Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 May 29

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 28 May	30 May >

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 speedy keep. Nominator withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Darda (toy)[edit]

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

Does not meet the general notability guidelines, specifically there is no evidence that it has significant coverage in multiple sources. All information seems to only mention them in passing. —The Editor's Apprentice (talk) 23:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, this was a mistake on my part, I shouldn't have started this nomination. Can someone nice please close it and delist it, thank you much!

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:51, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Campus Network[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NORG, WP:GNG. While this source is a marked improvement over the previously-deleted version of this article, I was unable to find additional significant coverage in secondary, independent sources that would add up to meeting notability guidelines. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Whole lotta buzzwords, and a whole lot less that's substantive. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and Salt: This wasn't notable six years ago, and it's not notable today. Ravenswing 04:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We should base notability decisions on the sources that are available, not just those cited in the article. Google News revealed the following sources:

Major newspapers:

"22 students of IP College selected for UN programme". The Hindu. New Delhi. 9 October 2019.
Shanahan, Mark; Goldstein, Meredith (November 14, 2013). "Millennium Campus Conference held at NU". Boston Globe.
"NUST stands among top 300 world varsities". The News International. Islamabad. 24 April 2020.
"University of Sargodha nominated for Millennium Fellowship". The News International. Lahore. October 6, 2019.
"Engineering college organizes first e-MUN". Times of India. May 6, 2020.

In addition, I could not access the articles in two US newspapers because of GDPR blocks.

News website (probably citeable):

Arun, Ema (August 14, 2019). "MEC students to make social impact through Millennium Fellowship". On Manorama. Kerala, India.

Notable student newspaper:

Ochroch, Claire (September 25, 2018). "Penn's first Millennium Fellows work on films, maps and apps in service of UN goals". The Daily Pennsylvanian. University of Pennsylvania.

University websites:

"Lynn University begins 2019–20 academic year with record-breaking enrollment". Lynn University. August 26, 2019.
Walsh, Kristen (April 3, 2020). "Combining Business and the Law". Bentley University.
"Stony Brook's 2019 Millennium Fellows Graduate in Worldwide Ceremony". Stony Brook University. November 27, 2019.
Gamarra, Isabel (August 29, 2019). "FIU named a Millennium Fellowship Campus by United Nations". Florida International University.

The MCN launched the Millennium Fellowship Program[1] with United Nations Academic Impact. The link to a UN program adds to MCN's notability.

Verbcatcher (talk) 15:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Verbcatcher, the thing is, across all these sources, pretty much the only information we have about the Millennium Campus Network is that they co-organize the Millennium Fellowship together with the UN. I think that these sources comprise a decent case for the notability of the Fellowship, but we still have basically no information about the Network, and no information about what the Network does versus what the UN does. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 17:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, a number of those sources namedrop the subject. But that is not, and has never been, a requirement of the GNG. The GNG holds that a source, to be considered to support the notability of a subject, must discuss that subject in "significant detail." Which of those sources you cite, precisely, do you claim does so? Ravenswing 19:56, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have two more sources to offer, on MCN conferences:

"Higher Education for Global Impact: MCC16". HuffPost. December 9, 2016.
Amrani, Yousra (November 17, 2017). "«Millennium Campus Conference» accueille plus de 600 jeunes de différentes nationalités". Le Matin (in French). Morocco.

My main reasons for considering MCN to be notable are the scale of its activities, its global reach and that it has existed for several years. 600 people attended their Rabat conference in 2017.

'Salting' the article would be harsh, as the organization could develop further and more sources may appear. If we decide to delete then an option would be to make a stub for the Millennium Fellowship Program, merge some of this content into it, and redirect there. Alternatively, we could redirect to Sam Vaghar, although the notability of his article may be questionable. Verbcatcher (talk) 21:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that salting is unnecessary, and is really only appropriate in cases where there's repeated attempts to circumvent consensus or otherwise add spam. However, of those two additional sources, the HuffPost one is literally written by the Millenium Campus Network, and the Le Matin piece does not mention the Network, just a conference that is presumably sponsored by the Network. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Rabat conference was one of a series of Millennium Campus Conferences organized by the Network.[2] The authorship of the HuffPost article should not be a problem as it appears to be under the editorial control of HuffPost, and is not an advertorial. 22:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with this assessment of the HuffPost article. Our WP:RSP entry for HuffPost establishes that pieces labeled as HuffPost contributors have insufficient editorial oversight to be reliable. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I accept your analysis of HuffPost. On this basis we should give this article the same status as a page on MCN's website – the basic description of the event should be treated as reliable. Other sources also describe this conference.[3][4] Verbcatcher (talk) 22:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The bottom line, however, is that we still do not have reliable sources that describe the subject in the "significant detail" the GNG and WP:ORG requires, and your other rationales for believing the subject notable -- its putative "global reach," scale of activities and numbers of years active -- are not part of any pertinent notability criteria. To quote WP:ORG, " No matter how "important" editors may personally believe an organization to be, it should not have a stand-alone article in Wikipedia unless reliable sources independent of the organization have given significant coverage to it." I ask again: what specific sources provide significant detail about the subject, as opposed to an event it was sponsoring? Ravenswing 10:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This is a poorly sourced brochure for an unremarkable school business. -The Gnome (talk) 12:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion decisions should not be based on the current content of the article. Please consider the sources I have given above. Verbcatcher (talk) 23:56, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The primary criteria in WP:ORG are:

[...] is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject.

This test is met by the articles I have linked above in major independent newspapers, including the The Hindu (an Indian newspaper of record), The News International, (a major newspaper in Pakistan), The Times of India (the largest selling English-language daily in the world) and The Boston Globe (a major US newspaper). These are sources of the highest quality and are independent of the the subject.

Comments above deny that this amounts to 'significant coverage'. WP:SIGCOV says 'Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material.' These articles are focussed on programs run by MCN, or on their conference. These are not trivial or incidental mentions of our topic.

WP:NONPROFIT says:

Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: (1) The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. (2) The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization.

Both of these are met.

We should also remember that Wikipedia:Notability is a guideline, not a policy. A note on that page says 'it is best treated with common sense, and occasional exceptions may apply'. MCN co-organises a program with UNAI. This program was launched by Ban Ki-Moon in a video in which he mentions MCN.[5] Barack Obama joined their meeting in the White House.[6] These are sufficient reasons to make an exception, if one is needed. Verbcatcher (talk) 00:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Almost all AfD proposals are submitted & resolved on the basis of notability, Verbcatcher. Anyway, you have made your points repeatedly enough. More would inadvisable. Take care. -The Gnome (talk) 00:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you've already been answered. "Significant coverage" needs to be given to the subject. Indeed, it does not need to be the main topic of the source material, but significant coverage given to the subject needs to be there all the same. Significant coverage given to a program (but not to the subject) run by the subject does not count. Significant coverage given to a conference (but not to the subject) run by the subject does not count.
Beyond that, yes, WP:N is a guideline. And we need to see something far more compelling that, well, erm, because reasons, to set it aside. So far, not a single editor other than yourself believes there is any. Come up with a source where Ban-Ki Moon discusses MCN in significant detail (as opposed to a namedrop, whether or not Barack Obama was standing in the room when he said it), and minds might change. Ravenswing 06:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete but hold the salt. While I appreciate the attempts at establishing notability, I read Verbcatcher's comment about common sense and thought that it applies both ways. My common sense tells me that the subject just has not (yet?) crossed into the threshold for notability. Ifnord (talk) 17:16, 6 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. Consensus favored deletion as the subject lacked sufficient impact in their field at this time. However, there are other dimension of notability relevant here, such as a local article with substantial coverage, and their documented work as an artist. Taken together, this is pretty close to fulfilling the general notability guideline. If someone would like to recreate this article and has additional sourcing not mentioned here, please contact me, and I will be happy to restore the article. I JethroBT ^{drop me a line} 18:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dolors Altaba[edit]

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

Unfortunately I could not find enough up-to-standard sources in any of the relevant fields of activity to demonstrate notability, so I think this must fail WP:NBIO. Ingratis (talk) 23:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete I did find some mentions of her books in other books, but no coverage of herself. Fails GNG. Changing vote to Keep as per below. Curiocurio (talk) 02:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Dolors Altaba-Artal per Works cited. See Google scholar. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Widely cited author: passes WP:NPROF. pburka (talk) 18:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- How are you justifying this "widely cited" claim? Because when I search author:d-altaba-artal on Google Scholar, I see only six publications, with citation counts 42, 11, 2, 2, 0, 0, giving an h-index of 2. This is far far below the usual level of citation needed to pass WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Low citation counts, one authored book with two reviews, and local-public-library art exhibits don't add up to notability for me, and I can't find anything more than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:01, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not well-cited enough to pass WP:PROF or well-reviewed enough to pass WP:AUTHOR, and there doesn't seem to be anything else. XOR'easter (talk) 20:13, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:Too soon. No impact on WP:Prof. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:26, 3 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Citations don't meet WP:NPROF, one book isn't going to meet WP:NAUTHOR. She might be notable at some point, but it's WP:TOOSOON. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:18, 3 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Raymond J. Haigney II[edit]

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

There are enough sources in and beyond the article that demonstrate his standing as a dentist but they don't amount to notability so this fails WP:NBIO. Ingratis (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable dentist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I was looking for an academic achievement or award that would make him notable, but came up short. The "Top Dentist" listing is a paid advertising service, not some kind of recognition. Ifnord (talk) 17:18, 6 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bahman Tavoosi[edit]

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

The sourcing on this article is poor, and does not show enough evidence of notability.

The article was created in May 2013 by User:FarrahAb (talk), who has a COI.

Recently he has been paying another editor, User:Mexi-Kiwi Mike (talk) to edit the article (who has been involved in a editing dispute due to his attempts to make major changes to the article, which ToS prevents him from doing).

Another editor, User:Joyab (talk) may also be involved in this. He has been making edits to the article since the time of creation. His possible involvement is based on Mike saying on the talk page that "the customer is refusing payment and trying to edit themselves". The only user who has made changes to the article recently except Mike, me or any other experienced user is Joyab.

Joyab also appears to have another account with a similar spelling who has edited the page, User:Joyfb.

Neither Joyab or FarrahAb (whose account is inactive) have declared their CoI. Mexi-Kiwi Mike has declared this, saying that Farrah has paid him on behalf of the article subject, Tavoosi to edit the article on his user page.

Based on the lack of notability and paid/undisclosed paid and COI issues above, I recommend the article be deleted. SK2242 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: One documentary does not a notable career make. Content that had been added by a paid editor (since deleted) described a fiction film released in 2019, but other than a few awards at minor film festivals, not sufficient to meet notability. David notMD (talk) 01:37, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 23:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither paid editing nor COI editing is a reason for deletion, and I trust the closer will disregard all of that. The noimination does not mention doing a WP:BEFORE search of any kind. Trout for the nomination. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 01:42, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete COI creation is a reason for deletion because it shows that the person is not considered notable by people without a conflict of interest. If we do not want Wikipedia to be used by people to create articles on close friends and associates we need to delete articles with such conflicted histories as this one has.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:03, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - with all this money riding on the outcome I had hoped that a bevy of excellent sources would be found to demonstrate notability. However, that does not appear to be the case. Although the nominator may have failed to mention searches made before nomination, I was involved at an early stage and I did do searches which piqued my curiosity as to why a Mexican Kiwi would be getting involved in what appeared to be a fruitless, and probably penniless venture. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:41, 5 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uwe Böning[edit]

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

Author with only references to his own works. Not convinced he is notable. Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 2 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ronel Lehmann[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBIO. The sources don't demonstrate notability and a WP:BEFORE didn't show up anything to suggest that there is more to add that would. Ingratis (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 22:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Doesn't meet notability criteria as a businessperson and other sources don't establish his notability sufficiently Pi (Talk to me!) 01:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 2 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:53, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2D Con[edit]

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

There's a fair amount of routine coverage, but I wasn't able to find any significant coverage with actual independent analysis of the subject. Doesn't meet WP:GNG. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:VGSE doesn't find anything here. --Izno (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Raymie (t • c) 06:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 22:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forsale.Plus[edit]

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

No visible notability (if not straightforward advertising). Of the 7 sources, 1 is the company's own website, 2 are in Romanian and 3 are passing mentions in general pieces about online auctions. Ingratis (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 22:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article and sourcing are thin, and notability is not established despite the company having been in business since 2015.TH1980 (talk) 04:34, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable, and sourcing is pretty bad (at least one, the "Harbinger Times", is part of a PR network). - DoubleCross (‡) 05:40, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The Romanian references are a generic search page and a page on house-buying, neither covering this company. There are also passing mentions and a relaunch announcement, neither of which meet WP:CORPDEPTH. Searches find more relaunch PR in April 2020 but I see nothing to demonstrate attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:28, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is an online website so do you think WP:NCORP applies here? Quitede (talk) 01:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Enterprises nowadays often operate through online channels; I would not say that avoids their consideration against the WP:NCORP criteria. In this case, I would not see Forsale.Plus as meeting WP:WEBCRIT either. AllyD (talk) 07:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and kindly allow me time to add more references to the article because it meets GNG criteria. Quitede (talk) 01:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for failing WP:WEBPAGE. The language of the references is irrelevant, if it meets criteria. The first Romanian newspaper link is either broken or does not reference the subject at all. Ifnord (talk) 17:26, 6 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:52, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clientid[edit]

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

I am not seeing significant coverage in reliable, independent sources per WP:GNG. VQuakr (talk) 22:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This protocol is only at the internet draft RFC stage, e.g., [7] and there is very little documentation out there for this particular email authentication scheme. Too soon at best. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 09:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: It should be noted, that there are many email clients that now support this protocol, including notable listings, such as emClient, SaneBox, BlueMail, Thunderbird and more. There are also more email servers that are starting to implement this as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wizardtower (talk • contribs) 15:54, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Mark viking. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:41, 4 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jishad Shamsudeen[edit]

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

The English-language sources don't seem to amount to notability but I admit that I'm not able to evaluate the Malayalam sources. This may well be a case of WP:TOOSOON. Ingratis (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Ingratis (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Ingratis (talk) 22:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I did look for other sources outside the article.Ingratis (talk) 22:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was rename to IMELI Building. (non-admin closure) Juliette Han (talk) 08:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biltmore Hotel Tbilisi[edit]

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

There is nothing notable about this hotel. Wikieditor600 (talk) 21:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 21:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - because of the building, which from the sources given has claims to notability, rather than because of the hotel as such. Ingratis (talk) 00:13, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building clearly seems to be notable. Could consider renaming the article.--Jahaza (talk) 04:09, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The building is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename to IMELI or IMELI Building (as per the Georgian wiki title). Even though the building has undergone a name change, it's unlikely the building will primarily be notable as a hotel in the future. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:06, 2 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:55, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bharat Jain[edit]

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

Unsourced article that has a list of links none of which provide significant coverage of this individual. The article tone is also promotional. M4DU7 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 21:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails notability, and promotional. Drat8sub (talk) 13:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could go on and on about this article; for one it has numerous NPOV violations. It also lacks any notability. It is a total mess as well, with lots of missing in line citations and broken wikilinks. RedRiver660 (talk) 21:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am personally surprised this article stood for these many years. Siddsg (talk) 11:18, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 20:33, 6 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 deleted as obvious spam with no good versions to revert to. Nick-D (talk) 05:39, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Turkey Travel Centre[edit]

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

Not a notable travel agency. Article is just an advertisement. Wikieditor600 (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Very promotional and doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Ajf773 (talk) 02:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:25, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Civil War[edit]

