Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 27

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 26 June	28 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. MER-C 11:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scarlet Jei Saoirse[edit]

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

Musician biography, does not meet WP:NMUSIC or WP:GNG. No albums, no charting singles, no awards. I cannot find significant coverage. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Charitably it is too soon for a Wikipedia article on this singer, as she is only visible in the usual streaming, retail, and self-promotional sites. The article takes the time to point out that she is promoting herself independently -- good luck to her but Wikipedia cannot be a part of that effort. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 18:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Could not find any reliable, independent sources. Facebook, Discogs, Musicbrainz, Amazon, Spotify, Instagram, Genius, Tidal etc do not establish notability. And I could not find anything besides these. The best page I found was an interview with her. I think this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Have been in radio interviews — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.59.11.233 (talk) 02:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Artist is also in Voyage LA Mag, IMDB, BuzzMusic Blog, Nagamag, Peoplepill, Played on radio stations such as 102.8 Cruz Inc Radio, Seattle Wave Radio, Also featured in UK Blogs and Mags and Radio including: TuneBubble, TVadTunes, WigWam, Tophitz.co.uk, Thissoundnation, Mysoundmusic and more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Terriellisjacobs (talk • contribs) 01:58, 5 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimlight[edit]

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

Unreliable sources and a bunch of exaggerated claims for this Greek band. They are not notable and with a few hundred streams on Spotify, this article looks like a clear advertisement. Delete please. Glucken123 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I agree with this one. The sources in the article aren't worth sh*t (excuse my language). Facebook, Youtube, Metal Archives and stuff are not reliable sources. I looked them up and couldn't find anything besides the unreliable databases, streaming service links, social media pages and stuff where only the word is mentioned. I found some interviews and album reviews which could provide some notability as they cover the band, unfortunately, these sites look like blogs. Spotify stream numbers are not a count to notability though. And even though Glucken123 nominated so many pages about Greek bands/musicians today, which is crazy (I agree with FOARP about that), I agree with Glucken though that this band is not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GhostDestroyer100 Hmm... None of these articles are well sourced but I see this review from what appears to be an RS, and this as well as well as this. This mass-nomination makes it hard to confirm which are and aren't WP:GNG passes though. FOARP (talk) 16:45, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fear that there is an issue with FOARP as a result of the mass nomination. Highlighting a random Greek blog rockway.gr certainly does NOT mean notability! You have even previously attacked me for claiming that 0 Spotify listeners is not a reason to have a band removed from Wikipedia. This is really sad. Glucken123 (talk) 16:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glucken123 - Please read Wikipedia:Disruptive editing. I think you may have been acting in good faith with you mass-nomination but you should understand that people who work on WP:AFD find it really unhelpful when articles are mass-nominated with no evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed. FOARP (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: I have seen those and I am still not convinced. The first site has "music festival" in their name so it's not independent from the band and the latter two look like blogs. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rockway.gr appears to have an editorial team which suggests it would be a WP:NEWSORG pass. Same with MetalFan.nl. Not particularly bothered about this article either way other than the mass-nom. FOARP (talk) 17:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Despite concerns about mass nomination, this article has too much UGC, need more WP:RS. --Micky (talk) 01:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:21, 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birthmark (band)[edit]

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

No source, nothing notable about this group. Should have been deleted ages ago. Glucken123 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:30, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:02, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
50 Spotify listeners and no notability. Do not confuse them with Nate Kinsella. Glucken123 (talk) 16:12, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, the "sourcing" in the article is crappy. No RS whatsoever, at least in the article. I have never heard about this band or the rest of the bands/musicians Glucken123 listed to AfD but I agree that they don't look notable. Although I agree with FOARP about the fact that @Glucken123: listed so many pages during just an hour is crazy. I think AfDs should always be made carefully because who knows, there might be some reliable sources despite not being shown in article. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Obviously promotional original research, since no sources can be found to verify the article content. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 23:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another promotional article about non-notable musicians. --Micky (talk) 00:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one fact in this article is specifically cited to any source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:28, 5 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I Knew Them[edit]

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

Looks like an advertisement of an unknown band. Should be deleted. Glucken123 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. These articles may well include articles failing WP:GNG (I suspect this one does - probably if you nominated 20+ articles at random you would find some that do) but the nom hasn't even done the basic work of determining whether they are or aren't. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One monthly listener on Spotify, zero sources that show notability and limited online presence. May I ask you to have a good look at your contributions to my deletion nominations - please? Glucken123 (talk) 16:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Spotify stats are *NOT* relevant for WP:AFD. Follow WP:BEFORE when nominating articles for deletion, especially the bit about finding alternatives to deletion. FOARP (talk) 16:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No notable record label releases, no reliable sources or international press, an extremely limited presence on the web since the day they were found, and a sh*tload of claims that cannot be backed. Even their discography on Discogs is incomplete without any notable information or something significant. I agree on Spotify, but come on - google is your friend, and in this case there isn't much to be said about a band that has no notability. Glucken123 (talk) 16:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article includes a number of sources giving coverage to the band that need to be assessed properly. What is the nature of the Mic.gr review? Does Mic.gr have an editorial team (and hence, is it likely a WP:NEWSORG)? Same question goes for the Slovenia News/Si21 source. This is why WP:BEFORE is so important. FOARP (talk) 10:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mic.gr published a live review, where I KNEW THEM supported the main act. There is only one paragraph about their performance, that's all. Glucken123 (talk) 11:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@FOARP: There are no real sources. The so-called "References" are listings, at best. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not sources available to support notability. No sources available to verify the article content. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable, missing WP:RS. --Micky (talk) 00:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not one fact in the article is specifically cited to any source. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:30, 5 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. MER-C 11:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boris Shlikhting[edit]

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

Fails notability guidelines. Lack of significant coverage and reliable secondary sources. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This should be a draft if it's still under construction, but a quick search on Google does not find anything indicated notability. --Micky (talk) 18:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor. Not every credited actor is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable. Even the Russian-language version of his bio, much more complete, shows no sign of notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article doesn't make the case for this actor being notable. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:33, 5 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. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyriakos D. Kassis[edit]

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

Another Greek poet with no significance. This is another example of a Wikipedia article with zero sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:42, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:04, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment No problem with procedural keep as the nominator appears to not have done WP:BEFORE. The subject appears to have authored numerous books on Greek history, or something like that. I can't really parse the subject or its importance; a Greek speaker with knowledge of WP:PROF would be ideal here if we continue with the AFD. The article itself is terrifically bloated. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:08, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @ThatMontrealIP: Things are not as they appear to be; on the contrary, it's quite the opposite. His books must be either self-publications ("Ichōr" = Ιχώρ, is his own publishing house) or works printed by "obscure" publishers. The Biblionet database, the biggest Greek database of publications backed by the Greek National Book Centre, which usualy lists even the works of the least known Greek writers, for Kassis it has just one contribution in a collective volume [1]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 16:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Openly promotional article, with no third party sources available to support or verify anything written in it. I cannot find even the slightest piece of information about him in Greek (which is striking since he is supposed to be an important artist with a huge body of work in several cultural sectors). Probable a product of promotional original research (the same is true for the Greek article, as I've just found out btw [2]). ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS. Almost all of his books seem to be self-publications [3]. His books listed at Protoporia's website [4] ("Protoporia" is one of the biggest Greek bookshops, both brick and mortar, and on-line) are registered either as publications by "Ichor" (Ιχώρ), Kassis own publishing house that prints only his books, or as "private editions". ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 12:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The existence of so many -virtually unknown- Greek poets on Wikipedia has not been questioned by anyone thus far. The fact that English Wikipedia even approves of self-published works without any notability or coverage, is shocking. In this case, I seriously doubt if anyone's had a look at this person's work to determine whether they are notable or recognised in Greece. A simple Google is not always the answer - the same thing of course applies to the existence of a Greek Wiki page and vice versa. Glucken123 (talk) 12:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep His most notable contribution seems to be his efforts to preserve the heritage of the Mani dialect and people, and he is cited by some respectable sources. His status as an independent scholar/writer/filmmaker has its pitfalls, see for example, his attempts at pseudo-scientific explanations. I've no doubt there exist some reviews of his writings in the Greek language, they are just difficult to find, perhaps being parochial and pre-Google. Curiocurio (talk) 21:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

weak keep Per Curiocurio. Nominator's comments sound like this was a good faith nomination though. --Micky (talk) 18:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:18, 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 no consensus. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 23:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Longley[edit]

(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) 20:54, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:26, 11 June 2020 (UTC) (UTC)[reply]

Delete he was never elected to office. The party he was over is sominor it does not convey notability on its leaders.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep several references have been added to the article since the AFD started by User:Samsmachado, and it looks notable to me. Nfitz (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not a notable politican but appears to be a notable activist. [5] [6] [7] [8]. Sources include Huff Post and The Guardian. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable perennial candidate. KidAd (talk) 06:13, 15 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) 09:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable political figure. No obvious accomplishments as an activist or candidate. --Lockley (talk) 18:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there may be enough here in the sources for an article on the Marijuana Party, but he has no notability apart from his association with that party. The coverage on him is coverage any candidate would receive, with one exception where he talks about the political party. SportingFlyer T·C 16:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sockpuppets sometimes provide useful contributions, but additional sources show notability here. --Micky (talk) 17:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which ones exactly? SportingFlyer T·C 17:37, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Alessandro Tiandelli. Not only is the subject notable, he is also a perennial candidate which in some cases confers notability in itself. Longley passes GNG, and since NPOL is preventing us from improving the encyclopedia it should be ignored. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPOL speaks about presumed notability and does not be need be considered if the subject passes Wikipedia:Basic, as is clearly stated in that policy.Djflem (talk) 17:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then we'd have heaps of non-notable politicians scraping through on basic coverage, which isn't the case. That's why we have WP:NOT, to get rid of articles like this one where someone's not really mentioned much and always in the context of a fringe party. SportingFlyer T·C 17:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that claim is not why "we" at Wikipedia have NOT: This article is not a dictionary entry; is not a publication of original thought: is not a soapbox or means of promotion, not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; is not a directory listing; is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; is not a crystal ball making prediecations; is not a newspaper article; is not an indiscriminate collection of information. This AfD certainly shows there's an an attempt to censor.Djflem (talk) 21:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know what I'm talking about - he fails NOTNEWS and PROMO and arguably NOTINHERITED since all of the articles discuss him in the context of the party (on top of the GNG failure). SportingFlyer T·C 16:51, 4 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phase (band)[edit]

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

Another band with no notability and unreliable sources on Wikipedia. I don't see a point in keeping this page. Glucken123 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 16:01, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Glucken123 nominated a lot of pages about Greek bands/musicians today during an hour which is crazy. Most of the pages he nominated does not look notable, I admit that, and the sourcing is bad on those pages. But this is a notable band, it even cites Allmusic and Billboard in the sources. When those two sites cover a band, you know it's notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostDestroyer100, pay close attention here. For starters, I have a Billboard account and the articles provided are fake sources, as the band's name is not mentioned at all! The same thing applies to Allmusic where anyone can add their band's biography! It's literally easy as 1,2,3 - try it. Finally, Musician's Friend links to a guitar listing! Glucken123 (talk) 16:53, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Glucken123:: Hmm, well I don't know. I have always been convinced that Billboard and Allmusic are reliable sources. I have read this so many times in Wikipedia. So I really don't know. But the rest of the sources are bad though as they are either blogs or concert sites. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no idea what's going on with this specific band or the 8 year old DJ, but the above message is a legal threat. Glucken123 (talk) 11:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No in depth coverage from reliable sources. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 13:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a staff written biography on AllMusic is a reliable source and being featured on BBC radio is another indication of notability so this band should be included in Wikipedia in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic allows ANY band to upload their bio on the website. In regards to BBC, it's a mixtape from 2014. Other than that, there is nothing else notable in the reference list. Glucken123 (talk) 02:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic allows submissions as any source does but the staff written bios are reliable sources. In fact of your many nominations only a couple have allmusic staff written bios so its obviously not as easy as you claim, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am convinced by Atlantic306 and also wonder about the motivations of nominating dozens of articles in an hour. --Micky (talk) 17:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This seems to fail the GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 19:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep All music does not let artists add biographies as easy as 123 at all, and it is indeed an editorial bio like other editors have mentioned www.allmusic.com/FAQ/topic/updatebio . The billboard magazine issues are cited as well and can be found on academia.edu as well. The nomination is clearly an attack. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.214.199 (talk) 21:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wicked 7[edit]

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

Contested PROD. I can't find any evidence that the subject meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Adam9007 (talk) 15:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Adam9007. I think that the article the Wicked 7 meets WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. The topic of the Wicked 7 project is significant and notable. Many sociologists, business managers, and scientists have tried to solve the Wicked problems, such as Horst W.J. Rittel, Melvin M. Webber, Mike Hulme, Richard Buchanan^[1], Dr.Min Basadur and Dr. Jeff Conklin^[2]^[3], Richard James Lazarus ^[4], Peter DeGrace and Lessle Hulet Stahl ^[5]. The Wicked 7 project is an attempt at a contemporary solution to the same global problems defined as Wicked, through its open-collaboration platform involving volunteers. The fact that the project was founded by Philip Kotler (in the business management world he is like Elvis Presley) in itself means a lot. Since its creation in 2019, the project has been supported by many experts from economics, business management, politics and activists such as Anthony W. Ulwick, Stuart L. Hart, Michael J. Gelb, David Hinds, Thomas H. Davenport, John Seely Brown, David Cobb (activist), Clark V. Fox, Adi Ignatius, Henry Mintzberg, Katherine Gehl, John Elkington (business author), Anil Kumar Gupta, Leonard Schlesinger.

The Wicked 7 project is presented at activistbrands.com^[6] and its concept was presented an the 11th Global Peter Drucker Forum ^[7]. The predecessor of the Wicked 7 - The $300 House - Approach to a Wicked Problem was widely covered in the media ^[8]^[9]^[10]^[11]

In summary, I believe that the topic is notable because a bunch of notable people has rolled up their sleeves to solve global problems. Let's give it a chance. Ivan Gurkov —Preceding undated comment added 16:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that the project was founded by Philip Kotler (in the business management world he is like Elvis Presley) in itself means a lot Maybe so, but notability is not inherited; the organisation itself needs to have been covered in reliable sources, and I couldn't find any that discuss The Wicked 7 in detail. Adam9007 (talk) 17:24, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam9007, I agree with you, the notability is proven by coverage in the media, so I edited the text above and put links to articles. I still work on the Wicked 7 article and eventually all the reliable sources will be in. Thank you for your understanding. Ivan Gurkov

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to see this as an organisation from the contents of the article, which is mostly a discussion of the issues. Rathfelder (talk) 21:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per the sources from Ivan Gurkov. Article overall not good, tag it as having issues and give it a chance, can be renominated later if not improved. --Micky (talk) 17:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a case of WP:NOTINHERITED I think. A long list of notable people involved does not make Wicked 7 notable. That the Wicked 7 problems are all notable problems does not make Wicked 7 notable. Even sources describing one of these problems as a wicked problem does not make Wicked 7 notable. This is all inherited notability which doesn't count on Wikipedia. What is needed to establish notability, but is currently lacking, is indendent sources discussing the project directly and in detail. SpinningSpark 23:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Most of the sources are either not directly pertinent to this organization or are not independent, having been written by the founders of the organization. Specifically, of the 17 citations, 8 come from the project's founders or one of their websites (wicked7.org or activistbrands.com); 6 were published before this project was established; and the other 3 are undated but don't mention this project. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No discussion of the sources presented by Atlantic306. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harris J[edit]

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

Un-remarkable British singer who fails Notability; There is not anything I would call 'significant' coverage of this person. There are little known garage bands with more coverage than this. GenQuest ^{"Talk to Me"} 18:16, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This page has been full of puffery at times and it’s been a real chore to keep it well referenced, neutral in tone and accurate. Harris J fails to fails to meet Wikipedia’s notability criteria. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:50, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant reliable sources coverage such as here,here and here. The third source from CNN Indonesia shows that he had an album released on a major label namely the Indonesian imprint of Warner Music and that album went platinum so he has claims to pass both WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC criterion 2, so there is no valid reason for deleting the article in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Atlantic306's sources. --Micky (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as is, article makes no claim of notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 01:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This isn't speedy deletion A7, he has a major claim of significance by reliable sources that he had a national charting cd that went platinum so he is a clear pass of WP:NMUSIC imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. This article needs improvement to establish notability for this singer. When the article was first created in 2017, it cited 4 sources, but now it cites only 3 sources. Surely more information should become available about a contemporary singer as time goes on, not less. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 17:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As there has been no challenge to the presented sources, consensus is that GNG/CORP is met, and therefore the topic is notable. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lur Berri[edit]

