Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 April	13 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nové Spojení 2[edit]

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

seems purely speculative DGG ( talk ) 23:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, from the article's lead: ".. construction could (my emphasis) begin by 2030.", a tad WP:TOOSOON/crystally? Coolabahapple (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as TOOSOON per above. Nightfury 09:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clout News[edit]

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

Start-up website is not yet notable. I couldn't find any references other than the ones in the article, which consist of a paragraph in a profile of the owner, an article written by a Clout News writer, and an article in RESPECT which is very similar to the Clout News writer's article, both containing hand-wavy claims of "traffic" and "growth" with no real specifics (both read more like planted press than serious coverage to me). Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 23:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom, as not notable.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eye Judah[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article discuss the subject. As a matter, majority of them are promotional links to the subject's music; the remaining refs are about the non-notable accolades he garnered. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. None of the awards and nominations he was a recipient of are notable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the sources are passing mentions of the subject (which are not reliable), and some of them cite his songs, which are primary sources. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 15:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Ilaban Natin Yan!. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:12, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Ilaban Natin Yan! episodes[edit]

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

The main page is a three-sentence stub. There is no need to have a separate page for the episodes. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That would make this a merge request, not a deletion one, and so one that should not have been taken to AFD. postdlf (talk) 15:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into main article which is small, no need for seperate article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The show has more than 5 episodes since it first aired. Since it's ongoing, the list will be expanded for the succeeding weeks. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not interested in looking for an argument in this AfD. So, I won't reply any further. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider revising WP:SIZERULE. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 15:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 23:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Ilaban Natin Yan!. As stated in the nomination, the main article is a three sentence stub, having a seperate page for the episodes is unnecessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Ilaban Natin Yan!. The parent article is small enough to absorb the list of episodes. --Lenticel ^(talk) 02:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. The parent article barely have any content. The episode list shouldn't be separated.TheHotwiki (talk) 03:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Asumadu[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Majority of the article's references are promotional links to the subject's music. The remaining sources are interviews he granted with blog sources. The article is simply a promotional piece. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I see a consensus to keep, as arguments have been made that the subject meets both WP:PROF#C4 and WP:PROF#C1. No one has contested that, so as it stands, I believe consensus exists to keep. (non-admin closure) --Puddleglum ^2.0_{(How's my driving?)} 17:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winfield Hill[edit]

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

Only source cited is to a self-published website; an outside search did not turn up significant coverage. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't assert any of the significant points in the criteria under WP:PROF and it's been flagged for years as problematic. --Wtshymanski (talk) 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. His book The Art of Electronics has huge citations on Google Scholar (over 5000); see e.g. [1] or [2] for a recent review. (His other citation counts are not so impressive, especially if you exclude patents.) In fact, I think a lot of the difficulty with finding more material for the article is that the book is so successful that it drowns out all other search results. With one notable book and not much else I would normally suggest redirecting to an article on the book, but I think that directing an institute at Harvard, being a co-author on a widely-publicized technique for catalyzing CO [3], and founding a company whose instruments are the subject of multiple independent publications [4] [5] [6] should be enough to save this from WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are some more reviews of the book at doi:10.1017/S0263574700010717 and doi:10.1113/expphysiol.1981.sp002597. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep "Horowitz and Hill" is one of those texts that is so standard, it is known by the authors' names. It's canonical, like "Jackson" for electromagnetism or "Nielsen and Chuang/Mike and Ike" for quantum information. You'll find it in syllabi all over the place — [7][8][9][10][11][12], and then I stopped looking. That's a pass of WP:PROF#C4. Any "only notable for the one thing" concerns are alleviated by the other points raised by David Eppstein above. XOR'easter (talk) 16:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it's not "only notable for the one thing" but "only notable for the one event". Most notable people are only notable for one thing. Having 5000 sources citing him is 5000 events, not one. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Passes WP:Prof#C1 easily. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to The Art of Electronics since that's what he's primarily known for. b uidhe 00:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sepideh Mohammadian[edit]

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

Non-notable writer, no coverage, no reviews, fails GNG, I did a thorough research about her and couldn't find anything showing her notability. Mardetanha (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Mardetanha (talk) 13:49, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Weak Keep: The article is not written well but Ilna and Mehr news agencies assert some notability. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 13:06, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 23:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pocono Ranch Lands, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Large subdivision/~~census tract~~ census-designated place, does not meet WP:GEOLAND #2. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC) –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 16:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly passes GEOLAND #1 as a legally recognized place, a census-designated place. Not to be confused with a census tract which is a different entity. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per EDDY above.Djflem (talk) 16:22, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm going with weak keep as we have generally held CDPs to be notable enough. Mangoe (talk) 17:08, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is not evidence in our WP:SNG to show that CDPs are inherently notable - they are essentially Census-tracts which must pass WP:GEOLAND#2. Since this does not pass SNG this would have to pass GNG. Lightburst (talk) 20:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Census-designated places are explicitly different from census tracts in the US; the only real similarity is that they're both defined by the Census Bureau. While the entire country is divided into census tracts, including large incorporated cities and completely uninhabited areas, census-designated places that the Census Bureau determines should be counted as places despite not being incorporated. This amounts to official government recognition of census-designated places as named communities, which means they pass WP:GEOLAND. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:27, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I do not believe there is any consensus regarding Census-designated places passing WP:GEOLAND. It appears the keep !votes are WP:IAR. Lightburst (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

The consensus per WP:GEOLAND say: "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it.", not delete.Djflem (talk) 19:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 23:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Party for the Progress of Griñón[edit]

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

Non-notable local political party active in a town of roughly 10,000 people in central Spain. Clearly does not pass our notability guidelines. Darwinek (talk) 22:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Darwinek (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Darwinek (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 23:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Local anythings whether, electoral or political, are just not notable per WP:NPOL. Bearian (talk) 19:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambika Prasad Divya[edit]

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

Per a WP:BEFORE search, I could not find anything relating to RS on this author. I saw he wrote three books, not the sixty claimed in the article. The first reference (of two references) ~~does not mention the subject~~ is the subject's own work, and therefore not an RS. Kbabej (talk) 23:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scata Bada[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the accolades he has received are notable. All of the references cited in the article are either promotional links to the subject's music or sources about the non-notable awards. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Demographics of Mauritius#Ethnic groups. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritian of British origin[edit]

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

Subject doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG. One of the two sources cited establishes that there is a small community of British immigrants in Mauritius, but says nothing about Mauritians of British origin. The other source is a guidance document for British nationals living in Mauritius. A search hasn't revealed any other potential sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 22:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article harkens back to a certain style of article we used to see more of at WP:AFD -- the "Fooian Barian" ethnicity article. These articles would explain that Fooian Barians are people living in the country of Bar whose ancestry is from the country of Foo, that they speak the primary languages of Bar and Foo, they are found in the major cities of Bar, and practice the most common religions of Foo and Bar, but didn't provide any information the reader couldn't have guessed from the article title. The only nonobvious statement in this article is that 1% of the Mauritian population is of British descent -- but that statement isn't supported by either of its cited sources. It might seem to make sense to redirect this to White Mauritians, but that article is currently up for speedy deletion itself. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 23:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. I think it would make sense if this article was merged with White Mauritanians into Demographics of Mauritius#Ethnic groups to gain WP:GNG --Zoozaz1 (talk)

I'd agree with that if reliable sources could be found that discuss Mauritians of British ancestry, Zoozaz1, but I'm not sure they exist. Apparently the Mauritian census doesn't ask about ethnicity, so even basic figures are hard to come by. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do agree that there are certainly very few sources on British Mauritanians, which is why they should not have their own article, but according to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 they do exist, and according to the census here there is a significant population whose parents spoke English and who belong to the Church of England, all of which lead me to believe that there is some sort of British community on the island. We could include a sentence on the Demographics of Mauritius saying just that there is a small British community on the island and delete this article. User:Zoozaz1 (talk)

These sources are about a slightly different topic, though: British migrants to Mauritius, rather than Mauritians of British ancestry (although I suppose some of the former are likely to be naturalised Mauritian citizens). Cordless Larry (talk) 19:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, that's a fair point, I suppose we could delete it, although I would still prefer a mention in passing on the demographics page (maybe when it talks about Europeans). Zoozaz1 (talk)

Merge (smerge) with a very brief mention needed. Bearian (talk) 19:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:08, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventures of the Road Runner[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable sources. — Jeff G. ツ 02:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

visible? Have you done a WP:BEFORE? Atlantic306 (talk) 02:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner, as all other potential redirect targets are either up for deletion or clearly not notable. This article fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG, I could find no reliable reviews of this film and no secondary sources discuss it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 22:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. User:Geo Swan added three references to the article this week. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the relible book sources added to the article since nomination that make deletion no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the sources added are nothing more than passing mentions, and therefore do not contribute to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this move is part of one of the historic great series of animation.Pikavoom (talk) 09:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Wile E. Coyote and the Road Runner. Nobody has demonstrated this unaired film received more than a passing mention here and there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trees of Eternity[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMUSIC. Poorly referenced. Contested PROD & A7. — Jeff G. ツ 02:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Given the involvement of notable musicians and coverage from Metal Hammer, Metal Hammer (German magazine), Rock Hard, and others such as [13]. --Michig (talk) 09:43, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 22:43, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I usually agree with Michig, who voted above, but in my view the found sources are little more than announcements about the band's formation, simply because it had those two notable members. I can find nothing beyond those and a few others of a similar nature, plus the typical social media and industry listings. This group can be mentioned in the articles for the two notable members. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While there are reliable sources on the subject, the lack of significant coverage argument plus existing consensus of BLP1E/MEMORIAL and this being unchallenged by the keeps puts this in delete territory. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peg Broadbent[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - sources cited and WP:BEFORE search show notability is due to death Melcous (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: while it's entirely fitting to acknowledge his untimely death, Wikipedia is not the best place to do this. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:37, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge with Jefferies Group per WP:MEMORIAL and WP:BLP1E. Lacks notability for individual article. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 07:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Wall Street executive. Credited with doubling the size of his company. He is covered by multiple news sources in US and UK.SWP13 (talk) 15:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doubling the size of a company is so common an occurrence that it's easily not noteworthy. And if he's covered by multiple news sources, knowing the kind of coverage and where (links?) is necessary for determining inclusion in the Wikipedia. The current citations in the article are not enough for WP:N. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MEMORIAL. Coverage external to his unfortunate passing is ordinary business reporting. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 15:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the bio is notable enough that it is covered by FT, Forbes, Bloomberg, WSJ, and Business Insider (all reputed publications in business). What else need to pass WP:GNG? Störm (talk) 17:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Subject also made headlines due to his death from COVID-19. Had he passed from any other ailment he likely still wouldn't have an article. Clear case of BLP1E. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 17:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or alternate merge with Jefferies Group: per Nom, Dom Kaos, and Stevietheman. While I feel for anyone hit with the virus and struggle to avoid it at all cost, Wikipedia is not a memorial. Also swung to delete per User:SWP13. The rationale that the subject is a "Wall Street executive" that doubled the size of his company, as evidence of notability, could be considered ludicrous. That would be the broadest criteria imaginable, allowing for thousands of otherwise non-notable corporate executives to qualify for articles. All it would take would be a couple of good quarters, possibly a couple of mentions in a trade magazine, and we would be inundated with pseudo biographical stubs. Otr500 (talk) 23:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Broadbent is at least as significant as a lot of other folks who have their own article. And often there's more information available about a person in obits and such - once they have died. Breffni Whelan (talk) 05:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those are arguments we use for deciding to keep an article. Please consider WP:GNG and if you can find sufficient reporting outside of the obits, please feel free to provide them, here or in the article. Stevie is the man! ^{Talk • Work} 14:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Nothing notable to be found outside of obituaries. Sad, but true, being important to your company and your family does not mean you merit a Wikipedia page.--Egghead06 (talk) 07:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV: excellent sourcing, as good as there can be - Bloomberg, FN, Reuters. Bearian (talk) 15:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment No such coverage until after his death, however, and the article has next to no content. Cause of death a major factor in his getting such coverage. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 02:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Non-notable executive. Only reason for coverage is the current pandemic. Does not pass GNG — JFG ^talk 07:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: We have a CFO, a position that carries zero presumption of notability, and sources that are generally considered reliable, so there is a "consideration" that this alone presents notability? The subject was also listed in USA today. The vast majority of the references, report the death of an individual from the infamous coronavirus.

1)- Bloomberg states: "Jefferies Financial Group Inc. said...", Friedman said Sunday in an emailed statement. “We are heartbroken..."

2)- Forbs stated: "Jefferies announced on Sunday...", and contains "“We are heartbroken..."

3)- Reuters reported: "Jefferies Group Inc (JEF.N), an investment bank focused on mid-sized companies, said on Thursday" (report of the hiring of the subject)

4)- The WSJ: "The 56-year-old chief financial officer of investment bank Jefferies has died from the coronavirus, the firm said Sunday."

These are the same type of "press releases" (Those promoting causes or events, or issuing public service announcements, even if noncommercial, should use a forum other than Wikipedia to do so.), adding to the "list" of "obituary notices", that more than likely came from the same source.