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

I don't see any sign that this 15 year period (1981–1996) is called the "Indian Civil War". Moreover, the content of the article is bizarre: it's not a civil war if one side kills many and the other kills one over a 15 year period. Note that other edits from the article's creator suggest that he's referring to the Insurgency in Punjab. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as unsourced POV nonsense. Mccapra (talk) 21:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The article is one poorly written sentence, and there is zero sourcing.TH1980 (talk) 03:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Partition_of_India#Independence,_population_transfer,_and_violence There is a relevant article on Insurgency in Punjab the creator of this article may wish to read and/or edit. I would suggest redirecting this term to the insurgency article if widespread usage were established but as far as I can make out, to the extent this term is generally used it is referring to violence after the 1947 partition. See, e.g. Dictionary of Wars. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 15:57, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A 15 year long civil war in a country with a population of over a billion people has a two sentence entry. Sure. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:29, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Creator surely has no idea about the definition of "insurgency" and "civil war". Srijanx22 (talk) 06:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete There's nothing called Indian Civil War, practically a hoax which is trying to showcase the Punjab insurgency as an Indian Civil War. Also strongly oppose any suggestions of a redirect. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 07:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- If this minute stub had a sensible title, I might have suggested a redirect to Insurgency in Punjab, which covers its purported subject much better. However the very title constitutes original research. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete FRINGE and OR would both probably convey more coherence than this has. --Goldsztajn (talk) 06:22, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above. - Flori4nKT A L K 00:26, 6 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. Black Kite (talk) 22:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chad Knight[edit]

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

the sources are not reliable and none of them prove notability AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominating on behalf of AlejandroLeloirRey above, who tried to nominate using Page Curation but encountered the bug therein with second (and subsequent) AfD nominations. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 20:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R. J. Danvers[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

this article was on AFD before, the decision to keep it was based on the fact that the subject starred in a movie that now has been deleted on wikipedia (not notable), blog sources and pornbio. Now that the movie has been recognized as not notable and porn bio has been deprecated, there is nothing in this bio to prove notability. I looked for other sources but couldn't find anything. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominating on behalf of AlejandroLeloirRey above, who tried to nominate using Page Curation but encountered the bug therein with second (and subsequent) AfD nominations. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 20:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

~~Comment~~. delete. The article's current sources are junk. However, a WP:BEFORE re-check indicates some RS coverage under his newer HungerFF stage name, such as a few Vice article and an interview-like profile in Out. Not there yet on WP:BASIC, ~~but I'll hold back on a !vote for further searching~~. • Gene93k (talk) 18:11, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the Vice article is more than a mention but it is far away from a cover of the subject. in the whole article one paragraph is about him. the Out article is a chat with him about fisting. so, neither of them have any importance in deciding if the subject is notabile. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:56, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Further searching yielded only press releases and minor porn award nominations. While the current non-zero RS coverage is an improvement over 2008, it still cannot establish notability per WP:BASIC nor prove it per WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 01:59, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:37, 2 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Brandt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The sources are pretty unreliable and do not prove notability. in the talk page I asked if anyone had other sources and somebody answered giving a list of articles where his name appears. I checked them all and I couldn't find anything that passes a mere mention. the only relevant thing is that may be he is included in Adams, J. C. (2011). Gay porn heroes : 100 most famous porn stars but even if it is so i don't think this is even closely enough. I did some research myself and I couldn't find anything. the page was on AFD before and no consensus was reached basing on pornbio which is now deprecated AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Nominating on behalf of AlejandroLeloirRey above, who tried to nominate using Page Curation but encountered the bug therein with second (and subsequent) AfD nominations. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:59, 1 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. SpinningSpark 00:45, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jingle Ball '98: The CD[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Non-notable album recorded at an annual charity concert. No non-trivial coverage to be found. Fails GNG. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Non-notable and a very inactive article. Thatone~~weird~~wikier | Say hi 11:10, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This album is not even listed in the typical retail and streaming services where you can find millions of other non-notable releases. All I could find was a few basic mentions at the sites of some of the musicians who played the show, and not even all of them are doing that. The album seems to have received no media notice whatsoever and was possibly only sold at a few of the Foundation's fundraisers. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:26, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about the album. The concert may be notable, but its album is far from meeting WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:26, 2 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. SpinningSpark 00:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ishita Arun[edit]

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

This actress fails to establish notability. Much of the content is copied from https://www.bollywoodmdb.com/celebrities/biography/ishita-arun/6469. There is no need for a wiki page simply because you are a star's child. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 19:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG upcoming a case of WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:47, 5 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. There is consensus that the sourcing brought forward during this AfD is enough to overcome WP:1E concerns. (non-admin closure) – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:50, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Fitzpatrick (pilot)[edit]

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

Textbook WP:1E bio about a man who twice landed a plane on the streets of New York. I would love to salvage this but I don't know how as I cannot locate adequate sources.

In addition to notability, I have a serious problem as to crucial portions of this biography. One of the main sources is a death notice that may be about a different person. He has a common name, and the death notice does not say if he was responsible for the famous landing. That source states that he was a World War II veteran, which is hard to believe as he was born in 1930. The subject of this article may not even be dead. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've stricken out my reservations about the death notice as some of its contents, specifically the date of death, were adopted in a New York Times article. My concerns re WP:1E stand, however. An article on the incident, not the person, might be a solution. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:07, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - It's a Keep if a few more RS can be found. Snopes indicates that it's a true story; I think it rises above 1E... Caro7200 (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no question that it is a true story. The problem is that the person is noted only for that (WP:1E) as evidenced by an absence of sources on the person that would indicate if he is even alive or dead. The inadequate sourcing stating his death, a death notice not mentioning the incident, creates a serious BLP issue. Moving to St. Nicholas Avenue street landing or something like that is one possible solution, assuming the incident itself is worth an article, which I doubt. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the article can be taken down to the studs of NYT and Snopes, and built from there. If you are a history buff, perhaps you know which non-newspaper history sites are legit. I think the incidents are notable, whether the article falls under Mr. Fitzpatrick's name or under a title that refers more to the landings. Caro7200 (talk) 14:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a bit dubious about the notability of the incident. But if it is notable, the sourcing is adequate for a short article and I am sure there is more contemporary news coverage. Let's hear other opinions on the notability of the incident (in addition to Mr. Fitzpatrick's notability, which is the subject of this AfD). I think Snopes is mainly useful in pointing to reliable sources. It debunks hoaxes and this is clearly not a hoax. Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 19:24, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The incident is notable, he did it twice and was a decorate war hero, which should pass WP:1E, also he is no longer alive, this source says he lied about his age so the information appears to be accurate. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 22:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that we can report he is dead, though I'm not overjoyed that the Times source is that death notice. http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/TommyFitz-Cessna140s-NYC.htm appears to be a self-published source I'd hate to rely upon it for a BLP Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 23:04, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Textbook example of an individual who was notable during his lifetime and whose notable exploits were recorded in obituaries after his death, an enduring legacy of his notability. Alansohn (talk) 04:04, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Sources published from 2013–2019 (ordered chronologically)

Kilgannon, Corey (2013-06-04). "Long Ago, a Pilot Landed on an Uptown Street. That's Where the Bar Was". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Van Luling, Todd (2014-04-17). "8 Things Even New Yorkers Don't Know About New York City". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Muller, Divan (2019-04-01). "Names to Remember: Thomas Fitzpatrick". African Pilot. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via PressReader.
Evon, Dan (2019-04-24). "Did a Man Twice Land a Plane on a New York Street on a Bar Bet? This "hold my beer" story may seem like a work of fiction, but the aerial exploits of Thomas Fitzpatrick are well-documented". Snopes. Retrieved 2020-05-31.

Sources published from 1956–1957 (ordered chronologically)

Silberfarb, Edward. (1956-10-01). "Pilot Detained In $5,000 Bail: Emerson Man Held On Four Charges After Landing Plane on New York Street" (pages 1 and 2). The Record. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30. – via Newspapers.com.
Aronson, Harvey (1956-10-01). "Man Leaves Bar, Flies Higher Than a Kite". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via ProQuest.
Noble, Arthur; Lee, Henry (1956-10-01). "Festive Flyboy Lands Plane in Uptown Street". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
"Mechanic Lands Stolen Plane in Manhattan". Deseret News. United Press International. 1956-10-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Wald, Richard C. (1956-10-01). ""Just Had Urge to Fly". Pilot in Jail: Left Bar And Returned by Plane". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Pilot Sets Down On NY Street For Tavern Visit". The Sacramento Bee. Associated Press. 1956-10-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
1956-10-01. "Flier Who Used Street As Port To Face Court" (pages 1 and 2). The Record. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31. – via Newspapers.com.
"Tavern's Patron Arrives in Plane: Aircraft Mechanic Lands 'Borrowed' Plane in Street". The New York Times. 1956-10-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
"Luck Wins for Foolhardy Pilot in Night Flight in Plane Stolen for the Hop". The Daily Times-News. 1956-10-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
"Pilot Will Face 3-Count Charge: Emerson Mand Landed Plane On Street In New York City". The Record. 1957-03-07. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Bergen Pilot Pleads Guilty: Emerson Man Admits N. Y. Street Landing". Herald News. 1957-03-29. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Unlawful Flying Brings $100 Fine: Emerson Resident Penalized For Landing On New York Street". The Record. 1957-04-29. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.

Sources published from 1958–1959 (ordered chronologically)

"Quiz Carlstadt Pilot In NYC Street Landing: Fitzpatrick Shows Up at Headquarters; Had Laneded Craft in Area Two Years Ago". Herald News. Associated Press. 1958-10-04. Archived from the original on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
Moberley, Leeds (1958-10-04). "He Lands Stolen Plane in Street And Then Lams". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
Edwards, Michael W. (1958-10-04). "Lands Plane at 187th At Amsterdam, Flees. Craft Slips Between Parked Cars, Just as Another did 2 Years Ago". New York Herald Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via ProQuest.
"'Asphalt Pilot' Lands On Manhattan Street Again". Sunday News. Associated Press. 1958-10-05. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"After Bragging in Bar: Flier Repeats Feat of Landing in Street". Los Angeles Times. United Press International. 1958-10-05. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
Clendenin, Michael (1958-10-05). "Another Fizpatrick Travel-Log (Aerial)". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Pilot's Landing in Uptown Street Repeats His Stunt of 2 Years Ago". The New York Times. 1958-10-05. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
Lyle, David (1958-10-05). "'Fitzy' Does It Again! It's His Plane in Street: Lands Cral't on Amsterdam Ave. To Prove Boast He Did It Before". New York Herald Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31 – via ProQuest.
"$10,000 Bail in Landing: Pilot Who Set Plane Down in Street Arraigned Here". The New York Times. 1958-10-06. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
"Gotham Street Landing Pilot Held in Bail, Faces Hearing". Courier News. Associated Press. 1958-10-07. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Larceny Case Is Postponed: Fitzpatrick Is Accused Of Stealing Plane". The Record. 1958-10-18. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Bail Set At $11,000 For Carlstadt Flier: Pilot Who Landed Plane on New York Street Faces Five Charges". The Record. 1958-10-28. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Fitzpatrick Trial In N. Y. Postponed". The Record. 1958-11-10. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Man Sentenced After Fitting Plane on Manhattan Street". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Associated Press. 1959-01-27. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Pilot Imprisoned In Street Landing". The New York Times. 1959-01-27. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
"Street Flier Must Serve More Time". Herald News. Associated Press. 1959-02-11. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
Heimer, Mel (1959-02-12). "My New York". The Kane Republican. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
"Carlstadt Flier Forfeits License". The Record. 1959-06-18. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.

Sources with quotes

Sources published from 2013–2019 (ordered chronologically)

Kilgannon, Corey (2013-06-04). "Long Ago, a Pilot Landed on an Uptown Street. That's Where the Bar Was". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
But the remarkable drunken landings of Tommy Fitz have all but slipped into oblivion. The pilot, Thomas Fitzpatrick, turned a barroom bet into a feat of aeronautic wonder by stealing a plane from a New Jersey airport and landing it on St. Nicholas Avenue in northern Manhattan, in front of the bar where he had been drinking.
...
That first flight, Mr. Fitzpatrick admitted, was the result of a barroom bet, according to articles in The New York Times. (He died in 2009 at age 79.)
...
According to an obituary about Mr. Fitzpatrick published in a New Jersey newspaper, he was a Marine during the Korean War and received a Purple Heart. He worked as a steamfitter for 51 years, it said, had three sons and lived in Washington Township, N.J. He remained married for 51 years to his wife, Helen, who, when contacted recently, hung up on a reporter who asked about the flights.
Van Luling, Todd (2014-04-17). "8 Things Even New Yorkers Don't Know About New York City". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
After a night at the Washington Heights taverns in 1956, Thomas Fitzpatrick bet a fellow patron that after he got home to New Jersey, he could return to the bars in under 15 minutes. To fulfill the bet, the then-26-year-old stole a single-engine plane from the Teterboro School of Aeronautics and eventually landed it on St. Nicholas Ave. around 191st St. Apparently, he meant to land on the field of a nearby school, but because their lights were off, the allegedly drunk pilot decided the lamplit street would be his best chance at winning the bet.
A sergeant of the Police Aviation Bureau described Fitzpatrick's chances of success as "100,000-to-1." Although he initially received a $5,000 bail for the stunt, Fitzpatrick ended up only paying a $100 fine, partly because the owner of the stolen plane refused to file a complaint. That said, his pilot's license was revoked, which didn't keep him from completing a similar landing a couple years later on Amsterdam Ave. and 187th St., after a bar patron refused to believe he'd pulled off the first flight. That time around, he had to serve six months in jail.
Muller, Divan (2019-04-01). "Names to Remember: Thomas Fitzpatrick". African Pilot. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via PressReader.
The article notes:
Thomas Edward Fitzpatrick was born on 24 April 1930 in New York City in the USA. In 1945, Fitzpatrick served with the US Marine Corps in World War II's Pacific theatre. He was clearly too young to serve, so it is obvious that he lied about his age. After the war, he was honourably discharged, but a few years later, he volunteered to serve with the US Army in the Korean War. For his service Fitzpatrick was awarded a Silver Star for 'gallantry in action against the enemy,' as well as a Purple Heart for being wounded in combat. The latter medal's citation read: "During a strategic withdrawal, Corporal Fitzpatrick noticed a wounded officer, about 100 yards (91 metres) forward of his position. In attempting a rescue, he and a companion were seriously wounded. Cpl. Fitzpatrick, despite severe pain and loss of blood, made it back to safety, organised and directed a second rescue party and provided covering fire to support the rescue." In 1952, Fitzpatrick returned to New York, where he worked as a steamfitter whilst receiving flying lessons in his spare time.
...
Fitzpatrick then lived a normal life as a law-abiding citizen until he died from cancer in September 2009 at the age of 79.
Evon, Dan (2019-04-24). "Did a Man Twice Land a Plane on a New York Street on a Bar Bet? This "hold my beer" story may seem like a work of fiction, but the aerial exploits of Thomas Fitzpatrick are well-documented". Snopes. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
The New York Daily News reported on 1 October 1956 that Thomas Fitzpatrick, 26, was drinking at a Washington Heights ginmill after a bachelor party when he suddenly got the urge to fly. Fitzpatrick drove to the Teterboro Airport in New Jersey where he “borrowed” a Cessa 140 two-seater plane — he apparently knew one of the owners — and then flew it back to Manhattan, where he landed on a narrow street.