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

does not meet NCORP standards for references. The fr WP articles is much more complete, but even poorer referenced. DGG ( talk ) 04:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:19, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article lacks reliable sources and the subject do not have independent coverage with which it can be backed. Ugbede- (talk) 9:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. Lougarot, Gisele (2008). Pays Basque Nord, Mai 68 En Memoires (in French). Donostia: Elkar. p. 19–20. ISBN 9788497836067. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  The book notes:
  Lur Berri, à la recherde d'un second souffle
  
  À Saint-Palais, du côté de la coopérative Lur Berri —9 000 sociétaires—, on décline aussi assez nettement ses désillusions: « La tendance traditionnelle de l' agriculture française (production préferentielle de lait et de céréales) a été accentuée par la politique agricole pratiquée jusqu 'à présent. (...) L'essentiel des sommes dépensées pour soutenir les marchés est accaparée par les céréales. ...
  Durante cette fin des années 1960 chez Lur Berri, on est alors à la recherche d'un second souffle après une quinzaine d'années durant lesquelles la production de maïs a été l'élément moteur de l'essor économique de la région de Saint-Palais et de la modernisation de son agriculture.
2. Beck, Jan Mansvelt (2004). Territory and Terror: Conflicting Nationalisms in the Basque Country. London: Routledge. ISBN 978-1-134-27604-2. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  The book notes:
  Conversely, Lur Berri in Saint-Palais was a cooperative established by Christian democrats (Malherbe 1980). In 1962, Lur Berri became radicalized when they felt subordinated to Béarn during the introduction of Funk G.75, a new corn variety (Malherbe 1980: 65).
  This is a passing mention but "Malherbe, J.-P. (1980) 'Le nationalisme basque et les transformations politiques en Pays Basque Nord', in Bidart, P., ed., ed., La nouvelle société basque. Ruptures et changements. Paris: L'Harmattan." likely covers the subject more.
3. "Chevalgate : une coopérative dans les arrière-cuisines de l'industrie agroalimentaire" [Chevalgate: a cooperative in the rear kitchens of the food industry]. Courant Alternatif (in French). April 2013. pp. 8–11. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  The article provides four pages of coverage about Lur Berri.
4. Gendron, Guillaume (2013-02-19). "Barthélémy Aguerre, l'appétit sans limite du patron de Spanghero". Libération. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
5. "Lur Berri : l'aliment des palmipèdes Labeyrie". La Revue de l'Alimentation Animale. March 2010. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
  La Revue de l'Alimentation Animale is a magazine published by Éditions Fitamant, which is managed by fr:Jacques Fitamant. The page notes that this is only an abstract and a full copy can be found in the magazine.
6. "Lur Berri kooperatiba blokeatu dute laborari batzuek, agintekeria salatzeko" [Some farmers have blocked the Newfoundland cooperative to denounce the authority]. Naiz (in Basque). 2020-01-07. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
7. Gauthey, Laurent (2009-04-09). "Castelnaudary. Les Basques font main basse sur Spanghero SA". La Dépêche du Midi. Archived from the original on 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-06-13.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Lur Berri to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 11:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's helpful contribution above, this indicates passing WP:GNG. Remember that missing articles do not indicate deletion is the best course of action; WP:DINC and WP:BEFORE is needed. --Micky (talk) 03:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007^Talk! 22:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This one is close but in my opinion there are at least two references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, this article on Chevalgate provides background to the company and discusses present-day (2013) information also and this abstract just about gets there. Topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:58, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charles Borden[edit]

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

~~Exists and there is some coverage, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 22:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep I see Davidstewartharvey has added several reviews of his books to the article. Borden also has an entry in Gale's Contemporary Authors Online, and being included in a major reference work is a good sign that someone should be included in Wikipedia. I think that's enough to demonstrate a pass of WP:NAUTHOR, especially since he was active prior to the internet age and most sources are going to be offline. Spicy (talk) 08:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Just added new refs and added/amended text as some detail inaccurate (wife's name). Issue found is that Charles Borden is a common name, being a well known archaeologist and another being an attorney! Added reviews of books from Kirkus, but as these were written 50s/60s hard to find much else. Still think with what I have added that he is notable.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 08:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NAUTHOR, because of the Kirkus reviews added to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per helpful comments above. Boleyn (talk) 20:34, 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 delete. MER-C 11:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arantxa Santamaria[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 04:26, 4 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 - nomination withdrawn with no outstanding delete !votes (non-admin closure). Whpq (talk) 13:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esther James[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Keep She has an entry in the Dictionary of New Zealand Biography and that alone establishes notability, as a few dozen AfDs have proven over the years (note that she's not one of the representative entries). I suggest you withdraw this AfD. I note that the DNZB reference was missing from the article but it was contained in the Wikidata entry. Schwede 66 09:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per User:Schwede66's excellent response. Thanks for your help, Boleyn (talk) 12:58, 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. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth by Northwest[edit]

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

Poor sourcing; unmaintained Thomas1617 (talk) 19:07, 27 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 27. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be a significant urban area of 700 acres such as would normally be included in Wikipedia. It has reliable sources coverage such as Columbia Dispatch and unmaintained is not a valid deletion reason in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 20:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. I'm certain 80% of the material in the article is neighborhood-level detail that just doesn't belong here. Local pride is all good, yay, just not in wikipedia. The backbone of the sourcing, the area commission website, is down. However since it seems to qualify for one of the many ~~Cleveland~~ Columbus neighborhoods that we've documented, maybe we should put it on a diet, send it to rehab, and keep it. --Lockley (talk) 08:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Le Desk[edit]

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

fail WP:WEB, just a normal news website created in 2015, no history no awards no notable works, I checked all refs and it's WP:Trivial mentions, Alexa rank is #99,359 Ibrahim.ID ✪ 18:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. إيان (talk) 11:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is the most important independent media outlet in Morocco. Sources in the article. إيان (talk) 11:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per recent changes to the article. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 20:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There appears to be some reliable coverage of this.★Trekker (talk) 22:50, 4 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fappening (film)[edit]

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

This does not meet WP:NF. Having a few passing mentions and two blog style reviews does not constitute as significant coverage. BOVINEBOY2008 18:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lousy sources indeed. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: Back in 2015 there was a SPA that came to Wikipedia to write about Weathers and essentially spam Wikipedia with pages about his films and create pages for individuals who have worked with Weathers. This was also an issue in 2013, when another round of Weathers related articles were created and needed to be deleted. I'm not entirely certain if this is the same issue here, but I would not be surprised if it was. I've warned the editor who created this, but I think that it may be a good idea to salt some of the film titles that currently serve as redirects. If this is a case of the director asking or paying someone to come and edit the articles - I must recommend that he stop. This does not reflect well on you. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I actually looked at the past version of the page - the deleted version of the page's reception section is very, VERY similar, to the point where it's extremely likely that this is either the same person who was blocked back in 2015 or someone who was specifically paid to recreate the page and was given the same material and sourcing to use. Here's the former section:

The Fappening was met with high acclaim in the horror indie film community. The critical consensus states: "'What do you get when you cross the comedic dialogue brilliance of Kevin Smith, the grittiness of an 80’s Abel Ferrara and the sleazy fun of Russ Meyer? You get the films of Sean Weathers.' 9/10" - Through the Black Hole.^[1] The Final Cut said of the film, "Socially relevant and makes a statement."^[2] Search My Trash called it, "A very dark satire of (especially but not only) American celebrity culture."^[3] Indie Horror Films called it, "Hysterically funny and scarily accurate."^[4] Matt's Rotten Review said it was, "Full of sex, sleaze and horror."^[5] Classicalite said of the director, "Weathers is a curio of a talent."^[6]

^ "The Fappening". Through the Black Hole. Retrieved October 9, 2015.
^ "The Fappening". The Final Cut. Retrieved October 9, 2015.
^ "The Fappening". Search My Trash. Retrieved October 9, 2015.
^ "The Fappening". Indie Horror Films. Retrieved October 9, 2015.
^ "The Fappening". Matt's Rotten Review. Retrieved October 9, 2015.
^ "The Fappening". Classicalite. Retrieved October 9, 2015.

I'm going to give the user a precautionary block as a promotion or possible block evasion. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 17:35, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Damek Tomscha[edit]

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

Non-notable minor-league baseball player who is now playing in indy ball; fails WP:Notability Pozzi.c (talk) 17:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yeah, this may not be notable. It seems most of the people on this team don't have an article, either. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' a non-notable minor league player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 14:02, 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. MER-C 11:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Menlo Park Fire Protection District[edit]

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

Organization lacks independent, in-depth sourcing necessary to pass WP:GNG. Prod was removed by User:Kvng. User:Namiba 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 17:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found the following independent sources: [9], [10], [11], [12], [13]. I'm not sure this is enough to meet WP:ORG OR how WP:LOCAL applies here but it seemedd to be enough to WP:DEPROD. ~Kvng (talk) 15:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Several of the sources repeat the same information re: the Fire Department's response to the pandemic and should be treated as one source. While we can prove that it exists, there is no in-depth coverage.--User:Namiba 14:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all the sourcing is extremely local. Local papaers will occasionally write about the doings of the local fire department, this is not enough to justify having an article on that fire department.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, can't even recommend a "redirect" to the county level fire dept article as there isnt one. Drat! Coolabahapple (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no automatic notability for local fire departments, even if there's some routine local news and non-independent content. Lacks in-depth non-news coverage. Reywas92^Talk 20:29, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yuwen Zhang[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Despite its polished look the article does not, and is unlikely to ever, meet WP:GNG or WP:Prof. A close examination of the edit history revels the article is almost certainly an autobiographical creation. Grey Wanderer (talk) 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. The article clearly and obviously passes WP:PROF#C5 as a named professor ("James C. Dowell Professorship"), #C3 as a Fellow of both AAAS and ASME, #C1 for many highly cited publications [14], #C8 for editor-in-chief of Frontiers in Heat and Mass Transfer, and probably also WP:AUTHOR for his book publications if someone wants to dig up the reviews on those. And although it may have been an autobiography originally, that is not a deletion criterion, and it was twelve years and many edits ago. The first AfD already found evidence of passing WP:PROF and closed as keep with the finding that no valid deletion rationale was given. Now, 10 years later, the only thing that has changed is that evidence of passing WP:PROF is much much more abundant. But still no valid deletion rationale has been given. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Speedy keep Passes multiple criteria of WP:PROF, as argued above. And autobiography (or CV-like writing) would be grounds to check the article carefully and edit as appropriate, not to delete it. XOR'easter (talk) 00:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Agree with the reasoning above. Passes multiple criteria from the notability standards for academics including #3 (AAAS fellowship), and #5 (named professorship). MoneciousTriffid (talk) 03:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep H index of 50, named professor, fellowship, book author. Easily meets the notability criteria. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep, easy PROF pass with h-index of 50 as well as additional criteria.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above , passes WP:Prof. Alex-h (talk) 14:10, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kayda[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to be notable and the page is unencyclopedic and lacks WP:NOV. Ibn Daud (talk) 16:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Wikipedia is not a textbook. Plus, some of the text seems to be copied directly from forums, blogs and other unreliable sources. -- Dps04 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing encyclopaedic about this at all; clearly fails WP:GNG Spiderone 17:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Wikipedia isn't a list or a textbook, and the article's subject isn't notable enough. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 15:37, 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 Cotswold Outdoor.. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow and Rock[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Corporate Spam. scope_creep^Talk 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)

Speedy delete per CSD A7 and G11. –User 45 65 41 15:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Cotswold Outdoor#Snow and Rock per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion, which I have done. Cunard (talk) 00:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Cunard: User:User456541 reasons unsatisfactorilly.——Serial^# 09:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect as per Cunard. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:15, 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. Sandstein 09:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Showbezzy[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO No evidence of notability. scope_creep^Talk 15:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think admins should review the article well and it shouldn't be deleted for the subject not been notable...The subject is a notable artist in the Ghanaian Music Industry and has won a prestigious award. <ref>https://www.ghanaweb.com/GhanaHomePage/entertainment/Showboy-wins-International-Artiste-of-the-year-at-the-2018-Eastern-Music-Awards-707348</ref> and it's written about by several credible websites in Ghana.... 154.160.26.126 14:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That is written in his own words on his site on Instagram, and is dud ref. scope_creep^Talk 21:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Under both names, Showbezzy and Showboy, his music is only present in the typical streaming and self-promotional sites where anyone can upload material, and his media coverage as a musician is entirely in the form of brief press releases and entries at gossip sites. He got some minor news coverage as an attempted murderer, but that does not make him notable as a musician or anything else. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete - purely PR and publicity attempt. →Enock4seth ^(talk) 16:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Just refactored and correctly placed the IP comment at the top. Raymie (t • c) 18:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Webtretho[edit]

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

Not notable since at least 2014. Recent edits have now changed the topic from a forum to a website. Fuddle (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 14:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If there was a source for the claim of over 1 million registered users then that would be a decent claim for possibly being notable.★Trekker (talk) 22:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Imeretinsky[edit]

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY, no evidence of notability Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:889A:B946:F9E6:87CB (talk) 15:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:26, 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 keep. BD2412 T 23:38, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign for Better Transport (United Kingdom)[edit]

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

I'm not convinced that it satisfies WP:ORG or WP:GNG. It relies heavily on the organisation's own website with only trivial mentions in secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC, Daily Telegraph, Times, official history of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association look like reputable independent sources to me. BBC has a whole article about the organisation's internal affairs. Rathfelder (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: can you give specific cites which could be said to provide "significant coverage" of the organisation, rather than just trivial mentions please. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/4612556.stm is long and detailed and focused on the internal politics of the organisation.Rathfelder (talk) 21:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, thanks, I saw that one cited in the article, I thought it was more about Michael Palin, with just a minimum and incidental coverage of CBT's predecessor organisation.

I think we'll need more than just that though to pass the WP:SIRS test of significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transport 2000 was not a predecessor organisation. It changed its name. I think you should do a bit more research before you start proposing to delete organisations about which you dont appear to know much. Rathfelder (talk) 22:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semantics does not alter the fact that article was more about Michael Palin than the organisation, and my knowledge isn't the point here, it is whether the organisation can pass the requisite notability test. And I'm not convinced, from what I've seen, that it has the appropriate coverage to do that. -- DeFacto (talk). 06:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete The organisation gets a lot of of passing mentions in media coverage and is routinely quoted by the British media whenever there is a transport proposal but I couldn't find multiple sources that would meet WP:SIRS so going to suggest a delete. I think, subject to the sources being available the organisation would have sufficient media coverage to warrant an article but at the current time I don't think we have enough to justify the article. (List below of the sources I have identified which give passing mentioned but are not sufficient secondary sources)^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]Tracland (talk) 06:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "ITV Interview".
^ "The Independent" (Passing coverage for media comment only on the Independent).
^ "Financial Times" (Passing comments only in the FT).
^ "BBC" (Some slightly more significant coverage on the BBC but still not primarily about the organisation but mostly media comments by the organisation).

Keep. They are routinely quoted in the media for good reason. Virtually every one of the dozens of government reports on transport takes evidence from them, for instance [15]. This article in the Eastern Daily Express is almost entirely about the CBT's recommendations on Greater Anglia trains. Urban Transport Planning and Management discusses them from page 418 to page 421 including some discussion on controversial aspects of the organisation. Campaign for Better Transport on the Bus Services Bill is a BBC interview with a CBT representative. SpinningSpark 23:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: I get that as a transport campaign group they issue lots of press releases and respond to lots of transport consultations in support of their POV, but is there significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources that would satisfy the WP:SIRS requirement with regards to notability? -- DeFacto (talk). 20:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I didn't think that, I wouldn't have !voted keep. SpinningSpark 21:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of independent coverage - some a long time ago when it was called Transport 2000 and not accessible to Google. Rathfelder (talk) 18:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: If we are to use that independent coverage to help establish notability here though, we'll need cites, whether they be books, newspaper articles, or whatever, otherwise that notability will not be verifiable by readers. -- DeFacto (talk). 20:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The question is whether coverage exists. Not whether it's in the article. As the official history of the Transport Salaried Staffs' Association shows, Transport 2000 was a significant campaigning organisation. It got lots of coverage in the 1970s and 80s. Rathfelder (talk) 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: to establish notability of this article, the SIRS guideline requires that there are multiple sources, with coverage in each which is significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. How can an assessment of notability be made without these sources being cited? -- DeFacto (talk). 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On the balance of probabilities. TSSA references other sources. Stephen Joseph was given an OBE for his work here. "His wide-ranging expertise and contacts have helped to make the organisation the country’s leading transport NGO."^[1] I can see plenty more sources. You might start with the House of Commons: Transport Committee which regularly took evidence from Joseph on behalf of the organisation. You are supposed to do this Wikipedia:BEFORE. "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination. " Rathfelder (talk) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Stephen Joseph OBE, Advisor, Campaign for Better Transport". Older Road User Conference. Retrieved 30 June 2020.