The position (CFO) is not notable and dying from the "coronavirus disease" (while tragic) is surely not notable. If there were 100 like press releases, by reputable and reliable sources, all "excellent and providing significant coverage of the death", it would still be 100 instances of the same event. Otr500 (talk) 08:36, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 21:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete BIO1E b uidhe 00:50, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No valid reason for deletion has been presented. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:19, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First Jordan Hydro-Electric Power House[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of Naharayim. Per policy: all facts and major points of view on a certain subject should be treated in one article. Therefore the fork is nominated for deletion. Infinity Knight (talk) 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Jordan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Unclear what POV a split is pushing. Naharayim is about the area, its political status, and the general history. This article is about the power plant that is also notable. A merge may be considered of course. Reywas92^Talk 03:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This is a fork to some extent, but not a POVFORK to any extent. Editors should be given a chance to decide how to divide this area into articles, which is a more complicated task than this AfD suggests. Zero^talk 04:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge No reason to this WP:POVFORK to exist under POV name and even if its was not POV no reason to have two articles about the same place.If its article to be kept it should be renamed to WP:COMMONNAME Naharayim Power Plant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shrike (talk • contribs) 13:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a picture of the brass plate at the entrance lobby?Selfstudier (talk) 18:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Selfstudier, Does it matter?We go by WP:COMMONAME. Shrike (talk) 18:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I admit to not having looked for it. Pretty sure that "Rutenberg power station" would beat your idea by a country mile (like the Ashkelon plant). But that's not really the point, the plant no longer existing and all that.Selfstudier (talk) 21:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does the plant no longer being functional have to do with WP:COMMONNAME? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we already had this discussion on the other page. At the moment, it's just a keep or not discussion so no need to go through it all again.Selfstudier (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't see the WP:POVFORK concern at all. This is about the building, the other article is about the geography of the confluence. SportingFlyer T·C 18:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There's no conflict between the two articles. The building is almost certainly notable per WP:GEOFEAT. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Nika2020 (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep This article is about a specific building. The Naharayim article is about a wider area which includes the Naharayim train station and the Naharayim agricultural settlement. No support, evidence or explanation has been provided for the use of the term “POV” in the nomination, so we are left with no policy-based rationale for this discussion. Onceinawhile (talk) 20:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Divine Divine[edit]

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

A non-notable gospel group that fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. All of the sources cited in the article are either unreliable or inaccessible. A Google search of the group doesn't show coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:54, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 21:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HD 156279 c[edit]

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

Fails WP:NASTRO. Zero journal papers published solely about this planet or it and a small number of others. The only reference I found was the discovery paper, and even that was as part of a batch of new exoplanets. Effectively no popular coverage. No apparent uniquely notable features. Lithopsian (talk) 20:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find sources either. I'm going to go ahead and nominate HD 156279 b for deletion as well as I believe it too has no journal articles covering it or anything beyond trivial coverage. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Agreed on the above points. At best, for low-notability multi-planet systems like this, a single article could cover the properties of the star and its planets. That would be much better than having a separate article on each planet. Aldebarium (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

J. J. Milan[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. This article was PROD'd in 2012, but that was contested with the edit summary "a news search shows that the subject meets the GNG which is sufficient for notability even w/o meeting WP:ATH". I found some coverage in the Reno Gazette-Journal, but only passing mentions elsewhere. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 20:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet even our ludicrously low notability standards for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As Eagles247 notes, we need to see significant coverage in other outlets to support a keep decision, but there is extraordinarily extensive coverage in the Reno Gazette-Journal, e.g., (1) "Decision pays off for Milan", 9/7/01; (2) "Pack's oft-injured Milan suffers another setback", 4/1/06; (3) "Nevada shaking things up on defense; The File on J.J. Milan", 3/4/05; (4) "Milan a force on the line", 8/19/03; (5) "Wooster coach: Milan chooses Nevada", 12/7/01; and (6) "A long, grueling road back", 8/10/06. 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep. I am finding some significant coverage in outlets beyond Reno. Putting it all together, I conclude that WP:GNG is satisfied. Further examples of coverage include: (7) "Nevada end happy and healthy, for once", Chillicothe (OH) Gazette (non-Nevada), 8/24/06; (8) "Former Wooster Colt figures prominently in Pack’s defensive plans", Tahoe Daily Tribune, 8/16/05; (9) "Milan glad to be back for Wolf Pack", Nevada Appeal, 12/28/06; and to a lesser extent, (10) Milan is out for the season", Nevada Appeal, 8/30/05. Cbl62 (talk) 01:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, per the sources provided by Cbl62. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cbl62's hard work.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 05:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically we're at 18 delete to 37 keep, which is clearly no consensus to delete but also not quite a consensus to keep. Because this discussion is not a vote, however, I also need to look at the arguments that are being made on both sides and scrutinize them in the light of our relevant policies and guidelines.

The "keep" side points to the media coverage and, as a result, the notability this topic has obtained, whereas the "delete" side thinks this is a WP:NOTNEWS issue and a POV fork. Both of these lines of argument are in principle valid in that they are based on our policies and guidelines, but both also have their weak points: With respect to the "keep" side, just because something has coverage in reliable sources does not mean we have to cover it in a separate article, but we can make an editorial judgment about whether coverage in existing articles is sufficient. On the "delete" side, it's a bit difficult for me to understand how exactly this is supposed to be a (non-neutral) POV fork of an existing article, or how it is supposed to be a WP:BLP violation, or merely an aggregation of news reports (we normally use WP:NOTNEWS to dismiss routine media coverage of unimportant events). Under these circumstances, I cannot dismiss the "delete" arguments entirely and find a "keep" consensus, but I certainly cannot give the "delete" arguments decisive weight and override the "keep" majority.

Ultimately, I suspect the distribution of opinions here reflects (in addition to possible political preferences) a disagreement about whether we give these allegations due weight in light of their political and societal importance and credibility, as reflected in reliable sources, by covering them in a separate article. That is a point made by several people mostly on the "delete" side, and to me it is the core of the policy issue here, which is why I regret that discussion has not focused more on this question. But it is something that we as Wikipedians need to make a collective editorial judgment about, not something that I can decide as closer of the discussion. As things are now, the balance of opinion is about 2:1 in favor of treating this topic separately, and this means that under our rules the article is for now kept by default for lack of a consensus to delete it. This does not prevent continued discussion of the question of due weight, such as in the course of an RfC or a merger discussion. Sandstein 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden assault allegation[edit]

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

Per WP:POVFORK, if not WP:CSD#G10. If this subject is to be covered, it should be done in the context of Joe Biden. Currently there is an RfC in progress to determine if the material conforms to WP:BLP and WP:NPOV. See Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article? Several of the sources cited for this article are not WP:BLPSOURCES reliable. - MrX 🖋 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - MrX 🖋 19:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per MrX and WP:POVFORK. Left unchecked, this could easily become another Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. KidAd (talk) 19:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that Media coverage of Bernie Sanders has been nominated for deletion three times and the results were no consensus, speedy keep, no consensus. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Surely there is room in the Biden article for this, assuming it even rates that at this point. O3000 (talk) 20:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per wp:SUMMARY STYLE. It's my understanding that when media controversies or legal issues have enough sourcing to pass notability hurdles, WP practice is to dedicate a separate article to their coverage thereby avoiding undo weight issues within main biographies.--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 20:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Every reason for deletion listed above is demonstrably untrue.

As of my latest edit, every single source used on the page has been discussed and found reliable for BLP use on the reliable sources noticeboard, and I intend to check any new sources added and remove any that fail BLPSOURCES.

G10 specifically says "...entirely negative in tone and unsourced" (emphasis added). This one is in The New Your Times and The Guardian.

We have many similar pages that are not considered POV forks, including:

Bill Clinton sexual misconduct allegations,

Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations,

Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations,

Kobe Bryant sexual assault case,

Jimmy Savile sexual abuse scandal,

Roman Polanski sexual abuse case.

Arguments that this is a POV fork ignore the clear wording of that policy. What, exactly are the two POVs?

~~The RfC in question has not closed~~, The RfC was closed with a result overwhelmingly in favor of inclusion of the material, so any "this page was an end-run against consensus" arguments should be ignored by the closer.

As for whether to cover this in the main Biden page only, that page is already huge. As is the case with the pages I listed above, trying to cram a complex allegation like this into an already too-big page will not allow us to give the topic sufficient WP:WEIGHT.

--Guy Macon (talk) 20:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC) Edited 14:07, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, none of those articles are about subjects that are similar in the extent of coverage in this case, and several of them are about multiple allegations which makes the comparison especially unapt. - MrX 🖋 21:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Washington Post headline: Sexual assault allegation by former Biden Senate aide emerges in campaign, draws denial - NYTimes headline: Examining Tara Reade’s Sexual Assault Allegation Against Joe Biden, and there are multiple other RS with similar headlines. The current Biden article is 85kb so according to WP:TOOBIG we should be dividing when it's over 60kb and to most certainly divide at 100kb. When we add the sexual assault section, it will take it over the top, so this article is warranted. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linking to headlines does not demonstrate this single incident is on par with the history associated with the subjects in the other listed articles. All it shows is this single accusation had made it to the newspapers. These headlines and commensurate articles do not demonstrate that this has a lasting impact, which is a criteria for a stand alone article on a given topic. Even though WAPO and NYT are considered reliable sources, this just proves this is news, and does not demonstrate lasting significance which is needed per WP:N and WP:UNDUE. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's very little to be said about Tara Reade's allegation. At most, two to three sentences will be sufficient. I assure you, that wont break Joe Biden. - MrX 🖋 20:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and expand to include the full list of Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations. I believe we are up to 8 or 9 women who have publicly come forward to accuse Joe Biden. Many of the allegations are on videotape. We should probably rename the page to Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations to make sure they all get under the same banner and avoid redundancies. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:D976:4355:8684:E49A (talk) 20:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ This IP range is a WP:SPA. ^ - MrX 🖋 21:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ This user has never made an edit that includes potentially harmful material to a liberal, a liberal organization, or liberalism as a whole. ^ As far as your personal attack goes, I am currently interested in this subject because the coordinated attempt to sweep the mounting sexual misconduct allegations against Joe Biden under the rug disturbs me greatly. Once it's resolved, I want to move on to other topics. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:D976:4355:8684:E49A (talk) 03:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is a pretty obvious sock of User:Hidden Tempo. Volunteer Marek 06:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a notable event , covered by reliable sources, including the New York Times. Covering a well-publicized scandal related to a public figure based on reliable sources is so far from meeting WP:CSD#G10 that editors should be embarrassed to make such a claim. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 21:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Guy Macon. Edit: Now that the RfC has finished in favour of retaining some of this info on the Joe Biden article, I think my !vote is even more firmly in 'keep' territory. There is simply a lot of info tht wouldn't be DUE for his article but can be included here. — Insertcleverphrasehere ^{(or here)}_{(click me!)} 22:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Right now, the article is a mini-stub that appears to have little room for growth without turning into a POVfork or a BLP mess (both of which you can make a case arguing it already is). Much better to mention this allegation in either the main Joe Biden article or the 2020 campaign article, if at all. — Chevvin 22:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename. The article title sounds like Biden punched someone in the nose, it's incredibly misleading. It was a sexual assault allegation, and the title should absolutely reflect that. This story is all over the web, including articles today from NYT and New York Magazine. petrarchan47 คุ ก 23:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good catch. After this AfD closes and if the page survives I will propose a rename to Joe Biden assault allegation, which I expect will see little opposition. Let's get this AfD over first. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect into Joe Biden - The "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section is already longer than this article. If the section becomes too long, the separate article would be adequate (WP:SPINOFF) where the section would become a short summary and the article would expand. —Paleo Neonate – 23:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Per WP:SS I would prefer that the "Allegations of inappropriate physical contact" section be moved here, if for no other reason than the fact that being in the main article makes the material more prominent and read by more people, and Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations is a separate article. We need to avoid any hint of Wikipedia favoring one candidate over another. --Guy Macon (talk) 23:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
To move the section completely would be favoring one candidate over another. Trump's article does still have a section about sexual allegations in his bio. petrarchan47 คุ ก 02:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Per WP:SS the main article gets a paragraph or two and a link to the detailed article. This should happen with both Biden and Trump. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have striked my !vote as it makes no sense in the context of the now-expanded article. —Paleo Neonate – 12:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep - with a suggestion to move it to Joe Biden sexual assault allegations. We should not mislead readers into thinking Biden may have assaulted some man with a baseball bat. ^{Already moved?} His behavior is best defined as sexual impropriety because of the manner in which he made physical contact, and the fact that he made the recipients of his advances extremely uncomfortable. So far, Meade is the first to describe her alleged sexual assault as going beyond what other women have described. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Adding - Reade filed a criminal complaint, and provided a police report about Biden's sexual assault. Guilty or innocent, the seriousness of the allegation, depth of media coverage and Biden being a presidential candidate elevates this to a strong keep if not a snow keep. 01:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge in to Joe Biden for now, because of WP:CANVASS and WP:BLP issues. The fewer articles we need to monitor and keep neutral about this issue, the better, at least until the election. Samboy (talk) 04:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete MrX has it right (as usual). This might belong in the Biden article, but there is nothing here to warrant a separate article. Ratatosk Jones (talk) 05:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (a move that can be done boldly IMO). Front page coverage on NYT and WaPo, with every other major outlet rolling out stories as well, gives us enough material for a stand-alone page, and too much material for WP:DUE coverage at Joe Biden. I agree with a paragraph or so at Joe Biden and a hatnote to this page, which can have more in-depth coverage. Levivich ^{[dubious – discuss]} 06:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I disagree with you, but just as another point of discussion, I'm curious why there isn't a stronger push to rename this article to "sexual assault allegations" (plural), or "sexual misconduct allegations." Tara Reade's story is by far the most serious and violent, but we have several other women who have come forward to accuse Joe Biden of sexual misconduct. I believe the total stands at 8 or 9 currently. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:A92F:87F9:CFBF:E022 (talk) 14:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status and summary: Although some people are saying to delete and move the content into the Joe Biden article, such an opinion is actually a keep vote because merge is a type of keep. Consequently, there is an overwhelming consensus at this point to keep the content. There is also a parallel RFC ongoing that will decide how much of the content to keep and how to present it. If that RFC decides to add a "Sexual assault allegation" section to the Joe Biden article, it's going to end up being a summary with a link to this article. The arguments that "Joe Biden assault allegation" is a misleading title seem convincing and are unopposed. There appears to be a consensus to keep and rename the article to "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" and close this AfD. It is bad form to run two parallel discussions because it's not efficient use of time and attention and could lead to inconsistency. It's unnecessary to start an AfD while a parallel RfC is ongoing. I think it would be wise to rename now and then merge if the RfC decides a merge is appropriate. I'm going to await comments before possibly doing anything, and any other administrator who comes along and sees fit to wrap this up could do so. Jehochman ^Talk 14:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ummm... no, that's not how this works at all. A "merge" vote is a "merge" vote not a keep vote. A merge vote means delete the present article but preserve whatever content is useful somewhere else. This is some wacky logic here. Volunteer Marek 06:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only because of the personal attack, and mis-statement of policy and customs, but also because of your history of conflict with other editors, your opinion carries little weight with me. Jehochman ^Talk 12:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't particularly care whether my opinion carries weight with you or not. The comment was for the benefit of discussion in general. Your description of how policy (and "customs") works is just plain wrong and seeing as you've been around for quite awhile that is actually quite shocking. And it may be a good idea to not make personal attacks yourself in the same comment in which you falsely accuse others of making personal attacks. Volunteer Marek 06:53, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article is inappropriately named and is misleading because it doesn't specify "sexual assault". There is no "Brett Kavanaugh assault allegation" article, for example. There is a "Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegation" article, however, but it is just a redirect to the Brett Kavanaugh page. The Tara Reade story should definitely be covered in the Joe Biden and Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign articles. And a "Joe Biden sexual assault allegation" article might be warranted as a redirect. But "Joe Biden assault allegation" should be deleted. Bueller 007 (talk) 15:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bueller 007. Hi. I just wanted to let you know the above is not really an argument for delete. It is probably best to have policy based argumets such as topic or subject fails to meet the relevant notability guideline (WP:N, WP:GNG, WP:BIO) or WP:NPOV, and so on. Or the article breaches Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons. Just FYI. Whatever you think is best. Hope you don't mind. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obviously it is an argument for delete. That an article title is misleading is clearly a concern of an encyclopedia. Bueller 007 (talk) 20:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is an invalid argument for deletion. If the page title is bad, the solution is to rename it, not delete the page. Lots of things are a concern for an encyclopedia; unreliable sources, spam, spelling errors, the list goes on and on. In most cases the answer is to fix the problem, not delete the page. We have a page on this that you should read: Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Pay special attention to Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions#Surmountable problems. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to the above point - while comparisons with other articles are not very relevant to this AFD, for what it's worth, I'd say Brett Kavanaugh sexual assault allegation should obviously be an independent article. There's enough content for it, and like this one it's undeniably notable. But that's a discussion for another day. Robofish (talk) 21:55, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Levivich. This topic clearly meets GNG, and the strong sourcing clarifies any potential BLP issues. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTNEWS. This has only reached the level of unproven accusations. Biden and his organization has denied it. In other words, this is breaking news and speculative all the way around, and does not define him, his candidacy or his organization. This is not a significant event at this time and does not merit its own article per WP:UNDUE. It is merely sensationalism and Wikipedia is not a tabloid. I think more time is needed to see if this has durable impact, probably at least six months. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 16:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 4 elements of WP:NOTNEWS apply here - It is not original reporting by WP, this is not routine coverage of announcements, sports event or celebrity gossip, Biden is very notable , and the event is as well JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project. Seems relevant to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But Muboshgu, if we followed that to the letter, would we not have to delete most of the articles created based entirely on news reports? BLP policy per WP:PUBLICFIGURE clearly states: In the case of public figures, there will be a multitude of reliable published sources, and BLPs should simply document what these sources say. If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it. If you cannot find multiple reliable third-party sources documenting the allegation or incident, leave it out. We have met the qualifications for inclusion. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 14:31, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The alleged victim has bizarrely filed a complaint 27 years after the alleged incident, but refused to name Joe Biden as the alleged perpetrator. And yet Wikipedia is going to jump ahead of her and do so? Maybe Wikipedia's 60 minutes-style investigative journalism team can take over the writing of this article. Maybe the Trump campaign can give them financial support. — goethean 16:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