Sources published from 1956–1957 (ordered chronologically)

Silberfarb, Edward. (1956-10-01). "Pilot Detained In $5,000 Bail: Emerson Man Held On Four Charges After Landing Plane on New York Street" (pages 1 and 2). The Record. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Performing the unusual is not new to Fitzpatrick, however. According to his brother, Frank, he joined the U. S. Marine Corps at the age of 15, and was stationed in China at the close of World War II. Before he was discharged two years later he had learned to fly a reconnaissance plane.
After service with the Marines he joined the Army and was sent to Japan. A New York City resident at the time, he was scheduled to return home when the Korean emergency began. Within a week, he became the first person from New York City to be wounded in Korea. According to one report, he was wounded while driving an ammunition truck to rescue some American soldiers trapped by Communist fire.
He allegedly obtained his civilian pilot's license through the Teterboro School of Aeronautics, owner of the craft he allegedly stole. Donald Hulse of 165 Kaywin Road, Paramus, signed the larceny complaint. The airplane, which was dismantled by police after the landing, is a Cessna 140.
The article notes that Fitzpatrick had previously resided in Emerson, New Jersey, but moved to Carlstadt in June after he got married. The article notes he is a mechanic working for Curtiss Wright Corporation at Caldwell, Fitzpatrick. It notes he resides with his parents, Mr. and Mrs. Frank Fitzpatrick. He has an older brother and an older sister. The article calls him an "ex-Army heavyweight boxing champion". The article further notes:
He joined an Army boxing team after recuperating from his Korean wounds. During his convalescence he lost and later regained 70 of his 220 pounds. Prior to his Army discharge in 1951 he was assigned as a military policeman patrolling the Times Square Area in New York City.
Aronson, Harvey (1956-10-01). "Man Leaves Bar, Flies Higher Than a Kite". Newsday. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via ProQuest.
The article notes:
In the tavern, Fitzpatrick said, came the sudden impulse to fly. It was like a bolt out of the wild blue yonder. Fitzpatrick, an airplane mechanic who is a licensed pilot and a student at a Tereboro, N. J., flying school, could not exist resist.
It was 2 AM when he left the bar and drove to Teterboro and took the plane. He said he told David Van Dyek Jr., a part owner of the plane and son of one of the field's operators, that he was "borrowing" the plane, a Cessna two-seater. He said Van Dyek told him he didn't care if he did. (Van Dyek later denied this.)
Noble, Arthur; Lee, Henry (1956-10-01). "Festive Flyboy Lands Plane in Uptown Street". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
A 26-year-old airplane mechanic, topping off a bachelor party with a few quiet drinks in a Washington Heights ginmill at 191st St. and St. Nicholas Ave., was seized by a sudden urge to fly shortly after 2 A. M. yesterday.
...
Fizpatrick, a 6-foot, 200-pound mechanic at the Curtiss-Wright plant in Caldwell, N. J., said he had attended a friend's bachelor party at 85th St. and First Ave. Saturday night. Then, having formerly lived at 570 W. 189th St., he dropped into the uptown ginmill for old time's sake.
A licensed pilot for 2½ years and a student at a Teterboro aeronautics school, he got to thinking about the joys of flying and drove over to Teterboro.
"Mechanic Lands Stolen Plane in Manhattan". Deseret News. United Press International. 1956-10-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick, 26, Emerson, N.J., set the small Cessna 140 down on St. Nicholas Ave., a main thoroughfare running north-south in Washington Heights, about nine minutes after taking off from a New Jersey airfield while authorities tried vainly to stop him. Fog and smoke had reduced visibility to one mile.
The mechanic, a licensed pilot with 400 hours of flying experience, brought the plane down between buildings averaging about six stories in height in the heavily populated area. The plane careened about two blocks before Fitzpatrick brought it to a skidding halt, then taxied to the intersection at 191st St. and left the plane parked by a fire hydrant.
Wald, Richard C. (1956-10-01). ""Just Had Urge to Fly". Pilot in Jail: Left Bar And Returned by Plane". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
The police, although somewhat amazed at his skill, were less kindly disposed toward him.
The booked him on charges of grand larceny, two violations of the city administrative code—reckless operation of an aircraft and improper landing—and violation of the Civil Aeronautics Administration regulation which requires a medical checkup every two years. Mr. Fitzpatrick had his last in May, 1954, although at six feet and about 200 pounds he looked to be quite healthy.
"Pilot Sets Down On NY Street For Tavern Visit". The Sacramento Bee. Associated Press. 1956-10-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
A strapping young mechanic, Thomas Fitzpatrick, with an urge to fly and a desire for a nightcap dropped in by plane at his favorite tavern in crowded Manhattan early Sunday.
Fitzpatrick, 26, skillfully piloted a small plane down between rows of apartment houses and made a perfect landing on St. Nicholas Avenue at 191st Street. He then taxied up the darkened street to the tavern.
The police said he reached the bar in time for a short beer before the 3 AM closing.
1956-10-01. "Flier Who Used Street As Port To Face Court" (pages 1 and 2). The Record. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Police said Fitzpatrick pulled the stunt apparently to convince a drinking companion that he had done it before—in a similar plane taken from the same owner, Donald Hulse of Paramus, N. J. Hulse refused to press grand larceny charges against Fitzpatrick in 1956.
Police who recalled the 1956 incident immediately thought of the Carlstadt man after the Saturday landing. Fitpzpatrick denied the stunt at first, but admitted it when witnesses who had seen him fleeing the scene identified him.
"Tavern's Patron Arrives in Plane: Aircraft Mechanic Lands 'Borrowed' Plane in Street". The New York Times. 1956-10-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
At 2:30 A. M., he took off from Tereboro Airport. He said he had borrowed the craft with the approval of one of its owners. While flying about he developed engine trouble and was forced to make the St. Nicholas Avenue landing. It was all a conincidence, he said, that he happened to have spent the early evening there with friends who still were there when he returned.
The police apparently did not accept this version. Their aviation experts took a look at the plane's engine and decided there was nothing wrong with it, and so Mr. Fitzpatrick went off to jail. Later he was arraigned in Felony Court where Magistrate Edward J. Chapman set bail of $5,000 on a charge of suspicion of grand larceny.
"Luck Wins for Foolhardy Pilot in Night Flight in Plane Stolen for the Hop". The Daily Times-News. 1956-10-01. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
If Thomas Fitzpatrick is not a wiser man after his "successful" flight from Teterboro, New Jersey, to a street landing on Manhattan Island, New York, in the dark, he ought to be.
Fitzpatrick, 26, identified as a mechanic with 400 hours of flying experience, told police he visited a bar in New York and consumed a couple of drinks with a group of young men who were attending a stag party.
"Pilot Will Face 3-Count Charge: Emerson Mand Landed Plane On Street In New York City". The Record. 1957-03-07. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick, 26, of 15 Dogwood Lane, Emerson, N. J. charged with landing an airplane on a New York street, pleaded innocent in Special Sessions Court here today.
...
He is awaiting trial, scheduled for later this month, on a 3-count criminal information which accuses him of landing a plane within the limits of New York City at a place not designated for bringing down airplanes, flying while drunk, and without a current medical certificate.
"Bergen Pilot Pleads Guilty: Emerson Man Admits N. Y. Street Landing". Herald News. 1957-03-29. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick, 26, of 15 Dogwood Lane, Emerson, charged with performing an almost impossible plane landing on a New York street, pleaded guilty Wednesday to one count of a criminal information pending against him.
In the plea, enetered in Special Sessions Court, Fitzpatrick admits landing an aircraft at a place not designated by the Department of Marine and Aviation as a landing field.
"Unlawful Flying Brings $100 Fine: Emerson Resident Penalized For Landing On New York Street". The Record. 1957-04-29. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick, 26, of 15 Dogwood Lane, Emerson, N. J., charged with unlawful flying after he landed an airplane on a New York street, was fined $100 in Special Sessions Court here Friday.
He pleaded guilty last month to one count of a 3-count information which had charged him with landing at a spot not authorized as a landing strip, drunken flying, and flying, and flying without a medical certificate. He admitted only the first charge.

Sources published from 1958–1959 (ordered chronologically)

"Quiz Carlstadt Pilot In NYC Street Landing: Fitzpatrick Shows Up at Headquarters; Had Laneded Craft in Area Two Years Ago". Herald News. Associated Press. 1958-10-04. Archived from the original on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Police immediately thought of a Carlstadt, N. J., man who made a similar landing two years ago within a few blocks of the same spot. Thomas Fitzpatrick, 442 Jefferson Street, appeared at a police station for questioning here this morning but there was no immediate report from officers.
...
Authorities said they wanted to question Fitzpatrick, now 28, who on September 30, 1956, "borrowed" a small plane from Hulse's school at Teterboro and landed it safely on St. Nicholas Avenue at 191st Street, Manhattan
Moberley, Leeds (1958-10-04). "He Lands Stolen Plane in Street And Then Lams". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
At the time of his 1956 adventure—which brought him charges of grand larceny and violation of various flying regulations—Fitzpatrick lived at 15 Dogwood Lane, Emerson, N. J. But early today inquiry at that address brought word from his mother that her son, now 28, is now living "somewhere in Manhattan."
Fifteen detectives from the Wadsworth Ave. station began a methodical search for the pilot in the neighborhood.
Edwards, Michael W. (1958-10-04). "Lands Plane at 187th At Amsterdam, Flees. Craft Slips Between Parked Cars, Just as Another did 2 Years Ago". New York Herald Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via ProQuest.
The article notes:
The 1956 landing on St. Nicholas Ave. was suspected by police of being a prank, although pilot Fitzpatrick claimed the plane had developed mechanical trouble. Fitzpatrick was charged with grand larceny for taking the from Teterboro, reckless operation of an aircraft, improper landing and violation of a Civil Aeronautics Administration regulation which requires a pilot to have a medical examination every two years.
"'Asphalt Pilot' Lands On Manhattan Street Again". Sunday News. Associated Press. 1958-10-05. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick, a New Jersey steamfitter, has done it again.
For the second time in a little over two year, Fitzpatrick told police Saturday, he stole a plane from Teterboro Airport, N. J., while drunk and made a perfect landing in the Washington Heights section of Manhattan.
...
He pulled the same stunt on Sept. 30, 1956. It cost him a six-month suspension of his pilot's license and he did not have it renewed.
"After Bragging in Bar: Flier Repeats Feat of Landing in Street". Los Angeles Times. United Press International. 1958-10-05. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Two years ago Thomas Fitzpatrick, after an evening of elbow bending in a tavern, borrowed a small plane from a Teterboro (N.J.) airport aeronautics school, flew it to New York and landed in the middle of Amsterdam Ave. That feat cost him a $100 fine.
This morning — in the small hours—Fitzpatrick, 28, did the same thing again.
Clendenin, Michael (1958-10-05). "Another Fizpatrick Travel-Log (Aerial)". New York Daily News. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Thomas Fizpatrick, 28, local wrong-way Corrigan who finds air landing strips where the Port Authority never has built any, admitted yesterday, police say, that he was the hotshot pilot who landed on Amsterdam Ave., near 187th St., early yesterday in a small plane.
Fitzpatrick, a husky 6-foot blond who made a similar daredevil descent at St. Nicholas Ave. and 191st St., two years ago, walked into the Wadsworth Ave. police station shortly before 8 A. M.
"Pilot's Landing in Uptown Street Repeats His Stunt of 2 Years Ago". The New York Times. 1958-10-05. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick, a 28-year-old steamfitter from New Jersey, enjoys visiting New York, especially when he can fly across the Hudson River and land a plane on a street in upper Manhattan. Mr. Fitzpatrick did just that yesterday, for the second time in two years.
At 12:45 A. M., he set down a single-engined Cessna at Amsterdam Avenue and 187th Street in the Washington Heights section.
Lyle, David (1958-10-05). "'Fitzy' Does It Again! It's His Plane in Street: Lands Cral't on Amsterdam Ave. To Prove Boast He Did It Before". New York Herald Tribune. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31 – via ProQuest.
The article notes:
"Well," the incredulous police of the Wadsworth Ave. Station announced late yesterday "Fitz's done it again."
Shortly thereafter they booked a large and rather shame-faced young man named Thomas Fitzpatrick for the highly improbable offense of landing a small plane in Amsterdam Ave. at 187th St. in the middle of the night.
...
Today, Mr. Fitzpatrick is scheduled to appear in Felony Court. The charges against him are grand larceny and three violations of the city's administrative code—landing within city limits in a situation other than an emergency, flying without a license, and dangerous and reckless operation of an aircraft.
"$10,000 Bail in Landing: Pilot Who Set Plane Down in Street Arraigned Here". The New York Times. 1958-10-06. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick of Carlstadt, N. J.—the man who twice has landed light planes on streets in Washington Heights—was held in $10,000 bail yesterday. He was arraigned in Felony Court on a grand larceny change.
"Gotham Street Landing Pilot Held in Bail, Faces Hearing". Courier News. Associated Press. 1958-10-07. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick, 28, a New Jersey steamfitter with a flare for fitting planes in Manhattan streets, appears in court tomorrow for a hearing on a grand larceny charge.
Fitzpatrick, a Carlstadt, N. J., resident, was held yesterday in $10,000 bail by Magistrate Reuben Levy.
"Larceny Case Is Postponed: Fitzpatrick Is Accused Of Stealing Plane". The Record. 1958-10-18. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
A hearing on a grand larceny charge against Thomas Fitzpatrick of Carlstadt, N. J., who twice has landed small planes on Manhattan streets, yesterday was postponed a second time. The case has been postponed until October 27.
It was reported the latest postponement is to allow Fitzpatrick's case to be presented to a grand jury in the meantime. Fitzpatrick, 28, of 442 Jefferson Avenue, Carlstadt, appeared in felony court October 7 for a hearing, but Magistrate James Lo Piccolo put off the case on learning that defense attorney John J. McAvinue was occupied in another court.
"Bail Set At $11,000 For Carlstadt Flier: Pilot Who Landed Plane on New York Street Faces Five Charges". The Record. 1958-10-28. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
The 28-year-old steamfitter of 442 Jefferson Avenue, Carlstadt, was arraigned in General Sessions Court on an indictment charging grand larceny of a $2,500 plane and bringing stolen property into New York State. The tall, balding, sometime flier also appeared in Special Sessions Court, where he pleaded not guilty to three misdemeanor counts.
"Fitzpatrick Trial In N. Y. Postponed". The Record. 1958-11-10. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick of Carlstadt, N. J., who twice landed small planes on Manhattan streets, has been continued in $10,000 bail on a charge of transporting stolen property across a State line.
The 28-year-old Fitzpatrick of 442 Jefferson Avenue, Carlstadt, appeared Friday in General Sessions Court and was continued in bail. No date was set for trial.
"Man Sentenced After Fitting Plane on Manhattan Street". Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Associated Press. 1959-01-27. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Judge John S. Mullen lectured the 28-year-old ex-marine on his illegal but nonetheless incredibly skillful air exploits and sent him off to the workhouse for six months.
...
The judge then noted that Fitzpatrick's record, aside from the two flights, was "the best I have ever seen, without a doubt," noting that the New Jersey man was an underage Marine Corps volunteer and had a good civilian record.
"Pilot Imprisoned In Street Landing". The New York Times. 1959-01-27. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
The article notes:
Thomas Fitzpatrick, the New Jersey steamfitter with the propensity for landing planes in New York City streets, landed in jail for six months yesterday.
...
On both occasions when Fitzpatrick stole and landed the planes here he did so after drinking. And on each occasion, he took his action on a dare from a drinking companion.
"Street Flier Must Serve More Time". Herald News. Associated Press. 1959-02-11. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Yesterday, Special Sessions Justice Simon Silver decreed a concurrent six-month term on a charge of drunken flying after Fizpatrick pleaded guilty through his attorney, John A. McAvinue. Fitzpatrick was not in court.
Since the sentences were imposed at different times, Fitzpatrick, of 442 Jefferson Street, Carlstadt, N. J., will spend six and one-half months in jails.
Heimer, Mel (1959-02-12). "My New York". The Kane Republican. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
He came in. He set the bird down at Amsterdam avenue and 187th street this time. The law came running. Tom Fitzpatrick's days as a seat-of-the-pants, livin'-it-up flyer were over for some time. The other day in General Sessions, a fellow Irishman named Mullen shook his head bewilderedly and gave him six months in the workhouse.
...
Well, men—they have incarcerated Tom Fitzpatrick. Tell me, please, what is left in life for the rest of us? When the urge comes upon us to go down to the sea again, to the lonely sea and the sky, or to close our ledgers and hunt for the Abominable Snowman, will they pass a law against us? Tom Fitzpatrick is a criminal and he rests, like a chained cheetah, in the pokey—and a litlte bit of all of us rests with him.
"Carlstadt Flier Forfeits License". The Record. 1959-06-18. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
United States District Court Judge Richard Hartshorne clipped Fitzpatrick's wings Monday by permanently enjoining him from piloting aircraft.
...
The sometime flier appeared in court with his wife and consented to the injunction. He also signed a stipulation to pay a civil penalty of $1,000, paying $500 down and the balance in installments.
Last week Fitzpatrick completed a 6-month jail sentence imposed in Manhattan in January for landing a plane the second time and for bringing property into Manhattan without permission of the owner.