Sure, as I said before, it is a campaign organisation, and it lobbies hard to promote its cause. However, minutes, reports, etc. recording its contributions, even those produced by government committees, do not satisfy the requirement of in depth coverage of the organisation itself. According to WP:ORGDEPTH what we are looking for, and in multiple different secondary sources, is coverage that "provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization." And it's not a matter of quantity of mentions either, the above mentioned section also says "A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant".

And remember too, the organisation cannot inherit the notability of it's personnel, even that of Stephen Joseph. To clinch this, what we need to see are cites to a number of the type of quality sources that the guidelines ask for. If they aren't forthcoming, then it will be difficult to demonstrate that the requirements are met. -- DeFacto (talk). 07:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agreed with DeFacto, in order for this to be notable there need to be multiple independent reliable sources about the organisation itself not documentation recording its contributions as a lobby group to transport matters (such matters may themselves be notable topics in their own right). I'd like this article to exist but in order to be able to justify its existence in accordance with WP:ORG or WP:GNG we are going to need to be able to find multiple reliable secondary sources about the organisation itself [clarrification 1 July 2020 @ 19.28 BST~~and cite these in the article~~ and once found please ensure these are cited in the article to ensure the article is well referenced]. If these are available then I will happily support keeping the article but, at the moment, my opinion is we do not have enough to support keeping the article.Tracland (talk) 08:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, that's a common misconception about notability. We don't require that we have to "cite these in the article" before an article is notable. It is the subject that is notable, not the article. Here's what WP:ORG has to say on this, Notability requires only that these necessary sources have been published—even if these sources are not actually listed in the article yet. SpinningSpark 08:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how do we know that such sources have been published if no-one is able to name them? Would I be able to create an article called 'DeFacto Publications' on the basis that because I can source that my work has been published all over the place, in newspapers and books and on websites including government websites, that there must therefore be multiple independent reliable sources describing my organisation in the necessary detail to support notability? -- DeFacto (talk). 09:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what strawman you are trying to knock down. I did provide sources in my first post here. SpinningSpark 10:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: sorry, I must have misunderstood your point then. Which sources do you mean that have been published but which aren't in the artle? -- DeFacto (talk). 11:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea whether the sources I put forward are in the article or not, and see no pressing reason why I should bother to find out. You can easily check for yourself if you really believe that is significant in some way. SpinningSpark 11:21, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Spinningspark: thanks, the penny has dropped now. You're thinking the four sources you mentioned further up should cover this? If so, I totally disagree with you, and I thought that was clear from my first reply to you. Of the four you offered, three are just coverage of their campaigning activities, and not the type of cover that WP:SIRS requires to demonstrate notability. That leaves the article in "Urban Transport Planning and Management", which I haven't seen yet, but even if it "provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization", it is the only source we have doing so, and SIRS requires multiple such sources. -- DeFacto (talk). 11:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, it was perfectly clear that you disagree. It should have also been perfectly clear that I disagree with your disagreement. It is entirely beyond doubt that Urban Transport Planning and Management at least, meets the SIRS criteria. I don't know why you are hesitating to accept that one. CBT is discussed as an organisation, including its history, over four pages. They unarguably provide analysis, since there is a controversies section where they discuss and analyse criticisms of CBT. The first of these is the claim that CBT is an industry lobby group. That criticism, I believe, comes from Transport-Watch UK who discuss CBT on this page. They also give a short, but non-trivial, history of CBT. Now Transport-Watch is a bit iffy as a reliable source because it seems to be mostly a one-man show run by Paul F Withrington. However, I believe it is acceptable under WP:SPS since Withrington is a transport planning professional and has been previously published in the relevant field according to their site. That makes two sources and multiple is more than one. I also contend that articles like the one in Eastern Daily Pess count towards notability because they concentrate on a campaign by CBT rather than the issue CBT is campaigning on. Please don't waste space coming back telling me you disagree with that one, I know you do – if you didn't this would be an easy pass since there are a lot more like it. Also significant to my mind (but probably not getting past SIRS) is the fact that the Local Government Association felt it was necessary to take action in response to a CBT report. If the CBT were just a bunch of nobodies turning up at every transport inquiry to push their agenda, then they could have comfortably been ignored. But clearly they are not. SpinningSpark 13:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accept what you're saying about Urban Transport Planning and Management, even though I cannot find it online to check, but that still leaves us short of the full 'multiple' of such sources that we require. -- DeFacto (talk). 14:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording in my comment wasn't intended to mean that the citations needed to be included in the article in order for the topic in order for the topic to be notable (this is clearly nonsensical or no articles could be made). It was intended as a recommendation as in: we are going to need to be able to find multiple reliable secondary sources about the organisation in order for the topic to be notable and [once these sources have been identified] cite these in the article [in order to improve the general quality article]. Apologies, as reading this back a second time I can see that this could easily be interpreted differently to what I actually meant . I've clarified my intentions above also leaving the original wording.Tracland (talk) 18:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability of Stephen Joseph is not inherited. He was brought before the Transport Committee - every year for several years - as a spokesperson for Transport 2000. The House of Commons clearly valued the organisation's contributions to its discussions. That is as notable as you get with a think tank or campaigning organisation. If that doesn't pass muster we should delete all the other articles about think tanks. Rathfelder (talk) 20:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Rathfelder and SpinningSpork. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:58, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odessa Grady Clay[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability isn't inherited ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It’s survived two previous nominations. If it doesn’t merit standalone status and this is going to keep cropping up every however many years then just delete it. I don’t have the energy to keep justifying and defending it. Jack1956 (talk) 14:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got your back – she's on my watchlist now. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. While it's true that her notability derives almost entirely from her famous son, Muhammad Ali, she is still notable. She's been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources, and clearly there's plenty of source material available to write a detailed biography. WP:NOTINHERITED means relatives of celebrities don't get a free pass, but it doesn't mean that they don't get articles even when WP:BASIC is met. pburka (talk) 14:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability clearly established during the previous nominations. Nothing has changed in the intervening years to make the article less notable. Dreamspy (talk) 14:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:NOTINHERITED states that "notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". There are plenty of sources which provide copious biographical details about the subject and so she passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per above, inheritance does not cancel out notability. This article has been nominated twice before, with outcomes of no consensus, then keep. What has changed that would make her less notable today than before? Jacona (talk) 15:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr. (2nd nomination), probably these should be considered at the same time to waste less time. Jacona (talk) 15:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Has plenty of citations. Article reads like someone who was written about in the papers. Adjunct to a more famous person doesn't mean their own notability was inherited. Normal Op (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The 1966 Sports Illustrated coverage is especially strong, and her obituary was in The New York Times. Yes, her fame stems from her relationship with her son, but there are lots of mothers of celebrated people who never get direct coverage of their own lives and struggles. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, She, herself, has received enough coverage to satisfy notability Alex-h (talk) 14:17, 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 💬 01:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cassius Marcellus Clay Sr.[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and notability isn't inherited ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:NOTINHERITED states that "notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". There are plenty of sources which provide biographical details about the subject and so he passes WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As Mohammad Ali's father he received a tremendous amount of coverage in reliable sources and is, in fact, notable. pburka (talk) 15:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Easily passes WP:GNG. WP:INHERIT states "Also, notability not being inherited is not by itself grounds for deletion". It should be noted this is one of a pair of articles nominated, along with Clay's wife Odessa Grady Clay.Jacona (talk) 20:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Direct coverage in Sports Illustrated and The New York Times. Yes, he is known for being Ali's father, but there are lots of fathers of celebrated people who do not get coverage on their own. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - cited and referenced - perfectly valid article Jack1956 (talk) 22:07, 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. MER-C 11:45, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mayra Suárez[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NMODEL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:38, 4 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:19, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monica Shaw[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:BIO as a sportsperson or entertainer, or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:46, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mannie Rodriguez[edit]

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

A successful and interesting man, but doesn't meet WP:NPOL or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, he doesn't pass WP:GNG and being a superdelegate isn't enough by itself to pass WP:NPOL. It seems he's most 'notable' for his attendance as a superdelegate in 2008, but also attended some others (at least 2016. There's a bit of coverage in local news [16], but it doesn't seem to be particularly in-depth. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Due to the nature of how American political systems actually run, his positions are not ones that make someone notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:50, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Platform for Transparency[edit]

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

A little coverage referring to them as this, but I don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 13:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 16:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Unable to find any other reliable sources talking about the group besides the one in the article - the second article source doesn't actually talk about the group, but rather about one of its members, without even mentioning the grouping itself. Even the supposed official website of the group is just the personal site of one of its members. If there ever actually was an agreement here between these MEPs, it seems to have been entirely inconsequential in its nature, with no significant effect on the European Union, its parliament, or its member states. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:22, 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. Sandstein 09:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peace Theological Seminary & College of Philosophy[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY in my view. Boleyn (talk) 13:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability.Mccapra (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 09:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports Development Foundation Scotland[edit]

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

It exists, but it doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment: This organisation appears to have been active 2007-9 but was then deregistered as a charity in 2012 and its website was repurposed as a Japanese gaming site a couple of years later. Their accounts on the OSCR site indicate 22GBP income in 2008 - and that appears to be it. AllyD (talk) 18:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The article text presents the organisation's charity registration (but not its deregistration) and sets out its original aspirations, some as mundane as registering with the JustGiving site, none of which amounts to achieved notability. In 2009 the Scottish Sun had a passing mention of a fundraising event. The motion by a then-MSP about its formation may be the most substantial (even if no longer verifiable), but I don't see that a congratulatory motion at formation confers lasting notability, and might be countered by the overall silence apparent about the organisation's demise. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 18:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:23, 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 redirect to Nokia 3100#Variants. WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nokia 3120 classic[edit]

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

It existed, and with a notable manufacturer, but it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY itself. Easy to confuse coverage with the earlier Nokia 3120. Boleyn (talk) 13:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nokia 3120 subsection of Nokia 3100#Variants, an added sentence would be ok. 00:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)

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

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

The result was 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TOMfest[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Festival which did attract notable acts but didn't have the coverage. Boleyn (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. 06:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 06:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC) Coolabahapple (talk) 23:57, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Total Environment Centre[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 12:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Long standing environment group in Sydney, NSW, Australia. Notable for long history, campaigns. Probably one of the 5 key environment organisations in Sydney (capital of NSW). I have never been a member but have personal knowledge of it over a period of over 15 years and it was well known in environment circles at that time as a long serving organisation. It is notable in its context. Australia has only 25 Mill, NSW only about 7.5 mill, Sydney only about 4.5. Other major (in Sydney) environmental organisations like Environmental Defenders Office and Nature Conservation Council willingly work with TEC. Greenpeace has also coordinated with TEC to my personal knowledge. A few notable campaigns are listed in its About page on its website. A google search of news done in Sydney for "total environment centre" (in quotes in the search) gives over 1,000 results.It is worthy of a Wikipedia page.dinghy (talk) 01:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Dinghy is correct and makes some good points. Deus et lex (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - A very important operation within the environment sector. Gets plenty of media coverage for it's significant work. Teraplane (talk) 23:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Like others, I am aware of the group and its historical role - Dinghy is correct in their comments. I note the article itself is pretty poor. It does need fixing. But I'd say no question of organisation notability. hamiltonstone (talk) 07:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have cleaned up the links, added an inline web citation and a category. Still needs a bit more Teraplane (talk) 08:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 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. MER-C 11:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WebConfig[edit]

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

I don't think it passes WP:NOTABILITY, but after 11 years in CAT:NN it could do with a proper discussion. Please see Talk:WebConfig for previous comments on its notability from others. Boleyn (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Unless someone finds better sources or identifies a merge.Djm-leighpark (talk) 10:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I can't find any proper sources, and it is almost impossible given that it is so hard to search for. If anybody ever wants to write about this, they could put it in ClearOS. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:20, 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 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weblocks[edit]

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

It exists, but it doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I don't think this meets GNG either. Interesting software but even the primary sources are down by now. Not historically significant, there are other continuation-based web frameworks that maybe could meet the bar. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:17, 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 delete. MER-C 11:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronald L. Turner[edit]

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

Very successful, but I can't establish he passes WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Possibly worth a redirect to Ceridian. Boleyn (talk) 12:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Promotional CV, and the two sources are press releases. --Kbabej (talk) 17:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:03, 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 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quest Learning and Assessment[edit]

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

Coverage is mainly from primary sources. I don't see that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. Possibly worth a redirect to University of Texas at Austin College of Natural Sciences. Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:28, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:28, 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 withdrawn and moved. withdrawn and page moved back to KJMJ Ged UK 11:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Radio Maria USA[edit]

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

~~It exists, but I don't see that it meets the criteria for a stand-alone article/ Possibility worth a redirect to Radio Maria. Boleyn (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and move back to KJMJ as the article was originally titled. It was created as an article about KJMJ in 2006 and was moved to Radio Maria USA in 2017. Though "Radio Maria USA" may not meet notability standards, the radio station KJMJ is notable and has an established history meeting WP:BROADCAST.--Tdl1060 (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and reframe to KJMJ: Per WP:NCBC. Article easily passes WP:BCAST (as KJMJ) with sources indicated there. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per excellent points above. I've applied for the page move. Boleyn (talk) 06:38, 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 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Regional Assessment and Resource Centre[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it passes the threshold of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 12:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:57, 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. MER-C 11:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redencion 911[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Don't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. 2018 AfD had zero participation, so was no consensus. 2008 was keep, but our standards were very low then and I still think a mistake was made. Only its 3rd time here, one AfD was a duplicate so speedy closed. Has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Chile-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable band. Whoop-de-doo. I looked them up and could not find anything besides the usual unreliable stuff (Discogs, Facebook, Bandcamp, Google Play, Last.fm, Spotify, Rate Your Music), blog sites, download sites, trivial mentions and name checks. No reliable sources whatsoever. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:03, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Not a thing worth writing home about when I looked for sources. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:35, 5 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 Blazer Drive. My usual compromise in delete / merge splits: editors can decide what, if anything (sourceable) to merge from the history. Sandstein 09:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Blazer Drive characters[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:LISTN. Boleyn (talk) 12:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to parent article Blazer Drive, standard list of characters for notable series. Please consider WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD options before starting deletion nominations. postdlf (talk) 13:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Postdlf, they were considered. A redirect would be misleading, as it does not contain a list of characters. Merging and adding an abbreviated list would also be unnecessary and misleading as it wouldn't be what would be expected - a full list. Boleyn (talk) 19:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That doesn't make any sense. The parent article currently lacks any character descriptions, and is exactly where this content would go if it were not to be kept in a standalone list. I'll also note that both Reyk and Rorshacma below are completely wrong in their claim as to what the present lack of sources in this list means. First, the issue at AFD is whether it can be sourced, not whether it is at present; if it can be, then the solution is to fix it. Second, statements that describe the content of primary sources can be sourced to those primary sources; secondary sources are needed to establish notability for the overall topic, not for every detail of our coverage of it. postdlf (talk) 21:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Badly sourced fancruft written in a primarily in-universe style. Since there is little or no sourced content, there is nothing that can be merged anywhere. And the obvious target is itself already very crufty and poorly sourced-- shovelling even more unsourced cruft into it would make it worse, not better. Reyk _YO! 16:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I have mentioned in some similar recent nominations, while it is fairly standard to have character lists for notable series, the information in those lists still needs to be referenced to reliable, secondary sources. This character list does not contain a single bit of reliably sourced information, and thus it just should not be preserved. Keeping or merging non-sourced information is just counter to Wikipedia's policies. If the article were to be rewritten in a way that it was not entirely comprised of in-universe, non-sourced plot information, it could be a valid spinout, but a quick look for sources is turning up nothing that would allow for such an article to be written. Rorshacma (talk) 17:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE Published monthly in a magazine for 33 months. The magazine lasted only six years with the circulation dropping to 18,000 before it got canceled. Not sure how many people actually read this series. No anime made from it so couldn't been that popular. The character list can be shortened and merged to the main article. Dream Focus 00:51, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:21, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Marques (rapper)[edit]

