Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 13

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 12 April	14 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social distancing measures related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic[edit]

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

This topic is a duplicate of the information in National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, because the topic of government-mandated social distancing measures will always fit neatly within "National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic". Additionally, Curfews and lockdowns related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is basically the same idea. Natureium (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is far too broad. It would include everything from economic stimuli to healthcare responses to social distancing. We already have Travel restrictions related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic as a separate article, so why not this? There is at least as much content to cover. As for Curfews and lockdowns related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, it is in turn too restrictive. There are plenty of other forms of social distancing responses than curfews and lockdowns, so why limit coverage to those? If that limitation exists, than many countries will not be included at all. And neither will differences within countries (such as between US states). But perhaps it could be merged to this article.Keepcalmandchill (talk) 01:13, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE; &c. The nomination doesn't seem to present a reason for deletion; just some second-guessing on how the material might be presented. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Also, there are also a separate article about curfew. Dede2008 (talk) 18:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Topic is covered by sources. Topic is not a subset of National responses to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, as social distancing may also be voluntary. While Curfews and lockdowns related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic is a subset of social distancing, it is far from encompassing all types of social distancing. For instance: wearing masks, bumping elbows, or voluntary avoidance of contact are social distancing measures that are not curfews/lockdowns.--Eostrix (talk) 08:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Vital topic; "deltion is not cleanup". Snow close? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 11:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's a good idea to have a number of specialized articles, such as Shortages related to the COVID-19 pandemic, Face masks during the COVID-19 pandemic, etc. There might be an overlap in information, but it helps to keep the articles more readable and deeper. --Amakuha (talk) 19:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Redundant and lacks scope to be a full-fledged article with insight and proper information. Is this going to be a list of single sentences for every country/territory's section? Most of the countries are also not in the list. Not to mention the measures taken are regularly being regularly amended and relaxed, meaning the article will soon be displaying the 'needs to be updated' tag at the top. Any information stated here can be found in the country's main article for the pandemic either way. Speedy deletion would be better.--Shawnqual (talk) 21:15 18 April 2020 (UTC)
Keep - It is a good topic and a matter that is going on all over the world. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Taking into account present status of Virology, it's least likely that COVID19 will be last pandemic causing virus which called in practice of social distancing.

Every country has different kind of failures and challenges in social distancing, like religious bigotry on one hand insisting to continue with religious gatherings at any cost as in Pakistan etc. where as Godless secualrs loving freedom of Friday night dancing more Some communities arranging weddings and birthday parties, and again economic migration to vegetable markets of India causing breach in social distancing needs of the given moment. Need to be covered not only in this article but these issues need minimum level coverage in main 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic article. IMHO.

Bookku (talk) 02:59, 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 delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of cancellations, closures and postponements in California during the 2020 coronavirus pandemic[edit]

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

Wikipedia is WP:NOT a directory or a list of events or a calendar or a list of events that never happened. There is no lasting notability of this topic. Natureium (talk) 23:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Everything everywhere has been canceled, closed, or postponed. Key major items with broader discussion/impact may be provided at 2020 coronavirus pandemic in California but such a list with largely meaningless specific dates is an inappropriate directory. Reywas92^Talk 00:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per above. Not so much indiscriminate as all-inclusive. Mangoe (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR. A List of things still open in California or anywhere else would probably be notable though... ——SN 54129 03:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIR and WP:NOPAGE. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 04:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Clear violation of WP:NOT. Ajf773 (talk) 09:12, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as even with California being pretty specific this will end up being an indiscriminate list.--Eostrix (talk) 08:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: The content was forked from 2020 coronavirus pandemic in California. If not kept, should the text be merged back into the parent article? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:42, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. If we delete the article, we delete the content. No one is asking to merge it. Ajf773 (talk) 22:23, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a section that could use a paragraph about it: 2020 coronavirus pandemic in California § Cancellations, closures and postponements. I think it should use a source that discusses cancellations overall, not each of them individually. That's far from a merge though. --MarioGom (talk) 22:52, 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) b uidhe 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gendered impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic[edit]

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

This isn't even useful as a redirect. It should be covered in a few sentences in the article on the disease itself. The domestic violence aspect is already covered in an entire other article of very specific scope, Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on domestic violence. There is no lasting notability in this topic.