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

Cunard (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four sources that provide substantial background about Thomas Fitzpatrick are:
1. Kilgannon, Corey (2013-06-04). "Long Ago, a Pilot Landed on an Uptown Street. That's Where the Bar Was". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-05-31. Retrieved 2020-05-31.
2. Muller, Divan (2019-04-01). "Names to Remember: Thomas Fitzpatrick". African Pilot. Retrieved 2020-05-31 – via PressReader.
3. Silberfarb, Edward. (1956-10-01). "Pilot Detained In $5,000 Bail: Emerson Man Held On Four Charges After Landing Plane on New York Street" (pages 1 and 2). The Record. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30. – via Newspapers.com.
4. "Quiz Carlstadt Pilot In NYC Street Landing: Fitzpatrick Shows Up at Headquarters; Had Laneded Craft in Area Two Years Ago". Herald News. Associated Press. 1958-10-04. Archived from the original on 2020-05-30. Retrieved 2020-05-30 – via Newspapers.com. Striking as the source does not provide substantial background about Fitzpatrick.
The articles do not just discuss his 1956 and 1958 intoxicated flights and landings. Here is more biographical information about Fitzpatrick from the articles:
1. He was born Thomas Edward Fitzpatrick in New York City on 24 April 1930. His parents were Mr. and Mrs. Frank Fitzpatrick. He had an older brother, Frank, and an older sister.
2. He joined the U. S. Marine Corps at the age of 15 and likely lied about his age to join. He served during World War II in China near the end of the war. He was honorably discharged from the Marine Corps.
3. He then enlisted in the US Army and was stationed in Japan. He then fought in the Korean War in the US Army. He received the Silver Star for "gallantry in action against the enemy".
4. He received a Purple Heart after he was injured. The Purple Heart medal citation said, "During a strategic withdrawal, Corporal Fitzpatrick noticed a wounded officer, about 100 yards (91 metres) forward of his position. In attempting a rescue, he and a companion were seriously wounded. Cpl. Fitzpatrick, despite severe pain and loss of blood, made it back to safety, organised and directed a second rescue party and provided covering fire to support the rescue."
5. Following his recovery from his Korean War injuries (during which he lost 70 out of 220 pounds), he took part in an Army boxing team and became an Army boxing champion.
6. Fitzpatrick then served as a military policeman who patrolled the area near New York City's Times Square.
7. He was discharged from the Army in 1951 and moved to New York City in 1952 where he worked as a steamfitter and took flying lessons from the Teterboro School of Aeronautics.
8. Fitzpatrick had previously resided in Emerson, New Jersey, but moved to Carlstadt, New Jersey, in June 1958 after he got married.
9. He was a mechanic working for Curtiss-Wright Corporation at Caldwell, New Jersey.
10. The "Late Night Flight" is a drink available in Manhattan named for Thomas Fitzpatrick. Ingredients are: Kahlua, vodka, Chambord, blackberries, egg white, and syrump. The drink, when properly mixed, looks like the night sky Fitzpatrick flew under.
11. He died at age 79 in September 2009 from cancer.
Cunard (talk) 10:03, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for this. I think there's no doubt remaining about the notability of the event, as it received multiple coverage in reliable sources, so as to justify an article on the event. The details you provide on Mr. Fitzpatrick's life are based on one source, and for the most part are trivial. The claim that he served in World War II, for instance, is only in the death notice and was not repeated in the Times article. I think we need a better source than that for an extraordinary claim (that a man served in U.S. Army during World War II at the age of 14-15). Figureofnine (talk • contribs) 12:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The details I provided on Fitzpatrick's life are based on the three sources I listed which provide detailed biographical background about him.

Two reliable sources discuss Fitzpatrick's claimed service in World War II:

From African Pilot's 2019 article written by Divan Muller, "Thomas Edward Fitzpatrick was born on 24 April 1930 in New York City in the USA. In 1945, Fitzpatrick served with the US Marine Corps in World War II's Pacific theatre. He was clearly too young to serve, so it is obvious that he lied about his age."

From The Record's 1956 article written by Edward Silberfarb, "Performing the unusual is not new to Fitzpatrick, however. According to his brother, Frank, he joined the U. S. Marine Corps at the age of 15, and was stationed in China at the close of World War II. Before he was discharged two years later he had learned to fly a reconnaissance plane."

The second source attributes his service in World War II at age 15 to his brother but does not say the source did any independent verification of it. This is an extraordinary claim so these two sources probably are not enough to state in Wikipedia's voice that he served in World War II at age 15. It would be better to attribute this claim to the two sources instead.

Cunard (talk) 00:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, subject matter meets WP:GNG as outlined in great detail by Cunard above. RecycledPixels (talk) 18:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG, per RS in article and those provide by Cunard (thnks), which be added to it.Djflem (talk) 22:08, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:48, 5 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. SpinningSpark 00:33, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jacob Liberman[edit]

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

This guy holds some bizarre views on vision. He authored a book Take off your glasses and see. The problem is that unlike the Bates method which is notable there are no reliable references which discuss this guys work in this area. Liberman apparently is involved with alternative medicine and I only see unreliable new-age or crank websites that discuss his views on optometry. There is no scientific reception for his books or views so creating a proper article appears impossible. Because reliable sources are lacking I believe this article should be deleted. The article also reads as promotional. There are currently 15 sources on the article but every single one of them is a primary source or unreliable. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The user who created this article is a banned sock-puppet and was also accused of possible paid editing. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable fringe theorist with inadequate coverage.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this somewhat promotional article with no assertion of notability. Indeed, the only possible notability I see is WP:NAUTHOR, but I didn't succeed in finding any reviews in reliable sources. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:24, 3 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. SpinningSpark 00:32, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hubert Znajomski[edit]

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

A county-level activist and notability refs are on county level. I do not think he is notable enough for wikipedia. Staszek Lem (talk) 18:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being a leader of one county's local chapter of a national or international organization is not, in and of itself, grounds for a Wikipedia article. In reality, the most genuinely substantive notability claim being attempted here is that he wrote a book — but writers are also not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their books are verifiable as existing, and still have to demonstrate the significance of their books by virtue of literary awards and/or critical reviews of the book in media. Nothing here demonstrates substantive nationalized significance at all, and with the sourcing split about 50/50 between primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and purely local human interest coverage in his own local media, he hasn't been shown to pass WP:GNG in lieu of having to have any notability claims that would pass an SNG. Bearcat (talk) 16:59, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable activist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 2 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. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Hog Farm (talk) 21:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Night Before Christmas (1941 film)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. I can find no coverage of this cartoon episode in reliable sources: What I'm finding is blogspot, Fandom/Wikia, various user-generated databases, and unreliable personal websites. Hog Farm (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The short cartoon was nominated for an Oscar! Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 19:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. An Oscar nomination! Josh Milburn (talk) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm getting a few relevant hits on Google Scholar, and lots on Google Books. There'll be more. Not huge amounts to say, but surely an Oscar nomination is enough? Josh Milburn (talk) 20:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 00:31, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kai von Klitzing[edit]

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

Fails WP:PROF and WP:GNG. Note that most of the references cited are authored (or co-authored) by the article subject. Deletion requested by article subject (OTRS Ticket#2020052910006438).Geoff | ^{Who, me?} 18:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Much as it might amuse me to thwart the wishes of someone who was the subject of undisclosed paid editing, I think the case for WP:PROF#C1 and other related notability criteria is borderline enough that we can apply WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. And WP:CSD#G5 might be relevant as well. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:23, 2 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. SpinningSpark 00:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artistic scandal[edit]

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

This is an arbitrary list of examples of controversial works of art, introduced by a very brief and curious definition of scandals, that discusses mostly paintings, and includes a number of works that were not scandals at all. The inclusion criteria are not unambiguous, objective, and supported by reliable sources, as WP:LSC recommends. Vexations (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 18:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and possibly introduce category:Artistic scandals per Category:Scandals by type , with clearly defined inclusion criteria.
Reason: The usage of the term can be found, but my quick google search didn't show any in-depth discussion of the term. It appears to be merely a collocation with no special significance, kinda "yellow flower" or "Eternal love" (cf. Eternal Love :-). Staszek Lem (talk) 18:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The concept seems reasonably clear and easily passes WP:LISTN as the page already lists several good sources: Les grands scandales de l'histoire de l'art; Le scandale dans l'art; Scandales érotiques de l'art. And it is quite easy to find more such as this article in Britannica: Vile or Visionary?: 11 Art Controversies of the Last Four Centuries. The suggestion that a category be used instead violates WP:CLN which makes it clear that we don't delete such pages in order to do the same thing differently. Andrew🐉(talk) 21:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Andrew Davidson: The Britannica is just a list of scandals, with a brief preamble, Iust as in our wikipedia good list articles. The subject per see' is not discussed in depth. Therefore, if kept, I would suggest renaming it. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
weak keep the article may be an 'arbitrary list' as it stands, but it seems to be a well-defined topic that a better list or simply article could well be developed for. afd isn't cleanup/ See ^[1]^[2]^[3] for examples of coverage Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "The five stages of an art world scandal". The Art Newspaper. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
^ Grovier, Kelly. "The artworks that caused a scandal". BBC Culture. Retrieved 2020-05-29.
^ Barrett, Cyril (1962). "The Scandal of Modern Art". Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review. 51 (201): 117–134. ISSN 0039-3495.

Rename List of controversial works of art or (better) List of controversial paintings (and remove the few non-paintings for other lists). "Scandal" is too hazy a word, and "artistic scandal" is far too broad. Many, if not most, new art movements generate opposition, e.g. Impressionism, and a significant number of artists actively court controversy. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:50, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because it's a widely and seriously discussed topic. Renaming would go against the sources used in the article and those mentioned here. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 05:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename To List of controversial works of art. Topic is notable but has a very strange article title. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:33, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I agree, just rename the article and it's fine. Topic covered in Encyclopædia Britannica and a valid list article that collects like items and links to their articles. Dream Focus 15:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I think that the sources prove that the subject is notable, although I think I've seen an article similar to this one. Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 21:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I think Art scandals might be a better name.★Trekker (talk) 21:34, 4 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. SpinningSpark 00:29, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Ho[edit]

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

Taiwanese animator and animation director that does not pass the WP:BIO bar or more simply the WP:GNG bar. As far as sources go, all I can find online is his IMDb entry. (Of course IMDb is not considered reliable.) It shows a 25-year career but, as far as I understand, he was mostly credited as one of many animators of Shanghai Morning Sun Animation Co., Ltd. In any case, I don't see any significant coverage in reliable sources. Pichpich (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 18:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source. Technically this is an unsourced BLP so it could have been prodded, but we do not need it at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article doesn't make a claim of notability, not enough content to justify an article. --12:10, 2 June 2020 (UTC)
Delete Fails WP:V I am unable to verify whether he is alive or dead, or whether his name is a pseudonym. ----Pontificalibus 05:32, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No sources cited and I can't find any, fails WP:BIO. Ym2X (talk) 22:51, 5 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. SpinningSpark 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plasse, California[edit]

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

This is an object example of the messiness of the GNIS compilation process. Over a period of a decade and a half, the label on the spot changed twice, but only the last version in 1994 called it what it is: Plasse Resort. It was never called "Silver Lake", though that's what the USPS called the post office there (which is what the 1983 map says), and it was never a town called "Plasse". Unfortunately, GNIS recorded the name in 1981. There is a possibility that the resort itself is notable, but that's a different article. Mangoe (talk) 18:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is three sentences long and only has two sources, and does not establish why this locale is notable.TH1980 (talk) 04:14, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Based on my searches, it's probably on the maps because the Plasse ranch was there before the resort opened. "Silver Lake" appears to be a notable place based on early 1900s newspapers, difficult to tell if it's the lake but there are definitely mentions of people who go there. SportingFlyer T·C 19:38, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Cornellier (talk) 12:44, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Durham's Place-Names lists this as a locale. –dlthewave ☎ 02:53, 2 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. SpinningSpark 00:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Watkins (attorney)[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non notable lawyer who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them hence doesn’t satisfy our general notability criteria. A “before” search & per sources provided in the article we observe he is hardly ever discussed significantly. Celestina007 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:46, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While mentioned in the cited articles, they aren't about him - they are about his clients. Fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 21:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable attorney.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:21, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non-notable Donaldd23 (talk) 20:21, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:44, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Park Ji-hoon (actor)[edit]

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

All 14 of the sources are reporting the actors death. He only had two supporting roles during his career and, due to his death, is not going to add to his career. I don't think this satisfies the general notability guideline, and the points for the guideline for actors are Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions. Has a large fan base or a significant "cult" following. Has made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment. a large fan base is hard to show or determine for an actor with two minor roles, and I think the other two points are clearly not met. It's unlikely that any substantial information could be added to show notability, or to ever grow the article beyond a stub. Alex (talk) 15:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable as an actor (the Korean Wiki page for one of the shows doesn't even list his appearance), and as you say it's unlikely that more content will establish greater notability in the future. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:18, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per Alexanderlee. Non-notable actor. BexBlack314 (talk) 15:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. My search for Korean-language sources on the subject proved to be in vain, as he garnered essentially no coverage prior to May 2020. He was cast in Chicago Typewriter [8], and that's basically all there is up until his death. Ə XPLICIT 11:40, 3 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. CSD A7 SpinningSpark 00:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atomos (company)[edit]

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

A7- Article does not provide any rational explaining the significance of the company deserving of a wiki entry. Nightenbelle (talk) 15:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:52, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:53, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 21:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. SpinningSpark 00:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smooth haynes[edit]

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

Non notable musician who doesn’t satisfy WP:SINGER. A before search I conducted shows no evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Likewise, I cannot find any evidence of this passing WP:GNG or WP:SINGER. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 15:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No evidence of notability for WP:GNG to be met at this time.BabbaQ (talk) 16:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - When you're biggest accomplishment is gaining "tristate radio airplay", that's generally a sign you ain't notable. Hog Farm (talk) 18:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - He actually got a pretty nice article in his hometown newspaper ([9]) back in '08. Otherwise, his sporadic releases have received no media notice and he can only be found in the typical streaming and self-promotional services where anyone can upload their own stuff. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 2 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. Black Kite (talk) 23:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sreekanth Vanga[edit]

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

Non-notable screenwriter. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 15:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable screenwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:NPOL. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:39, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Bwalya Yaluma[edit]

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

Not notable. The one reference doesn't support the article. Fuddle (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 14:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reference provided does support the article. It says he was "Minister - Mines and Minerals Development" and is now "Minister - Commerce, Trade and Industry", but that's a primary source. There are many online sources that report his titles, but those are passing references. If this person had these titles in a Western government, there would be plenty of reliable sources. I think this is marginal, but I !vote keep because deleting this contributes to the biases of Wikipedia that reflect coverage in major media. Thank you, SchreiberBike | ⌨ 21:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Change to keep based on Phil Bridger's link. SchreiberBike | ⌨ 19:12, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. A clear pass of WP:POLITICIAN. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NPOL as holding national office. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:01, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. National officeholder. Rather expand than delete. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 19:45, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep AfD is not cleanup, no evidence of BEFORE. Meets POLITICIAN. --Goldsztajn (talk) 21:48, 4 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 Naples, Florida#Education. WP:ATD ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Elizabeth Seton School (Naples, Florida)[edit]

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

Non-notable elementary and middle school that doesn't get past WP:NSCHOOL. Routine coverage is found, but significant coverage by reliable sources isn't there. Niteshift36 (talk) 14:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - to Naples, Florida#Education. That's what we usually do in situations like this - per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES and WP:ATD. John from Idegon (talk) 14:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a high school and nothing else suggesting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:43, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Malivata Dance[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2011. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:20, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - All it has is mirrors of the Wikipedia page. Interstellarity (talk) 13:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Interstellarity: Could you provide links to these sources? My basic Google search only turned up Wikipedia mirrors like this. My search on JSTOR and Google Books only turned up single-sentence mentions of the dance. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 18:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Lord Bolingbroke: I checked again and you are right. All it is is mirrors. My position changes to delete. Interstellarity (talk) 19:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I was only able to find a few passing mentions of this dance through a search on JSTOR and Google Books. There may be sources I am missing, however, and I'd be glad to reconsider my position if someone can provide them. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 20:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Consensus was that the subject passes WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 16:38, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The First Team[edit]