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

likely paid for article about a non notable rapper sourced entirely to fake black hat SEO sources and those appear to be the only sources writing about this person, so fails NMUSIC, etc... Praxidicae (talk) 12:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 13:08, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is clearly a spam piece and goes into ridiculous detail (fracturing one's leg?) that, even if the subject were notable (which does not seem to be the case), would be irrelevant. Subject is not notable; but even if the subject were notable, it would be best to delete this article and start over. Ikjbagl (talk) 14:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He has a few stories in publications that appear to be valid online newspapers, with titles like "California Herald" and "America Daily Post", but those are either unreliable in terms of journalism or are fronts for promotional announcements. It appears that the rapper is the subject of a vast publicity campaign that includes this Wikipedia article, which is evident if the writer thinks that future fans will find his broken leg compelling. I can find nothing else beyond the usual self-promotional and social media sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually CH and ADP are completely unreliable. They're quite literally fake sources run by blackhat SEO firms to give the impression that certain people have actual media coverage. Praxidicae (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 speedy delete. Already deleted. (non-admin closure) Worldbruce (talk) 13:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BATA Group[edit]

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

This is clear a promotion not to be confused with Bata Corporation. Daily star references are about the multinational footwear company Bata NOT about this group. Fails WP:COMPANY and perhaps WP:G11 can be applied here. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just found out the the author also tried Draft:Bata Group and was deleted multiple times and the user is blocked on two projects. I'm tagging this for speedy. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:47, 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 delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:50, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tabith Awal[edit]

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

Topic doesn’t comply with WP:POLITICIAN, ANYBIO/WP:NSOCCER and lacks CCS. Not elected to the office and all the coverage are related to his elections. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid ^Talk 11:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable, fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 12:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:NPOL ,WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 02:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the assessment, I always find it odd that these article are created on English wiki, and there is no article for this person on wikipedia in the native which often I have validated sources for GNG. Govvy (talk) 11:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL ,WP:GNG.ErrorShadow420 (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get articles just for coming in second place in mayoral elections, but the article is presenting no evidence that he would get past WP:NFOOTY as an athlete. Bearcat (talk) 22:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL, WP:GNG, WP:NFOOTY. SportingFlyer T·C 01:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fais WP:GNG and WP:NPOL , Alex-h (talk) 14:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - As non notable.-Julian ray 789 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 11:50, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stein (journal)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. In the absence of sources that would demonstrate notability for the journal itself, I would usually suggest a merge into an article on the parent organization, in this case the Norske Amatørgeologers Sammenslutning. But we have no such article and I can find no sources that would demonstrate notability for it either. It is one of six amateur Norwegian geology clubs listed at https://www.minerant.org/clubsEU.html (the other five are all much more local) but the listing is not in-depth enough to use as a source. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 00:19, 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 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soaplab[edit]

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

Has some coverage, but I don't think it meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 10:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, I can't find any GNG-complying coverage for this. It is probably nice software, but there are millions of pieces of software like this, if it isn't covered in media I don't think we can justify having an article for it. It would only have primary sources. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:15, 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. Disregarding the comments on contributors, rather than content; there appears to be consensus that the available sources indicate that the subject of the article meets the relevant notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 01:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raging Stallion Studios[edit]

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

The sources do not prove any notability. I did some research myself and spite the company name comes out a lot (it's a company in the show business after all) I couldn't find any independent, extended, in-depth, secondary source which is what it is needed to establish notability. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: You will need to follow these steps to have this AfD withdrawn. --Kbabej (talk) 22:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 09:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:NCORP with only trivial mentions by independent reliable secondary sources. Porn trade press consists of repackaged press releases and routine announcements. Porn or mainstream, industry awards count for little, if anything, towards WP:CORPDEPTH requirements. • Gene93k (talk) 15:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There's coverage from Instinct about when the studio decided to go bareback; Out News about incorporating a MAGA hat in a film; Hornet about the release of a controversial film; and others. XBIZ has tons of articles on the studio. PinkNews called the studio a "major studio" and "high profile". Vice called the studio "one of America's biggest producers of gay porn". I think there's definitely enough to support a short article. --Kbabej (talk) 17:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~@Kbabej: none of these is an article about raging stallion, they are all article about people who work for raging stallion and incidental mention of the studio.~~ --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you even look at the articles? The Instinct, Out, and Hornet articles are solely about the studio. ?? --Kbabej (talk) 18:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: for "instinct" you are right actually, is "Hornet" a blog?. anyhow, those sources are either focused only on the fact that the company is doing bare back movies or are mentions. not a significant coverage as required in WP:CORPDEPTH --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 18:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I fixed the link. Sorry about that. Hornet is a news site, and has bylines. As for the mentions, they describe the subject well. But the first three articles are in depth in RS. --Kbabej (talk) 19:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hornet is a social networking site, which, by its own description, includes curated content. The key measure of reliability is that a the source has a good reputation for fact checking and that it is working in its fact-reporting voice. The Hornet article relies heavily on what Raging Stallion and its filmmakers say. Not very strong. • Gene93k (talk) 01:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Kbabej--Yiğitcank (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A disruptive nom at best. Raging Stallion is the largest gay porn producer in the world. Easily meets GNG, etc. Nom, again, has willfully ignored following WP:Before and should likely be banned from Xfd for their disruption. Gleeanon409 (talk) 09:21, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

this is not the fist time you personal attack me. I have created an article and improved many. So far when I have nominated an article, most of the times, was deleted because my nomination was right. now, leave me alone and if you care improve the source. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this your own opinion or it can be proved by sources? so far I can't see any source fulfilling WP:CORPDEPTH but it seems that more than one here believes that everything related to porn should have a free pass to wikipedia no matter if there are no sources. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no personal attack, I’m pointing out you’ve again made mistakes, and again ignored WP:Before, these are apparent facts.

Cleaning up articles is fine, deleting ones on notable subjects is not. You don’t seem to recognize the difference and in violation of WP:DINC, seem to think others should drop everything their working on to prove you wrong. I did that last week and I’m no longer willing to play your game. If you’re not willing or able to do the needed research then move onto something you are good at, it’s unfair to make others clean up your mistakes. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read carefully WP:CORPDEPTH, than if you have sources that fulfill it add it and stop talking to me. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: It does seem somewhat odd that for an editor that focuses so much on deletion of gay porn bios, you wouldn't know Raging Stallion is a major player in that field. Was a WP:BEFORE done on this? You've been asked in the past to slow down on article deletion. Not all gay porn bios are the same. --Kbabej (talk) 00:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: I know raging stalion for being a big company in the gay porn industry, what I didn't know is that it is actually notable. I f you read carefully WP:CORPDEPTH you shall see that being a big company doesn't necessarily imply being notable. I will keep nominating all the bad article that I can't improve myself. so far it seems that 90% of my nominations where right and wikipedia encourage us to be bold. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: WP does encourage editors to WP:BEBOLD, but a thorough WP:BEFORE would have shown this company is notable. Not all gay porn articles are the same. I found six articles solely about the company (not including the XBIZ ones). I have no problem with deletion nominations, but editors must carry out the appropriate steps beforehand. --Kbabej (talk) 21:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: is this a trial? I searched for sources but I kept finding only mentions related to porn actor that have worked with them. i added your sources. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: My intention isn't to make this into a trial, and I'm trying to be civil and WP:AGF. An editor opens themselves up to criticism, however, when they do not follow the required steps for deletion discussions. I have no ill intent in saying this: I would encourage you to slow down on the deletion nominations and do thorough BEFORE checks on each. That's just my opinion, though. --Kbabej (talk) 22:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the sources that Kbabej and others have found more than indicate notability under WP:GNG. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

when you say other who do you refer to? so far Kbabej is the only one who showed some sources(three that pass passing mention). --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I did more digging and found three further sources. There's a Hornet article on how "Raging Stallion’s Move to Bareback Sex Marks a Huge Shift in Today’s Gay Porn"; an Xtra article on a how Raging Stallion did a porn spoof of the film Clockwork Orange; and a very in depth review by GayDemon, a NSFW website. --Kbabej (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

can you just shortly include them into the article and let me know when you are down so that withdraw my nomination.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, that’s not how this works. All anyone has to do is show that a good article is possible, not actually improve the article. Someone else will have to do the actual work of improving the article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 12:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: this is the third time I ask you to leave me alone. stop chasing me around. I told him to do it and I didn't do it myself because I didn't want to "still" sources he found. it would take me less than 5 minutes to include them. all you have to do is to write one sentence and put the source, done. if in a few hours he didn't do it I will do it myself and than withdraw the nomination as I believe that these sources are good enough to prove notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You’re not getting it. First, I’m not following you around, I’m watching for articles at AFD.

Second, the sources don’t have to be slapped onto an article to satisfy AFD. For AFD we only have to prove a good article is *possible*. If you’re not able to understand that it might not be a good area for you to practice. Gleeanon409 (talk) 13:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: Only the existence of sources needs to be found; they do not need to be added to the article. Please review WP:AFD, which states, "If you find that adequate sources do appear to exist, the fact that they are not yet present in the article is not a proper basis for a nomination." --Kbabej (talk) 17:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: If you don't mind i will add your sources to the article as at the moment there are no reliable good sources and withdraw the nomination. thank you for finding them.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: Sounds good to me. Thanks! --Kbabej (talk) 21:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kbabej: Done, if you have time give it a look, as you can see my english is not that good at all. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: I perfectly know what you are doing, you are pushing and pushing me to make me react so you can make me block on wikipedia, I just hope that someone will see this and help me. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 21:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are again violating WP:AGF. I could care less if you get blocked, what I care about is you keep trying to delete these articles on notable gay porn subjects. Gleeanon409 (talk) 04:27, 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. MER-C 11:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kinshuk Vaidya[edit]

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

Purely a promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; nothing more than a couple of PR pieces; no evidence of meeting required standards Spiderone 09:13, 4 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) 20:22, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trisha Abe[edit]

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

I'm not seeing a pass of WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG for this young painter. The coverage is all interviews in hyper-local community papers and I can find no evidence of gallery holdings or major exhibitions. An up-and-coming artist, but not quite meeting WP's notability criteria yet. Spicy (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 09:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't think we're doing a 24-year old muralist with a very brief career any favors by creating an article about her. Give her a chance to build a body of work. There is no significant coverage of her work because she hasn't made much of it yet. Can we agree, and incorporate this into WP:NARTIST, that emerging artists, by definition, are not notable? Vexations (talk) 15:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not meet requirements for NARTIST or GNG guidelines. This belongs in a University of Waterloo alumni newsletter, not in an encyclopedia. On a separate note, I agree with Vexations that WP:NARTIST guidelines should be reviewed and if consensus is reached, revised to be more stringent. Netherzone (talk) 16:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:18, 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 keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zambar (restaurant)[edit]

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

Purely a promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It needs some background info, sure, but it has enough coverage in sources to be worthy of keeping.† Encyclopædius 11:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. as per nom. Light2021 (talk) 22:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Plenty of sources given to establish notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 22:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Well developed article with sufficient sources. Kailash29792 (talk) 08:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - good coverage from major sources Spiderone 09:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Certainly has sufficient coverage from independent secondary sources, a review of the references in the article would show as much. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment; sudden influx of keep comment with one commonality - "plenty of sources/good coveragre from major sources/sufficient coverage from independent secondary sources". But, none of them shared any link to support their point of views. It seems to be this AfD is getting canvassed with one common objective to save this article from deletion. Kindly note, I have done the source checks in Google News most of them are passing mentions which doesn't prove any notability for this entity at the first place.^[1] and secondly, whatever sources has been mentioned in current format are seems to be sponsored one or page 3-type vanity publishing. However, I would support and accept the final outcome of this discussion (no matter, whatever it might be). -Hatchens (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not know about the other but there was no canvassing attempts towards me, I'd also say that its unlikely to be the case for others as well. The sourcing in the article is fairly strong, for instance this article from BT or this article from GQ or this article from NDTV. They all have bylines attributed to staff journalists belonging to reliable publications and no evidence has been presented pointing to any form of content partnership. Some of the articles are clickbaity perhaps but who isn't these days. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 16:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ansal University[edit]

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

Non-notable institute which fails WP:GNG. Most of the edits are performed by institute-owned IDs such as Deepakbackstreet, Raghumanyu Taneja, Ansal University Gurugram. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whoever the editors of the page are, on a quick search I found many reliable sources for this university, most of them under its previous name of Ansal Institute of Technology. This is clearly a real university, with a campus, degree courses, and students, which passes the test of WP:N. Moonraker (talk) 04:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 08:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per Moonraker, passes WP:GNG. COI edits and bad quality in general, do not diminish an institute's notability. --Muhandes (talk) 08:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - clearly a notable uni Spiderone 09:14, 4 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 💬 01:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ġużè Galea[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 08:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Subject of a 266 page biography by Louis Grasso published by Midsea Books.[17]. pburka (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep Per Pburka (a book length biography is certainly a convincing argument), and also since a quick Google search reveals further sources which indicate the nom did not properly execute WP:BEFORE, eg. this. Or the in-depth source already in the article. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:16, 4 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Squidward Nose[edit]

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

Lacks notability. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A rap song about Squidward. Wow. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:20, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cupcakke#2019–present: Hiatus and standalone singles, while it doesn't at first glance seem particularly notable, there's coverage in Rolling Stone MTV news, meaning it's worth mentioning. However, neither article is very in-depth, and probably spend more time talking about Cupcakke herself and her hospitalization. There isn't much potential to expand the song's article, so it makes sense to redirect to her article where the song is A) placed in context and B) given essentially as much information as the article does now. There's an argument to be made for WP:NSINGLE just looking at the headlines in the articles; however, IMO this is a case where "articles unlikely ever to grow beyond stubs should be merged to articles about an artist or album" applies (and there's nothing that can be merged). Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep or merge to Cupcakke#2019–present: Hiatus and standalone singles. Based upon Toughpigs rationale and the additional sources presented by Aoba47, I think there's barely enough written about the song to merit a stand alone article, though I still don't think it will ever grow much beyond stub or start-class. I also feel that none of the sourcing is particularly in-depth, so it's still somewhat of a borderline case imo. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rolling Stone, MTV News and Billboard have all covered the song. Here's another piece from MTV News which uses the song as a commentary on the singer's "work ethic and commitment to risque subject matters." The pieces are short but are specifically about the song. There is currently sourced content in this article that is not in the Cupcakke article, and it doesn't look like there's much of a place for it there. I don't know why Eddie891 is looking at an article with five independent sources and saying "there's nothing that can be merged." — Toughpigs (talk) 18:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment well I also don't see how "The song was originally planned to be called "Pinocchio Nose" but she changed the character to Squidward when she discovered that Pinocchio is a child" is encyclopedic Cornerstonepicker (talk) 01:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstonepicker , that goes for the History of the song and the background, it's to give context and content to the reader of the name of the song, I know it does not sound the best, but it's the history --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 01:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cornerstonepicker: I agree with you that it's silly, but there are a lot of silly things in the world, and when those things are backed up by reliable sources, they can end up in the encyclopedia. Check out WP:UNENCYC and WP:IDONTLIKEIT for more information. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing with this and all her other songs with articles is that they do receive the attention of writers in music blogs, but never appear on big music sites like BB or RS, nor they enter any type of official chart. Meets one criteria but fails all the others. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 22:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"BB or RS" means Billboard and Rolling Stone? — Toughpigs (talk) 22:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, nor any other in that standard. only niche music blogs. Cornerstonepicker (talk) 02:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to draw your attention to the Billboard and Rolling Stone coverage already mentioned above. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Toughpigs, and also WP:NMUSIC and WP:NSINGLE states, for independent sources, which are cited in the article. --Thegooduser Life Begins With a Smile :) 🍁 23:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Toughpigs. With independent sources indicated above, the article is good enough to pass WP:NSINGLE. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the single has received coverage from third-party, reliable sources. Here are some additional sources, from Paper, Nylon, another Nylon one, XXL, Consequence of Sound, another Consequence of Sound one, and Paste. Aoba47 (talk) 18:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Coverage from The Fader, Billboard and MTV News is enough for me.—N Ø 12:22, 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maudine Ormsby[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:1E trivia at best. This has been in CAT:NN for over 11 years, so I'm hoping we can get it resolved one way or the other. 2 other AfDs with no consensus and minimal participation. Boleyn (talk) 07:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Steinberg, Neil (1992). If at All Possible, Involve a Cow: The Book of College Pranks. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 202–203. ISBN 0-312-07810-2. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
Gurvis, Sandra (2011) [2007]. Ohio Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff (2 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Communications. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-7627-6408-2. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
Nash, Bruce; Zullo, Allan (1986). Football Hall of Shame. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-74551-4. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
Porter, Philip W. (1926-11-10). "Maudine Ormsby article". D. Appleton & Company. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
Baumann, James A. (1997). Ohio Cum Laude: The Whole Ohio College Catalogue. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press. ISBN 978-1-882203-11-6. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
"Maudine Ormsby". The Agricultural Student. 30 (1). Ohio State University: 174. October 1923. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
"Holstein Cow Makes Milk and Butter Record: 2225 Pounds of Milk and 96.5 Pounds Butter in 30 Days Official". Lancaster Eagle-Gazette. 1924-05-23. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Champs to Pose for Visitors". Hamilton Evening Journal. 1925-01-31. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Frank O. Lowden With Ohio Maudine Ormsby". Chillicothe Gazette. 1925-02-12. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Holstein Cow Named Queen of Homecoming". Oakland Tribune. Associated Press. 1926-11-06. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Cow Can't Attend University Ball: Defeats Ohio State Co-Eds in Popularity Vote, But Is Barred". The Baltimore Sun. Associated Press. 1926-11-11. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Meet Maudine! She's College Beauty Queen". Lansing State Journal. 1926-11-12. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Ohio State College Votes Cow as Queen of Campus Beauties". The Capital Times. 1926-11-13. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Maudine Ormsby Will Not be Beauty Queen". The Daily Utah Chronicle. 1927-11-24. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
"Maudine Ormsby, the only cow to gain immortal fame at Ohio State university, will have her picture painted". Coshocton Tribune. 1927-05-28. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.