The way that the disease (coronavirus disease 2019) affects men and women differently is a medical/scientific issue about the disease, not a social issue about the pandemic itself. This article is largely based on one source that discusses social issues that women face during the pandemic. Other sources are about the medical differences (not about the pandemic, but about the disease) or about other diseases (one is about zika and ebola?) Natureium (talk) 23:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per nom, to the main article and the domestic violence article where appropriate. Most of the medical data on how the virus impacts different genders is well-sourced and useful, but the rest of this article is not. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 01:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I think that this article has lasting notability, as more studies related to this topic will become available in the future. Researches regarding sex differences in COVID-19 infection are underway and they cannot be included in the main article for Coronavirus disease 2019 because it is already too long with details about other aspects of the disease. In my opinion, the domestic violence article should be merged to this one, because this article covers a wider scope. The sections on women in leadership and women being vulnerable to COVID-19 exposure cannot be merged into any other article because they specifically belong to the gendered impact of COVID-19. --Netha (talk) 07:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Lancet has an article on the topic: COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak. Such notability does not expire; it only become greater as more is written. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article includes different aspects and topics of the inequal impact of the pandemic based on gender. The domestic violence deserves an article by itself, given the different national statistics and approaches to the problem. Scann (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per the above, the importance of the issues presented in the article will only become more substantial as more worldwide evidence is presented in the article. Having individual articles on different aspects of multifaceted phenomena allow better translation possibilities between languages. – Susannaanas (talk) 11:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see several articles about the impact of the 2019-2020 coronavirus pandemic of lesser relevance than this one. More and more research is being carried out on various aspects of the pandemic, research which will have general interest for longer time than the pandemic itself. I think domestic violence could be merged into this article. Tanzania (talk) 13:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clear keep this is a major subject of conversation from multiple dimensions, not just gendered violence -- but gendered labor and work, health care for women (i.e. the attempt to change abortion laws in the U.S. during the crisis, etc). I don't understand the rational of the nominator. Moreover, this is being interpreted by major UN organizations as such: i.e. https://www.unfpa.org/resources/covid-19-gender-lens . There is going to be a lasting impact of this topic, and its worth treating it as a subject, Sadads (talk) 23:40, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Notability is determined by reliable sources writing about the topic. The article's current sources include a Lancet article called "COVID-19: the gendered impacts of the outbreak", and two New York Times articles, "Does Covid-19 Hit Women and Men Differently? U.S. Isn't Keeping Track" and "In Italy, Coronavirus Takes a Higher Toll on Men". These demonstrate clear notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's not the impact of the pandemic, but of the disease itself. It does appear that men are more severely affected than women, but that's not what this article is about. This article is about social issues, not medical or scientific ones. Natureium (talk) 00:30, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There is a lot more information to add to this topic from UN Women, UNFPA etc who are publishing on this topic. John Cummings (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, covered in sources. For example the Spanish codeword for domestic violence escape during the lockdown received much attention: [1][2].--Eostrix (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: widely covered topic. Note that domestic violence specifics are covered by Impact of the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic on domestic violence, but that's far from all gender-related issues. --MarioGom (talk) 09:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep & close. The result is clear. Also, let people some weeks to develop their articles. Yug (talk) 15:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons already given above. -Yupik (talk) 01:16, 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 17:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social stigma associated with COVID-19[edit]