goethean, Please don't make claims when you don't know whether they are true. Previously we only knew that the Incident report did not name Biden. Incident reports (the document the police releases to the public) typically do not name the accuser or the accused, whether or not the police report (the document that a police officer creates when a crime is reported) contains that information.

We knew nothing about the content of the police report, just what Raede said about it. You were wrong to claim knowledge of what is in the police report ("but refused to name Joe Biden as the alleged perpetrator"). Again, please don't make claims whem you have no way of knowing whether the claims are true.

What we know about the actual police report all changed as of 7 AM ET today (Sunday, 19 April 2020). We now know that your claim above is false.

"NPR obtained confirmation of the police report from a law enforcement source. A record of the report names Biden. NPR has filed a Freedom of Information Act request for the full report."[14]

Of course you didn't know it was false when you posted it, but you didn't know that it was true either.

It will be interesting if and when NPR get the report and publishes it. I see no basis for denying a FOIA request in this case. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is the policy reason you are !voting to delete? Your personal doubts about the complaint's credibility is not one, as I am sure you realize. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 17:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Ford waited 36 years to tell the Washington Post that Kavanaugh pushed her on a bed and laughed. There's no evidence they've even met, yet her claims are immortalized in 10 detailed paragraphs in Kavanaugh's biography. You're not going to get much traction with a "Wikipedia is biased in favor of Trump" complaint. Tara Reade has proved she worked for Biden, has corroboration of the attack, and Joe Biden's article is still admin-locked to prevent even her name from entering his biography. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:78A2:2CE8:72BE:966E (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're not going to get much traction with a "Wikipedia is biased in favor of Trump" complaint.

Well, Wikipedia is brimming with Bernie supporters who are angry that the Democrats nominated a Democrat. — goethean 18:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Goethean, she filed a criminal complaint against Biden. Where are you getting your alleged facts from? Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinformed. She filed an incident report which did not mention Biden. — goethean 18:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are misinformed. She filed a police report, not an incident report (I myself confused the two at first) and we now know that it did name Biden.[15] --Guy Macon (talk) 16:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm... From the source: "A record of the report names Biden." - "A record of the report" is not "the report". Also, it's pretty nasty to call someone misinformed about comment they made that precedes this new information by six days. - MrX 🖋 16:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The NPR source does not state that the "report" was about Biden. It named Biden, and that could very well have been in the course of her explaining why she felt that people were harassing her online. That would be more directly consistent with the statements she's made, knowing that the statute of limitations has lapsed and saying she filed the document "for her safety. The NPR story would be consistent with, pardon the analogy, I tell the police that a burglar made her getaway in a green Ford truck. The police report names a Ford truck. We really need to be careful and patient about this. SPECIFICO talk 16:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

and in subsequent interview a day later, she said the complaint is about him. Move on. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename article is well sourced and follows BLP policy, but I'd rename to sexual assault allegations, not "assault allegations." Sir Joseph ^(talk) 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't seem to be up to speed on the subject of the article. There is only one sexual assault allegation. No 's'. - MrX 🖋 20:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:POVFORK and WP:NOTNEWS. The WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS arguments re: Clinton, Trump, and the others mentioned above should have no bearing here. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of the 4 elements of WP:NOTNEWS apply here - It is not original reporting by WP, this is not routine coverage of announcements, sports event or celebrity gossip, Biden is very notable, and the event is as well Which article do you think this is a POVFORK of? JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^ This. Citing "NOTNEWS" as a reason to hide the fact that a presumptive presidential nominee has been credibly accused by multiple women of sexual misconduct, one of whom has filed a criminal complaint, demonstrates a shocking lack of understanding of basic Wikipedia guidelines. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:91FB:9E23:F11A:B31A (talk) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It won't be hidden if it's covered in the biography, so that argument is a non-starter. The credibility of the accuser has not been firmly established in the sources. If anything, some of the better sources have made suggestions to the contrary. Of course, credibility has no bearing on whether there should be an independent article about a subject that could easily be encapsulated in the main biography. - MrX 🖋 20:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion and Wikipedia is not written in news style. For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia. While including information on recent developments is sometimes appropriate, breaking news should not be emphasized or otherwise treated differently from other information. Timely news subjects not suitable for Wikipedia may be suitable for our sister project Wikinews, though that is not a particularly active project." This applies here. Newsworthiness has not been established to the extent that would support a standalone article. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above paragraph gives examples of what would be news items that are not suitable for articles: "For example, routine news reporting of announcements, sports, or celebrities is not a sufficient basis for inclusion in the encyclopedia.". None of these are remotely comparable to an allegation of criminal conduct by one of the leading presidential candidates. Newsworthiness has been established by extensivcoveragege in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe and virtually every other major US newspaper. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 00:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with OTHERSTUFFEXISTS per the "other" posted articles regarding Clinton, Trump, Bryant, Roy More and so on. There really is no correlation between the coverage in those Wikipedia articles and this, which has no enduring value, and seems like a one-off based on an a accuser with possibly questionable credibility. This story is merely sensational breaking news. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Yes, this "story" has reached the level of newsworthiness as it has been splashed across the pages of major media organizations. But newsworthiness does not equate with the enduring nature of notability. News organizations have a different standard than Wikipedia. They are in the daily news cycle business, Wikipedia is in the notable topic business. A good question to ask is - 10 years from now will this story matter, 20 years from now, or 30 years? At this time, I don't think so. I think we have to see if the story unfolds into anything that really matters beyond being political fodder of the moment. Six months should give some perspective. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 01:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Joe Biden sexual assault allegation.--MONGO (talk) 20:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Joe Biden - Per my !vote in the RfC on that page, I think the content should be included in the article there.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On second thought, KEEP - I had thought merging this into Biden would be the best way to go, but I have been convinced by Jauerback's wise words below. This content belongs somewhere, and if it is not going to get more than a sentence in the Joe Biden article then it belongs here. That might save us all some headache.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is an RfC on renaming this page at Talk:Joe Biden sexual assault allegation#Request for Comment: What should the title of this page be?. --Guy Macon (talk) 18:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Lot of media coverage of multiple women accusing him of various things, and media comments on video footage of him touching people. Dream Focus 22:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as being covered by ample reliable sources. Consider renaming and expanding scope to "Joe Biden sexual misconduct allegations" to cover sexual misconduct other than assault. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 00:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is media coverage in some reliable sources such as WAPO and NYT, but that does not indicate the accusation is notable and deserves a stand-alone article. There is nothing to indicate this accusation will have a lasting meaningful impact on Joe, his campaign, or election. This allegation is far different from previous media coverage about Joe. And since the credibility of the accuser cannot be determined at this time, all the more reason for dispensing with this article. Wikipedia is not in the business of covering salacious allegations in the manner of tabloid - which, fortunately, Wikipedia is not. Wikipedia is also not a gossip column (wp:notgossip) or in the business of scandal mongering (wp:notscandal) to garner an audience. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 00:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID. We can choose to merge later. I doubt we will though. This growing in prominence still. There is no rush to delete. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 03:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lots of solid sourcing. Biden is the presidential candidate. Biden article is where it is mentioned and this article will hold the details. Patapsco913 (talk) 08:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Wikipedia isn't a collection of tabloid gossip and flash-in-the-pan material about momentary events. Neither of those situations apply here. This article, as it stands, needs significant work and particularly ought to have its title altered. However, none of that changes the fact that we're talking about an important subject that has been discussed by totally reliable sources on multiple occasions and is in no way a temporary thing that will get flushed to nothing by the news cycle. The very serious nature of the accusation and the context in which its been reported on matters. A criminal complaint has been filed, after all. This isn't something that won't seem to matter in six more days or even six more months. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this rather obvious end-run around failure to gain consensuis for inclusion elsewhere. Guy (help!) 10:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am having trouble reconciling the above "failure to gain consensus for inclusion elsewhere" claim with the result of Talk:Joe Biden#RfC: Should Tara Reade's sexual assault allegation against Biden be included in the article?. We agree on many things, but in my opinion you have a keen eye for Red Team misbehavior while being somewhat blind to Blue Team misbehavior, and are are up front about it, saying "My team really is better and the other team really is worse". --Guy Macon (talk) 14:09, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the record, the RFC concluded that it should be included in the main bio.[16] So yes, it has consensus elsewhere. PackMecEng (talk) 15:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That RfC does not indicate consensus as to whether the allegation itself is WP:NOTABLE. It doesn't even preclude article text along the lines of "a dubious allegation was promoted across certain media outlets and partisan websites..." SPECIFICO talk 15:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, but it is concensus that something about it belongs which is counter to what Guy was saying. Also there is no reason it has to be true to be notable. As you say the content could be a dubious allegation was promoted across certain media outlets and partisan websites... Personally, I have not made a decision yet if it needs it's own article or not. It was just something I noticed while reading peoples opinions. PackMecEng (talk) 15:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Seems like an important "event" (talking about Tara going public with the allegation). We have Stormy Daniels–Donald Trump scandal - one could argue that the scandal was about a sitting president, however since Joe Biden is a major politician and a presidential candidate, seems to me that this article's existence is justified. BeŻet (talk) 12:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is barely enough RS coverage of this allegation to warrant mentioning it in the Joe Biden article. It's received attention due to persistent internet chatter sustained by an energetic coalition of social justice and political advocates. The most significant RS coverage has told us the allegation per se is either dubious or not credible. The current rush to a separate article would create a POV fork or coatrack. If this changes in the future, we can create a properly sourced standalone article. SPECIFICO talk 14:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a ludicrous claim to make. Newsworthiness has been established by extensive coverage in the New York Times, Washington Post, LA Times, Boston Globe and virtually every other major US newspaper. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 16:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"It's received attention due to persistent internet chatter" (yes, that's called 'journalism') "sustained by an energetic coalition of social justice and political advocates" (yes, those people are called 'journalists'). This is how it works. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh. I guess we have quite a few "journalists" at the Biden article talk page. SPECIFICO talk 16:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SPECIFICO, please point to the specific language in RS telling us the allegations are dubious or not credible, otherwise your comment is a BLP violation and I will be forced to redact it. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please take any concerns to WP:BLPN. SPECIFICO talk 17:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, see my NYT article post below, which may help answer Mr. Ernie's question. ---09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:POVFORK and WP:BLP merge this information into the main article where it belongs. Mind you, if this article was merged, it would have way more watchers looking at it, which is entirely the point of POVFORK, and unlike Media coverage of Bernie Sanders this article is only a start class, which definitely isn't good enough to stand on it's own. It fails BLP too because the allegation is not substantial as well, compared to other politicians. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What evidence have you that this isn't a substantial accusation? It's more collaborated and justified than that against either Woody Allen or Justice Kavanaugh as far as I can see, and those articles substantially cover those (if we're honest, most likely false) accusations. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kanavaugh had a very publicized Supreme Court confirmation, and has had more than one person submit sexual assualt clams, Biden has none of that. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Swordman97: Do you think that the article could not be improved to more than stub-/start- class? Mdaniels5757 (talk) 18:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No because the article has not had very much RS publication yet. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 22:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment And also we need a section at WP:OUTCOMES for this kind of article, considering how common they are. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 16:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Something to be aware of, NYT executive editor Dean Baquet has revealed that the reason they sanitized the Biden piece (which was buried on page A20 by the way) is because the Biden campaign told them to: [17]. The line in question was "...no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden beyond the hugs, kisses and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable". Baquet also tried to explain why Kavanaugh's accusers were covered immediately and in great detail despite no evidence or corroboration for them, while Biden's accusers were ignored by most of the mainstream media until after Bernie dropped out. Thought this is noteworthy since many editors were opposing even the mention of Ms. Reade in Biden's biography until The Venerable Gray Lady mentioned her name. 2600:1700:D281:27D0:8E:8C0C:85C3:8B40 (talk) 18:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This has plainly, transparently, become a notable story deserving of an article. I find it hard to see how anyone could argue otherwise. That is to say nothing about the truth of the allegation or how seriously it should be taken, but it has received enough coverage from the media recently that it should have a Wikipedia article. Biden's article is long enough already that adding this content there would be excessive (and somewhat off-topic - only a summary there would be appropriate). Robofish (talk) 21:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - initially, I was going to say Merge, because I thought the information would be fine in the Joe Biden article. However, realistically, that's just going to start a whole another fight about how much of this article should belongs in there. If "merged", I'm sure any more than a sentence or two would bring cries of WP:UNDUE there. And those on the opposite end of the argument would try creating this article again. So, let's just cut to the chase and leave this article, because you all know we'll end up here, anyway. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 22:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no way that a credible sexual assault allegation against a major party presidential nominee doesn't meet the notability threshold. Additionally, there is too much content to be merged into the main Biden article without running into undue weight problems within the main article itself, thus a sub-article is needed here. Rreagan007 (talk) 22:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are assuming the consequent. Nobody has shown that the weight of mainstream RS call this a credible allegation -- more the opposite. SPECIFICO talk 22:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And where are you getting this standard that it must be the weight of mainstream RS in order for an article to exist? Even if only a few RS characterize a sexual assault allegation against a mainstream presidential candidate as credible, then that is more than enough, in my opinion, for an article to pass the notability threshold. And on the flip side, how many RS have characterized the allegation as discredited? Rreagan007 (talk) 03:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This may help answer Rreangan007's question. The implication is, based on a conclusion by the New York Times, the claims by Reade do not appear to be credible [18]. I quote:
"The Times interviewed Ms. Reade on multiple days over hours, as well as those she told about Mr. Biden’s behavior and other friends. The Times has also interviewed lawyers who spoke to Ms. Reade about her allegation; nearly two dozen people who worked with Mr. Biden during the early 1990s, including many who worked with Ms. Reade; and the other seven women who criticized Mr. Biden last year, to discuss their experiences with him. No other allegation about sexual assault surfaced in the course of reporting, nor did any former Biden staff members corroborate any details of Ms. Reade’s allegation. The Times found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Mr. Biden."
Underline is mine. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You conveniently left out the last part of that sentence from the NYT's article.