Sources with quotes

Steinberg, Neil (1992). If at All Possible, Involve a Cow: The Book of College Pranks. New York: St. Martin's Press. pp. 202–203. ISBN 0-312-07810-2. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The book notes on page 201:
Big Midwestern universities have their roots in agricultural land grants, and take their cows more seriously. A classic cow prank that crops up at Ag schools, from time to time, is a heifer being elected homecoming queen.
The book notes on page 202:
A prime representative of the genre is the case of Maudine Ormsby, homecoming queen of 1926 at Ohio State University. Supported by the College of Agriculture, Ormsby, a prize Holstein, initially placed a respectable second.
The homecoming committee learned of Maudine's species during a check of the student directory, to contact the homecoming candidates for picture-taking purposes.
Maudine was disqualified from the final balloting for the crime of being a cow (how thankful we should all be that such appalling speciesism would never be tolerated on today's enlightened campuses). The Ag students raised a protest, but what saved their cause was all the human candidates were disqualified owing to dishonest campaign tactics. That left Maudine, who was the wrong phylum, but at least had not cheated. The homecoming committee decided to chose a queen at a special session. Amazingly, they threw up their hands and selected Maudine.
The ball back in their court, Ag college officials had to nix the participation of Maudine in the parade festivities, since the cow—which had set world records in milk production—was too valuable to parade around. Her place in the homecoming procession was taken by two undergraduates inside a cow outfit. There was an attempt to inject some human cheesecake into the parade by naming a certain Rosalind Morrison as the unofficial queen. But she had her pride, and refused. "It was an insult to be beat out by a cow that I refused to accept any of the honors at all," she said, 30 years after the fact.
The book further notes:
Maudine was not the last barnyard creature bedecked with human honors at OSU. In 1940, when all the candidates for May Queen were eliminated on technicalities, the OSU May Queen was a mare named Jean Scot.
Gurvis, Sandra (2011) [2007]. Ohio Curiosities: Quirky Characters, Roadside Oddities & Other Offbeat Stuff (2 ed.). Guilford, Connecticut: Morris Communications. p. 210. ISBN 978-0-7627-6408-2. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The book notes:
You're lucky you weren't around during the reign of Maudine Ormsby. The 1925 Ohio State University Monthly anointed her “the latest star in the Milky way . . . she has represented Ohio State University . . . where she has received honors galore.” She also packed 'em in with record crowds during the annual Farmer's Week, where five thousand “paid her tribute,” according to the magazine. Is it any wonder that Maudine was elected Homecoming Queen by ardent student fans in the fall of the following year? Never mind that Maudine had four legs instead of two, and at about 1,200 or so pounds (give or take a couple hundred either way), she was a little plus-sized, even for her height. Oh, and did we mention that Maudine Ormsby was a Holstein cow? Yet Maudine was chosen queen by an overwhelming margin, with votes exceeding the actual number of students enrolled at the university, according to some accounts. The first runner-up, Rosalind Morrison (later Mrs. W. F. Strapp) felt she'd been handed a bum steer and “refused to accept any of the honors at all,” as she stated in records maintained by the OSU Archives. “It was quite a blow to all the candidates,” although in later years, it had “become quite a joke.” ...
the Stories vary as to what actually transpired, but Maudine was the overwhelming choice of students in the College of Agriculture. Along with being four-year champion, she was the “youngest heifer in the world to ... According to the archives' records, Maudine initially came in second. But the Homecoming Committee got the cow tip after they checked the student directory and couldn't locate her or her photo. However, other irregularities in the election resulted in the divine bovine's catapult to homecoming royalty. When they heard about her win, Maudine's handlers in the College of Agriculture had a, er, cow. They feared the coronation might curdle her milk, or that she might “zig” when she should “zag” and trample a few revelers. So although she was honored at the Homecoming Parade—two boys in a cow costume rode the float and attended other events—she stayed in the barn during the dance, game, and other hoopla. Things quickly turned into cow patties after that. Ohio State lost the game to their archrival Michigan by one point, their only defeat of the year, knocking them out of the Big Ten title. By 1929 Maudine had developed brucellosis, a contagious bacterial infection. So like Mary, Queen of Scots, and Charles I of England before her, she became a victim of regicide. Still, her saga lives on, to the udder amusement of new generations of students at Ohio State.
Nash, Bruce; Zullo, Allan (1986). Football Hall of Shame. New York: Pocket Books. ISBN 0-671-74551-4. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The book notes:
Maudine Ormsby
Homecoming Queen ■ Ohio State ■ Nov. 12, 1926

Maudine Ormsby was the ugliest homecoming queen ever elected.
She had a long, straight nose with wide nostrils, big ears that she could wiggle, teeth the size of piano keys, broad but bony hips, and widely bowed ribs. And was she fat! She stood only five feet tall and had a girth to match. She weighed half a ton.
Maudine, you see, was a cow. The Ohio State student body elected a pure-bred, prize-winning Holstein their 1926 homecoming queen.
When it was time for the school to choose a queen, the fraternities and sororities nominated their own candidates. But the independent students felt they had been shunned, so they decided to put up their own candidate. They picked Maudine. She sure wasn't pretty, but she did have a nice disposition and a helluva set of jugs. She immediately gained the support of the College of Agriculture.
Although the university enrollment totaled only 9,000 back then, more than 13,000 ballots were cast—the majority for Maudine. (She beat out such write-in contenders as evangelist Aimee McPherson, Queen Mary, Helen of Troy, and Sophie Tucker.)
Some of her legitimate two-legged opponents protested the rigged election, but the homecoming committee decided to milk the prank for all it was worth, and allowed Maudine to wear her crown.
Maudine's chaperones wouldn't permit her to appear in all the homecoming festivities because, after all, she was only four years old. However, for the Ohio State homecoding parade, she did ride majestically in a horse-drawn float.
Unfortunately, Maudine failed to inspire the football team. It lost to Michigan—to the udder disappointment of Ohio State fans.
Porter, Philip W. (1926-11-10). "Maudine Ormsby article". D. Appleton & Company. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The article notes:
Columbus, O., Nov. 10—Maudine Ormsby, the only cow ever elected queen of a college homecoming festival, was forbidden to ascend the throne today. The spokesman for the queen announced tonight that her majesty would be unable to undergo the rigors of the alumni festivities at Ohio State university Friday night, on the eve of the Ohio State Michigan football classic. “It's no place for a cow,” declared Prof. Carl W. Gay, head of the department of animal husbandry. Prof. Schuyler M. Salisbury of the same department, grand vizier and advisor to the queen, agreed that Maudine's nervous system might be so upset that almost anything might happen. Furthermore, decided the spokesmen, Maudine is professionally engaged in production of milk, high in butter fat, which already has won her four world's records, and queening would seriously interfere with the vitamins. She is barred for professionalism, it Seems. Maudine's sudden abdication, after four days of red hot controversy, came as a climax of a climax of a weird series of campus events reminiscent of the old Siwash tales. A crooked election, outcries of serious minded professors who wished to save the university from disgrace, loud guffaws by those who visioned a sad-eyed cow at an alumni dance jamboree, and much excited comment by virtually everyone in the university district, has produced a sensation. There has been more talk around Ohio State this week regarding whether Maudine was to serve as queen in person than about how hard it is to get a ticket for Saturday's game, and that's plenty. Leroy Morris, editor of the Sun Dial, humorous monthly, student chairman of the homecoming celebration, confronted with the news that Maudinewas ineligible, announced that there would be a cow on hand at the alumni dance neverthless, Maudine or no Maudine. He refuses to say whether he would borrow a cow from a farmer or build one of papier-mache. At any rate, Morris has a perfectly good cashable silver cup to be awarded to the homecoming queen. Perhaps it will be placed against the royal bank account to buy her hay. The ultimatum of the spokesman for the queen came after a hectic day at the university. Prof. Salisbury protested to Prof. Gay, and Prof. Gay appealed to Dean Alfred Vivian of the college of agriculture for a ruling, and the matter even reached the office of President George W. Rightmire, who refused to comment. The Boost Ohio committee devoted much time at its afternoon meeting today to the question of divine right and the royal succession. It all began last week, when entries rolled in for the annual election for queen.
Baumann, James A. (1997). Ohio Cum Laude: The Whole Ohio College Catalogue. Wilmington, Ohio: Orange Frazer Press. ISBN 978-1-882203-11-6. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The book notes:
For some, the idea of crowing a Homecoming Queen each fall is an antiquated and objectifying notion that falls somewhere in- between presidential politics and beauty pageants. Perhaps that was the mindset of the group of Ohio State agriculture students who, in 1926, nominated one of their own for the Homecoming court. The only thing they neglected to mention was that their nominee, Maudine Ormsby, was the dean's pet cow. Maudine' s bovine background never came up until just before the ceremonies when the Homecoming committee members were trying to round up all the candidates for a photograph. Only then did it become known that no tiara was going to fit this queen. Flustered, the committee tried to disqualify Maudine. But when they later discovered all the other candidates had illegally campaigned for the Homecoming honor, the committee had no choice but to name Maudine the winner. For the parade she was placed atop a flatbed truck along with her escort (decked out in a spotless white dairy uniform) , and for one j- day, everyone had to kowtow to Queen Maudine.
"Maudine Ormsby". The Agricultural Student. 30 (1). Ohio State University: 174. October 1923. Retrieved 2020-02-02.
The article notes:
Ohio Maudine Ormsby, a Holstein heifer, owned by the Ohio State University, has just completed a seven day test record of 431.4 pounds of milk and 23.33 pounds of butter. This heifer made the record at 21 months and seven days of age, which, so far as the Department of Animal Husbandry can learn, is a new record for heifers of this age in Ohio, and second in the United States.
The university should feel a sense of pride in this achievement, due to the fact that the mother and grandmother of this heifer, as well as the heifer herself, were all bred by the university. She is an excellent individual, having won second at the Ohio State Fair, and seventh at the National Dairy Show. She is now milking 70 pounds per day with a test of four percent butter fat.
During the test the heifer was fed and milked by Carroll E. Eby, Columbus, a junior in the College of Agriculture.
"Holstein Cow Makes Milk and Butter Record: 2225 Pounds of Milk and 96.5 Pounds Butter in 30 Days Official". Lancaster Eagle-Gazette. 1924-05-23. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
A world's milk production record has been broken by a university Holstein cow.
Ohio Maudine Ormaby, a Holstein-Friesian heifer, bred and owned by Ohio State university, just finished a 30 day official record of 2223 pounds of milk and 96.5 pounds of butter, which according to available records, is the world's record for a yearling and the state record for 30 days milk production for two year olds.
Ohio Maudine Ormsby freshened at 21 1/2 months and produced more than 5000 pounds of milk before she was two years old. This is more milk than the average Ohio milk cow produces in an entire year, said Prof. C. T. Conklin, in charge of the dairy at the university farm.
Five generations of university breeding on the maternal side of her pedigree.
"Champs to Pose for Visitors". Hamilton Evening Journal. 1925-01-31. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Ohio Maudine Ormsby is a Holstein, and the fifth generation in the university's best Holstein stock. Ten years ago Farmers' week visitors saw Maudine Ormsby's granddam, Ohio Colontha Rakker (?), a state champion who produced, in her lifetime, 6000 pounds of butter and about three thousand dollars worth of calves.
"Frank O. Lowden With Ohio Maudine Ormsby". Chillicothe Gazette. 1925-02-12. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Former Governor Frank O. Lowden, of Illinois, famous farmer-legislator, pictured above with "Ohio Maudine Ormsby," prize cow of Ohio State University, in an address there told the students of "The Farmer and His Organizations," "Ohio Maudine" is of Holstein stock and has produced the world's record of 22,000 pounds of milk, plus 920 pounds of butter.
The article contains a photo of Maudine Ormsby with the former governor that will become a public domain photo on 1 January 2021 according to my reading of public domain in the United States. There is another higher quality 1925 photo of Maudine Ormsby with the governor on Flickr here that will also become a public domain photo on 1 January 2021.
"Holstein Cow Named Queen of Homecoming". Oakland Tribune. Associated Press. 1926-11-06. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Nominated on a ticket with ten popular Ohio State University girls, Ohio Maudine Ormsby, thoroughbred Holstein cow, was elected "home-coming queen" for the Michigan game November 13. Maudine's vote far exceeded the total cast for the other candidates.
"Cow Can't Attend University Ball: Defeats Ohio State Co-Eds in Popularity Vote, But Is Barred". The Baltimore Sun. Associated Press. 1926-11-11. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
The cow may be queen of the barnyard, but the dignity of Ohio State University can't countenance the throne being moved to the ballroom. So the placid-faced Ohio Maudine Ormsby, champion milk giver, will not amble into the crystal slipper ballroom Friday night to be crowned queen of the University Homecoming Festival.
Maudine recently defeated ten popular coeds in balloting to choose a queen for the Homecoming Festival. Students had prepared for the coronation—with the exception of asking the cow and the Animal Husbandry Department. Department officials answered "No" today with some asperity.
"Meet Maudine! She's College Beauty Queen". Lansing State Journal. 1926-11-12. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Students of Ohio State University at Columbus might with all propriety have chosen Miss Katherine Porter, left, as their beauty queen. Few, if any, would have criticized had they picked Miss Margery Rutledge, right. Equally unanimous might have been a vote in favor of Miss Willeen Ludwig, below. But did any of these three exemplars of pulchritude win? No—not a bit of it. The winner, reader, was lovely Maudine Ormsby, whose map appears in the center. Maudine is the prize cow of the university's agriculture department.
The article contains photos of Maudine Ormsby and other contenders that will become public domain photos on 1 January 2022 according to my reading of public domain in the United States.
"Ohio State College Votes Cow as Queen of Campus Beauties". The Capital Times. 1926-11-13. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
The farm candidate, according to the consensus rode into office upon the unpopularity of the Law school. In the past the lawyers have always elected their candidate, because they voted as a unit.
Miss Ormsby was nominated easily, but her name was left off the ballot because she wasn't listed in the student directory. Her followers wrote in her name, however. The lawyers in their zeal to win, had 1,000 fake ballots printed, rivals charg. Then the journalism students rushed to their print shop and turned out another 2,000 fake tickets, so reports to. Another faction managed, rumor says, to steal 1,500 regulation ballots and fill them out for their girl. All the illegal ballots were thrown out.
Maudine drew 500 votes.
The article contains photos of Maudine Ormsby and other contenders that will become public domain photos on 1 January 2022 according to my reading of public domain in the United States.
"Maudine Ormsby Will Not be Beauty Queen". The Daily Utah Chronicle. 1927-11-24. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Last year the election returns were thrown out because of crooked politics, and a cow, Maudine Ormsby, of the college of agriculture, was accorded the honor and crowned in the stadium. This year a committee of judges, instead of the entire campus, will select the beauty queen and she will be a human, co-ed student, they say.
"Maudine Ormsby, the only cow to gain immortal fame at Ohio State university, will have her picture painted". Coshocton Tribune. 1927-05-28. Archived from the original on 2020-02-02. Retrieved 2020-02-02 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Maudine Ormsby, the only cow to gain immortal fame at Ohio State university, will have her picture painted, if the reports issued at the art department of the university are true.
Miss Ormsby will undergo the brush at the hands of Miss Yeteve Smith, of Columbus. The finished work will be a feature attraction of the clubroom at the College of Agriculture headquarters, Townshend hall.