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

If anything, it could be redirected to Xenophobia, discrimination and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic. This is not notable, and instructional as written. Natureium (talk) 23:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep The nomination's claims are false and do not propose deletion. It seems clear that no thought has gone into them, as required by WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Parts of this article cannot be incorporated into List of incidents of xenophobia and racism related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic because it is a list of incidents. We need a separate article for social stigma associated with the disease, like the article on Social stigma of obesity, which was created in 2011. -Netha (talk) 17:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: we are seeing increased coverage in WP:RS about social stigma associated with COVID-19 and not related to xenophobia or any kind of discrimination based on other characteristics. There's numerous reports about this in Spain (e.g. [3]) and China (e.g. [4]). --MarioGom (talk) 09:19, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More by UNICEF ([5]) and WHO ([6]). Reuters on increased attacks against healthcare workers in Argentina, Colombia, Chile, Mexico and Panama ([7]). --MarioGom (talk) 08:25, 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 LOGIC (electronic cigarette). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Howard Panes[edit]

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

Non-notable individual with very minor mentions pertaining to his cars and ecigs. Best source I could find is this quasi-advertorial about billionaires, having 2 brief paragraphs on him specifically. No SIGCOV, therefore failing the GNG. PK650 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 22:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. It is in part the glut of articles on non-notable businessmen that will push us over 1 million articles on living people if we do not do something soon.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Most of his claim is related to LOGIC (electronic cigarette), but the rest doesn't seem to satisfy notability. Alansohn (talk) 21:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Restore redirect to LOGIC (electronic cigarette) where he is mentioned. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 06:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Browsed through several articles that met SIGCOV on Panes. Meets GNG. Additionally, having played a role in the e-cigarette epidemic, I'm not so sure we should be quick to whitewash history by deleting it. Not to engage in Whataboutism, but Adam Bowen, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Bowen founder of Juul also has a page, which we should probably process in the same way that we do this one, and frankly the more we can have stubs like this, the more there will be a historical record of this time. Plenty of WP:V Also, PK650 seems to have recently joined, per his about page, and quickly moved to nominating AFD, and I'd like to ask, and will post re: COI GrangerShots (talk) 15:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GrangerShots, casting shade at someone for "not being here for very long" is a pretty daring move for someone with a red talk page link as of this writing. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 16:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- Having worked there I'm going to use an IP. But the ovreall number of articles on living people is an overall Wikipedia issues; whereas for this one we need to apply the rules and evaluate each on their individual basis. I'd go with Rosguill's idea, redirect, till this can get built out more. In fact, I'm happy to start doing that. 165.73.68.48 (talk) 15:22, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to main Logic page. Mallardsfan19 (talk) 21:36, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

D Flourney, California[edit]

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

Fails the notability guidelines for geographic locations, specifically bullet point 2 of WP:GEOLAND. A google search of "d flourney" california turns up no results other than this article, autogenerated webpages using GNIS data, and irrelevant results (names of people, etc). Appears to be an individual farm whose name got entered into the GNIS database somehow. Wikipedia isn't an almanac or a gazeteer; we don't need sub-stubs on every name that exists in some geographic database somewhere, and as far as I can tell there's literally no existing information on this location aside from the GNIS coordinates.

This is one of hundreds if not thousands of similar articles within California alone, but I don't want to do any batch nominations until I've had a chance to sort through them all, figure out which others are non-notable for the same reasons, and save the ones that are in fact notable. CJK09 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 22:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Yes, one person mass-created 1000+ CA articles using only the GNIS without looking at the map or finding sources to establish either WP:V or WP:N. Individual and small-batch noms are inefficient and inappropriately shift the WP:BURDEN on challenging factual errors in these articles. This is a ranch, not a community, not even named on topos. Reywas92^Talk 00:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Name is from a forest service map, and given that every map and view shows a ranch here, it's safe to guess that "D. Flourney" was the proprietor at the time the map in question was made. At any rate, it's not a settlement or anything notable, though it is interesting to verify that there is a dirt strip (shown in one topo) for the small plane which can be seen in the GMaps view. Mangoe (talk) 02:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Seems to be an isolated ranch. This is perhaps one of the worse examples of mass created stubs. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete along with Flourney, California, R Flourney, California and K Flourney, California which are other non-notable ranches that I'll nominate separately. –dlthewave ☎ 01:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I don't think an isolated land with no habitants is notable. - MA Javadi (talk) 16:50, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Rollidan (talk) 01:39, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saleemullah Khan[edit]