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

No references. The one external link doesn't support the article. While this may be the first team, I'm not sure they were actually called "The First Team". Fuddle (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep While they may not have called themselves The First Team, they are referenced as such by the Naismith Memorial Basketball Hall of Fame. I added a few sources and updated the external link - Alvaldi (talk) 20:58, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I also added a bit. This team is in the basketball Hall of Fame and the game they played has been well documented over the years. As a group they are notable (though I wouldn’t support articles for the specific team members based on inclusion as a member of this group). The name of the article is appropriate as this is how they are designated by the basketball HOF. Rikster2 (talk) 12:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a notable event in basketball history. Passes GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:53, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes GNG, is notable and mentioned in basketballs hall of fame. Definitely needs work though. Idan (talk) 19:34, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Qaiser Pia[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON ~SS49~ {talk} 12:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 12:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to enough sources to demonstrate notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:57, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails WP:GNG. Jmertel23 (talk) 12:49, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Anjan Dutt. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 08:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saheber Cutlet[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process. No indication of wp:notability under either wp:GNG or the SNG. No material because there is little or no coverage in sources. All three sources are from summer 2019 when the film was being made and finished. No indication that the film was ever released or will ever be released. I could not find any other substantive sources. North8000 (talk) 02:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - page creator here. Added a synopsis. Early to say if the movie will be released or not given the current pandemic situation. Production update might happen once a semblance of normalcy is restored. In the meantime, maybe redirect this to Anjan Dutt, the director, if needed. Csgir (talk) 09:12, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Anjan Dutt as not certain for release yet, if it does release and receives reviews in reliable sources then the redirect can be restored to an article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:06, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 08:27, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My listing this at AFD is just trying to do my job properly. I have no objection to whatever is decided including a redirect. North8000 (talk) 12:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Will usify on request Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:33, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cinema Today[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article review/curation process. The topic is a web site. No indication of wp:notability. One of the 4 references is a directory type listing, and the other three are about other topics, not the subject of the article. Unable to find other suitable coverage. North8000 (talk) 02:56, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I searched in Japanese but couldn’t find any RIS. Mccapra (talk) 03:06, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Did you search the Japanese Wiki or look for Japanese articles? lullabying (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I google searched the Japanese name and didn’t find anything discussing the topic in depth and independently. Mccapra (talk) 09:21, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:22, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cinema Today is a reliable source for film news and box office data from Japan. It is frequently referenced by notable reliable soures like Anime News Network and The Japan Times. What else would you need to establish notability? Maestro2016 (talk) 03:52, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please link to some of the reliable independent sources that demonstrate this, as I evidently missed them in my search? Thanks Mccapra (talk) 09:28, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anime News Network and Japan Times. ANN in particular frequently relies on Cinema Today for many of its box office numbers. Maestro2016 (talk) 00:24, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m sorry but that’s nonsense. The first set of search results you’ve posted does indeed show that animenewsnetwork.com frequently cites Cinema Today. But I’ve worked my way down the list of alleged supporting sources in the Japan Today site and they’re nothing of the sort. In one instance there was a ref to Cinema Today. In the others there were just the words ‘cinema’ and ‘today’ collocated. Mccapra (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maestro2016, answering your question, to meet wp:notability (which is a requirement for existence as a separate article) it would need to either meet the requirements of wp:GNG or those of Wikipedia:Notability (web). Having reliable sources cover Cinema Today in depth would count a lot towards both. Having reliable sources refer to it doesn't. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 11:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per nom by Maestro2016. lullabying (talk) 04:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 06:34, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:42, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to Closer. No RIS have been produced despite two relists. The only case made is that because Anime News Network uses Cinema Today as a source, it must be reliable. Mccapra (talk) 15:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete as nominator. North8000 (talk) 21:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC) Nominators do not vote as their nomination counts as a delete request unless they withdraw it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:22, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This website is cited very often and seems to be a highly reliable source of information both on Wikipedia and for other entertainment websites like Entertainment Weekly and The Hollywood Reporter, but it does not appear to be notable itself. If the website has a parent company with an article I would recoment to redirect it there, if there is not then I would very sadly say delete.★Trekker (talk) 21:15, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This seems very close to discussions about authors and broadcasters. Articles can have non-notable subjects that have a ton of references but what is important is what those references say, not what the subject says. So, if the references are by the subject and not about the subject, they do not count for notability. This appears the case here. Ifnord (talk) 18:23, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to draft to allow for possible improvement. Per my comment at Wikipedia:Village pump (miscellaneous)/Archive 64#No article for Science Times (sciencetimes.com): "I tend to be of the opinion that any media which we cite as a reliable source should be notable enough to have an article (and, ideally, should have an article). How can we know that a source is reliable if there is not even enough information about it to meet our notability standards?" Continuing that thought, I think that we should either find sources providing this context for the subject in question, or deprecate its use as a source. BD2412 T 00:55, 7 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. A merge does not seem unreasonable, but that's an editorial decision. Black Kite (talk) 23:00, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blues Beacon Records[edit]

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

The article had a PROD that was removed. So, this is the next step. It doesn't seem to be a notable record label. There are a few mentions of it in books, but none of them that I could find actually discussed the company. Instead, it was all just trivial brief mentions like "so and so was released on Blue Beacon Records." There definitely wasn't any in-depth coverage of the company in multiple sources. Adamant1 (talk) 09:36, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:37, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, has anyone got access to Encyclopedia of the Blues, wonder what is said there about this label? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:14, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: "In the early 1970s [Robert Pete Williams]...recorded for the 77 label (1971), Blues Beacon and Storyville (1972), and Sonet (1973)." Nothing more than a passing mention! --Prosperosity (talk) 12:27, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 04:59, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Coolabahapple, I recently browsed the book you mentioned. The label isn't mentioned there either. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for that Superastig, so with nothing in EOB and only a couple of mentions elsewhere, i'm leaning to a Merge/redirect to a (as yet non-existant) "History/Development" section of Enja Records. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: I barely found any online article about (or mentioning) the label, though I only found a couple of books which partially discusses about the label: [10] and [11]. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:41, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Enja Records. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:27, 2 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. Argument by Yourspecialanonimus makes a lot of assertions but provides no sources to back them up. The fact that the article was deleted in both Russian and Azerbaijani Wikis says a great deal about the subject's notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narmin Safarova[edit]

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

Notability is under question. Doesn't meet criterias of WP:BLP --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 19:26, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:19, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:11, 14 May 2020(UTC)
Keep an article that is informative in nature about a person who is widely known not only in Azerbaijan , but also abroad. To cast doubt on the significance of the article does not correspond to effectiveness.The article is not commercial in nature, since the links attached to the article are direct evidence that the article is significant and is translated into other Wikipedia languages, since the MODEL has international status and popular outside her country.To cast doubt on the reputation of model and written information about her at the discussion by participants side is a direct violation of Wikipedia.The model was crowned as Miss not in private commercials of beauty contests, but in internationally recognized and prestigious beauty contests, and the beauty contest "World Supermodel" is in the TOP 10 most prestigious contests in the world. The model is also recognized by many Award ceremonies in Azerbaijan and not only . She is the owner of more than 10 winning trophies as best model of Azerbaijan. Confirmation of this can be found in the links attached to the article, which are state Azerbaijani portals. an article about this person has the right to be here and be informative in nature for everyone in free use, without violating the rights.Verdict -Keep.Yourspecialanonimus (talk) 04:28, 15 мая 2020 (UTC)
Comment This article is also a candidate for deletion in other languages Az wiki and Ru wiki, there are many comments against it.--Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 19:41, 15 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:36, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in ru-wiki — ru:Нармин Сафарова. Same author and same text. --Khinkali (talk) 00:00, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It was deleted in az-wiki — az:Nərmin Səfərova. --Elshad Iman (Elşad İman) (talk) 08:40, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:39, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liu Liang (badminton)[edit]

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

Too soon article WP:TOOSOON, doesn't meet any WP:NBAD Stvbastian (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Stvbastian (talk) 22:30, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For such a successful junior player with having the credit of taking a match against Indonesia in Suhandinata Cup(World junior championships team) final, user seems to be irksome of nominating the article for deletion. I kindly request every commentator to contact him/her if they lack some sense(commonsense). Zoglophie (talk) 06:14, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we do not treat wins in junior tournaments as granting of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:10, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 03:35, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet any notability criteria for badminton players and lacks the significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG. A current world ranking of 951[12] does not show notability. Being one of 20 players on the Chinese junior team is not sufficient to show notability nor is making it to the round of 16 in boys singles. A redirect to 2019 BWF World Junior Championships seems reasonable, but not an individual article. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. Papaursa (talk) 23:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON. I don't see enough independent coverage for now. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:12, 3 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 Jumeirah Lake Towers. Sandstein 18:01, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AG Tower[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Very limited participation at AfD 7 years. If this is notable, so are the vast majority of buildings in Dubai. Boleyn (talk) 09:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:10, 13 May 2020 (UTC)|[reply]

Delete I don't know what is this. It doesn't meeting minimum requirements to have article in wiki

Comment As there’s a template for skyscrapers in Dubai with many blue links, some at least must be notable. Whether this one is or not, I’m not sure. Mccapra (talk) 12:13, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only a few of them seem to have more then one reference. So, it's highly doubtful the majority of them are notable. It's probably a case of over templating or whatever. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Jumeirah Lake Towers.Djflem (talk) 19:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:07, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge delete and/or merge as above --Cornellier (talk) 17:26, 2 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. SpinningSpark 00:02, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kısmet Press[edit]

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

This appears to be a non-notable organization. All references are to the organization's website or are simply reviews of books the organization has published. —valereee (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. —valereee (talk) 10:23, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now attempting rescue —valereee (talk) 11:50, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To clarify, Tim Barnwell is professionally associated with the press as is Ms Ani Landau-Ward, those two sources are not indicative of notability. -- GreenC 15:17, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GreenC, yes, quite right. I'm just sort of raking google, adding whatever I can find, hoping some of them will lead to other things. :) I suspect this doesn't meet our criteria, but I think if it goes delete I'll request it be userfied in my user space. I'd keep working on it, or possibly glean something for Academic publishing. —valereee (talk) 15:51, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm thinking WP:TOOSOON only active 4 years not enough time to establish notability. -- GreenC 03:31, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Since the nominator is unsure whether it meets the notability criteria.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 11:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination, assuming that they didn't find any better sources. ——Serial^# 12:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Serial Number 54129, I haven't, and I contacted the organization to ask them whether they knew of any press. They don't. I'd still be happy to have this moved to my userspace, though, and I can set up a google alert. —valereee (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found any news article about the organization. Defintely WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:21, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SK#1. A valid deletion rationale has not been advanced. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Al Hatarish[edit]

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

page is with limited detail Trains2050 (talk) 11:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beeston Musical Theatre Group[edit]

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

A non notable amateur dramatics company. WP:BEFORE shows no independent coverage above and beyond WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 00:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL. -- Ssilvers (talk) 02:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 All India Trinamool Congress. Sandstein 18:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All India Trinamool Youth Congress[edit]

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

None notable youth wing of a political party that has only had a single source since 2016. I'd also be cool with it being merged to Trinamool Congress, but there doesn't seem to be anything worth merging. Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Trinamool Youth Congress is definitely notable enough to warrant an article. See for example [13], [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24] etc.. Seems the new name of the organization is 'All India Trinamool Yuva'. --Soman (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, maybe the article should be renamed or something. That aside, I'm not sure a bunch of brief mentions about the organization in otherwise extremely short articles about there rallies is really enough for notability. One of your references is single four line paragraph that says nothing except "they held a rally." WP:NCORP considers events, especially local ones, to be considered trivial coverage due to audience. Id say an "article" about a rally held in Naxalbari would count as that. Especially considering it doesn't even say anything except "there was a rally in Naxalbari." --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Examples of TV news coverage: report on a block-level conference of Trinamool Yuva in Murshidabad, food distribution organized by Trinamool Yuva during lockdown, another lockdown food distribution event, Block-level Trinamool Yuva food distribution in lockdown in Arambagh, blood donation campaign of Trinamool Yuva in Hoogly, a local Trinamool Yuva protest on JNU violence in Jan 2020, District unit of Trinamool Yuva holding a protest, Trinamool Yuva launches 'Speak with Didi' campaign, a 'Speak with Didi' meeting, etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 18:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say local events don't count for notability and you provide more sources about local events. Alright. Please read WP:GEOSCOPE. None of those "have a demonstrable long-term impact on a significant region of the world. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:29, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GEOSCOPE refers to the notability of events. For political organizations, we use WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and WP:NORG. --Soman (talk) 23:15, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know, but your the one posting a bunch of articles about events instead of the organization. I don't see why you would, unless by doing so your saying the organization should be notable for the events it puts on. To which, I'm saying if the events aren't notable, then the organization putting them on can't be either. You can't have it both ways by saying there's nothing notable about the events themselves, but the organization is notable just for doing them. So, lets get rid of your citations to protests then, because I agree with you that it should be about WP:NORG, not WP:GEOSCOPE. Say we make it purely about WP:NORG, then what sources do we have left that actually talk about the organization in-depth and aren't mainly about protests? --Adamant1 (talk) 00:24, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the forest, in spite of the trees. If the fact that an organization holds a conference or a rally is covered in news media, that's a good indicator of notability. If there are hundreds of different news reports of events of an organization, spread across many locations, it is a good indicator of notability. --Soman (talk) 00:55, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So then there aren't any articles about the organization itself? Alright then. To quote WP:NORG (it's your standard), "An organization is not notable merely because a notable person or event was associated with it", "Examples of trivial coverage including of sponsorship of events, non-profit organizations, or volunteer work, coverage of purely local events, incidents, and controversies (see also #Audience below)." From Audience (again, your standard) "attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability." So no, coverage of "events" alone isn't a good indicator of notability. At least not by WP:NORG. which is your own standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 19 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 06:41, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Trinamool Congress. Not enough coverage on its own to justify an article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - Per Northamerica1000. I think it would be better, as the article has no notability at all. No reliable sourcing since August 2016.Koridas (...Puerto Rico for statehood!) 02:52, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koridas: I have only provided deletion sorting here; you must be referring to AlessandroTiandelli333. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:25, 5 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 17:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Penny Birch[edit]

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

Article was first redirected with summary "non-notable if indeed she exists at all", and then incorrectly nominated for speedy deletion G8 ("dependent page of a page which does not exist, has been deleted, or is itself currently tagged for speedy deletion"), which was false as well.

The author (or nom de plume) clearly exists, you don't get a page at Penguin Books[25] for no reason.