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

Cunard (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maudine Ormsby was selected as the homecoming queen of 1926 at Ohio State University. This received significant coverage in books published in 1986 by Pocket Books, in 1992 by St. Martin's Press, and in 2011 by Morris Communications. That the homecoming queen story has been written about in books published 60–85 years after the event occurred strongly establishes that it has "attracted attention over a sufficiently significant period of time".
The 1992 book also notes that Maudine "had set world records in milk production".
A 1925 article in Chillicothe Gazette published a photo of Maudine Ormsby with former Ohio Governor Frank Orren Lowden and says "Maudine is of Holstein stock and has produced the world's record of 22,000 pounds of milk, plus 920 pounds of butter".
A 1926 article published by D. Appleton & Company notes, "Maudine is professionally engaged in production of milk, high in butter fat, which already has won her four world's records".
I oppose a merge to History of Ohio State University since covering Maudine Ormsby's story in that article would be undue weight and since there are enough sources and material about the homecoming queen story and her world records to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline and justify a standalone article.
Cunard (talk) 08:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cunard's sources. You're going to add those to the page, right? :) — Toughpigs (talk) 18:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is Boleyn's second attempt to delete this page in the last six months. Boleyn's previous nomination in January ended as no consensus, but Cunard posted the same list of sources then as well, showing that there are plenty of sources available. I'm not sure why Boleyn would try again, five months later. It does not feel like good faith to ignore the many sources posted and refer to the previous discussion as "minimal participation". — Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nor does it give a vote of confidence that the subject is inportant that no one has bothered adding additional sources to the article in the intervening months.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, a college prank that is still receiving coverage almost 100 years after the prank. meets GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 06:26, 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John John Jesse[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. Has some coverage, but not enough to go over the threshold. Boleyn (talk) 07:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've looked at this article before, and had the same thoughts. There are a ton of bloggy sites that I assume are fancruft/spamcruft, one passing newspaper ref in "Chang, R., 2004. Sex on a wall: National Post, p.IN03." and many posts on Punk News [18]. I didn't nom it because 1) I feel like I don't have a strong enough sense of what is a RS when it comes to the Juxtapoz/Lowbrow scene and 2) this is also a WP:NMUSIC evaluation, which I find to be quite byzantine, with strange evaluations of what counts as a RS -- Is Punk News a RS??? I note that his band Nausea (band) has a page, as do his Nausea bandmates Victor Dominicis, and Roy Mayorga, though Amy Miret was redirected to the band [19]. Neil Robinson links to his label Tribal War Records. I would say that any consideration of JJJ needs to also consider the others. Theredproject (talk) 15:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Punk News is a reliable source as per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found one more significant source (but I'm not sure about the reliability of it): Coffin Cuties magazine. A few other sources I've seen (that are only passing mentions) allude to him being mentioned elsewhere, but he was active long enough ago that I assume it would be hard to dig up some of those sources now. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep On board with nom, the coverage available does not meet WP:ARTIST or WP:GNG. --Micky (talk) 03:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Micericky, your comment sounds like a delete but says keep? Just checking it's right. Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 12:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Boleyn Yikes sorry, it was late where I live. My vote is delete. --Micky (talk) 17:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)~~ Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I agree with the nom; there are name drops, but not enough by the way of the "substantial coverage of the subject" that the GNG requires. It has been way, way too long for such coverage not to be imagined, theorized, speculated, but to be put into the article. Ravenswing 16:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. MER-C 11:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seventies Power Ballads[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 17:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: it made no. 11 on the UK compilation albums chart [20] but honestly, even if it had been no. 1 I think pretty much all compilations are non-notable... this type of album is ten a penny and there's nothing to be said about an album of 30-year-old songs apart from its chart position. Richard3120 (talk) 19:24, 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) 01:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bisharad Basnet[edit]

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

A non-notable actor and director with no evidence of satisfying WP:ENT. GSS ^💬 17:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 17:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources indicate he exists but not that his work is particularly notable. --Micky (talk) 02:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I rarely take part in these discussions and I admit I don't know exactly how you interpret WP:ENT. But Basnet has 30K+ Facebook followers, one movie he directed (Mr. Virgin) has an article here (recently created but not challenged, at least not yet) and one movie he played in also has an article, Dui Rupaiyan, which has been around for years. And several newspapers have written about him. - Alexis Jazz 05:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having lots of followers on social media doesn't satisfy our inclusion criteria. The notability of the film he directed is questionable and it likely failed WP:NFILM that require at least 2 full length reviews and there is only one since it was released and there is no evidence if Basnet played a significant role in Dui Rupaiyan. GSS ^💬 06:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON. He seems notable but not Wikipedia notable yet. Apparently, he is well respected in Nepali film and theatre because of his achievements in Mumbai. But the list of his works don't meet WP:ENT and there is not enough for WP:GNG. Even so, if it were more than just the Hindu that had coverage about his clowning in India, I would have supported keep. There isn't enough for a WP:BLP yet. It could be restored to draft on request once there is one proper WP:SIGCOV or one other major work (Mr. Virgin seems countable) or one major role. As it is, the coverage is vague ("he has done multiple TV roles and adverts", "he has got a lot of film offers in Nepal", "he was [also there] in [this theatrical production]", etc.) not bothering to once comment on the specifics or the quality of his work (suggesting he played minor roles). Usedtobecool ☎️ 05:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Director of acting school and early stage theatre actor with most time spent as a clown to make extra money. Possibly WP:TOOSOON. scope_creep^Talk 13:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 01:41, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Chatterjea[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non-notable writer. --Micky (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable philosopher.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "no assertion of notability" would be grounds for speedy deletion, but it's clearly inapplicable here, as the article claims she's written several books published by major houses. Do you have another deletion rationale? pburka (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't appear that any of these works are notable. A quick Google search doesn't seem to turn up with any reliable sources to verify notability. Spiderone 09:06, 4 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. Noting that from time to time a reassessment of the evidence of notability or suitability of existing articles may be requested by any user via a deletion discussion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Great Britain Party[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails GNG and ORG. Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties. No notable achievements prior to, during, or following elections, and the article is littered with bullet points of campaign issues rather than substantive content. doktorb _words^deeds 21:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 21:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 21:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. See also "List of frivolous political parties" gave me a laugh though. --Micky (talk) 00:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Previous discussion was keep. Nominator has history of attempting to delete every small party; coming back a few years later for a second go is not on. Emeraude (talk) 08:51, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The previous discussion's keep !votes were based on claiming the subject met the GNG. However, the article is supported by trivial coverage in routine election result articles and (far more) by primary source coverage from the party's own website. All news, scholarly and book sources I can find that mention the party cover it trivially. I'd be willing to change my vote if a user could show multiple reliable sources offering significant coverage of this party. Ralbegen (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC News and Electoral Commission are reliable sources. Emeraude (talk) 09:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Emeraude:Comment Those sources prove that the party exists/existed. They do not prove notable achievements beyond standing for election, something political parties are expected to do. doktorb _words^deeds 19:06, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And nothing has changed since you previoulsy nominated this article and it was kept. How many bites of the cherry do you want? Emeraude (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want an article which fails GNG deleted. You don't address my point that the citations only prove existence rather than notability so I assume you have changed your mind? Will you now vote delete? doktorb _words^deeds 20:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This was clearly just a publicity stunt for the Miss Great Britain competition. There is no coverage whatsoever in news sources other than listing them in the election results, or mere passing mentions. The only substantial sources are their own published propaganda. They weren't notable when they stood for election in 2008, they weren't notable at the last AFD in 2014 when they had already been defunct for six years, they're not notable now, and since they no longer exist, they never will be. I'd almost speedy delete it as G11. SpinningSpark 02:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Citations show the group existed, but do not actually support the claim of notability. Election results and primary sources is just about all it amounts to. Thus far, the lone call to keep did not articulate an an actual rationale, so this atm is a unanimous call fro deletion. Zaathras (talk) 20:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At leat six other Wikipedia articles mention this. Anyone reading them is likely to want to know what the Miss Great Britain Party is. They are:

Haltemprice and Howden (UK Parliament constituency)

2008 Crewe and Nantwich by-election

2008 Henley by-election

Gemma Garrett

2008 Haltemprice and Howden by-election

Mad Cow-Girl

Deleting this article creates a gaping hole in the uesefuness of those articles Emeraude (talk) 12:21, 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 Draftify. WP:TOOSOON: draftify until release or greater coverage. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Box (upcoming film)[edit]

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

No evidence this has begun principal photography and therefore fails WP:NFF and WP:TOOSOON SpinningSpark 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SpinningSpark 22:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It appears that not only has filming begun, but it has wrapped according to this interview where Athie says "I just wrapped ‘Black Box,’ this movie I did in New Orleans by another wonderful first time feature filmmaker, Emmanuel Osei-Kuffou." BOVINEBOY2008 22:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Filming may have wrapped but unless we have better sources, it's still WP:TOOSOON. --Micky (talk) 00:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 05:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete An upcoming film with no plot or prior publicity, apparently. Fails on notability grounds and TOOSOON. doktorb _words^deeds 04:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a film by a well known company that has already began production and also has coverage in reliable sources, (The Wrap, Variety cited in the article already) which means it passes GNG and satisfies the Film Projects guidlines regarding when articles should be placed in mainspace. Deleting articles like these which will surely without doubt be recreated soon anyway is a waste of time for all.★Trekker (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This does not pass GNG. The Wrap article is just casting announcement. The Variety article that is asserted to be significant coverage does not even mention the film at all. The Blackfilm interview with one of the actors simply confirms that the movie wrapped up shooting. That's it. the coverage falls woefully short of significant. -- Whpq (talk) 21:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to allow for possible improvement. BD2412 T 03:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:31, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft for improvement which may result in reliable sources reviews when it is released, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:31, 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 delete. MER-C 11:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akash Rajpal[edit]

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

Purely a promotional article. Fails WP:GNG. Calling for an AfD Discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:15, 4 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Barnard[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Played with notable musicians, but not one himself, from what I can see. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:00, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 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) 20:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thierry Brouard[edit]

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

Self written promotional style autobiography by User:Thirrouard who has also posted the same to his user page. Was speedy tagged A7 but tag was removed. None of the sources referenced (such as Harper's Bazaar,Marie Claire and Vogue) actually mention the subject but presumably as he is a photographer include his photos (I say presumably as it doesn't appear to be stated anywhere in the articles). Therefore fails significant coverage. Other "references" on the page are IMDB (not a RS), youtube, facebook and instagram. Fails WP:GNG. Glen 04:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - After a BEFORE search, I found no indication that this photographer is notable. The only things I could find were social media, and that does not count towards SIGCOV in RS. GNG and NARTIST fail. Netherzone (talk) 16:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia needs to do a much better job of stopping autobiographies. We maybe should have a step in the process of creating articles in which the editor affirms that they are neither the subject of the article nor have they been paid by the subject of the article. It might not stop all abuse but it would end the rare cases where people legitimately do not realize they are violating the rules of Wikipedia.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as spam. This probably could have been tagged as a G11. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Was already G11'd but this was rejected as a claim of importance was made in article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was tagged as an A7, not as a G11. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If Brouard is mentioned in any of the non-primary sources at all, it is only in a photo credit. Vexations (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletions. – Netherzone (talk) 21:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Netherzone (talk) 21:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Extraordinarily I did not do a search here. I just read the article, which makes things obvious.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:22, 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 and move to Hollywood District (disambiguation) for the primary topic of the Portland article. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hollywood District[edit]

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

Not a proper disambiguation page. There's only one legit entry, the one in Portland; the rest are partial matches, except for Hollywood, which I've never heard called "Hollywood District". Clarityfiend (talk) 04:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:38, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep These all appear to be reasonable variations that readers might be looking for. I would have made it a single list, without the "Hollywood, Los Angeles, California" entry (since its historic district is already listed), but WP:DINC. edit to add: my !vote is regarding the usefulness of the page; I agree with the move/rename suggestions made in this discussion. Schazjmd (talk) 14:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, or Move to Hollywood District (disambiguation). Does not meet the standards for a dab page at MOS:DAB as all WP:PTMs, and is not useful with only 2 views per day,[21] most of whom want the Portland article. But if not deleted, at the least should be moved to Hollywood District (disambiguation) so that Hollywood District (Portland, Oregon) can be moved back to this title as the only topic with an article on WP that uses this precise name. Note that Hollywood District (Portland, Oregon) averages 19 views per day. Station1 (talk) 20:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and/or Move per above. Useful as several of the entries could reasonable be shortened to Hollywood District by someone searching. Move to Hollywood District (disambiguation), with a hatnote at the Portland article, is also reasonable. MB 03:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the disambiguation page - seems clear that almost all of the disambiguation pages listed are reasonable. I don't mind if we make the Portland one the main article. SportingFlyer T·C 16:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Hollywood District" in Los Angeles is a well documented area, of long standing. See, just for example, WPA Land use survey maps for the City of Los Angeles (1933) "...Hollywood District to Boyle Heights District; Topanga Canyon to Hollywood District; ..." --Bejnar (talk) 01:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Bejnar If I've understood correctly, that source indicates that the term exists outside of Wikipedia, whereas we only disambiguate terms used inside WP. If it's important enough, it should be incorporated in the relevant article and we can (only) then list it on the dab per WP:MOSDAB / WP:DABMENTION. Widefox; talk 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect (and merge 1 entry, possibly putting the rest in the See also) to Hollywood (disambiguation)#United States per WP:INCDAB. Previous !voters could check INCDAB to see if that's fitting rather than deletion, keeping or moving, as the nom is correct that this dab is not needed due to one valid entry, with the arguably valid second entry failing WP:DABMENTION (per above). Widefox; talk 01:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Merged valid entries in meantime Done Widefox; talk 18:44, 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inline blowback (paintball)[edit]

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

Previously PROD'ed. Essay-like unsourced article. Wikipedia is not a Guide JMHamo (talk) 15:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There is no reason Wikipedia should not have an article on this topic and I would dispute that this is fundamentally howto. While the article certainly needs some substantial work, the only part that looks outright howto to me is a couple of sentences in the troubleshooting section, and even some of that could be rewritten as encyclopaedic maintenance information. SpinningSpark 01:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Very weak argument to keep, how do we know this is not a made up how-to guide; there's no reliable sources JMHamo (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because, first of all, as I already said, it is not a howto guide, so it can't be a made up how-to guide. If you meant by that that it might be a hoax, it definitely isn't that [22][23]. SpinningSpark 15:35, 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 no consensus. Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Julio E. Dávila[edit]

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

Per WP:BEFORE source searching, this is a non-notable subject that fails WP:BASIC. Of the seven references in the article, five are primary sources, which are not usable to establish notability. The external link is not a reliable source per Wikipedia's standards.

The remaining two sources in the references section, both from one almanac, are quite likely directory-like listings that provide fleeting, passing mentions about the subject. This has been determined as quite likely by researching Deseret Morning News Church Almanac coverage about the subject, for which I found the following source:

Deseret Morning News 2006 Church Almanac. 2005. p. 88.:

Julio Enrique Davila — Born May 23, 1932, in Bucaramunga, Colombia, to Julio E. Davila Villamicar and Rita Penalosa de Davila. Sustained to the Second Quorum of the Seventy April 6, 1991, at age 58; released Oct. 5, 1996. 50.