It seems that I didn't leave out the last part of that sentence. However, feel free to elaborate. We may be talking about different things. Also, would you mind adding your signature to the above comment? ---Steve Quinn (talk) 18:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That they found no pattern outside of touching and kissing, which made women feel uncomfortable, does not discredit Reade’s claim of a one-off. Until there is RS directly questioning credibility, it is a BLP violation to assert it. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There has been a sufficient amount of media coverage, and the topic is of wide interest. Natureium (talk) 22:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note – 2601:681:5400:7730:4cc5:afa8:6681:4a7 (talk · contribs · WHOIS) left a comment on WT:AFD, seemingly intended for this debate. Cross-posting here in good faith. – Juliancolton | ^Talk 03:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. There is no legitimate reason to delete. Kire1975 (talk) 05:59, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK and BLP vio. Also huge POV/Troll magnet. Volunteer Marek 06:16, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with Volunteer Mark that this is a POVFORK because we just had a RFC about should this incident be placed in the Joe Biden article? This article was created during that RFC. In any case, consensus is for placing this incident in that article. I won't go into the off-wiki canvasing that took place during that RFC - because it doesn't impact the outcome of this AfD. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:GNG, the controversy has been there since the 1990s. I don't see any reason to remove it. This is now a legal issue and there is a police complaint against Joe Biden.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This allegedly happened in the 1990's and it has not been controversial in news since the 1990's. It would be incorrect to say that. A police report is not RS per se, and does not indicate notability. A conviction might be worth covering, but there isn't one. She hasn't yet been determined to be credible. So this is also a BLP violation. Additionally, this is very much flash-in-the-pan and tabloid gossip even if it is covered by some reliable sources. It already seems to be fading from the news cycle which shows it is newsworthy and not noteworthy. A sexual assault allegation against a public person, by itself, does not indicate notability by Wikipedia standards. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's the same as many other articles in Wikipedia like Roy Moore sexual misconduct allegations (who was the republican nominee) or Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations etc. I don't think there is any legit reason to remove this. This is a very notable public figure and there are many news reports covering the story. --SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 09:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(edit conflict)This is not nearly like any of those. I could see if several or half dozen or a dozen women came forward with actual sexual violation accusations, then there would be something worth covering in Wikipedia. Anyway, those examples are OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. What is happening with this is sensationalism and RS like the New York Times have not been able to lend credence to the accusation. See this [19]. I posted the same thing above for Rreangan007 and I don't want to take up space re-posting it here, if you want to look there. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Quinn, you may want to brush up on WP:WELLKNOWN. It is not for us to determine what is notable. Only RS coverage determines notability. If it has been covered by multiple reliable secondary sources, then it is notable. It is our job to say what RS say. Whether or not it is true is completely immaterial. It has received significant coverage in RS and belongs on Wikipedia. Plain and simple. --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 09:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please note WP:WELLKNOWN doesn't say anything about a standalone article where notability is required for inclusion. It says "If an allegation or incident is noteworthy, relevant, and well documented, it belongs in the article—even if it is negative and the subject dislikes all mention of it." That's seems to be talking about an article that already exists, and there is one and it should go there, if anywhere. What we have here is an incident that shows no sign of an enduring quality and that is one of the main characteristics of notability, which has already been said by some editors above.

Wikipedia is not a news organization, a newspaper, or a tabloid. And what are doing here at this AfD is determining the notability of this topic, contrary to what you just wrote. And it is not only RS coverage that determines notability. There are a number of policies, sections of those policies, and some guidelines that determine notability. RS is just the beginning. RS allows editors to evaluate whether the topic is suitable for inclusion based on policies and guidelines. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 09:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It has received significant coverage in numerous RS. Notability determine. We are done here.[20][21][22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29][30][31][32][33][34] --- C&C (Coffeeandcrumbs) 13:04, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm sorry but this doesn't seem to be a good argument. RS is not the only factor that determines a topic's notability. In fact, my other points are being demonstrated with your reply. First, please notice, it's the same story over and over and over - the same single event - in each publication - and it's part of news cycle. It's the hot story of the moment. It might as well be carried in one reliable source for the same effect.

It is just that each media outlet has their readership and there are many media outlets, and in this case they carry the same story. For a counter-example, media organizations seem to have their own take on the many aspects of the effects of the Covid-19 virus over a significant time period. Lastly, Wikipedia is not a news organization clamoring for clicks, views, or readership. Rather, there are a number of policies and guidelines that go into determining notability, beyond the news. ---Steve Quinn (talk) 17:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, article has enough sources to meet WP:GNG. Not a very active user (talk) 14:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:GNC, WP:RS, and WP:Notability.--JOJ ^Hutton 14:53, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Even international sources can be found like BBC, Independent, Herald Sun etc. Even non-English, Arabic sources [35], [36], [37]. This is an internationally reported subjected. The hashtag #Ibelievetara was trending in Saudi Arabia and Egypt one day.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 19:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are telling us that anonymous pumping a hashtag on self-published social media confers notability? SPECIFICO talk 20:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this is a classic case of POVFORK, and as others have pointed out, the existence of news articles about a topic doesn't necessarily mean that the topic needs its own article. I am similarly concerned about BLP issues; there has been no corroboration of Reade's story. If this gains traction, the situation might be different, but as of now I question whether this even warrants more than a sentence in Biden's article, let alone a whole spin-off article. --WMSR (talk) 20:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A single unproven allegation does not warrant a separate article. What there is to be said about this can be done at Joe Biden or Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign or both. Zaathras (talk) 20:36, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 20:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Seems to me to be a clear POVFORK/NOTNEWS with some major BLP implications for at least the alleged victim. SportingFlyer T·C 20:50, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not understanding why this is deserving of an article by itself. The article itself is not very long and all of the information just can just be stored to Joe Biden's actual page. This article is not warranted. Auror Andrachome (talk) 23:28, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I want to comment on a misunderstanding that I keep seeing in this discussion. Some (not all) keep rationales argue the article should be kept because it meets the WP:GNG, but the GNG explicitly says that meeting the threshold does not guarantee a standalone article. WP:N says that for a topic to merit a standalone article it must pass the GNG and not be excluded by our other policies. The main deletion rationale is not that the article fails the GNG but that it is excluded by our other policies, specifically Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Point-of-view forks. Rationales that only address the GNG are missing the point and will hold more weight if they are revised to address the specific points brought up in this discussion. — Wug·a·po·des 23:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point. But the Joe Biden article is already long and this is probably going to be spun out as a sub article because there are plenty of sources that have something to say about it, making the article longer than what could easily fit in the parent article. Can you clarify what article this is a POV fork of? What seems to be happening is a marge discussion under guise of AfD, which isn't exactly correct. Jehochman ^Talk 03:51, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't meant to be a delete !vote in disguise; not everyone reads policy cover to cover, so I hoped to prevent people talking past each other. My understanding of the delete arguments so far is that the appropriate level of detail for this allegation would not be undue in the main Joe Biden article, and that this article is a POV fork of that one because it bypasses developing consensus on how to treat it in that article. There are a number of keep arguments, but you bring up the main rebuttal---Joe Biden is already very long and giving due weight would make it too long. Others I've seen that go beyond GNG are don't rush to delete breaking articles and that this isn't actually an unusual split when considering how we treat other politicians. Both sides have brought up reasonable arguments, and I think this is an important discussion to have. I'm a little more lax than most when it comes to appropriate venues, but you're right this is an atypical AFD which is why I think it's worth noting that we're discussing more than the GNG here so that everyone is on the same page. — Wug·a·po·des 07:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wugapodes, Wikipedia:FAQ/Forking (aka spin-off) happens when the main article is already too long, as in this case. Editors are simply following WP:Article size. With regards to notability, a bit ambiguous for some perhaps but new articles must pass GNG or be deleted - rule 101 in WP:NPP. With regards to the sexual misconduct allegations, there have been prior discussions about including sexual allegations in similar BLPs when WP:PUBLICFIGURE applies, and the obvious result is Guy Macon's list of articles above - new articles are created. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 16:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this POVFORK per nom, NOTNEWS and WEIGHT. Miniapolis 00:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG and WP:RAPID. Note Subject is a WP:PUBLICFIGURE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets notability and coverage guidelines. It's in the press and covered and our readers deserve a fair aneutral account of the sexual assault allegations leveled by a former staffer and other accounts of a history of unwanted touching leveled by many women. ConstantPlancks (talk) 07:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Note that UpdateNerd has added merge tag that says someone has suggested merging the content of the article. I assume that this discussion is where the consensus would be whether it should be merged or not.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 18:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Essentially, deleting and merging would have the same effect, which I support. UpdateNerd (talk) 19:00, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleting the article would delete the history which would delete the attributions. Sometimes the outcome of a deletion discussion is "merge" but it is never "deleting and merging" because that would be copyright violation.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 21:37, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sharab Salam: What is your concern about copyright? SPECIFICO talk 22:33, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not to break the law or violate our terms of service. If we move content, we have to keep the history. If this article were to be merged into Joe Biden it would become a redirect to that article, and the contribution history would still be available. This result is unlikely because Joe Biden article is already too long. Jehochman ^Talk 00:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I didn't get the sense that was his concern. SPECIFICO talk 00:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was. "Deleting and merge" would violate copyright.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it wouldn't, because as explained at Wikipedia:Merge and delete, any merge and delete !vote is treated as a merge !vote. Nobody is going to remove the page history or delete the redirect. See Wikipedia:Merging#Merger as a result of a deletion discussion for the procedure we do follow. --Guy Macon (talk) 21:34, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Clearly notable. Fdr2001 (talk) 21:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Meets WP:GNG. Meets WP:RAPID. Sourcing looks good and sufficient as well.BabbaQ (talk) 14:06, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notable.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 16:42, 17 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
Keep and rename to an article that also covers his sexual misbehaviour allegations. Article zooms past WP:N and WP:V. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 03:32, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'd like to add that this article is not just about the allegation itself but also about how the mainstream media covered it (which was controversial and talked about a lot), which makes it difficult to include in the Joe Biden article if we'd like to talk about it in more detail. BeŻet (talk) 16:04, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NOT:NEWS and as a POV fork. Not every allegation is notable enough to have a separate page, even though it was covered in news. Mention it on BLP page of the subject. My very best wishes (talk) 17:13, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: - the subject is still evolving. with elections looming you can be sure there will be more headlines and groundbreaking information relating to the subject matter. The Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations page wasn't created until after he first ran for president despite the events having taken place many years earlier.Grmike (talk) 20:21, 18 April 2020 (UTC)grmke[reply]
Delete - Holy disappointing AfD. Yes, pretty much every aspect of every major presidential candidate will meet GNG, but we don't create separate articles for them. We create articles for them when they come to dominate existing articles disproportionately, or when there's an incredible amount of coverage of a sustained period of time. We have neither one of those here. At this point, this probably deserves a mention in one or more of the existing articles, but per WP:NOPAGE, WP:BLP, WP:POVFORK, and common sense when it comes to the most notable subjects and WP:WEIGHT, no of course we shouldn't yet have a stand-alone article about this. Maybe in time. Also, WP:RAPID is an irrelevant AfD argument, as it's not only canceled out by WP:DELAY but superseded by BLP, etc. I don't envy the closer of this discussion... — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:51, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've commented elsewhere, but it seems as if we've struggled with WP:POVFORK/WP:UNDUE as a community in a couple recent and well commented AfDs. Whether an article meets WP:GNG doesn't matter if there's an exception. All of the keep !voters so far have basically concluded that it's notable without actually looking or commentating at whether any exceptions to WP:GNG exist. As I've noted above I think this gets easily filtered out in spite of the press coverage. I still don't envy the closer. SportingFlyer T·C 04:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are making an unsupported assumption. You are assuming without evidence that not commenting on these supposed exceptions to GNG means that the editors who didn't comment didn't look at them. You cannot draw a conclusion from silence. One could just as easily say that they didn't bother commenting on those supposed exceptions to GNG because they read and agreed with my comment at the start of this RfC arguing that every reason for deletion listed by the OP is demonstrably untrue -- but that would also be drawing a conclusion from silence. In addition, if you make the assumtion from silence that any !vote that does not specificly address the reasons the OP listed implies some sort of agreement, then why wouldn't you make the assumtion from silence that any !vote that does not specificly address my post about those reasons being invalid implies some sort of agreement? Silence means silence. You shouldn't draw any conclusion from what people didn't write. Not responding to a particular argument does not imply agreement or disagreement. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:33, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, and I would take that logic one further: I look forward to the closer(s) factoring in not just what arguments people didn't make, but also the opinions of the thousands of editors who didn't say anything at all (whose silence we cannot assume means they would support a keep outcome!). :) Seriously, though, all we have are the arguments presented here. For a contentious discussion that will rely on the strength of arguments, the closer can only factor in what's presented here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 12:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Guy Macon's comment. Wikipedia has plenty of articles about sexual assault allegations, especially after the MeToo-era, and nothing in them makes them an attack page or a POVFORK, as long as there is coverage in reliable sources. The sourcing is here. The ambitions here, in my opinion, are mostly political and not related to Wikipedia's editorial policies. --Pudeo (talk) 10:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:GNG is fulfilled and the arguments listed above for keeping the article sound very convincing, especially since merging this into another article would create endless fights as well.--Baumfreak (talk) 11:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The story has blown up so much in media over the last few days that it deserves in depth coverage. ImTheIP (talk) 15:30, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wandering Earl[edit]

