from another source, no named author	~	✘ No
https://nip.com.pk/project-name-2/	Developer			✘ No
https://customstoday.com.pk/two-new-industrial-parks-in-the-offing-to-promote-exports/	Same article as #4, likely a press release	No editorial information available	~	✘ No
https://nation.com.pk/17-Feb-2014/industrial-parks-being-set-up-to-promote-exports	Same article as #3, likely a press release		~	✘ No
https://www.thenews.com.pk/print/456142-sezs-turn-into-real-estate-projects-boi-chief	? Reads like a press release	No named author, no editorial standards or information		✘ No
https://nip.com.pk/rachna-industrial-park/	Developer			✘ No
https://asianetpakistan.com/official-news/misc/128206/environment-compliant-industrial-park-to-be-established/	Press release on a press-release distribution service	?		✘ No
http://www.jtgcl.com/en/index.php?m=Article&a=view&cate_id=22&id=19	Manufacturer, not a news org	Spelling errors indicate lack of editorial review		✘ No
https://tribune.com.pk/story/853715/headless-national-industrial-parks-in-disarray/			Trivial mention	✘ No
https://www.pakistantoday.com.pk/2013/03/17/generating-energy-from-waste/	?	No named author, no real editorial standards information, makes dubious claims		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

AntiCompositeNumber (talk) 02:41, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All I can find on this development is the future tense. When it can be written about in the present or past tense then it may warrant and deserve an article. I see an advert at present. Fiddle Faddle 15:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think it meets WP:GNG, and even if it does, it's not far from WP:TNT. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per AntiCompositeNumber's analysis of references. Clearly doesn't pass GNG and is likely a promo. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Concur with source analysis by ACN that this fails to meet the bar of notability. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This article seems to be used for self promotion. I concur with Jack FrostWikipedia is not for advertising. --Sugarwhat (talk) 05:45, 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 deleted as G3. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

World Laparoscopy Hospital

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

WP:HOAX This page is a WP:Hoax, the listed medical professional not only did not list his registration which is bizarre, but has placed a fake number of 23318 of the Dehli medical council, this completely failed verification, the second listed professional also failed verification. I found one registered clinician. They list a US site for training, but their corporation appears to be a house. I found no independent evidence that this was a legitimate hospital. They are selling fellowships, however, the cost and nature of these fellowships is patently absurd - this is just not how clinical or academic training works. That you could train in any medical specialty in one week is ludicrous, and the idea that you can use postnomials after a week is frankly obnoxious and silly. The accreditation of the fellowship is clearly not by a recognised surgical body. PainProf (talk) 01:04, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PainProf If you truly believe and are convinced that this article is a blatant hoax and rises to the level of vandalism, you may be able to tag it for speedy deletion under criteria G3 of the criteria for speedy deletion. You can do this by placing {{Db-hoax}} at the top of the article and notifying the creator on their talk page. MrSwagger21 (talk) 02:48, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The founder of the institute is running a fake degree racket. This is turning out to be a massive education scam. Disclaimer: I have nominated a related article, Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment for AfD. Neurofreak (talk) 06:01, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete per WP:G3. Does in fact appear to be a hoax. Delete per nom. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per WP:G3. If it is a hoax, which it seems to be, than it should be quickly deleted. Zoozaz1 talk 19:32, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadakat Aman Khan

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

Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON, non-notable musician who fails criteria in WP:MUSICBIO. Quick search on google doesn’t show “reliable sources” to prove notability. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 00:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with the "too soon" reasoning from the nominator. The musician has some early and introductory notice as an up-and-comer, but not yet enough reliable coverage on his career specifically. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC upcoming not notable as this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:53, 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.

[1] ttps://www.universetoday.com/146626/planets-with-large-oceans-are-probably-common-in-the-milky-way/

[2] Royal, Mark. "Arise Sir Richard: Sealand swimmer knighted". Ipswich Star. Retrieved 27 June 2020.

[:0-3] "ATK Mohun Bagan - The name ISL and I-League champions would play as | Goal.com". www.goal.com. Retrieved 2020-06-08.

[4] "Participation of Indian clubs in AFC Club competitions in 2021". www.the-aiff.com. Retrieved 2020-06-30.

[5] "RP-Sanjiv Goenka Group acquires majority stake in Mohun Bagan Football Club (India) Private Limited". Mohun Bagan Athletic Club. 2020-01-16. Retrieved 2020-04-16.

[6] "Sourav Ganguly: ATK-Mohun Bagan a fantastic collaboration for football". Indian Super League. Retrieved 2020-04-28.

[:1-7] "ATK Mohun Bagan Private Limited incorporated with the Ministry of Corporate Affairs | Goal.com". www.goal.com. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

[8] সংবাদদাতা, নিজস্ব. "এটিকে-বাগান সংযুক্তির প্রক্রিয়া". anandabazar.com (in Bengali). Retrieved 2020-04-19.

[9] "What the Coach Fiasco Tells Us About Future of Mohun Bagan After M̶e̶r̶g̶e̶r̶ Takeover by ATK". NewsClick. 2020-03-21. Retrieved 2020-04-19.

[10] "I hope Mohun Bagan fans will continue to support ATK-MB, says Sanjoy Sen". The Bridge. 2020-06-20. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]