However, I can't find evidence that she has received significant attention, so she probably isn't notable (and as suggested may be an invented name to publish anonymous stories by different writers, which is in itself not a reason to delete). Perhaps there is some good redirect target, or perhaps she has received attention in more "specialized" sources; otherwise deletion is the right decision. But by the right method, not through the backdoor. Fram (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 10:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly not enough sourcing to demonstrate the subject is a notable writer. Also not enough sourcing to demonstrate it is just one individual instead of a group of collaborating writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:56, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Given that this was a redirect for over a decade, isn't WP:RFD a more appropriate venue? We'd certainly frown on someone converting an article to a redirect in order to nominate it there, though I suppose the inverse means greater visibility rather than less... Either way, delete: I haven't been able to find any reviews, or any other significant coverage, and neither of the other two articles that mention the name would be a sensible target for this to be redirected to (indeed, those mentions should be removed if this is deleted). – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:19, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The article was, until recently, a redirect to Nexus Books, Birch's publisher. Penny Birch is certainly a pseudonym, and could be a collective pseudonym. I can't find any biographical information in reliable sources, although I did find a few citations to an essay which appears to be by the same author, "Squiddly Diddly: The Relationship of the Octopus to Female Sexuality."[26][27] pburka (talk) 14:05, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monika de Habsburgo-Lorena[edit]

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

She doesnt seem to be notable. Rathfelder (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 09:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a geneological database. People have to do notable things or get extensive coverage focused on them to be considered notable. Just being part of a family with notability does not cause us to have articles on every individual in the family. Which is why we need to delete some articles we have on children of monarchs who died as children, but that is a different issue than what we have here. Being the grandchild of a notable person does not make one notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:51, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am not able to find any significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources that would satisfy WP:BASIC. The notable member of her family appears to be her son. She is only ever mentioned in passing and in genealogy publications but Wikipedia is not meant for genealogical entries. Surtsicna (talk) 13:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the reasons given by the editors above.Smeat75 (talk) 15:35, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:48, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Top 10 most populated places in each State[edit]

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

Completely unsourced and WP:LISTCRUFT. There are already lists of populated places per state (i.e. List of populated places in Pennsylvania. There is no need for a summary only list of the top ten, which in effect doubles up content from other articles. Furthermore the author has a long history of creating bad articles (without using the AfC process) and edits that end up being reverted. Ajf773 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:03, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by population, by populating it with data for the 6th to 10th most populous cities, if it can be done in a way that doesn't bloat the table too much. Perhaps this could be done by making a "summary table" of the 2 or 3 largest cities in each state, then a full table below the summary table with the full top tens. The current table at that page only covers the top five per state.
I strongly disagree with the nominator's rationale. Deletion isn't cleanup, and if not for the existence of this semi-redundant pre-existing list as a merge topic, I'd be in favor of keeping the article. The fact that it's unsourced does not mean it should be deleted - city populations aren't a BLP or otherwise contentious topic where immediate sourcing is to be demanded, so the solution would be to fix it yourself by adding sources, as well as cleaning up the formatting and moving it to a title more in line with Wikipedia's title conventions. The list is not "cruft", and to my eye it doesn't clearly meet any of the twelve characteristics listed at WP:LISTCRUFT, which anyway is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The fact that List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by population averages over 500 pageviews per day shows that there is in fact significant reader interest in the subject. CJK09 (talk) 22:20, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no justification for a merge. Why expand a top 5 list into a top 10 list using content that doesn't even corroborate with the article you intend to merge it to. Ajf773 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep I doesn't clearly meet the terms of WP:LISTCRUFT. I wouldn't say its a horrible list, and with 500 page views per day its by no means unpopular. Iamreallygoodatcheckers (talk) 12:06, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you even looking at the right article, this one was only created a few days ago. Ajf773 (talk) 20:13, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, why "top 10", why not "top 3", "top 5", "top 20", "top 50"?, appears to be arbitrary. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:04, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The existing top 5 at List of largest cities of U.S. states and territories by population is satisfactory, but if that is desired to be extended there may be a discussion there. Individual state articles should also have a list of largest cities, and this is redundant to that as well. Reywas92^Talk 00:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Reywas92. It's a redundant list with arbitrary parameters. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:43, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge per previous points.
Delete Seems to be a duplication of already-existing state-level lists. I'm not sure what this one is supposed to accomplish. –dlthewave ☎ 03:35, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Cornellier (talk) 12:23, 2 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. The !votes are evenly divided, the discussion appears to revolve around the subject meeting WP:PROF or not. There are persuasive arguments on both sides, I do not see how a consensus could gel from that. No comments since last relist. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 01:32, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Davis (theologian)[edit]

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

One affiliated source. Nothing obvious on Google other than book jacket bios, which are not independent. Guy (help!) 08:12, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Seems to fail WP:GNG, no reliable secondary sources unaffiliated with the subject. He iro 08:24, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an under sourced article on a theologian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:11, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:51, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: passes WP:PROF #6 as President of Grace Theological Seminary, but also through his Google Scholar results. It is hard searching for his name, but looking at the books mentioned in the article, Paradise to Prison has 65 cites, and Moses and the Gods of Egypt has 78 cites - both very high for this subject area. St Anselm (talk) 22:00, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Apparently a Festschrift in his honour was published in 2010 by Chalice Press. (I believe it's this book.) Also, if this is kept, it really should be moved, since John Jefferson Davis is also a theologian. Cheers, gnu 57 03:18, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 10:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes WP:Prof criterion 6 and multiple reliable sources references such as Star Tribune, Christianity Today and others have been added to the article since nomination so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 17:44, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG due to extensive citations.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:59, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Citations not found, and WP:PROF#C6 not passed for such a minor institution. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:59, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep -- 19 books should make him notable as an author. An Emeritus appointment means that someone thinks he is important. Theological colleges are typically small, so that being head of one might be equivalent to being head of a university department, but that is usually enough for notability. Peterkingiron (talk) 19:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evidence that he published 19 books and, anyway, just publishing stuff contributes nothing to notability. It is having the stuff noted by others that counts. Please produce the evidence for this. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:29, 24 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Peterkingiron, 19 Christian books is about equivalent to 4 normal books., Guy (help!) 23:17, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the imputation of the comment above is offensive and I dissociate myself from it. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Delete Running a seminary of 120 students does not qualify for NPROF; chairing a department does not either per the above comparison. Sources lack in-depth coverage to establish notability, and just publishing a bunch of writings does not automatically qualify one for an article – Guy nis to an extent correct. Reywas92^Talk 00:49, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He certainly hasn't just "publishing a bunch of writings". As demonstrated above, at least two of those books have been extensively cited. And there is no guideline that suggests a seminary of that size is too small or insignificant for our purposes. St Anselm (talk) 01:44, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No guideline says either “any leader of a tiny educational institution is automatically notable” or “any person who has written books that have an arbitrary number of citations is automatically notable.” I still expect a modicum of significant coverage of the individual to get to passing GNG; those added do not demonstrate that. Reywas92^Talk 03:43, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the subject passes WP:PROF, then it doesn't have to pass WP:GNG. And even if it fails #6, it certainly passes #1 (because of the Festschrift if nothing else). St Anselm (talk) 04:50, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- a clergyman who digs the earth is not an archaeologist. There seems to be a lack of sources that would be either reliable or independent from the subject. It seems that not even creationism investigators have been interested in the individual. Place Clichy (talk) 12:02, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Target.com sells four of his books at affordable prices. He was also part of the group that translated the NIV Bible.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well spotted. And in addition to the two books I mentioned above, Biblical Numerology has 50 Google Scholar cites. Clearly not just a run of the mill clergyman. St Anselm (talk) 00:05, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or at least Merge to Grace Theological Seminary. I am an inveterate deletionist on Wikipedia, so this is a little weird for me, but I think that presidents of this institution probably should be documented. There are plenty of sources about this little outfit which played an outsized role in a number of American religious movements including, but not limited to, creationism and fundamentalism. I am not sure every president of the institution deserves a standalone article, so I can see an argument for merging to the Seminary, but I can see enough sources out there about this fellow that a WP:CFORK might even be inevitable, which makes me think that keep is probably the right answer here. jps (talk) 11:14, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Incidentally, to reiterate, there definitely are sources out there which document this fellow that are sufficiently independent. However, a lot of them are fairly obscure because they are from 30 to 40 years ago, and you may need to get some serious library access to do the research. One I was able to find just sifting through Google Books is this entry in the Gale Research Contemporary Authors New Revision Series from 1978. Much of the real work for this biography would probably need to be done in a high-quality library and not online. jps (talk) 11:35, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Java Hurricane 09:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Extending the time for discussion yielded confirmation of consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 00:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'Sparks[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence falls short of GNG. He doesn’t satisfy MUSICBIO as well. A before search conducted doesn’t show him mentioned in any reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:49, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find nothing beyond the typical retail, streaming, and paid promotional sites. I also could find no reviews or other coverage of any of his albums. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:25, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above, cannot find much coverage for the subject to be notable. Nika2020 (talk) 23:58, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Java Hurricane 09:15, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO; Gsearch indicates no valid sources to substantiate notability. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep, after extended time for discussion. Improvement of the article by participants has clearly shifted the discussion towards a consensus for keeping based on demonstrable notability of the subject. BD2412 T 00:16, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Icade[edit]

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

Poorly sourced, and the few sources that are used are mainly primary, dependent sources. There's a promotional tone, and a questionable WP:NCORP Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 23:30, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - a simple google search shows that references and a number of independent sources exist. it ranks among the largest publicly traded property developers in France. [28] it has a number of firsts For the first time in France, Origine aims to achieve a very high environmental performance combining four certifications (HQE 2016 with an Excellent rating, BREEAM with an Excellent rating, LEED with a Gold rating and WELL with a Silver rating), as well as two quality labels (Biodiversity and E+C-), a first in France. The project includes the installation of 2,800 solar panels.[29] [30]. Icade is the number one real-estate investment company in office space and business parks in the greater Paris region, the number one real-estate investment company in healthcare in France . before nominating an article for AFD it should at least be vetted for cleanup/fixing; that's first and foremost. I also don't consider saying among the first to be promoting the company. Grmike (talk) 17:59, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
- comment icade is a former member of the forbes 2000 list. and longstanding member of the SBF 120. Such companies will need offices and some of the best in Paris are owned by Icade, one of France’s largest property business. [31]. Icade owns many of the buildings that make up the canary wharf of paris the daily telegraph [32]. moved into Germany in 2019 with major acquisitions [33], It establishes Europe's first europe-wide healthcare REIT [34], first low energy solar powered buildings in France independent.co.uk Grmike (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
I must wonder if you have bothered to read, and cared what WP:CORPDEPTH, and WP:ORGIND has to say. I'm not going to pick through each of the source, but skimming through, the sources you linked are not something that pass the criteria. It's irrelevant how in depth the source is if it's WP:CHURNALISM or not fully independent. Graywalls (talk) 10:37, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
they say if a source only talks about ranks/awards then it may be considered a trivial source. I don't believe that the sources are guilty of that. if a company does rank high that in itself can be notable Forbes Global 2000 takes the company's size in addition to other factors into consideration. being on that list can be used to establish notability.Grmike (talk) 23:05, 25 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
comment - the company is a beneficiary of a number of awards. [35] in the top 5% of the highest scoring listed companies in the real estate investment segment (world).Grmike (talk) 18:37, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

comment - Icade is notable enough to be on the German wiki [36], French wiki [37], Italian wiki [38], and others. 26 different users contributed to its content. Grmike (talk) 19:27, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

comment - icade is an engineering company, a property development company and a property manager. it is notable in 3 fields, it is not only a REIT.Grmike (talk) 20:12, 22 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

addressing the series of comments above The notability standards that apply to organizations and companies are among the highest in evaluating notability for the reasons explained in WP:NCORP. NCORP is the criteria of the English language Wikipedia and it isn't necessarily comparable with other language versions nor is there a reciprocity rule that allows presence in other language Wikipedia to be used as a presumption of notability. There's no doubt that sources present in German and Italian versions are meaningless for establishing notability here. The order of establishment, the absolute size, the relative size within arbitrarily subdivided sector asserted by Wikipedia editors don't affect the notability. It requires multiple, deep, totally independent secondary coverage in widely circulated general interest publication to anchor down the notability foundation which the sources currently present do not support. Presence of other stuff that fails notability don't provide justification for articles nominated for deletion. Graywalls (talk) 00:43, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - you can leave that to the voters to decide thank you. the nom says no legit source used - it didn't take me long to find more than a couple independent sources. please check if the subject can be helped before nominating. Grmike (talk) 16:12, 24 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
comment - the nominator is guilty of Wikipedia:Overzealous deletion#Lack_of_familiarity_with_the_subject and Wikipedia:Overzealous_deletion#Article_quality Grmike (talk) 22:41, 25 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Ironic but you might want to take a read of WP:BLUD yourself. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The notability is based on the existence of sources, not the current state of sourcing in the article. I don't believe that there aren't any sources that prove that one of the 60th largest companies in France is notable. I agree with User:grmike. Dwaro (talk) 11:00, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- More correctly, the notability is based on the existence of multiple sources that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. If you're so sure that sources exist, can you link to any at all? HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ Changed to Keep, I'm happy that there are (at least) two references that meet the criteria for notability. Good work by Dwaro and Qwertz1894 in particular. This is not the first time I've come across a quoted company where I am unable to locate any analyst reports or other references that meet the criteria for establishing notability and probably won't be the last. References are a mixture of interviews with execs or entirely based on company announcements. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:09, 27 May 2020 (UTC) HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- comment maybe that's because they're in French and you are not looking hard enough. try translating the pages.Grmike (talk) 03:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
  - Nope, and if you were a regular at AfD you'd know that. I usually get good translations from Google, I don't shrug and say "It's all Greek to me", I put in the leg work. Also, you do realise that you don't need to keep appending "grmike" to all your posts after you put in the 4 ~'s? HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Hi guys, coming from the German Wiki where we have clear quantifiable hurdles for notability criteria such as number of employees, revenue and stock listing (all of which are fulfilled by the company), I find it quite strange that the notability is being discussed here. If you only rely on significant media coverage, you might want to take some of these into account: [39][40][41][42][43]. These articles are mainly behind paywalls which sadly is a main problem with proofing notability solely by media´s reception. Opposed to HighKing I do see some media articles in the initial Wiki article which are neither sole interviews nor company announcements ([44][45][46]). Why are these sources being ignored? Best regards.--Qwertz1894 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PS: I very much doubt that Le Figaro or The Telegraph are non-independent publishers let alone an example for churnalism.--Qwertz1894 (talk) 15:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- @Qwertz1894:, # of employees, stock listing and revenue are not part of the criteria for the en.wikipedia, the English language Wikipedia and some of the sources you provided, such as the announcement of the sale of corporate headquarters is arguably routine coverage. The SPGlobal one would be what would be DEPENDENT secondary. Businesswire is PRESS RELEASE distribution, thus not independent secondary. The telegraph one, I'm not so certain. Perhaps @HighKing: could comment on that article. Graywalls (talk) 16:48, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The criteria for notability on the English language Wikipedia is different than German Wiki so the notability criteria there has no bearing on the criteria here. You should also take a read of WP:ORGIND in particular to understand the interpretation of "Independent" - it doesn't just mean that the "publisher" is independent from the topic company (if I had 2c for every time I've seen this ...) but that the content of the reference must include "Independent Content" i.e. must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. You've mentioned some references where you question why I rejected them based on our policies and guidelines. This from LeFigaro is based on a company announcement (says it in the lede) with no indications of any independent content. This from S&P Global is headlined "Icade reveals plans..." and again, no indications of any independent content. This from The Telegraph is based on information provided by Alex Illingworth, co-manager of the Mid Wynd investment trust which is a shareholder in Icade so not unaffiliated nor Independent. Looking at the new references you've provided, every single one is based on company announcements and none meet the criteria on the English language Wikipedia for establishing notability as they all fail WP:ORGIND. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment I know, I have read WP:ORG and I know that you have to comply with it. I only see a problem in defining routine coverage. If one needs several media articles with a profound analysis of the company and its financial and organizational structure, you can start to delete a great portion of all Wiki articles about mid cap or even large cap companies. That definition also rules out references like this [47] (which only talks about Icade in one short paragraph but its still more than one "single-sentence mention"). What would be non-routine coverage?--Qwertz1894 (talk) 17:31, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Comment you are exactly right. and whole sections are being deleted as a result of bludgeoning the subjects. if a REIT makes the Forbes 2000 list, runs vast portions of downtown Paris, starts Europe's first healthcare reit, is one of the 60 biggest companies in france, and builds the first fully solar powered eco building in paris, it is nowhere near non-notable. impossible !Grmike (talk) 03:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
    - Comment Qwertz1894, the best references are those where an article discusses the company in depth, with analysis/commentary/etc clearly provided by the journalist and not simply regurgitating company announcements (churnalism). Analyst reports are acceptable for example. Lots of companies have articles written about them because they make announcements or their executives are interviewed and these are not acceptable. I agree with you that a great portion of all Wiki articles about companies/organizations fail the requirements - the evidence from AfD is that 80% or more articles (on companies/organizations/etc) end up being deleted which goes to prove ... something, I don't know, but in my opinion it shows about how most companies use PR a lot and how most newspapers/magazines are more interested in filling up column inches that providing independent commentary and analysis. The bar is set intentionally high because to not do so, we end up with companies trying to use Wikipedia as a platform for promotion or credibility which is not its role. If a company is truly notable, somebody, somewhere, will write about it and provide their own analysis/opinion/etc. HighKing⁺⁺ 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - comment - I completely disagree with highking. I doubt very much that Wikipedia was created on these kinds of principles. purging Wikipedia of subjects that are undoubtedly notable is not in keeping with assume good faith. highking is fresh off of WP:BLUD another AFD. as long as he's not called out for it he will get away with it again.Grmike (talk) 03:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
        Two points. First, I realise that you are a little sore because one of your articles (the Mr. Greek one above) was deleted and that the deletion review isn't going your way. I've created many articles myself and I understand the utter frustration involved if someone questions notability and the article is subsequently deleted. Hopefully you won't be put off from creating many more articles and if you ever want me to check any references you might have questions about, fire ahead on my Talk page, glad to help if I can. The Deletion Review shows that many editors have endorsed not only the decision to delete but also the analysis of the sources. It is also noteworthy that one editor pointed out that your accusations of BLUD are completely off the mark and went further to point out that the only example of BLUD on show is your conduct, not mine. Second point, this AfD process is concerned with Icade. Let's stick to this topic. If you've any issues with guidelines or policies, you can open a question on that Talk page. If you want to express your displeasure at my (and others) interpretation of our policies/guidelines, this isn't the place to do it. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:09, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Comment - Icade is three times bigger than Crombie REIT. in fact it is even larger than its parent company. it is nonsensical to even consider this for deletion.Grmike (talk) 03:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Java Hurricane 09:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I still found some sources which should comply with the rules: [48] Publishing by two independent researchers about the history of CDCs real estate business (especially SCIC / Icade); [49] by Jean-Pierre Schaefer (worked for the CDC in the past but also lectures at CNFPT); [50] and [51] could be seen as routine coverage but still complies with all aspects of WP:GNG; [52] WP:ILLCON but still fulfilling WP:SIRS; [53] published by the Senate.--Qwertz1894 (talk) 14:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This document published in 1993 for the Revue D'Economie Financiere is co-authored by Bruno George who worked for CDC (Icade's parent company) - fails ORGIND. This profile piece is written by Jean-Pierre Schaefer who worked in CDC (Icade's parent company) - fails ORGIND. This from LesEchos is entirely based on the company announcement of the name change to ICAD - fails ORGIND. This from LeMonde dated in 1967 obviously deals with the parent company and not Icade which wasn't formed at that point in time - fails WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally this from liberation.fr discusses a possible scandal involving SCIC and doesn't mention Icade - fails CORPDEPTH. None of those references meet the criteria for establishing notability. HighKing⁺⁺ 20:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Obviously I´m not a great supporter of a literal interpretation of WP:ORG or any other rule or guideline in Wikipedia. However, if you do that, George and Schaefer would still not collide with ORGIND. According to ORGIND active company personnel and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose are NOT independent... George and Schaefer are not currently working for CDC or Icade and proofing a further financial connection might be near to impossible. It´s definetly worth discussing whether former employees of a state-owned enterprise have a great benefit out of such actions. Furthermore it is not necessary for an article to discuss "Icade" as long as they deal with "SCIC". SCIC was simply renamed Icade in 2003. It´s the same corporate entity.--Qwertz1894 (talk) 23:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My vote is still keep. I could find significant, independent and reliable coverage in the book "The Making of Grand Paris: Metropolitan Urbanism in the Twenty-First Century". Dwaro (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Dwaro:, please provide the ISBN and the range of pages that are extensively devoted to Icade so that WP:ORGDEPTH and independence and other matters can be verified. Graywalls (talk) 19:15, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - My vote is still speedy keep. User:Qwertz1894 sums the argument up nicely. Rather than looking to improve an article on a very large business with a long standing history that has had a profound effect on Paris's modern architecture the nominator seems to be trying too hard to invalidate notability. where is the assume good faith ? I believe that rescuing articles should always be the top priority. if this isn't bludgeoning then what is ? Grmike (talk) 08:12, 2 June 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Dwaro, Graywalls, ISBN-10: 0262034697, ISBN-13: 978-0262034692, published by The MIT Press. Pages 213 and 214 contain passages that mention Icade. Page 213 says that Icade is the leading commerical real estate company for offices and business parks in the Ile-de-France and a private subsidiary of the Caisse des Depots et Consignations and is the first French REIT to devlop a strategy and appoint management to deal specifically with Grand Paris. It mentions that the company has millions of square meters of holdings and investments and is a signatory to five CDTs. In my opinion, this reference meets the criteria for establishing notability. Based on this reference and this profile piece, I believe there are now sufficient references to support notability, I've changed my !vote to reflect this. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:46, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HighKing Great, forgot to post the ISBN myself, thanks for checking it. I conclude there is now a pretty clear consensus. I have added the book as a source to the page itself to prevent a second nomination. Dwaro (talk) 11:56, 2 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 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paperhouse (band)[edit]