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

Fails WP:NWEB. Lots of hits on Google, but all of them seem to be other blogs or promotional sites. Rogermx (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 18:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lockport (town). -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nottingham Estates, New York[edit]

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

Small subdivision fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to town, the incorporated community it's in, along with the rest of the hundreds of articles on subdivisions that show no notability like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey. Reywas92^Talk 21:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Lockport (town), New York Djflem (talk) 06:38, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 North Hempstead, New York. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakeville Estates, New York[edit]

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

Could not find coverage that establishes this as a "hamlet" or notable unincorporated area. Newspaper coverage consists mainly of real estate ads dating from its construction in the 1940s. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to town, the incorporated community it's in, along with the rest of the hundreds of articles on subdivisions that show no notability like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey. Reywas92^Talk 21:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reno Junction, California[edit]

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

A rail junction, as all sources agree. There's no town, and never was. There are many passing references to it as a rail location but nothing that to me makes it notqable. Mangoe (talk) 18:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly just a junction per topo, negligently mass-created as a supposed community. Time to list these at Wikipedia:List_of_hoaxes_on_Wikipedia#Extant_for_10+_years? Reywas92^Talk 21:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Fenix down (talk) 07:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anisong Chareantham[edit]

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

This is article about a living person that has no proper sources Amkgp (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nominator's deletion reason is wrong - Chareantham has a Soccerway profile (a reliable source that is cited in the article) showing two games played in a fully professional league for Port so he passes WP:NFOOTBALL. WP:GNG is failed due a lack of sources though. Dougal18 (talk) 19:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 16:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - has nominator heard of WP:BEFORE? Sources do exist and show player meets WP:NFOOTBALL. Article needs improving, not deleting. Giant Snowman 16:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Freehold Township, New Jersey. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Orchard Estates, New Jersey[edit]

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

The article says it all: This is just a small housing development. Fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to township, the incorporated community it's in, along with the rest of the hundreds of articles on subdivisions in New Jersey that show no notability like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey. Reywas92^Talk 21:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article Freehold Township, New Jersey - There seems to be consensus that these microstubs for unincorporated places should be redirected to the article for the parent municipality. In the future, just go ahead with the redirect and only go to AfD if there is pushback via revert, which will probably address 99.02% of the issue with less fuss. Alansohn (talk) 01:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Djflem (talk) 09:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandywine Estates, Delaware[edit]

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

Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to county, along with the rest of the hundreds of articles on subdivisions that show no notability like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey. Reywas92^Talk 21:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - non-notable place with no reliable sourcing or significant coverage. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 07:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per WP:GEOLAND, Populated, legally recognized places are typically presumed to be notable, even if their population is very low. Maher-shalal-hashbaz (talk) 13:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is a subdivision, which falls under WP:GEOLAND#2. It requires significant coverage. Your addition of Delaware Place Names is a duplicate of the GNIS listing and falls under "This guideline specifically excludes maps and various tables from consideration when establishing topic notability, because these sources often establish little except the existence of the subject." Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Spring Garden Township, York County, Pennsylvania. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farquhar Estates, Pennsylvania[edit]

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

Small subdivision lacks significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 18:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 18:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/Redirect to county, along with the rest of the hundreds of articles on subdivisions that show no notability like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey. Reywas92^Talk 21:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 South Brunswick, New Jersey. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South Brunswick Terrace, New Jersey[edit]

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

Subdivision with no significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to township, the incorporated community it's in, along with the rest of the hundreds of articles on subdivisions in New Jersey that show no notability like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Fleetwood Village, New Jersey. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article South Brunswick, New Jersey - There seems to be consensus that these microstubs for unincorporated places should be redirected to the article for the parent municipality. In the future, just go ahead with the redirect and only go to AfD if there is pushback via revert, which will probably address 99.02% of the issue with less fuss. Alansohn (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per above. Djflem (talk) 09:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 West Windsor, New Jersey#Geography. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:05, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princeton Estates, New Jersey[edit]

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

Subdivision fails GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 17:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 17:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete/redirect No sign of notability for neighborhood. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article West Windsor, New Jersey - There seems to be consensus that these microstubs for unincorporated places should be redirected to the article for the parent municipality. In the future, just go ahead with the redirect and only go to AfD if there is pushback via revert, which will probably address 99.02% of the issue with less fuss. Alansohn (talk) 01:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to parent article West Windsor, New Jersey, specifically West Windsor, New Jersey#Geography, where it is mentioned.Djflem (talk) 09:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to West Windsor, unless a decent article can be written on this community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. There is a variation in the spelling of town's name, but apparently they are the same town. WP:GEOLAND applies. Also see comment by GSS. Side note: nominator blocked for self promotion/COI. —usernamekiran (talk) 19:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kadiana (village)[edit]

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

I am sorry, GSS but this is a small village with no evidence of notability. Please do not take this personally. Hissamelriys (talk) 16:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Close. See WP:GEOLAND. If it exists and we have sources confirming existence, it is notable. Java Hurricane 16:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized populated place. The district website confirms that the subject is a panchayat village.[38] • Gene93k (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I can't find the text "Kadiana" in the census. But there's a Kariana. Is that the same place? If so, then it's a village with a population of more than 1,000. We routinely keep villages in the US with less than a tenth of Kariana's population.—S Marshall T/C 17:36, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@S Marshall: as per this it looks like the same village under slightly different spellings. It has the population of 1,564. GSS ^💬 18:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this article was nominated in response to this so, I guess WP:SKCRIT#2 a or b might apply here. GSS ^💬 18:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gina V. D'Orio[edit]

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

No references or claim to notability JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 16:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our musician notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - she sang with at least two barely notable bands. Bearian (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I plan on nominating those two bands as well. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 00:52, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Manual redirect to the relevant articles.. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 00:02, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Grand Theft Auto III characters[edit]

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

All of these articles lack any reliable sources that indicate notability. They are essentially what WP:VGSCOPE #6 is referring to: lists of characters lacking secondary sources. They have all been boldly redirected in the past, but restored by other users without discussion. I think it's time to put these to bed. I am also nominated the following related pages for the same reason:

– Rhain ☔ 15:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 15:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. – Rhain ☔ 15:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The basis for removing these is only on the lack of citations. Far better to try to remedy this problem, than to delete the articles. They should only be deleted if no amount of editing work can bring them to a standard that is acceptable. GUtt01 (talk) 16:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles also fail the first point raised by WP:VGSCOPE #6: that they must be "written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception". I have tried to remedy this problem—I researched and rewrote the main GTA III and Vice City articles, for instance—but the content simply lacks sources, and I believe that no amount of editing work will bring them to an acceptable standard. I would love to be proven wrong. – Rhain ☔ 17:15, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Would List of Grand Theft Auto V characters have any issues with it, possibly? GUtt01 (talk) 15:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered adding it to the list, even as a brief mention, but decided against it as I felt it would split the discussion too much. It's considerably more fleshed out than the other lists, and there's far better potential for sources. If anything, I think it should be reviewed separately. – Rhain ☔ 15:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all. The nominator correctly notes the lack of available reliable sources (not in regards to the use in the current revisions, rather the availability in general) to demonstrate the necessity of separate character lists for these games. A (quick) WP:BEFORE from my side brought up little useful material. If there are character traits that absolutely have to be known to understand the plots of the respective games, they can be incorporated into the respective plot sections instead (of course within the bounds of our 700-word limit). IceWelder [✉] 22:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All. There are no sources that would help these masses of fancruft pass WP:LISTN, and they fail WP:PLOT as they consist practically entirely of in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all. No notability independent of the games the characters appear in (WP:INHERIT). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 11:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to their respective articles. No significant coverage of these lists cannot currently be found and all the infomation is just plot infomation from the game. However, given when these games were released most coverage will be found in old magazines that are likely hard to access so it is better to redirect than delete as an editor might be able to recreate the article in the future whilst establishing notablity for WP:LISTN. Regards Spy-cicle💥 ^Talk? 22:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect all to their respective articles per Spy-cicle. Redirects are cheap, and there's no downside to redirecting them for now in case someone identifies sources (which would likely be easy, as the GTA games are very popular and have generated a lot of independent coverage) and wanted to make the improvements. Plus, a lot of individual search terms currently redirect to these pages, so redirecting them somewhere would be less disruptive than having a bunch of search term redirect to dead pages. (Also, because all of these lists were nominated in one bunch, it's difficult to make a case for each one individually. Redirecting them would make that unnecessary.) — Hunter Kahn 12:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've also added Lists of Grand Theft Auto characters to the nomination, as the deletion of the others would render it a useless disambiguation with only one article remaining. – Rhain ☔ 13:59, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westwood Junction, California[edit]

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

The phrase "located on the Southern Pacific Railroad" gives away that, yes, it's another rail spot with no settlement. In fact the oldest topo I could find, from the 1950s, shows it as a junction with an already abandoned line. Since then, the whole thing has been abandoned and has been converted into the Bizz Johnson Trail. This passage describing the trail states that there was a maintenance facility of some sort at the junction in the 1920s but I can find nothing talking about it as a town; Westwood itself is quite a ways to the south. Mangoe (talk) 15:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of a populated place or anything else that might be notable. –dlthewave ☎ 16:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Color rendering index. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Color rendering capacity[edit]

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

The outcome of a 2019 merge proposal was to propose deletion (Talk:Color rendering index#Suggest merge January 2019), on the grounds that the term Color rendering capacity was not notable, and the content was not worthy of merging. A 2008 deletion proposal recommended deletion of the page (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Color rendering capacity), but since then the article has been re-created. So, deletion or a merge to Color rendering index seem to be the most reasonable options. Klbrain (talk) 14:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The content covers the same area as color rendering index. The contributor's paper is much-cited, arguing for some relevant expertise, but this phrase seems not to be standard in the industry. Any development under this title would be duplicating the contents at Color rendering index and Color vision. Best to delete and redirect to CRI. --Wtshymanski (talk) 16:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, bit of a problem when this article's lead states "It is one of several measures of color rendering index." and yet that article does not mention "color rendering capacity", this appears to be a term that has not been adopted so a delete or redirect in line with Wtshymanski above appears appropriate. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alison's Mailbox[edit]

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

Advertorialized article about a band, with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The strongest notability claim in evidence here is that two of their songs were used in an indie horror film more than a decade after they broke up -- but that claim is completely unsourced, and placing music in film or television is also the one criterion in NMUSIC that undermines itself by explicitly saying that a band shouldn't have an article at all if it's the only NMUSIC criterion they pass. The tone here is heavily advertorialized in spots ("Local Mailbox performances became a social event, creating a frenzy not seen in a long time"), and the article is not well-sourced enough to claim that they pass NMUSIC #1 -- of the nine sources here, fully eight are local to the band's own local media market, five are glancing namechecks of their existence in coverage of other things or people rather than coverage that's substantively about the band, and the only extralocal source is an unrecoverable dead link that's being used solely to source the tangential fact that the A&R guy who signed this band to a minor indie label was also a part-time member of a different otherwise unrelated band -- thus having nothing to do with this band's notability or lack thereof. Also, the article was created by an WP:SPA who has never made a single edit to Wikipedia on any other topic but this band. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they existed -- but nothing here, either in the sourcing or in the substance, is enough to get this band over the bar. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 14:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't view any of the NWI Times articles because their host refuses to make them available in Europe (I just get some speil about GDPR) so I'm going to have to trust the nominator's description: but I couldn't find anything else about them online. They may have worked hard and built a local fanbase and a buzz back in the day, but there's nothing that demonstrates significant coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - local band from south of Gary, Indiana area who played once in Tennessee. Bearian (talk) 21:08, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Injection Molding Magazine[edit]