This is a directory listing that certainly does not qualify as significant coverage, and it is unlikely that the 2008 version of the almanac cited in the article provides much more. From searches, additional sources are only providing name checks, and almost nothing else. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colombia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV found in my WP:BEFORE either, only passing mentions, directory entries and so-forth. FOARP (talk) 13:32, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The so called "directory listing" is the same level of even more than many of the actual sourcing we have for Catholic bishops that people are just fine with.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – It is virtually certain that the Deseret Morning News 2008 Church Almanac source in the article does not provide significant coverage. Significant coverage in independent, reliable sources is required to qualify notability for this subject. Furthermore, multiple sources that provide signficant coverage are required, not just one source, and this source apparently does not even provide that. The 2005 almanac entry I posted above could literally be used as a definitional example of a directory listing. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. --Micky (talk) 00:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:04, 26 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) 04:33, 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. Nobody except single-purpose accounts wants to keep this. Sandstein 08:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Patil[edit]

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

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

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

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

Businessperson with an armoire full of backrub awards and the accompanying churnalism. Coverage consists of promo pieces, run-of-the-mill mentions, and material related to his businesses. There is no basis for an article based on in-depth, independent coverage here. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 17:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. A bunch of puffery awards do not change that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep .I think receiving an award from the President of India means that he is not a puffery businessman. Please do check the facts before commenting on the article. A lot of valid references have been given for the same fact. And yes, I am not advocating the person, it is just that if the references are from valuable and well-known sources, the article should be considered. Be it of any person/place/organization Samveg Shah (talk) 04:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — samvegshah1994 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eh? I'm not seeing a presidential award in that list. Which, BTW, would not necessarily suffice for notability on its own either. Business awards are cheap. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 13:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He has won a Swarna Kamal (golden lotus) Award, which is considered as one of the prestigious film awards, it is held every year in New Delhi and the awards are presented by the President of India to the winners for the year.^[2]. He had won this award for the movie he produced called as Delhi Safari, At 60th National Film Awards, it won the National Film Award for Best Animated Film.^[3]^[4] Nithesh gaikwad (talk) — Nithesh gaikwad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right. So he was the producer of an award-winning film? Sorry, that does not cut it. He didn't get that award, the film did. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:56, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well according to you a producer has nothing to do with the film he produces is it? I'm sorry, but for a film to win an national award, everyone who have worked hard towards bringing that film in front of the audience matters.Nithesh gaikwad (talk) 14:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC) — Nithesh gaikwad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Notability not demonstrated. Page largely edited by WP:SPA, including one bearing a name similar to the author of the 'keep' comment above. asnac (talk) 16:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...and the below is the second SPA active at that page. Both appear to be here only to promote the subject's company. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The content put up on this page was by considering all the factors necessary to meet the notability guidelines. The Information provided is verifiable and from independent sources. I request all editors to contribute and help in improving the page. The information mentioned in this page is curated by following Wikipedia Guidelines from Biographies of living persons. Kishor is a notable person in the business world for his works at KPIT. He has won some awards in the process which have been mentioned by reliable sources. He's dedicated over 3 Decades to KPIT technologies and you'll find several places on the internet where he speaks about KPIT's growth. I would again request all editors to help improve this article and add some more information.Nithesh gaikwad (talk) 22:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC) — Nithesh gaikwad (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have googled Kishor Patil and found several reliable links, found him notable for his business acumen. I have also, gone through the links in the article and they where from reliable secondary sources. I have found several other interviews from Kishor Patil while googling his name.Arpan2503 (talk) 06:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC) — Arpan2503 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 23:08, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ https://www.google.com/search?q=Zambar+(restaurant)&newwindow=1&sxsrf=ALeKk03MyRnmsQnKdjWHtc6Kw3xRjF0pQg:1594023654368&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYkrrtmLjqAhUVdCsKHUE3AkIQ_AUoA3oECFMQBQ&biw=1366&bih=625
^ http://www.awardsandshows.com/features/national-film-best-film-award-538.html
^ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172587/awards
^ https://web.archive.org/web/20130418030545/http://dff.nic.in/FeaturedFilm_60th_NATIONAL_FILM_AWARDS_2012_Announced.pdf

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: AfD discussion largely involved SPA
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect It is possible to recreate the article sometime later so let's keep this a redirect since redirects are cheap. NHS2008 (talk) 12:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kishor Patil is a very common name. By creating a redirect you are essentially arguing to reserve the name until he becomes notable. Also, redirects are costly. - Harsh (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Almost no GNG specific to the subject; the references to him are from his film company (which has its own WP article). Certainly zero WP:SIGCOV on him. The SPAs at this AfD imply that this is probably a WP:UPE BLP as well. Britishfinance (talk) 23:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No significant coverage. Only passing mentions in The Hindu's BusinessLine and India Today's BusinessToday. All other sources are unreliable. Fails GNG. - Harsh (talk) 04:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. As nomination and delete rationales are based upon lack of sources, and those sources have been found, consensus is keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pebbles Project[edit]

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

No significant coverage for this project. Fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 04:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, article is sourced to the org's website and a 404 from a source that does not look like it was independent. A search brought up nothing that was not a primary source, meaning that they fail WP:NORG and WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Lambert, Malu (2019-07-01). "Organisation of the Month". Food & Home. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via PressReader.
Moore, Victoria (2014-01-17). "Pebbles: the alcohol charity changing lives in South Africa". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Mittner, Hedda (2016-11-01). "Pebbles brings hope to Hemel-en-Aarde". The Village News. Hermanus, South Africa. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Issuu.
du Preez, Jeandré (2016-02-09). "Pebbles – an educational cornerstone in the winelands". Farmer's Weekly. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Kearns, Emily (2014-12-05). "Sophia Warner of the Pebbles Projects talks about 10 years of changing lives in South Africa's winelands". Harpers Wine & Spirit. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.

Sources with quotes

Lambert, Malu (2019-07-01). "Organisation of the Month". Food & Home. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via PressReader.
The article notes:
Through its holistic approach, the Cape-based Pebbles Kitchen has prepared over 50 000 meals for children in need.
In 2003 — then a special-needs teacher — Sophia came to South Africa from the UK. She founded Pebbles in 2004. [quote] ... Located on a pastoral corner of Klein Joostenberg Farm on the outskirts of Stellenbosch, the Pebbles Kitchen feeds 1 300 children every day. [quote]
The Pebbles Kitchen is not a charity as such, but rather a social enterprise — jointly funded by Goede Mensen and Stichting Clouds Foundation — that forms an integral part of Pebbles' nutrition programme. [quote]
The charity currently supports over 1 500 children from birth to 24 years. Most of the beneficiaries live or work on Western Cape wine farms. The kitchen came about as a way to control the nutritional content of the meals for the children. Prior to this development, the meals were supplied externally, but still with a view to becoming a self-sufficient enterprise.
Moore, Victoria (2014-01-17). "Pebbles: the alcohol charity changing lives in South Africa". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
Using Lucy’s contacts in the wine industry as a springboard, Sophia set up the Pebbles Project, a charity that aims to enrich the lives of disadvantaged children in the Western Cape, especially those whose lives have been affected by alcohol in some way.
...
Volunteers applying to Pebbles are required to show a certain amount of initiative. It is not a surprise to hear Sophia has no truck with 17-year-olds on gap years who want to come and have photographs taken of themselves gazing at babies. [quote] But those who can pitch in and offer something are most welcome. [quote] Others have given rugby or music lessons. A group of Dutch interns offered to design and run a sexual health programme.
Pebbles has just won funding for a mobile computer lab and a mobile book and DVD library, so computer wizards or potential librarians would be particularly useful. With a health clinic opening later this month there may also be opportunities for health care professionals, although “there is a mountain of red tape we need to research first,” Sophia warns.
Mittner, Hedda (2016-11-01). "Pebbles brings hope to Hemel-en-Aarde". The Village News. Hermanus, South Africa. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Issuu.
The article notes:
... The first one is Sophia Warner, a special needs teacher from the UK and founder-director of The Pebbles Project ...
Working with farm owners and their workers to find solutions, Sophia launched the Pebbles Project on the Villiera wine estate near Stellenbosch, where farm buildings were made available for a fully equipped ECD centre and an after-school club (ASC) where older children could spend their afternoons in a safe environment and complete their homework assignments under supervision while their parents are still at work.
Since then, 43 different facilities have been established on several farms in the winelands, stretching from Somerset West to Wellington, as well as Citrusdal and now Hemel-en-Aarde.
du Preez, Jeandré (2016-02-09). "Pebbles – an educational cornerstone in the winelands". Farmer's Weekly. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
The Pebbles Project is the brainchild of Sophia Warner, who left Surrey, England, for South Africa’s sunny winelands in 2003. This decision changed not only her life, but those of many others.
Soon after her arrival here, she identified a need for educational support on farms in the winelands. With her 13-year background in special needs teaching, Sophia particularly wanted to use educational support to address the barriers faced by children with foetal alcohol syndrome. She established the Pebbles Project the following year and in 2005, it opened five crèches to offer support to farm workers’ children.
...
The programme is well-resourced, with mathematics and literacy tutors who provide assistance with homework and exam preparation. It has also expanded to include new educational support programmes such as the FACET-mobile learning centres, which were donated by the For Africa’s Children Every Time (FACET) Foundation. Each mobile learning centre has a book and DVD library as well as a computer bus that drives around fortnightly to serve the various farms.
Kearns, Emily (2014-12-05). "Sophia Warner of the Pebbles Projects talks about 10 years of changing lives in South Africa's winelands". Harpers Wine & Spirit. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
As the Pebbles Project celebrates its 10th year, co-founder Sophia Warner explains how the trade has helped provide support and education to children in South Africa's winelands and what a difference it makes.

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

Cunard (talk) 08:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Cunard's research is again spot on and shows GNG (although the fifth of these is apparently an interview, but the others, such as the piece from the Daily Telegraph, are good). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't Maintain[edit]

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

No WP:RS that cover the album in any depth beyond a passing reference. The punknews review is not a staff review; WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES specifies "Use staff reviews only, recognizable by a tag." AllMusic is just a listing, not a review; WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES specifies "Biography/reviews prose are reliable, but do not use genre sidebar." All other sources are passing, as they are mostly coverage of the band itself. The most reliable of these is merely a Vice blog [24] Theredproject (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:19, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the song, fully or partially: [25], [26], [27] and [28]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, thanks for this research, but none of these sources are reliable, independent, or indepth: 1) Punk News [29] is not a staff review; WP:ALBUMS/SOURCES specifies "Use staff reviews only, recognizable by a tag. 2) AZ Central [30] is merely a passing reference. 3) Pop Matters [31] is both an interview (non independent), and a passing reference 4) The AV Club source [32] is independent, but not particularly indepth: It a one paragraph entry in a listicle about 19 songs about bad dads. Clearly insufficient for N. Theredproject (talk) 16:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:24, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michhil[edit]

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

I can't find any actual reviews of the film published in reliable sources, searching in both English and Bengali (to the best of my limited ability). Coverage appears to be limited to routine promotional pre-release announcements. Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete Found nothing to meet guidelines as per WP:MOVIE. But then again, someone with proficiency in Bengali could have better luck in uncovering better references to attest for notability. Runforlimit505 (talk) 06:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:23, 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. MER-C 11:29, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mid-Atlantic Union of Vietnamese Student Associations[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Mention in English-language sources outside of primary sources is thin to non-existent. I'm unable to determine the reliability of the one Vietnamese-language source given. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 13:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, not sure about the Vietnamese-language source... --Micky (talk) 00:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. I suspect that the subject of the article was never notable. —Unforgettableid (talk) 15:35, 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. Mojo Hand (talk) 23:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mitchell Merling[edit]

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

Save for being the "Paul Mellon Curator", there's no claim of notability. Citations 7 through 14 (the back half of the article) aren't about Merling, at all so they're pointless. This is another of Mitzi.humphrey's probably COI articles, and she conflated the art on display with Merling, personally. The front half of the article is sourced to the official postings from Merling's past employers none of which are independent. There's no case for GNG because of this. I did a WP:BEFORE search and from what I found (some results were paywalled) the subject is a mere mention. Nobody in the press is writing about the subject, so he's not notable in the definition of the word. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 17:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak keep~~ there aren't full length articles on him. But Google news does give dozens of instances where his work as a curator is covered. Example, example, example, example, example, example, example. Being the Paul Mellon curator of the museum sounds a lot like a named chair under WP:ACADEMIC. The notability here is not proved out by extremely strong sourcing (hence weak in the k*ep), but the coverage is in the form of reviews of his work as curator, and does mention him directly. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Switching to Neutral so we can finish this up.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The news articles mentioned above do not indicate notability simply by doing his job. He is barely mentioned. I do wonder about WP:ACADEMIC but need more sourcing to prove this. --Micky (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. He seems to have been doing his job as curator very well, in that there's a lot of press about his exhibits but it's all about the art and not about his contributions to putting it together. I did find one review of one of his exhibit catalogues [33] but it's brief and states that the text is also brief, again leaving the art to speak for itself. There isn't the depth of coverage here for GNG notability, so we're left with a bare job title that might or might not be similar to a named professorial chair. I don't think that's enough. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I didn't find the significant independent coverage of him that I believe is required to meet WP:GNG and I don't see any evidence of him meeting any SNG. I don't believe his curator job at a museum is equivalent to a named chair at a university. Papaursa (talk) 23:39, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Casha[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Has coverage, but doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Last AfD had no participants except proposer. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete Per nom. As an aside, improperly cited with just a list of links and no in-article citations... --Micky (talk) 01:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:15, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Witney Schneidman[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG as a clear WP:PROMO piece created by the article's subject. KidAd (talk) 03:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:03, 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. MER-C 11:24, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NextDNS[edit]

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

The vast majority of the sources in the article are either self-published or user-generated content, and I'm unable to find other sourcing that supports the company being notable enough for an article. The couple of sources that are not UGC are all talking about one partnership the company has with Mozilla; I'm not sure this meets WP:CORPDEPTH, but I'm fairly certain it doesn't meet WP:ORGIND anyway: any material that is substantially based on such press releases even if published by independent sources (churnalism) is not considered to be independent, and it looks like the sources are. Either way, it doesn't seem to be sustained coverage. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @1292simon: as the editor who moved this from draft to mainspace can you explain your rationale? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi. It was mostly due to the coverage of the Firefox partnership, however I now see that WP:ORGIND might mean those sources do not establish notability. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 11:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails notability reqs per nom. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 19:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I, @DeliciousInternetSpeeds:, have done most, if not all, of the work for this article. I can find sources, but they are not easily integrated in the article as they are recommendations. DNS does not usually get a lot of press to begin with, mostly just recommendations. Here are some examples: a guide for best dns servers, a German article that describes cname cloaking (that I will now add to the article), a linux news site, a guide incorporating NextDNS, a guide for adding encrypted dns on android that lists NextDNS, an informative piece that describes some functionality of NextDNS by comparing it to another service. This is my first Wikipedia article and I am learning as I go along, but this type of article seems particularly tricky to me due to the lack of actual press, as opposed to guides and recommendations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DeliciousInternetSpeeds (talk • contribs) 03:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's true to say that articles on subjects related to software are often difficult due to lack of referencing; however, that's not to say that we shouldn't hold them to those same standards. Looking through the links you've posted, none of them seem to me to approach significant coverage of NextDNS; merely mentioning the name isn't sufficient to merit an article, I'm afraid. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It has received some coverage. Among those is its partnership with Firefox as another provider. Sources indicated by DeliciousInternetSpeeds are reliable. And so are the ones in the article, though a number of primary articles should be removed. Therefore, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's disappointing you've said you won't reply any further; I'd like to hear specifically which of the sources you feel are sufficiently significant, reliable and independent. Nonetheless. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:10, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just some advice, Naypta. Replying to every vote that doesn't go your way is often considered WP:BADGERING and doesn't help your cause. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 22:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@1292simon: Hello, thanks for the reply. I definitely don't think this is bludgeoning. I responded to two comments, one of which wasn't actually a declared !vote, but was from the author, who I wanted to reply to to try and help them understand, as they'd said it was their first article; the other I felt needed to be addressed because I don't think "My vote stands. I won't reply any further" is a helpful attitude to have anywhere on the encyclopedia. We're here for a collaborative editing process, and in order to do that, people must engage with each other and the processes as a whole. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 22:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

100% correct Naypta. Responding as you have done, is perfectly fine. WP:BLUD refers to someone forcing their POV through sheer volume of comments and refusing to "listen" to the opposing side and not accepting the interpretation of guidelines, etc. If anything, dropping a !vote and then disappearing and saying "I won't reply any further" especially if their viewpoint has been challenged could result in that !vote being disregarded altogether since we're not here to simply count !votes but to engage. HighKing⁺⁺ 15:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree with 1292simon. I've had heated arguments in a few AfDs before. And instead of respecting and understanding my views which back up my vote, the nominator in a couple of AfDs argued with me and insisted that I haven't explained enough, even if in fact I did. And it came to the extent that the argument gets worse. I hate it when the nominator (or anyone who questions my vote) is bludgeoning. I'm not looking for an argument or a debate in every AfD. Arguing with me or anyone over my vote won't change anything at all and that's a sign of bludgeoning. And I never waste time in arguing people who have different votes than mine. This is why I end my reasoning with that statement. If I won't reply, then be it. I've explained enough to back up my viewpoint. So, don't force me to reply.