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

Unsourced article. Band does not appear to be notable. I can find no more than trivial coverage regarding them and no reliable sources. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 08:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, unfortunately, couldn't find any real sources. Fun little read, though. Caro7200 (talk) 13:01, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete SPA editor page created 14 years ago when few among AfD monitors were paying attention. The article essentially acknowledges they are non-notable amateurs. ShelbyMarion (talk) 15:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Since they are named after a notable song, searching for the band in particular can be difficult so I decided to search for information on member Jake Stephenson. I found that he has gotten a little niche media coverage for his later activities (mostly among collectors of obscure British psychedelic rock), and this band is only ever mentioned very briefly as one of his earlier endeavors. I can find nothing reliable on the band itself, and they can only be found in some basic retail listings and modern social media pages trying to convince people that they had some historical importance, nearly 30 years after they accomplished nothing. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom, no RS. Yes, it is difficult to search for this band as most of the results were about the song of the same name by Can. I also looked up this Jake Stephenson fellow and the stuff I found was basically the same what Doomsdayer520 said. Only mentioned on fan pages and collector sites. I also looked up their Spongy Comestibles album, hoping to find at least one decent source. But nope, the sources were even worse: unreliable sites like Discogs and Rate Your Music, lots and lots of shop sites and lots and lots of blogs. No reliable sources whatsoever. To be frank, I have never heard about this band before, but they seem like the kind of band that made no waves whatsoever when they were active, no reliable media wrote about them so they remained an obscure, underground band which has no reason to be included in Wikipedia. How this article managed to stay here since 2006 is beyond me.GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:32, 2 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 Page deleted per G5 RickinBaltimore (talk) 12:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kobi Arad[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

@Thebiv19: does this work? ——Serial^# 06:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom: WP:PROMO, WP:PAID editing against the terms of use. ——Serial^# 06:18, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI, this is a long standing (a decade or so) paid editing mess intersecting with an LTA that included a prolific editor. I've got some discussions archived on my talk page 1, 2, 3, but I expect there are many more at WP:COIN and other venues. —SpacemanSpiff 07:02, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SpacemanSpiff: cheers for the info. Is G5 applicable then? ——Serial^# 07:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been away for so long that I really don't know if it can be tied back to the Earflaps LTA/sockfarm. Maybe TonyBallioni or someone else involved in cleaning up the earlier messes might know better.

@NinjaRobotPirate: from what you wrote at AN, would you say this is a good- or bad-faith recreation? That seems to be the crux of it. ——Serial^# 07:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@NinjaRobotPirate, Serial Number 54129, and SpacemanSpiff: as per my research, this user was hired through Freelancer.com to create this, Martin2Smoove and a few more pages. I can't post that stuff here, but feel free to mail me if you need more details. GSS ^💬 07:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GSS: great stuff! Cheers! ——Serial^# 07:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there's an OTRS queue related to UPE spam farms, but I forget what it is. It doesn't seem to be listed anywhere, either. It makes you wonder how anyone is supposed to find this stuff if I can't find it. Oh well. I guess there's always WP:FUNC if you can't think of anywhere else to email private evidence. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 08:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Its paid-en-wp I guess. @Yunshui: did you get a chance to look at the evidence? GSS ^💬 08:12, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have taken another look... per my comments on the relevant SPI I originally gave the article creator the benefit of the doubt, but recent (off-wiki) evidence shows that I was mistaken to do so; I have now blocked them. Given that the article creator is part of a large paid sockfarm, I would suggest that this (and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Martin2Smoove) be closed as a G5 speedy deletion. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Yunshui: Go for it! ——Serial^# 09:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. At first glance this looks like a well-sourced, if rather poorly written, article but closer inspection reveals most sources to be nothing more than personal blogs, which certainly fail WP:RS. The only two that look more serious are the Independent Music Awards and Global Music Awards links, but those appear to be awards-for-cash: the latter currently has a COVID statement including "We will fully refund all payments for unjudged entries. We are not accepting medallion orders. We will ship all medallion orders currently in hand." I'd say that means the article currently has no reliable sources. I'm not able to find anything more substantial so deletion is the way to go. Absconded Northerner (talk) 07:40, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 17:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dye-nosaur Gardens[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Most of the coverage is in "what you should do this weekend" type stories, I'm not seeing GNG level stuff. Maybe if it happened every year? But for a one time event that occurred in 2017? No. Also pretty promotional, check such phrases as "Catch them as they roar to life in your two eyes" and "roaring to life in front of you". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 04:59, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a minor sub-event of a non-notable festival that occurred once in 2017. Sources are blogs or "what to do with your kids this week" blurbs in local papers. This is not notable and not encyclopedic content. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 05:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, non-notable event with no reliable coverage beyond blogs and youtube videos. QueerFilmNerd^talk 05:39, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the main Gardens page, I have added in a little bit of information about this event there. Seasider91 (talk) 16:00, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 17:46, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:LASTING and WP:NOTNEWS. The main subject absolutely hold many such events, thus I see no reason in redirecting either. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:04, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and above. No need to redirect. --Cornellier (talk) 17:44, 2 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 17:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clarksona, California[edit]

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

Every reference to this (now that I have corrected the name to match the maps: due to a misspelling we have founded the totally spurious "Clarsona, California") says that it was a station on the SP line through Ione where— possibly— clay was loaded for shipment, and nothing more. I find no evidence of it as a town. Mangoe (talk) 04:16, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just another GNIS stub that should never have been created. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone died there in 1913: [54] and a description of the mining operations that were there: [55] mentioned here: "clarksona"+"california"&focus=searchwithinvolume&q="clarksona" Would strongly prefer a redirect somewhere with information about the siding if this is not kept. SportingFlyer T·C 19:47, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND/GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:31, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GNG fail, and per Pi --Cornellier (talk) 17:42, 2 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 17:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edwin, California[edit]

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

A switch for a siding which didn't have a name on the maps until the 1959 map. These maps show nothing in particular in the area except the siding and various mines, one of which has developed into Specialty Granules' Ione plant. The siding is still there and is being used to store covered hoppers from the plant, judging from today's GMaps shot. At any rate, there was never anything here in the way of a settlement that I can see. Searching is a monumental pain but I found one reference to "Edwin siding" and another more extensive discussion of the area in general as part of a mining/manufacturing proposal; nothing that said it was a town or describes an "Edwin" in a notable manner. Mangoe (talk) 03:49, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: just another GNIS stub that never should have been created. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per pi --Cornellier (talk) 12:42, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be a rail siding miscategorized as a "populated place" by GNIS and further miscategorized as an "unincorporated community" by Wikipedia. –dlthewave ☎ 02:34, 2 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 00:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Radice[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. No obvious claim of notability. Yes, there's a CDBABY page, mention on IMDb and a Yahoo!-hosted website. The only reliable source in the article, [56], is a passing mention in a quote from someone promoting a project they were both involved in. No meaningful coverage in other reliable sources found. SummerPhD^v2.0 03:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per new sources from Djflem.~~undecided~~ -- @SummerPhDv2.0: Thanks for the nomination. [revised iVote 21:02, 30 May 2020 (UTC)][reply]

I too had considered nominating it when I started deleting external links. Having a major contribution on Sesame Street and the iMDB entry suggest that he is notable, but like the OP, the only thing I could find that appeared to be WP:RS was that one article (and maybe some others [57]) in a local news outlet or passing mention ([58]). A potential alternative is to draftify it to MRadice who appears to be the subject of the article, or anyone else who thinks they can dig up WP:RS to meet notability requirements and pass WP:AfC.

Please note that the article has survived 11 years now, and this appears to be the first nomination for deletion. Some editors who are still active now (e.g. Alistair1978, Arjayay, Nikkimaria, Kahtar (aka LindsayH), GoingBatty, Aboutmovies, PKT, RockNWrite82, Chris_the_speller, Bender235, Jevansen, Rjwilmsi) have made edits to the article in the past or distant without nominating it for deletion. I am curious what their position is. When I touch an article, I usually consider whether it passes WP:GNG, but maybe not all editors do. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:05, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do see this line in the WP:LEDE of List of Aerosmith members:

Mark Radice briefly took on the role of touring keyboardist in early 1978,^[1]

References

^ Bienstock, Richard (September 1, 2011), Aerosmith: The Ultimate Illustrated History of the Boston Bad Boys, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Voyageur Press, p. 82, ISBN 978-0760341063, retrieved November 17, 2017

This was added by Andre666 in 2017, and I don't believe it has been challenged. I'm not suggesting that playing with Aerosmith makes one notable--I'm just mentioning it as potential WP:RS on the subject. --David Tornheim (talk) 17:26, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, he might qualify under some aspect of WP:MUSICBIO, but probably not WP:GNG. I touched this article once while disambiguating a link some 7 years ago, and the article looks like garbage today by comparison. PK T(alk) 18:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Tornheim: When I removed incorrect two categories 5 years ago, I did not consider whether the article should be deleted. GoingBatty (talk) 21:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like GoingBatty and PKT, i touched the article some time ago (nigh on three years) with a semi-automated tool and did not consider the notability of the subject; At that time it did not look quite as bad as it does now. I have not done a search thus far (first day of holiday and only just got up!), but if the content is accurate, it would seem he might well qualify, but TBH David Tornheim's draftify suggestion is probably best; happy days, Lindsay^Hello 06:25, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the replies everyone. I'm leaning toward keep based on the recent sources added by Djflem such as this one published by Routledge. --David Tornheim (talk) 19:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Wikipedia:MUSICBIO accomplished musician, composer/songwriter.Djflem (talk) 20:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Garmon, Ron (2005), Smay, David; Cooper, Kim (eds.), Lost in the Grooves: Scram's Capricious Guide to the Music You Missed, Routledge, ISBN 9781135879211

Didier Delinotte, Didier Delinotte (2019), Donovan Le baladin du monde occidental, Camion Blanc, ISBN 9782378481506

Believe these bring it over GNG Djflem (talk) 21:26, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Since I got a ping, I'll respond regarding whether my edits mean anything as to notability. They do not. Here, it looks like in 2013 I assessed it as it was in the unassessed bios, so I was really paying attention only to the quality, which does not directly relate to notability. I also added a category, as I typically see if bios have the main categories they should. My later edit was part of a category diffusion campaign, so I would not have looked even at the quality of the article, only looking to see if it could be moved to a lower level city/occupation category. When I am doing purely category work I am not really paying attention to the notability or really even the quality of the article. Aboutmovies (talk) 22:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ Week Keep (see later comment below) - I am somewhat familiar with this gentleman's work and I was really hoping to find something in his favor. Everything in the article appears to be true, as he wrote several hit songs for other people, wrote for various TV shows, and was briefly a touring member of Aerosmith. Kudos to him for making an honest living behind the scenes, but the sources found by the "Keep" voter above only help a little. Via online and book sources I can find nothing additional, beyond basic mentions of his name in relation to other artists, some local media coverage, and bare-bones credit listings. I don't think this gets him past the significant and reliable coverage requirements for notability. In the realm of Bands/Musicians AfD's we often see that longtime behind-the-scenes journeymen like this may have honest achievements but they simply can't get into an encyclopedic article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:18, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Doomsdayer520:: Wikipedia:MUSICBIO and Wikipedia:COMPOSER list numerous criteria which Radice fulfills, one of which, (5.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels) is he easily meets. Djflem (talk) 08:37, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote to "Week Keep" because you are technically correct about "two or more albums on a major record label". However, in the additional sources you have found he was still only mentioned briefly in association with other people and the album reviews tend to be brief one-paragraph announcements. Therefore I still think that Radice lacks the significant and reliable coverage requirements due to the brevity of the mentions that he actually got. But I concede that he just barely meets some Wikipedia requirements if there's going to be a debate about keeping him here. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:36, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comment - If the article is kept, it needs to be cleaned up very badly, not just in writing/formatting but in its attempts to exaggerate his importance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:20, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additonal RS added:

"Album Reviews". Billboard. July 15, 1972 – via Google Books. Very interesting debut LP from the young Radice. As both a writer and performer he shows great potential. Very fine songs included here are: Your Yesterdays, Take Me to the Park, Seen Through my Pillow. This talented young balladeer deserves much accclaim and attention.