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

Non-notable defunct trade periodical. No sources and tagged as such for 10 years. My own searching found nothing useful. WorldCat has an entry, but doesn't list a single library that hold it in their collection. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Prolapse (band). bibliomaniac 1 5 21:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Backsaturday[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 14:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Vaguely remember this band and album, couldn't find anything beyond AllMusic and Trouser Press, too bad more print coverage wasn't digitized... Caro7200 (talk) 15:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The band and album where wildly covered in printed UK/Europe press (including NME, Melody Maker & Record Mirror) at the time, sadly those sources don't appear to be online. Missbarbell (talk) 15:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Missbarbell: there won't have been any coverage in Record Mirror... it stopped publication in 1991. I do agree that it's very likely to have been reviewed in NME and Melody Maker, and probably in Q, Select and Vox as well. But it's the same problem that many UK bands that predate the internet era have... these sources are not online to be able to confirm any of this. The band did get a fair amount of attention in the music press and airplay on alternative music radio, so I would not be surprised to find print coverage if I could get to the British Library, but as this is not possible at present I can't make a case for keeping the article... it may have to be redirected until coverage can be found. Richard3120 (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Prolapse (band): Barely found anything about the album. Could've voted for Keep, had coverage mentioned by Caro7200 and Missbarbell have archived copies online. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:28, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shrishti Ganguly Rindani[edit]

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

Her only "Notable" role is a secondary role in just one "web series" ,which itself is 10 episodes long, on a not so popular streaming platform. I don't think that is enough to justify an article. Daiyusha (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Daiyusha (talk) 14:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:18, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This article is filled with unreliable sources. The first two are just episode lists, which are passing mentions, and the third one doesn't even mention the main subject. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress. I have a strong suspicion that a lot of our articles on actresses and actors are on non-notable people. We clearly have let new articles be too easy to create.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Johnpacklambert: its a stupid loophole/cycle. If an actor has role in "multiple" notable tv shows/films, actor is considered notable. Multiple is considered as "2 or more than 2" in AfD by fanboys, or UPEs. And the guidelines for TV shows are way too lax. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I actually think the worst loophole we may have though is considering almost every film produced by the "Holloywood" complex from 1920-1950 to be notable. There were huge numbers of films produced in that time. In many of them we have interpreted some very minor parts as "significant". I have found a few films that have articles with no sources, not even IMDb, listed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then there is Handle with Care (1932 film). I see none of the sourced looking better than a directory listing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: My WP:BEFORE did not yield any results that would help make out WP:GNG, and the subject hasn't had enough significant roles in notable productions to meet WP:NACTOR, either. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:59, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Patrick Harvey[edit]

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

There is an earlier Don Harvey who seems to have been a notable actor, but I was unable to find additional sources on this actor. That leaves us with multiple citations to his own website, IMDb which is not reliable and another directory type source, nothing that comes even close to constituting the multiple indepth 3rd party reliable secondary sources an article needs to pass the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: This actor appeared in high-profile secondary roles in several films and was listed in opening credits in them. BattleshipMan (talk) 04:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actor who was nominated for a Daytime Emmy Award (per the ref in the article). Sources for just that one role include this and this. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 07:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep roles are notable enough to pass WP:BIO Rhino131 (talk) 20:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Initial nomination reason was invalidated and a new one hasn't been presented. Any other merge discussions can happen elsewhere. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rivière des Pins[edit]

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

There is only one article that includes 'Rivière des Pins' in its title. Perhaps Rivière des Pins (Blanc Lake) should be moved to Rivière des Pins. Leschnei (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Leschnei (talk) 13:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that Rivière des Pins (Blanc Lake) should be moved; there's at least one more stream with the name and it's a matter of time before an article is created about it. – Uanfala (talk) 13:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Veillg1 has added a second entry, Rivière des Pins (Nicolet River tributary), so there is now no reason to delete this page. Leschnei (talk) 23:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: with Leschnei's addition this is a perfectly valid little dab page with a useful "see also" (and I've now added a reciprocal "See also" link from Rivière aux Pins). PamD 08:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Hmm, or maybe we should merge the two dab pages for "des Pins" and "aux Pins"? PamD 08:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And that's been an entertaining 50 minutes or so, sorting out the various aspects of "pins" including making sure that Jacob Pins could be found by his surname... Such is the time-sink of Wikipedia in lockdown. But much more constructive than doing jigsaw puzzles, with which it has a certain similarity! PamD 09:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment if it is merged, it should use Rivière Pins (disambiguation)/Rivière Pins -- though you could also use Pine River (disambiguation) -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 17:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree: no point in inventing another term, nor in using an English term for rivers named in French. PamD 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Rivière Pins" would be a valid search term for either of the existing pages. And as for Pine River, the translated English title should exist from English languages works from before the Quiet Revolution, just as many places in Quebec have older translated English names that aren't used much anymore. Since such a search term should already exist, splitting the difference in the spellings would also result in such a pagename, it doesn't favour one form over another. Using the English translated term might be anachronistic, as we're not in the early 20th or 19th century anymore. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE There seem to be additional rivers (when I looked in bgc) with "Rivière de Pin" or "Rivière au Pin" about. (singular of pins (pines) is (pine) pin). Which someone might want to add to various articles on rivers to which they are tributaries to. -- 65.94.170.207 (talk) 22:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:27, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Newbury[edit]

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

This page was created by an SPA whose name matches that of a PR & marketing specialist. I cannot find any significant coverage of the article's subject, beyond some local coverage of him using his compensation payout to launch his career, which falls under WP:BLP1E. Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC) ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:46, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not a pay in Who's Who type cite, nor is it Linkedin.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:BLP1E, all the actual independent coverage is about him getting an advanced prosthetic leg. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 12:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - interesting, but lacks significant coverage. We are neither an Guinness Book of World Records, nor a LinkedFacePage. Bearian (talk) 21:04, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Operation Avalanche. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Boardman[edit]

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

This article was created in 2003 without references. It continued to be edited in good faith, but without any references. I think there is a good reason why there are no references for this article: because there never was an "Operation Boardman". I'm pretty sure the Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL in this AFD discussion will turn up nothing at at all. As always, happy to be proven wrong. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added a cite. I am the author of the cited book. The original source was the United States Army in World War II series. --''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 10:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul, is there much that can be written about this deception operation? Nick-D (talk) 11:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, no. I was writing a dictionary. It's purpose was to include obscure codewords to answer the question "What the heck was BOARDMAN?" In an encyclopedia we have to answer "How did BOARDMAN work? Where?" That information is not readily available. All that remains is the name. Not much else. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 02:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: added a ref to Jennings: [39]. Holt also seems to mention the operation: [40]. Suspect there are a few more mentions in these works, also: [41] Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 00:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrantX: G'day, Tom, not sure if you are still editing Wikipedia, but if you are, I hope you are well and I wonder if you could take a look at your sources to see if there is significant coverage of this operation (given your previous work in relation to World War II deception operations)? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately, it looks like Errant is no longer active; it would have been good to get their perspective. Anyway, I think a redirect to the Avalanche page is probably the best solution. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:53, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Operation Avalanche, where it is mentioned. I am not seeing the significiant coverage or WP:NEVENT being met. b uidhe 08:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect You changed my mind. As long as the name is recorded on the Avalanche page that seems sufficient. ''Paul, in Saudi'' (talk) 15:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claudio Rodríguez (singer)[edit]

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

Subject of article does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO nor does subject have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence per WP:GNG doesn’t qualify as well. Celestina007 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 10:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Gotta love when YouTube is one of the only sources. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A non-notable singer who fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are not reliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:00, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of notability. YouTube, Napster and someone else's Wikipedia page are clearly not reliable sources. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Lei (snowboarder)[edit]

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

Claim that the individual is a professional snowboarder, but the link is dead. Nothing else in the article, apart from all the spam, suggests this person is infact notable at all. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 09:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find any coverage aside from a couple of press photos, and the fact that the only two editors ([42], [43]) who have contributed to the page content are both SPAs (and that one of them has a name which is suspiciously close to that of the subject) suggests that this is a promotional page. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is no significant coverage. I could only find the source in the article. Many of the statements made in the article are unsourced. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 07:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable snowboarder.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable event. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:34, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence to show he meets WP:NSPORT or WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 02:37, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Deceptive sock puppetry/double !voting is not OK at AFD. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Road of Love[edit]

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

Non-notable film, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 09:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:51, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep - Does pass WP:NF The source of the film itself is available, This article is about a festival film that is currently on public display Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 10:01, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- None of the coverage is significant, they are all just listings that the film exists. Existence is not the same as Notability. And there is no independent coverage of the film at the festival. Again, just being in a festival (unless its a major major festival) does not signify notability. BOVINEBOY2008 11:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*-BOVINEBOY The coverage is remarkable for this film, The filmmaker is remarkable and the film itself has been remarkable in Iran Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 11:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Please provide citation. There are none in the article. BOVINEBOY2008 11:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

** BOVINEBOY There are citations in the article! Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 12:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - There is only one CITATION in the article, and it is IMDb, which should not be used as a source anyway per WP:CITEIMDB. There are EXTERNAL LINKS which are not citations, and they are all just database listing, not actually significant coverage. Can you provide an article that is covering the film? Like an interview from a credible source about the film or a review of the film? BOVINEBOY2008 16:29, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* BOVINEBOY IMDb is a resource, and other resources in the language of the country that made the film.Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 21:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- They are not independent sources that indicate notability though, please read WP:NFSOURCES carefully! BOVINEBOY2008 21:16, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* BOVINEBOY I read it,If the resources are low, there is no reason to delete the articleHoseinkhosravii (talk) 21:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As per nom. based on unreliable sources. @ Hoseinkhosravii you can NOT vote because you are the creator of this article. you can just comment. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 12:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The creator is free to vote keep at AFD as per WP:AFD Atlantic306 (talk) 00:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

** Spada II ♪♫ As per nom , what do you repeat everywhere? Do you just want to delete all the articles?Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 12:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hoseinkhosravii: "per nom" means "in reference to" (per) + "the person who nominated the article" (nom). It's a piece of jargon which editors use in Deletion debates. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Keep The references are accuracy and significantعلیرضا رضوی (talk) 13:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Apart from the film's IMDb page and a mirror site, the references are just video streaming sites. Nobody is saying that the film doesn't exist, but it doesn't appear to have received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, I recommend that before people vote, they read WP:NFSOURCES so they can understand what would be required. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

**~dom Kaos~ But according to WP:NF, the resources are enough for the article and your opinion is the opposite, You should also consider the importance of the article in the country of origin Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 17:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - To quote WP:NF

Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", plot summaries without critical commentary, or listings in comprehensive film guides such as Leonard Maltin's Movie Guide, Time Out Film Guide, or the Internet Movie Database.

Bolding is mine for emphasis. BOVINEBOY2008 18:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* The movie database and its playback are complete and accurate.Hoseinkhosravii (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They don't signify notability though. Find an independent source that talks about the film. BOVINEBOY2008 21:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*The source is in the articleHoseinkhosravii (talk) 21:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable due to no significant coverage in reliable sources about this film. Hate to say it, but this looks like self-promotion per WP:PROMO. Just because a person exists and has made a film does not mean the person or the film is notable. We need notability to be established through secondary sources. Wikipedia does not lead the way in establishing notability; it follows sources that cover the topic significantly. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 16:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*:Erik Coverage of resources in the article is available and sufficient, Its manufacturer is important in its workHoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, there is no actual coverage available about the film. If by manufacturer you mean the director Danial Hajibarat, that subject is not notable either. The two topics cannot be played off of each other. Both topics need reliable sourcing, and there is none for this film nor its director. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Erik The sources for both articles are accurate and reliable, but because they are not in your language, you will not accept them. There are enough resourcesHoseinkhosravii (talk) 18:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC) * Keep was able to pass WP:NF Bidelirania (talk) 19:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Bidelirania, your username matches the name of the company which produced this film, according to IMDb. In the interests of transparency, please could you confirm whether you have a Conflict of Interest? ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* ~dom Kaos~ No,The similarity is in the name, This is a current name, It has nothing else Bidelirania (talk) 21:21, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bidelirania so you are telling us that you have no connection to the film company despite the fact that you have mostly only made edits to subjects that are incredibly close to the film company? Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the references are reliable sources and most are just links to the trailer on different hosting sites. There is no significant, in-depth coverage at all, not from any major Iranian newspapers or any of its major news agencies. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closing admin: to the surprise of precisely nobody, Bidelirania and Hoseinkhosravii have both been perma-blocked for sock/meatpuppetry: see discussion Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Bidelirania. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 05:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Formula E in New York with Liv Tyler 2018[edit]

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

None of the cited "reliable" sources even mention this film. The only source that does mention the film, is the film itself. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Vanjagenije: This article provides a synopsis of the film, which is on YouTube and has an IMDb page, but the reliable sources are still none the less relevant. The film in general, focuses on Liv Tyler's day at the 2018 New York City ePrix. You're seemingly not looking at the bigger picture here, so to speak. As illustrated in the sources, there were several news accounts online that reported on the appearances of celebrities like Liv Tyler at the New York City exPrix. Why do all of the sources have to literally and strictly be about a YouTube documentary, when that's only an accessory to the general story? It should be noted that Greg Williams himself, has his own Wikipedia article, so he himself and his films much have some relevance. Several of the photos that were taken from the film were soon presented on Williams' social media accounts, so it isn't like there isn't any sort of coverage of the film elsewhere. The film itself, must be legitimate if the names of the editor and producer were also featured alongside Greg Williams. It isn't like, we're not seeing a professionally made, directed, produced and edited documentary short. BornonJune8 (talk) 09:52, 12 April 2020