Everytime I participate on an AfD, I state my viewpoints (I do read the guidelines) on why I believe the article deserves to kept or deleted. Of course, I even listen to the bases of people who have different votes than mine. I really do. People who voted to delete it have their own viewpoints. And so do people, like me, who voted to keep it (or turn it to a redirect). Their delete stands, and so does my keep. The delete votes are regarded, and so are the keep votes; no matter what. So, it's best to respect my vote and viewpoints (as I respect those who voted to delete it) than to waste time arguing with me over those. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig: The delete votes are regarded, and so are the keep votes; no matter what is explicitly not how these processes work. I suggest you re-read WP:!VOTE - these processes are emphatically not conducted on voting. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 09:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig Also you say Arguing with me or anyone over my vote won't change anything at all and that's a sign of bludgeoning is 100% wrong. I take your point that you've been at AfD's where you've patiently explained the reasoning for your !vote, but don't !vote at an AfD if you're not prepared to back up your reasoning and change your mind if you're wrong. Also, a closing admin reads the debate and if you don't support your reasoning because another editor has made some points or asked questions, then your !vote may not receive the weight it might deserve. None of that is "bludgeoning" in any sense of the meaning. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I've heard of this, but it is no way notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Ed6767 talk! 15:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 21:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:53, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mounia Bennani-Chraïbi[edit]

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

fail WP:PROF, just a normal academic and doesn't meet criteria and no reliable sources about her. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 02:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep for WP:Prof#C1 on basis of GS record. Xxanthippe (talk) 03:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep. I added four books (two of them edited) with five published reviews to the article. I think that, together with the citations noted by X, is enough for notability via some combination of WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:PROF#C1 and WP:AUTHOR per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the added contributions and above - Astrophobe (talk) 08:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep as passing NAUTHOR given reviews. She also appears to be widely quoted in national French media on political issues.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 12:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep over 1200 google scholar citations https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=JK9DDoYAAAAJ&hl=en Lainx (talk) 12:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- 1200 citations is no sufficient condition. I'm not saying it should be deleted, but simply saying 1200 citations implies that every person with 1200 citations should get a page (and I'm pretty sure most shouldn't). thisbugisonfire (talk) 12:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is passing borderline, particularly with so few coauthors. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:30, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Pirates (Windows Phone game)[edit]

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

Fails all criteria of both WP:GNG and WP:WEB. Can't find anything that makes it look notable. The only listed source that could possibly be considered secondary is now a spam domain parking page. – Frood (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Frood (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Frood (talk) 02:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:VGSE finds nothing of interest. --Izno (talk) 02:50, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I can't find anything to support notability of this game on a check for sources. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This game has historical significance as one of the early popular games in the Windows Phone community. While Windows Phone was a small community, this game was truly one of the early pioneers. The fact that it has recently been re-released and is generally available outside the narrow Windows Store world is significant. The original wiki article for the Windows Phone game has been on Wikipedia for years with no request for deletion. It was only nominated for deletion after I started editing the wiki article. I have updated the wiki page name and significantly enhanced the article, documenting it's heritage. Francisco d'Anconia 03:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was not able to find anything during my searches, so this game fails WP:GNG for the lack of secondary independent in depth sourcing. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable video game failing WP:GNG with no reliable independent in-depth sources, such as WP:VG/RS (at least, none that I can find among the noise of the "space pirates" search combo). None of the sources in the article are suitable for GNG. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 15:48, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for not establishing notability. Popularity does not determine notability, and there is little that can be found for this game. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 04:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 23:48, 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. Keep !votes, if not directly mentioning it, refer to the fact that notability is not temporary; and they point that there is and will be coverage about this in reliable sources. AFD is not the place for the eventual move discussion either. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lenard (crater)[edit]

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

This crater was indeed named Lenard between 2005 (not 2008) and 2020. However, the International Astronomical Union has revoked that decision in June 2020, after Philipp Lenard's connection to Adolf Hitler's Nazi party had been uncovered. This is now an unnamed crater lacking any significance. Further details: https://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/science-and-technology/astronomists-unknowingly-dedicated-moon-craters-to-nazis-will-the-next-historical-reckoning-be-at-cosmic-level Renerpho (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Renerpho (talk) 01:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The fact that it had a name for some years, and then suddenly became nameless is in itself notable (and interesting!). I am sure there is (news) coverage on the revocation of the name. It might be a good idea to add that to the article, instead of deleting it. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I'd rather add that to the article about Philipp Lenard, not to the crater page. It is an interesting fact, but it is not about the crater, which I believe should be stripped of any implied connection with the person.Renerpho (talk) 02:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete +1 to Renerpho's rationale and suggestion to migrate anything interesting to existing article on Philipp Lenard. As a side note, see also this book excerpt by the same author as the article linked above: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/how-2-pro-nazi-nobelists-attacked-einstein-s-jewish-science-excerpt1/ Looks to me like Lenard's page needs significantly deeper and more explicit discussion of his connection to the Nazis. Generalrelative (talk) 04:09, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ I see mention of a recommendation to remove and replace the name, but not actual approval of removal (as yet); unless I'm missing something, I fully support deletion -- in the event the removal is approved without renaming -- as a feature without independent geologic significance other than being a named landmark, with mention on the primary article on Lenard. But the article can and should be renamed upon a formal approval to rename the crater. Incidentally, noted on the 2005 naming, though I think probably that was the date of the task force's decision, formally approved by the IAU in 2008 per the USGS. Happy to discuss if I've missed something here. Tyrol5 [Talk] 13:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Revising to Keep and Rename Later per my remarks above and Mario23 below. Tyrol5 [Talk] 12:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We shouldn't be trying to purge the encyclopaedia of anything with a Nazi connection. It's not our problem that the IAU is suffering some embarassment about this. I'm not buying this argument that its notabililty disappears if the name disappears. Notability is not temporary, and the debate about its naming only makes it more notable. Mendeleev (crater) is just as nondescript (actually smaller and on the far side where it can't be seen from Earth) and Mendeleev had precisely nothing to do with its discovery. It too has notability largely resting on it being officially named after a famous person. I know OTHERSTUFF, but we have over 1500 moon crater articles, none of them populated places (except a handful very briefly), and the vast majority equally uninteresting except for the name. Clearly, consensus has been that it is ok to have them. SpinningSpark 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename later --- I'm the person who gave the tip to IAU, as mentioned by Philip Ball's article. The IAU is undergoing a renaming procedure right now, which takes a couple of weeks. The crater is still named after Lenard, and surely the IAU will make an official annoucement in a few weeks after the review process is done. This additional twist about the name makes the crater (together with Stark's crater) even more interesting i think. Mario23 (talk) 06:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's no Sheldon (crater) yet. Hint, hint. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 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 delete 04:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC) close was by Anthony Appleyard Alpha3031 (t • c) 12:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eastern Region Tennis[edit]

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

no evidence of notability, no sources, text closely mirrors official website Tdslk (talk) 01:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Looks like a pure advertisement to me. There being only one source over the span of 10 years and it being the official website is a huge red flag to me. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 02:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:58, 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 redirect to List of Kentucky Union Civil War units#Infantry Since also merged (although I am not sure whether a simple bibliographical citation is copyrightable content, but nevertheless) (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

31st Kentucky Infantry Regiment[edit]

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

This unit failed to complete formation, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and is therefore not notable per the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphan, it's not even referred to by that name elsewhere in Wikipedia. Initially I thought it might be a placeholder, or could be redirected to some list of 'infantry regiments', but no, not referred to at all. Merge to List of Kentucky Union Civil War units. Normal Op (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The unit appears in List_of_Kentucky_Union_Civil_War_units#Infantry

Sure enough does... with a different text string so it wasn't found on basic search. Changing my !vote from delete to merge. Normal Op (talk) 16:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is going to be merged to a bare list, Normal Op? The 31st is already listed there. This doesn't make any sense. Do you mean redirect? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, delete and redirect; because that's what happens when you merge. Or just plain merge... because there's two citations that don't exist (yet) in the target article. (If you're going to split hairs, I really need a haircut!) Normal Op (talk) 22:43, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've copied the sources and citations across. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As one who writes a number of ACW unit histories, I can state with confidence this is a clear WP:MILUNIT failure. Hog Farm (talk) 03:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into List_of_Kentucky_Union_Civil_War_units#Infantry per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is going to be merged to a bare list, Andrew Davidson? The 31st is already listed there. This doesn't make any sense. Do you mean redirect? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've copied the sources and citations across. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Peacemaker has merged content from the article in question to the list – the cited sources which the lists did not have. They failed to provide attribution and so we require that the page be kept to preserve the full history of contributions. Andrew🐉(talk) 00:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've attributed them now. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect thanks to Peacemaker67's work, here and at 29th Kentucky Infantry Regiment. --Lockley (talk) 23:25, 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 List of Kentucky Union Civil War units#Infantry. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

29th Kentucky Infantry Regiment[edit]

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

This unit failed to complete formation, lacks significant coverage in reliable sources and is therefore not notable per the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, orphan, it's not even referred to by that name elsewhere in Wikipedia. Initially I thought it might be a placeholder, or could be redirected to some list of 'infantry regiments', but no, not referred to at all. Merge into List of Kentucky Union Civil War units (where it doesn't need a bluelink at all). Normal Op (talk) 02:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The unit appears in List_of_Kentucky_Union_Civil_War_units#Infantry Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure enough does... with a different text string so it wasn't found on basic search. Changing my !vote from delete to merge. Normal Op (talk) 16:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean redirect? There is nothing to merge, the list has a bare mention of the name of the unit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Same answer as for the 31st. There are two citations in this stub-article that are not in the target article. Therefore MERGE, not simply redirect. Normal Op (talk) 22:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've copied the sources and citations across. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And attributed them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I've written a number of unit histories from this conflict. A lot of units just never completed organization. These fail WP:MILUNIT and almost always GNG. Frequently the designation was reused, but apparently not here. Hog Farm (talk) 03:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into List_of_Kentucky_Union_Civil_War_units#Infantry per WP:ATD-M and WP:PRESERVE. When you have a numerical sequence like this, it's just asking for trouble to leave a red link. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surely you mean redirect? There is nothing to merge, the list has a bare mention of the name of the unit. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:37, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've copied the sources and citations across. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And attributed them. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect thanks to Peacemaker67's work, here and at 31st Kentucky Infantry Regiment. --Lockley (talk) 23:26, 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 delete. MER-C 11:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qontext[edit]

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

Coverage is limited to routine acquisition news, interview-ish articles and press releases, thus failing NCORP. Any content salvageable from this promotional article can be merged into Autodesk. M4DU7 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is covered only in these business-newswire sites, I don't think those are reputable or fulfill GNG. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom; sources are highly suspect Spiderone 09:15, 4 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) 01:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Contify[edit]

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

Promotional article about a company that fails NCORP. Apart from a short article on ZDNet [34], there is no SIGCOV in reliable sources. The article has been edited by accounts like User:Marketing Contify and User:Ankur marketer. M4DU7 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 00:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nom rationale Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:44, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly fails WP:NCORP for insufficient coverage to merit inclusion. BD2412 T 03:27, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: A company going about its business, recently announcing a mobile app, but participation in start-up events and the non-notable award listings which are summarised in the article are insufficient for WP:CORPDEPTH, as is the brief ZDNet summary of the firm's proposition. Fails WP:NCORP and there is no article on the Athena Information Solutions parent, so no suitable redirect target. AllyD (talk) 13:24, 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 penis size; the arguments for disambiguation are correct, that the navigation needs to be served, but this can be done with or without a primary topic. Per Spicy's argument, the nav function being argued for can also be handled with a primary topic; will expand the hatnote there as well. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Small penis[edit]

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

I don't see how this disambiguation page serves any navigational purpose. The entries on the page, excluding "see alsos", are "A relatively small penis in any animal that has one, including humans"; Human penis size; and Micropenis. The first entry is not an actual article topic and cannot plausibly be one since non-human animals do not have the capacity to be concerned about their penis sizes in the way that humans are. It is also so obvious that it is hardly worth stating. The latter two entries do not need to be disambiguated, because micropenis is a subgroup of small human penises, not a distinct topic, and it is already linked in the lead of Human penis size. Spicy (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 00:06, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:17, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a micropenis is a small penis, but a small penis is not necessarily a micropenis. Those unfortunate souls who are not so well-endowed and who search for "small penis" might find it useful to see a link to both the articles for human penis size and micropenis. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that small penis shouldn't redirect to micropenis. But what you are describing could be accomplished by redirecting it to human penis size, which links to micropenis in the lead. A hatnote could be added for extra clarity. Spicy (talk) 08:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Not a proper dab page, with zero matches. This is no more appropriate than Large city or Tiny car or many other random adjective-noun pairings. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. If one consults the Google scholar link above, one sees that this is a common complaint and the topic seems to be notable by this name. Papers include:

Small penis and the male sexual role
Structured management and counseling for patients with a complaint of a small penis
Management of men complaining of a small penis despite an actually normal size
Systematic review of surgical and nonsurgical interventions in normal men complaining of small penis size
In an imperfect world, men with small penises are unforgiven
Treatment of men complaining of short penis
Efficacy of the daily penis-stretching technique to elongate the 'small penis'
Consultation for Small-Sized Penis in the Egyptian Males
Penile size and the 'small penis syndrome'
Normative diagnosis and treatment of small penis

Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Human penis size, which is the main article we have about this topic, and which covers cultural perceptions of penis size, penis enlargement and the other topics mentioned by Andrew Davidson. Micropenis is the only other term mentioned and that refers to a specific subset of small penises, so it's a less likely target. Hut 8.5 12:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anxieties of Donald Trump. E Eng 12:58, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP A valid disambiguation page. Anyone looking for "small penis" could be looking for Human penis size, Micropenis, Small penis humiliation, or Small penis rule. Dream Focus 19:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, it is not a valid disambiguation page. Read WP:partial title match. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You should read that instead of just linking to it. Disambiguation pages exist for reasons like this, to help people searching for something find what they are looking for. Dream Focus 00:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make them drink. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep valid WP:D Lightburst (talk) 22:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Human knowledge does not always fit computerized categorization. For example is this a dab page or a WP:SETINDEX? It fits neither perfectly but might approximately be included in either. I do not see a better option if our goal is to help readers navigate Wikipedia which is more important than the letter of a guideline. -- GreenC 00:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I do see how this disambiguation page serves some navigational purpose --Lena Virginia Birse (talk) 13:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Human penis size which covers the overall topic and also directs readers to Micropenis if needed. –dlthewave ☎ 21:44, 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.

[1] ttp://web.mit.edu/jrankin/www/engin_as_lib_art/Design_thinking.pdf

[2] ttps://issuu.com/nextd/docs/conv28

[3] ttp://cognexus.org/wpf/wickedproblems.pdf

[4] ttps://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1302623

[5] ttps://archive.org/details/wickedproblemsri0000degr

[6] ttp://www.activistbrands.com/how-brands-can-create-an-internet-of-purpose/

[7] ttps://www.druckerforum.org/blog/?p=2365

[8] ttps://hbr.org/2011/06/when-the-new-york-times.html

[9] ttps://www.fastcompany.com/2679669/the-promise-of-the-300-house-and-other-reverse-innovations

[10] ttps://woodonfire.wordpress.com/2011/06/10/the-300-house-a-hands-on-approach-to-a-wicked-problem/amp/

[11] ttps://www2.deloitte.com/content/dam/Deloitte/za/Documents/strategy/za_Wicked_Opportunities_3.pdf

[Through_the_Black_Hole_-_Review-12] "The Fappening". Through the Black Hole. Retrieved October 9, 2015.

[The_Final_Cut_-_Review-13] "The Fappening". The Final Cut. Retrieved October 9, 2015.

[Search_My_Trash_-_Review-14] "The Fappening". Search My Trash. Retrieved October 9, 2015.

[Indie_Horror_Films_-_Review-15] "The Fappening". Indie Horror Films. Retrieved October 9, 2015.

[Matt's_Rotten_Review_-_Review-16] "The Fappening". Matt's Rotten Review. Retrieved October 9, 2015.

[Classicalite_-_Review-17] "The Fappening". Classicalite. Retrieved October 9, 2015.

[18] "ITV Interview".

[19] "The Independent" (Passing coverage for media comment only on the Independent).

[20] "Financial Times" (Passing comments only in the FT).

[21] "BBC" (Some slightly more significant coverage on the BBC but still not primarily about the organisation but mostly media comments by the organisation).

[22] "Stephen Joseph OBE, Advisor, Campaign for Better Transport". Older Road User Conference. Retrieved 30 June 2020.

[23] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=Zambar+(restaurant)&newwindow=1&sxsrf=ALeKk03MyRnmsQnKdjWHtc6Kw3xRjF0pQg:1594023654368&source=lnms&tbm=nws&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjYkrrtmLjqAhUVdCsKHUE3AkIQ_AUoA3oECFMQBQ&biw=1366&bih=625

[24] ttp://www.awardsandshows.com/features/national-film-best-film-award-538.html

[25] ttps://www.imdb.com/title/tt1172587/awards

[26] ttps://web.archive.org/web/20130418030545/http://dff.nic.in/FeaturedFilm_60th_NATIONAL_FILM_AWARDS_2012_Announced.pdf

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]

[9]

[10]

[11]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]