"Talent". Billboard. July 15, 1972 – via Google Books. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 31 May 2020 (UTC)

Keep as passes WP:MUSICBIO with two releases on a major label. Also additional reliable sources have been identified, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:18, 3 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 23:18, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zubair Ahmed (doctor)[edit]

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

Just because he died due to coronavirus doesn't mean notable. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 02:19, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no claim to notability. Java Hurricane 02:21, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable doctor.Fails WP:GNG. Electiondata (talk) 02:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious delete. Articles referring to him as "one more" or "another" doctor is about everything you need to know here. AngryHarpy (talk) 07:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all the above. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:47, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DD as in Definitely delete Wikipedia is not an obituary page. God bless my Dr., I hope he does not die but he could be the first Arizona Dr to die of this horrible disease. I still wouldn't write about him on WP. Antonio cooloco Martin (here) 14:21, May 29, 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OBITUARY, WP:GNG, you know the rest. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:17, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Ref ^(chew)(do) 17:30, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete article fails WP:GNG, WP:ONEEVENT, and WP:OBITUARY. Inter&anthro (talk) 20:13, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS, WP:OBITUARY. Gotitbro (talk) 04:29, 1 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 17:45, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danni Rouge[edit]

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

Fails WP:SINGER and WP:GNG. Main claim to notability is that she was featured in a song by Manufactured Superstars, who themselves have had doubts about their notability since 2017. Also, no reliable sources - the only references are to blogs, magazines which have no reliability, and a single tweet from Travie McCoy about the song she was featured on, to claim "critical acclaim". Not to mention that the writing style is absolutely written from a fan's perspective, potentially even the artist herself... SpringDay03 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. SpringDay03 (talk) 01:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom - no evidence of notability. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:25, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:36, 1 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Advisory Board Crystals[edit]

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

Reviewed as part of New Page Patrol. This article was originally nominated for DYK, but it ended up being pulled from the main page due to concerns about notability and promotional tone (see discussion here and here). Taking a good look at the sources, I agree with the notability concerns. Most of the sources (both in the article and found through WP:BEFORE) are just announcements of new products, which fail WP:CORPDEPTH and have a highly advertorial tone, complete with prices, online shopping links, and Instagram glamour shots: see [59][60][61][62][63][64], etc. Most of the sources that actually discuss the company in detail are interviews (fails WP:ORGIND): [65] [66] [67]. This one isn't, but I can't find any information on Highsnobiety's editorial policies, and this page does not inspire confidence in their journalistic integrity. The brand is certainly mentioned a lot and perhaps I'm just out of touch with the kids these days and their "streetwear", but I'm not sure there's enough here to pass the high bar of WP:NCORP. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. SpicyMilkBoy (talk) 01:36, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SpicyMilkBoy's thorough analysis. I too fail to see anything that indicates actual independent notability rather than aggressive marketing. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:28, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the main author of this page, I am in no way associated with the brand - I didn't write it to be PR fluff in any way. In fact I've never even heard of them before I read that the Wikimedia foundation had made a T-shirt with a fashion brand, and it didn't have it's own Wikipedia page. I object to your interpretation that interviews violate WP:ORGRIND - in which said paragraph doesn't once mention interviews directly. An interview is an acceptable secondary source and unless it can be proven that the interviewer has a vested or explicitly stated commercial interest in promoting the interviewee, then I think it should stand as a citation.

I accept that some of the sources used are too commercial and may not be right for Wiki. However, as per my previous arguments, some of the other sources here are from notable media outlets like Pitchfork, iD and Dazed & Confused and even Vogue - who are all respected publications. As SpicyMilkBoy said themselves, it's been 'mentioned' a lot. So, I personally feel this is a worthy topic for a Wiki page. Lastly, I also object to that condescending 'discussion' on the front page error page being used as an argument for deletion. I was more than a bit concerned that a cited and formatted page was called 'rubbish' and then undemocratically removed from DyK without any consultation from the four/five other editors who had previously signed off on it as per due process.

Also one of the links that was posted as advertorial (#5) was literally not selling anything at all - it was documenting that they had produced a one off design for one of the world's biggest rap groups. The Flying Spaghetti Monster! 16:44, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:ORGIND may not mention interviews, but elsewhere on the page it plainly and explicitly excludes them; Primary sources cannot be used to establish notability. In a business setting, frequently encountered primary sources include...memoirs or interviews by executives. SpinningSpark 18:57, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Of the four sources offered above as particularly notable, the Pitchfork article is not about ABC, it's about Lil Wayne and his merchandising of the Wikipedia tee shirt; The i-D article is not about ABC, it's about the Wikipedia tee shirt; The Dazed site is not about ABC, it's about the Wikipedia tee shirt. In all three the mention of ABC is more or less incidental. The Vogue article is more substantial, but as SpicyMilkBoy says, it is essentially an interview (and it is not even used in the article). It's not enough to get to notability. SpinningSpark 22:57, 5 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, after extended time for discussion. "Keep" arguments align with the pertinent guideline, WP:RPRGM, which states: "an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)", and "the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone". The guideline specifically notes that a single broadcast of a failed pilot episode can be notable if discussed in reliable sources. Whatever else this may be, it is that. BD2412 T 00:04, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gamers' Choice Awards[edit]

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

One-off award show whose only claim to fame seems to be that it caused a lawsuit between its creators[68]? While widely reported on, it appears that the vast majority of sources, other than the Variety one, are churnalistic re-reporting of press releases. Is the Variety article enough to establish notability? I'm of the opinion that it does not. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 04:43, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep It is probably the fact that there was legal action that made the show notable. Obviously I can't use court documents but I can tell right now that the case appears to have been dismissed though there's still issues over attorney's fees and the like. While the awards themselves are churned from press releases, that's usually the same on most other award ceremony lists, but the fact they cover them and decouple the press release format for their own articles show they have some care to the matter. --Masem (t) 05:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lawsuit is 100% not over. Burg has been intentionally using any available means to delay it to avoid having to produce any discovery, hoping he will be able to wait it out. He has claimed sickness, travel, basically anything imaginable. A trial date was scheduled to be issued on 3/22 but this was delayed due to the coronavirus situation, a trial date will be announced in June 2020. JupiterReturn (talk) 17:05, 22 May 2020 (UTC)JupiterReturn[reply]

Keep - This has been a constant NPOV sounding board for the above user who has gone as far to accuse me of being Berg since they cannot use Wikipedia to WP:RGW. The show received in-depth coverage and aired on CBS as a nationally televised award show. It meets WP:GNG. --CNMall41 (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All of the claims within this article hide that the only reason this had a network television timeslot at all was that it used brokered programming time (read the related article CBS Sports Spectacular, which usually follows CBS's NFL games when they don't have a doubleheader game weekend and is a time-buy slot most weeks), rather than the merits of the ceremony itself, to get on TV, which is usually a broad disqualifier for an article here. CBS not only just collected money from the organizers of this ceremony and sold them time (thus why west of the Rockies it aired wherever an otherwise indifferent CBS affiliate could fit it in), but they offered no basic editorial input on the ceremony because the organizer, outside of making sure it met CBS's standards and practices (here 'don't swear, do FCC-license threatening things, or show nudity'), was completely responsible for how it turned out. It's the equivalent of an infomercial, and besides the poor organization and overall show, it doesn't have much WP:N for the actual awards itself. It didn't have a 2019 ceremony. Outside an entry in Video game award, this doesn't justify its article link and can be compressed easily into a smaller paragraph there. Nate • (chatter) 08:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: How can anyone know if an awards program is brokered programming or not? Unless we have an interview with someone involved stating this or it's something that was discussed in third party sources about the show, it's not really something knowable about any TV show. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:37, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even if it's not a recurring event, it's still a CBS special that received coverage at a bunch of different platforms. --Prosperosity (talk) 12:41, 2 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. The assertion that world records confer notability is not backed by any policies or guidelines. Sandstein 10:11, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Gabr[edit]

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

To me this is a classic case of WP:BLP1E for a diver who just happens to be in the Guinness Book of Records. There's no real coverage of this person, apart from setting two very similar world records. It was created by a WP:SPA some six years ago too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:25, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:57, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable diver.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:04, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 10:53, 14 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep World record depth on scuba is a notable achievement in the diving world. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 18:38, 16 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 06:08, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ahmed Gabr is a highly-noticeable Egyptian diver. WP:SPA is not an enough reason for removing such an article IMO. --Ramses Nagib (talk) 19:43, 21 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment User:2003:EF:F716:BD00:590E:3BBE:7DBF:BD84 I think wanted to inform people here of this article regarding Gabr. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on the the basis of WP:1E. Once the dive records are broken, there is no further notability evident. He was once a record holder? Ifnord (talk) 21:39, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One more relist as it's a BLP
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

del 1E applies Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:36, 7 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. Per Less Unless's analysis. Would've redirected to the band if the band was notable, but it isn't. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tonmoy Tansen[edit]

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

WP:BEFORE has shown no IRS (updated: the irs are there, but there's no significant coverage). The subject fails WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Less Unless (talk) 11:53, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 20 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article does seem to cite some independent sourcing, e.g. [69]. I wouldn't simply dismiss the singer as being non-notable. Sjakkalle (Check!) 09:58, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment notability is defined by multiple independent reliable sources. There are also specific notability guidelines, but the subject fails them as well. One source, the half of which can't be used cause it's direct speech, doesn't prove the subject is notable. Less Unless (talk) 13:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. If the band the subject used to sing with was notable, it could be redirected there - but it isn't. If the only notable thing was writing for a film, then WP:1E would apply and the subject still isn't notable. Ifnord (talk) 21:32, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person has been cited in notable national media of Bangladesh. There might be more sources in their native language.Beritagsier (talk) 22:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Primefac (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 00:11, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The sources in the article:The Daily Star, Dhaka Tribune, BBC Bangla, The Independent, bdnews24.com, Prothom Alo, and Samakal, are some of the largest and most reputable news outlets in Bangladesh. They are reliable sources for pop culture and other things that newspapers are usually reliable for.

@Less Unless: Would you expand on your statement that there are "no IRS"? One of the cited sources is a primary source interview that is lacking in independence, if that's what your "I" stands for. What is your analysis of why the other 14 sources aren't "IRS"?

@Ifnord: The article, perhaps written by someone whose first language isn't English, is hard to follow. To clarify, Tansen is still a member of the Vikings (his quitting lasted all of 24 hours). The band is a red link, but that doesn't necessarily mean they aren't notable. Their heyday was the late 1990s, and very little Bangladeshi material from that period is available online, so proving it one way or another wouldn't be quick or easy. Also, although he may have written songs for Shabnam Ferdousi's film Ajob Karkhana and his own Run Out (the sources are unclear), he also directed the films Run Out and Podmo Patar Jol (transliterations vary) as well as performed the music for the former and wrote the screenplay for the latter. He still might not meet WP:MUSICBIO or WP:CREATIVE, but could meet WP:GNG without WP:1E applying. --Worldbruce (talk) 00:28, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Worldbruce: Hello! I agree the wording in my nomination was rather misleading as IRS are there ( i will add this to the nomination), however the coverage of the subject is not significant. All the articles have 1-2 trivial mentions saying he is a director and a vocalist. WP:GNG requires in depth coverage about the subject - directly and in detail.

I'll go through the links, but i'll start from source number 5 as the first 4 sources were added after my nomination

source 5 this - can be used to support the fact he was a lead singer and director of some movies (not named) and that he left the band - does this article talks about him in depth - I don't think so, does it indicate his notability - vaguely - it's more about the band and the notability is not hereditary
source 6 this - one mention that he was a director of a movie and a lead singer - again, the mention is rather trivial, the article doesn't talk about the subject in depth
source 7 this - again a short mention that he was a screenwriter and director of a film - is it significant coverage? no.

Now let's go through the 4 refs added after the nomination

source 1 this - can't be used as it's direct speech
source 2 this - this link could be used apart from the direct speech
source 3 this - can be used to support the fact he left the band
source 4 this - absolutely the same as the previous - can't be used

Matti Järvinen (ice hockey, born 1984)[edit]

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

Stub article has no sources and is not noteable under WP:NHOCKEY. DarthFlappy ^«Talk» 00:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy ^«Talk» 00:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. DarthFlappy ^«Talk» 00:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets WP:NHOCKEY #1 by playing games in Liiga. Ejgreen77 (talk) 00:23, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, duh, The article still needs to be renamed, but I will do that after this AfD gets closed. Keep! (can I can delete my own AfD request?) DarthFlappy ^«Talk» 00:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DarthFlappy, AfD closed as withdrawn. Java Hurricane 02:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamil Tolon[edit]

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

Not PD and probably cross-wiki creation spam Hulalup (talk) 00:33, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There are plenty of references in the article, including several in the national dailies Sabah and Hürriyet. He may not seem terribly interesting but multiple reliable independent sources think otherwise. Mccapra (talk) 02:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Mccapra: If you know Turkish or know someone who does it might help to list the relevant articles. Wikipedia:Notability_(people)#Basic_criteria states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." Generally if this is the case, the guy is notable. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 02:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I can read Turkish. If I have time this evening I will go through and describe all the sources provided. I haven’t examined them all yet but my sense is that this is an unusual article in that the subject seems very famous for not very much - basically re-inventing the washing machine, as far as I can see. So ultimately the question for us may be what we do if lots of good Turkish sources talk about this as a great achievement, while the rest of the world is left scratching their heads.

And that's fine if the sources are all in Turkish: reliable sources may be in any language. See Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources WhisperToMe (talk) 09:08, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Ok this is what I have. He appears to be the a Turkish equivalent of Herbert William Hoover or James Dyson. His role as the founder of a major Turkish white goods brand isn’t clearly spelled out in the article. The sources are:

1. Substantial in depth piece by independent journalist in national daily newspaper

2. Ditto though the article is mostly about the company. Nevertheless clearly supports notability

3. YouTube video, discounted for notability

4. 5. 6. 7. 12. 18. Biography by the Bursa Chamber of Commerce, of which Tolon was a founder. It is certainly substantial and in depth. Independent in the sense that a long dead man didn’t influence its content, but not what we’d call independent scholarship.

8. 13. A book I can’t access. Looks similar to the previous one - celebratory account.

9. Is about the firm not its founder so doesn’t have a bearing on notability

10. Mentions the subject but mostly about the factory building

11. Significant coverage. I’m not familiar with Ekohaber but it doesn’t look like a junk source to me.

14. Can’t access this but it looks like probably a fairly minor mention. No opinion on the source itself.

15. Can’t access but likely to be mainly about the factory with relatively little coverage of the man

16. Quote about the subject by his grandson. Disregarding for notability.

17. List confirming he was chamber of commerce president. Irrelevant for notability.

Overall looks to me like notability is established. Mccapra (talk) 21:06, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Mccapra (talk) 18:40, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mccapra WhisperToMe (talk) 16:39, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Mccapra--Yiğitcank (talk) 16:43, 3 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.

[1] "The five stages of an art world scandal". The Art Newspaper. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

[2] Grovier, Kelly. "The artworks that caused a scandal". BBC Culture. Retrieved 2020-05-29.

[3] Barrett, Cyril (1962). "The Scandal of Modern Art". Studies: An Irish Quarterly Review. 51 (201): 117–134. ISSN 0039-3495.

[radice-4] Bienstock, Richard (September 1, 2011), Aerosmith: The Ultimate Illustrated History of the Boston Bad Boys, Minneapolis, Minnesota: Voyageur Press, p. 82, ISBN 978-0760341063, retrieved November 17, 2017

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]