Delete. The subject of the documentary may or may not be notable, but the documentary film itself has not been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. pburka (talk) 13:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence that this film has received significant media coverage, as described at WP:NFSOURCES. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:20, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2 minute films are not usually notable and this one has a lack of coverage such as no external reviews listed in imdb and no entry at all at Rotten Tomatoes, so WP:GNG is not passed, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Dreyden[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ENT: the two current references are a Paper Magazine interview and a permanent dead link. Mr. Dreyden's adult industry awards don't count towards anything now that PORNBIO has been deprecated; his mainstream acting roles do not appear to be significant. I looked for additional sources and found nothing useful; only an interview with Gay Star News labelled "sponsored"[44], another interview on the Drag Star Diva blog[45] (please note that both of these are somewhat NSFW) and a few niche-interest podcast interviews. Cheers, gnu 57 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 09:12, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 14:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The porn awards and nominations would not even have satisfied any recent understanding of WP:PORNBIO. Supplied and found RS coverage does not support the article's content, never mind claims of notability per WP:BASIC or WP:ENT. • Gene93k (talk) 15:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable pornographic actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nwamiko Madden[edit]

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

Non notable actor, article uses only IMDB as a a source. Deprodded but no additional sources added since then. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:55, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Since IMDb is not a reliable source, articles with that as the only source should be eligible for BLP prod. All the more so since to remove a BLP prod the article needs to have a reliable source added, which IMDb is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current rules for WP:BLPPROD exclude articles with an imdb link. There have been plenty of RFCs that have confirmed that policy and is it really so hard to do a WP:Before and if there are no good sources use a normal prod instead? imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: While the subject has had some significant roles in Hatley High and 15/Love, the productions themselves don't appear to be all that notable. I basically drew a blank with finding sources, except for an article which simply states that he joined 15/Love halfway through the show's first season. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:24, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, actors are not handed an automatic free pass over WP:NACTOR #1 just because the article has a list of acting roles in it — even if you're going for "notable because he's been in stuff", he still has to have reliable sources to support an article with, and the existence of an IMDb profile is not a notability clincher in and of itself in the absence of any media coverage about him or his performances. Bearcat (talk) 19:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:25, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Kinney[edit]

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

Non notable actor with no sources other than IMDB. Deprodded but no additional sources have been added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:53, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly fails the notability guidelines for actors. A bunch of guest appearances in television do not fit the definition of significant roles in major productions. The article itself admits his one recurring role was minor, so not significant. He is not notable. It is having such articles on minor figures that has nearly propelled us to 1 million articles on living people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The acting roles here are minor ones, not "significant" ones, for the purposes of WP:NACTOR #1 — and even if they were more significant than they are, merely adding a list of roles to an actor's BLP is not in and of itself an exemption from having to reliably source them: even the one show stated here that might genuinely bolster his case for inclusion, Inquiring Minds, is still not so "inherently" notable as to exempt him from having to have some real sources. But even on a ProQuest search, apart from a few glancing namechecks of his existence all I can find is accidental hits on people who are either definitely not, or at least not verifiable as, the same person as this. Bearcat (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I'm voting "Weak Keep" for the moment on the basis of a weak case for WP:NACTOR—supporting roles in Small Crimes and The Story of Luke, as well as a long-running but minor recurring role in Degrassi: The Next Generation and Degrassi: Next Class. However, I fully agree that sourcing is a problem. Thus far, I haven't found much more than mere mentions, and if neither I nor anybody else is able to come up with anything more substantial, I will likely downgrade my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:50, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Cunard's sources are quite convincing and span a wide time range, addressing many of the WP:NOTNEWS concerns. Two people generally don't constitute a quorum for a decision in that direction though, and I don't see relisting as having a realistic possibility of resulting in deletion, so I am closing it now as no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program[edit]

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

WP:1E at best. Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I don’t think IE applies as this isn’t a biography. I also think there’s enough sourcing to pass GNG: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 and others. Mccapra (talk) 09:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per nom. Absolutely non-notable; other than one event, solely run-of-the-mill coverage. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 19:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Certainly not notable for other than one event, and it's unlikely the exchange program's article has any likelihood to be expanded upon except by students or faculty involved after resources on the 2014 incident are exhausted. Khu'hamgaba Kitap^talk 01:02, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: The sources for the article and the sources mentioned above are all either passing mentions of the program in books, or pertain to WP:NOTNEWS with coverage of the 2014 incident. Zoozaz1 talk 20:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

杨晴川 (2007-08-30). 杨牧 (ed.). "美国高中生喜欢到中国当"交换生"" [American high school students enjoy being "exchange students" in China]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
Colgan, Craig (April 2003). "Interest in International Studies is Back!". Education Digest. Vol. 68, no. 8. p. 63. ISSN 0013-127X.
Weingarten, Jane (1989-06-22). "Returning From China, Newton Student Keeps Flame". The Jewish Advocate.
Lythgoe, Dennis (1998-09-21). "Americans in China". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
Shartin, Emily (2000-11-12). "Students get oriented in Newton: Exchange with Chinese has long history". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
Carlock, Marty. (1985-05-12). "The study of Mandarin is on the upswing in high school: Americans respond enthusiastically to cultural exchanges" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18. – via Newspapers.com.
Coons, Phyllis (1987-01-04). "Newton students return from China exchange". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
Axelrod, Joan. (1986-11-30). "TV to feature Newton-Peking exchange" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
Scherer, Marge (2009). Challenging the Whole Child: Reflections on Best Practices in Learning, Teaching and Leadership. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 189–190. ISBN 978-1-4166-0893-6. Retrieved 2020-04-18.

Sources with quotes

杨晴川 (2007-08-30). 杨牧 (ed.). "美国高中生喜欢到中国当"交换生"" [American high school students enjoy being "exchange students" in China]. People's Daily (in Chinese). Xinhua News Agency. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
The article notes:
1986年，马萨诸塞州牛顿公立学校根据与北京景山学校达成的协议，派出4名美方交换学生前往中国短期留学，由当时担任该校艺术教员的亨德森带队。
这是美国历史上首批赴华参加交换学生项目的高中生。当时，全美只有牛顿公立学校一家有此计划。而今，参加美中高中学生交换计划的学校已经遍布全美各州，仅马萨诸塞州就有20多家。每年赴中国交流的美国学生也已达到数百人的规模，而且正在不断增加。
...
2006年春天，邝女士和该校另一名教师带领9名12年级学生(相当于中国的高三学生)，在牛顿公立学校的姊妹学校———北京著名的景山学校度过了一段难忘的时光。作为交换学生，这些美国青少年吃住在中国人家里，与中国学生“同进同出”，对中国文化和中国人的生活有了最直接的接触。
From Google Translate:
In 1986, Massachusetts Newton Public School sent four American exchange students to study in China for a short period of time in accordance with the agreement reached with Beijing Jingshan School. Henderson, who was then the art teacher of the school, led the team.
These are the first high school students in American history to go to China to participate in exchange student programs. At the time, only the Newton Public Schools had the program. Today, schools participating in the U.S.-China high school student exchange program have spread throughout the states, with more than 20 in Massachusetts alone. The number of American students who go to China for exchange each year has also reached the scale of hundreds, and is constantly increasing.
...
In the spring of 2006, Ms. Kwong and another teacher of the school led 9 12th grade students (equivalent to senior high school students in China) to spend an unforgettable time at the sister school of Newton Public School, the famous Jingshan School in Beijing . As exchange students, these American teenagers eat and live in Chinese homes, and "go in and out with Chinese students", and have the most direct contact with Chinese culture and Chinese life.
Colgan, Craig (April 2003). "Interest in International Studies is Back!". Education Digest. Vol. 68, no. 8. p. 63. ISSN 0013-127X.
The article notes:
The oldest high school exchange program between the countries of the United States and China is still going strong. The Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program, which is based in the city of Newton, Massachusetts, works with private foundations and has raised an endowment which has kept the exchange operating since the year 1979.
Each fall, a group from China visits schools in Newton, and two Newton teachers and five students live with Chinese families. American teachers teach English while they are in China, and students attend classes in language, history, art, math, science, and martial arts, all in Chinese.
The exchange has inspired the Newton school system to make a strong commitment to teaching Chinese language, history, and culture. Students can study Mandarin as early as third grade and continue all the way through high school. Several school districts throughout Massachusetts have adopted similar programs, including Boston, Brockton, Brookline, Belmont, and Dover.
Weingarten, Jane (1989-06-22). "Returning From China, Newton Student Keeps Flame". The Jewish Advocate.
The article notes:
Tamar [Shay] was one of five students from Newton who spent this past semester at the Jingshan School in Beijing, and who lived with Chinese families while they studied and participated in daily Chinese life.
Although this group of students and the two Newton teachers who accompanied them knew their lives in China would be vastly different from what they had been used ot in suburban Boston, and commented on the initial shock of seeing their cramped quarters, adjusting to cold showers and 30-minute bike rides to and from school, these experiences became secondary when the students and teachers developed close bonds with their new friends and adopted families.
And for Tamar and others in the group, their attachment to the people they attended class with and lived with for four months had a profound effect on them, causing their emotions to "gain in volume, and ultimately led them to Tiananmen Square in May, where they marched along with the students who were seeking a more open, democratic society for China."
The article later notes:
"Not all students were behind the movement. In school, I sat two seats away from Deng Xiao Peng's granddaughter, who was a voice box, reflecting her family's view. She thought the students who led the action should be beheaded," Tamar says. But many of the government leaders have grandchildren who were involved.
Lythgoe, Dennis (1998-09-21). "Americans in China". Deseret News. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
The article notes:
That was the first jarring question one of his new Chinese high school students directed to American Peter Twomey when he reached the Jingshan Country School in northern Beijing.Despite its stark appearance, Jingshan is a boarding school for Chinese children from elite homes. It sits in quiet isolation on flat terrain in northern China. Despite its young age of two years, the school is dirty and plaster falls everywhere in the shabby interior.
...
Next, he contacted key people in the Newton, Mass., school system, to learn about their China exchange program. Surprisingly, Newton invited Twomey to be one of two teachers to go to China representing their city, and Brockton High granted him a four-month leave.
...
Just as the Chinese send students and teachers to Newton, the Americans send five Newton students, plus two teachers, to spend February to June in Beijing.
The major fear of Chinese officials is that students visiting America will defect. In exchange programs, the rate of Chinese defection is more than 50 percent. But since the Newton project was organized in 1985, they have never had a defection.
Shartin, Emily (2000-11-12). "Students get oriented in Newton: Exchange with Chinese has long history". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Over the past 21 years, Newton has maintained an exchange program with the Jingshan School, sending more than 30 students and 14 teachers to spend a semester in Beijing.
In return, 38 Jingshan students, including Li and five others who are here now, have spent time taking classes and sampling life in the Newton schools.
The Jingshan students, who are visiting Washington, D.C., this weekend will meet with US Secretary of Education Richard Riley and Chinese Minister of Education Chen Zhili tomorrow.
Those involved with the Newton-Beijing program say it was among the first to offer an up-close look at a foreign culture by insisting that participants stay in private homes. They are pleased that federal officials have taken an interest in the opportunity they've been offering students since 1978.
...
Many of the exchange program's major expenses are covered: Participants with host families, students pay for their own airfare, and the School Department pays to hire two substitute teachers to fill in for those who leave.
Carlock, Marty. (1985-05-12). "The study of Mandarin is on the upswing in high school: Americans respond enthusiastically to cultural exchanges" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2 on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
The student exchange program between Newton South High School and a secondary school in Beijing (Peking) will get under way next year. "So far as we know, this is one of the first, perhaps the first, in the country," says Elizabeth A. Quinn, director of secondary education for Newton schools.
Like many US–Chinese relationships, the Newton exchange grew out of personal friendship. Special education teacher Claire Kanter accompanied her husband on a business trip to China in 1979. There, she met Fang Bi Hui, a teacher of English at Jingshan School in Beijing and author of English-instruction textbooks.
...
Kanter and Fang Bi Hui compared notes for hours, rapidly became friends and proposed that their two schools initiate an ongoing relationship. A delegation of Newton teachers and administrators followed up with a formal vist to their counterparts in Beijing the next year; in 1983, Jingshan School reciprocated by sending four staff members to Newton South.
Invited back last fall, Supt. John M. Strand agreed to go, provided Jingshan School would lay the groundwork for a student-teacher exchange. Jingshan officials have now confirmed the plans, and, next fall, four high school students and two English-speaking teachers will live with Newton host families and attend Newton South for a semester. Newton students will then go to Jingshan for a semester.
Coons, Phyllis (1987-01-04). "Newton students return from China exchange". The Boston Globe. Archived from the original on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Jill Shapiro, a Newton North senior, and two English teachers, Mary Doolin and Carolyn Henderson, made up the group that also spent three and a half months at the Jingshan School, a Chinese public high school. The unprecedented exchange came out of a vacation trip to China in 1979 by Claire Kanter, a Newton special education teacher, who developed the idea with Fan Bi Hui, a teacher of English at the Jingshan. The Chinese school sent three students to spend a semester in Newton schools last year and to live with American families.
Students from Newton North and Newton South high schools were chosen to return the visit by submitting essays and by recommendations from their language teachers, said John Strand, superintendent of schools in Newton. They studied Chinese at school and took intensive summer courses at Harvard.
...
The level of classes at Jingshan is similar to that in Newton, students said. Chinese students spend three years, six days a week, in high school, majoring in science or liberal arts, and also studying history, geography, math, politics, chemistry, literature and music.
Axelrod, Joan. (1986-11-30). "TV to feature Newton-Peking exchange" (pages 1 and 2). The Boston Globe. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-04-18. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
The article notes:
This was one of the cultural revelations that is taking place as part of a pioneering exchange program between high schools in Newton and Peking. The exchange, touted as the first of its kind between a Chinese and an American public school, is the subject of a documentary called "The Beijing Mirror" made by producer Carol Ratney of the Newton Television Foundation. (Beijing is another spelling for Peking.) The film, which tells about the stay of Wang Hua and two of his classmates in Newton last year, will air Dec. 13 at 9:30 p.m. on Channel 44.
The Chinese exchange students have returned to China, and four Newton high school students, accompanied by two teachers, currently are studying in Peking. ...
...
The cultural exchange was the brainchild of Claire Kanter, a special education coordinator, who accompanied her husband, an accountant, on a business trip to Peking in 1979. There she met a Chinese woman who taught English, and, after years of planning an exchange program with the Jingshan School in Peking began to take shape.
Scherer, Marge (2009). Challenging the Whole Child: Reflections on Best Practices in Learning, Teaching and Leadership. Alexandria, Virginia: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. pp. 189–190. ISBN 978-1-4166-0893-6. Retrieved 2020-04-18.
The book notes:
Two public high schools in Newton, Massachusetts—Newton North and Newton South—run an exchange program with the Jingshan School in Beijing, China. Created by two teachers in 1979, the exchange enables U.S. and Chinese teachers and students to spend time in one another’s schools every year. The program has served as a catalyst for districtwide curriculum change, bringing the study of Asian cultures into various academic disciplines, from social studies to science, and adding Chinese to the district’s broad array of language options. The leaders of this exchange now help schools around the United States develop exchange programs with China as a way to internationalize their curriculums.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow the Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The incident referenced by editors above happened in 2014: "Newton North High School senior Henry DeGroot was visiting a school outside Beijing on a semester abroad this year when he decided to have some fun and also make a point by writing prodemocracy messages in the notebook of a Chinese student."
The sources I have found were published in 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1998, 2000, 2003, 2007, and 2009. The exchange program has received sustained significant coverage in reliable sources.
The sources include a Xinhua News Agency article, an Education Digest article, a Deseret News article, an article in The Jewish Advocate, and multiple articles in The Boston Globe.
The Xinhua News Agency article said that Newton students were "the first high school students in American history to go to China to participate in exchange student programs. At the time, only the Newton Public Schools had the program." The Education Digest says, that the "Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program" is "[t]he oldest high school exchange program between the countries of the United States and China [and] is still going strong".
A 1989 article in The Jewish Advocate notes that Newton student Tamar Shay while participating in the exchange program at Jingshan marched in the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests in May "with the [Chinese] students who were seeking a more open, democratic society for China". Shay notes, "Not all students were behind the movement. In school, I sat two seats away from Deng Xiao Peng's granddaughter, who was a voice box, reflecting her family's view. She thought the students who led the action should be beheaded".
A 1998 article in the Deseret News noted, "The major fear of Chinese officials is that students visiting America will defect. In exchange programs, the rate of Chinese defection is more than 50 percent. But since the Newton project was organized in 1985, they have never had a defection."
Reliable sources have provided substantial coverage of the Newton-Beijing Jingshan School Exchange Program, including noting that it is the first and oldest student exchange program between America and China. It clearly passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 10:15, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:58, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T. J. McCreight[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage. High-level NFL executive who has not yet been a general manager and no other claims to notability. It is rare for non-GM executives to receive significant enough coverage to pass GNG. This is his most up-to-date bio for reference as the article is hard to read. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's not a football player... Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was able to find four potential sources from credible publications pretty easily (1 2 3 4), although I will say he only meets one's looser definition of WP:GNG, and the argument for deletion is strong. Personally, I think this page just needs cleanup. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitpoint0213 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Based on sources provided above, subject meets WP:N. Could use some cleaning up. GrangerShots (talk) 14:49, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 to keep the article on the means that the article passes WP:MUSIC. However, there is still promotional material that may needs cleanup. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 16:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eryn Shewell[edit]

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

No sources of any note, no notability, page is full of filler and promo. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I say keep. Eryn Shewell has received coverage in major music publications as well as regional newspapers. There may be more about her in press by now. She has been touring internationally. I will check.Lhcollins (talk) 15:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you can find any sources in major music publications, by all means do. A quick Google search comes up with nothing rather than very specific regional newspapers. Serhatserhatserhat (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There were sources for most of the awards already. They were just in a different part of the text. The newspapers and music magazines listed are RS. She has won numerous awards and performed with the best. I went into my university's database and there are actually more articles there, but I stuck to what needed sourcing.Lhcollins (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The blues scene is more low key than mainstream rock which is something to consider.
Comment regional newspapers are reliable sources, mainstream music publications are not necessary to establish notability, they just are often used in articles related to the music industry.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:29, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: I would say let`s delete the article.Wikirapguru (talk) 17:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as she has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources such as regional newspapers and as she has been entered into the NY and New Jersey Blues Hall of Fame that would be a claim to pass WP:MUSIC criteria 7: "Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city" (only one criteria needed), in addition to passing WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:25, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep - Coverage by local and regional publications is one thing, but I'm still wary about how incredibly promotional and generally unsourced the article is right now. However, even if the page gets turned into a stub or otherwise severely pruned, I'm inclined to think that it's worth keeping given the persuasive arguments of the above user. The artist appears to be a key member of the blues scene in her particular area. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There is a clear absence of consensus to delete, after extended time for discussion. However, sourcing should be improved, or we'll be right back here in another few months. BD2412 T 20:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emanuela Rei[edit]

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

Fails WP:ENT. Antila333 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – There needs to be evidence that she's gotten enough coverage to meet WP:BASIC. (I think she probably technically meets WP:NACTOR due to being a co-lead on Maggie & Bianca: Fashion Friends, and for being in the cast of TV series previous to that, but meeting WP:BASIC/WP:GNG is actually the metric that matters for WP:BLPs.) Right now, the article is entirely unsourced and is basically a WP:BLPPROD case. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 12:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence she is a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She meets WP:NACTOR with her main role in Maggie & Bianca, and she has gotten coverage in Italian papers: ANSA, Note, la Repubblica. (There are also a lot of news articles to source her other roles like this that don't go in-depth as those.) Unfortunately the article was created without any sourcing and poor translations. TheFallenPower (talk) 15:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: WP:ENT is definitely made out, in my opinion. Aside from her role in Maggie & Bianca: Fashion Friends, the subject has had significant recurring roles in a number of other Italian shows. (Claiming that WP:GNG was not made out would have been a better reason for nomination, I think—but sources have been identified above.) Dflaw4 (talk) 12:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have now fixed the translation issues. The page is basically a mirror image of the Italian page. The sources identified here and the sources in the Italian article can be added. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article has no sources at all, which means we cannot keep it under BLP rules. It would not even survive a prod which could be passed by just putting on some sub-standard source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, KaisaL (talk) 08:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I put on sources that I mentioned earlier. TheFallenPower (talk) 15:21, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: subject has at least one major role and continues to be notable through recurring roles. Has more coverage in Italian press than internationally. I think that still makes her relevent to English wikipedia.Grmike (talk) 20:11, 18 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:11, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Lauren Bruce[edit]

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

Subject of the article fails WP:NMODEL and WP:GNG. She is only known for having unprotected sex with a notable American actor Charlie Sheen, who has HIV. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 07:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Nope! I can’t see general notability guidelines being met in any which way. Celestina007 (talk) 09:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to meet WP:GNG.---Richie Campbell (talk) 00:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete most of the sources amount to tabloids and gossip. People do not become notable for dating notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, virtually no significant coverage outside of the single event mentioned by the nominator. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 independent and reliable aspects of the sourcing have not been successfully challenged. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 23:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaga Baby[edit]

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

subject fails WP:NMUSIC and no indepdnent reliable source found to indicate subject pass WP:N Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 04:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article are reliable. I did a Google search and could not find any coverage of him being discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have been a member of the Wikipedia community for over 10 years. I have made many contributions over those 10 years. With regard to the Vaga Baby article, there are several reliable sources cited. Apple, Amazon, and iHeartRadio are a few of the sources that were used. These sources view Vaga Baby as a notable celebrity. It would not be fair or reasonable to delete an article that contains citations from the aforementioned sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 15:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Techno31 You sent me a message on my talk page and also you have commented the same here, I understand your disagreement as the creator of the page and since this AfD is the right venue, I reply you here. Apple, Amazon, and iHeartRadio are all not independent sources, as they are related to the subject for playing their songs. In Wikipedia, for a subject to be notable, first the subject needs to be qualified/passed the notability guidelines or WP:NMUSIC for a musician/signer/band. Secondly, the content needs to be supported by significant coverage by independent, reliable sources such as from the newspaper or books, where by the sources talk about the subject in length and in depth and not passing mentioned. In a nutshell pls see WP:42. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 05:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — WOW the bluedgeon is real out here. But yeah basically what Versace1608 said, I don’t see WP:MUSICBIO being satisfied here neither do I see subject of article having in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them so gng isn’t met either, so yeah a stand alone article isn’t warranted at the moment. Sorry. Celestina007 (talk) 14:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - I will need a few more days to add the references. I am looking for them now.*** — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 13:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WorldStarHipHop and Worldwide Spotlight are valid sources that have been cited in a multitude of articles on Wikipedia. I have been a part of the Wikipedia community for over 10 years. I have read over WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO a myriad of times over the past 10 years. I do not simply create articles on a whim. Vaga Baby meets the following criterion:

1. Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself.

7. Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city; note that the subject must still meet all ordinary Wikipedia standards, including verifiability.

10. Has performed music for a work of media that is notable, e.g., a theme for a network television show, performance in a television show or notable film, inclusion on a notable compilation album, etc. (But if this is the only claim, it is probably more appropriate to have a mention in the main article and redirect to that article. Read the policy and notability guideline on subjects notable only for one event, for further clarifications).

It is required that the artist meet only one of the the criterion listed within WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Vaga Baby meets several.

I will post more references shortly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will need a few more days to get the article updated with more references. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techno31 (talk • contribs) 16:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for giving me the chance to revise the article. I added a new reference to the page. I cited an article from MarketWatch.^[1] This adds to the fact that this article is suitable for Wikipedia.

Delete - Every source in the article as it is right now doesn't seem able to prove notability (as stated above, the likes of Apple are in it to sell things and not to provide reliable information). The article from MarketWatch in particular is a press release. Even if it was a standard news report, it wouldn't be appropriate to build a whole page from a single source, especially one that doesn't go into that much detail. The artist just doesn't appear to be notable, and so deletion is the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If sources are the issue, I can cite a few more. Because this is a new article, I assumed that more information and sources could be added later on. Nevertheless, I will add a few more sources. I will need a day or two to sit down in front of the computer and add these. Thanks for reviewing. Techno31 (talk)

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

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

The result was speedily deleted as a blatant copyright infringement. Michig (talk) 08:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soul Brothers (band)[edit]

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

This article have been copied and pasted from (https://www.allmusic.com/artist/the-soul-brothers-mn0000044338/biography), possibly in violation of Wikipedia:Copyright policy Amkgp (talk) 04:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So why bring it to AfD when you've already quite correctly added a tag for speedy deletion on the article. --Michig (talk) 08:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 14:24, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Violet Stones (band)[edit]

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

Subject has yet to meet WP:NMUSIC to merit a page in Wikipedia mainspace. WP:TOOSOON Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 03:48, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This one is a close call, but I must agree that it is too soon for this band. They have gotten some early and brief mentions in the Australian alt-rock press ([46], [47]), but I don't think this achieves the "significant coverage" requirements at WP:NBAND. Their notability may improve if their recent debut album get any notice beyond the specialty press. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 00:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doomsdayer520’s comment is thoughtful and compelling. Woerich (talk) 02:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. The sources Doomsdayer linked are fairly short, but IMO they meet NMUSIC's standard of being "non-trivial." I'm not quite so sure that they're reliable, though—they're fairly obscure sources, but they do seem to be well-run operations with full-time people behind them. Also, if this is kept, it should be moved to The Violet Stones (there's nothing to disambiguate it from). Gaelan 💬✏️ 20:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - This is, as stated above, somewhat of a close call. The group has received a bit of attention. That's important, to an extent, but then we still don't have enough coverage to really build a page. I'm not sure, but deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 02:34, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Greenlee County, Arizona. Sandstein 07:55, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strayhorse, Arizona[edit]

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

As best I can determine, "Strayhorse" was originally the name applied to the whole canyon. There is a campground (which also shows up on the topos) which is far and away the most common reference to the placename. There was also, once, a sawmill in the area, and there are a couple of buildings, about half a mile from each other and back in the woods, whihc are also on the topos. One is definitely a ranch, and the other is unclear. But again, I cannot find anything testifying to this as a settlement: every reference is consistent with it being thought of as a general locale. Mangoe (talk) 02:59, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect. There is also Strayhorse creek, which I believe is a tributary of Blue River (Arizona), but it's not mentioned there. I found some newspaper articles that refer to Strayhorse as a place, such as "Fall has arrived at Strayhorse" [48], and "Elk concentrated below rim between Rose peak and Strayhorse" [49]. It's not mentioned in U.S. Route 191 which is the road through the area either. I think a redirect would be useful if someone was trying to find this place, so adding a mention in Greenlee County, Arizona is probably the best target. MB 04:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect It's definitely a local landmark, but there's no sign of a community here and not enough coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:54, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midnight Thicket, Delaware[edit]

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

Lots of GNIS crap in Delaware too. This was a forest that burned down in 1906, not a community. Does not appear on topo because it doesn't exist, was on 1915 topo as physical feature like landings and wharves. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 01:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable place with no significant coverage. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 04:17, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Thickets are not presumed to be notable, and this one has no significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 16:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep : On the web, it does have some presence. - Mew-o.o-Mew (talk) 18:10, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which specific websites would you use to establish notability? The first ten Google results [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] appear to be automated sites that use the GNIS database for location data; I'm not seeing any in-depth coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 19:03, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment stricken as it was made by a sockpuppet (LTA). --MrClog (talk) 20:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable place with no significant coverage. Fails WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 14:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be just a small forest. Fails GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. PointComm (talk) 17:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ MarketWatch (2020-04-13), Florida Artist, Vaga Baby is Keeping Calm During the Pandemic

[1] MarketWatch (2020-04-13), Florida Artist, Vaga Baby is Keeping Calm During the Pandemic

[1]