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

Person with no indication of significance, only a few sources which all appear to be non-RS obits. Kingsif (talk) 22:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are Dawn, The Nation, Dunya News and ARY News really all unreliable sources? Phil Bridger (talk) 11:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only Dawn was actually named in the ref when I read it, and the amateur format of the webpages still doesn't fill me with confidence. Nor does a gif logo on the article of one of them, or the lack of RS's for those last two even existing, let alone being good (thanks for the wikilinks). And, regardless, the only coverage is post-death and tells us what school he went to (and that he died, obviously). Nowhere near notable. Kingsif (talk) 11:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rechecked all 6 existing references at the article and they all work – Dawn (newspaper), The Nation (newspaper), Dunya TV News website and ARY TV News website. In my editing experience at Wikipedia, I have never been told that any of them are not Reliable Sources. Ngrewal1 (talk) 23:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Saleemullah Khan was among the senior known scholars of Pakistan. He had a notable position at Wafaq ul Madaris Al-Arabia, Pakistan. Teacher of at least two eminent scholars of Pakistan viz Mufti Taqi Usmani and Mufti Rafi Usmani. Notablity is easily established. - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 17:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of Teacher of at least two eminent scholars of Pakistan viz Mufti Taqi Usmani and Mufti Rafi Usmani. is in the article, though - can it be sourced and, if so, can it be added. If that is what his notability is based on, make sure it's in the article. Kingsif (talk) 17:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsif, I've added some content and improved some references including one academic work by a notable professor of University of Balochistan. I hope you withdraw this AfD nomination, because the article has now enough references and content to claim notability. Regards - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 18:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure withdrawing is how AfD works, but it can be closed as 'keep', which should be fine. It might get relisted for consensus, but if you've improved it enough (I did wait 24 hours before AfD-ing, I believe, but late is better than never) then it will probably get kept. Kingsif (talk) 18:18, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above and coverage in the Dawn and The Nation .Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:59, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HD 156279 b[edit]

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

Only listed in large catalogues. No coverage beyond what would be considered trivial. See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/HD 156279 c. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 21:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NASTRO and WP:GNG. Lithopsian (talk) 15:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: agree with the above points. Aldebarium (talk) 20:22, 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. Appears to be a badly machine translated version of the German Wikipedia article. Will add a request at WP:PNT. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joscha Schmierer[edit]

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

Apart from the first line the article is unintelligible. Perhaps its a computer translation? Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, At the very least, I couldn't find any English sources about this guy, and given how this article is essentially undecipherable ("but threw his supervisor in 1969 with a discussion meeting in the auditorium of the University of eggs [2], because this should have defended the actions of the armed forces in Eastern Europe." That is just one example) this definitely qualifies as a TNT delete even if sources are found. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. The article appears to be a Google Translated version of a page at the German Wikipedia. See [8] and [9]. MarkZusab (talk) 01:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes he threw an egg at his supervisor and blew his doctorate. There are reliable sources about him é.g. 1, 2, 3, 4. This is a poor translation and unless someone's volunteering to tidy it up it can be listed at Articles for Translation and another editor will oblige. No basis at all for deletion. Mccapra (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That seems the best solution. I'm happy to withdraw the proposal to delete it. Rathfelder (talk) 10:39, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cahir O'Higgins[edit]

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

Not Notable appears to be self bio Dermo345 (talk) 19:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Appears to not satisfy WP:NOTABILITY. Appears to be a WP:AB.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough 3rd party reliable secondary source coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article is fair and accurate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.233.35.53 (talk) 10:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. First off, he fails my standards for lawyers. All of his work essentially has been paid; lawyers are expected to do pro bono and to be involved in bar association work to be notable. Secondly, getting three reported cases is not unusual. I argued two appellate cases and was on the brief as a law clerk on a third. Lawyers are supposed to argue cases. That does not make them notable. Secondly, his primary claim to notability is via his parents. Finally, in 2020, everybody knows we are a charity, not the Irish LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 21:27, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahmed Ghaleb Kadhim[edit]

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

I don't know how but my original nom managed to get eaten by the server. This is a completely exaggerated article and possibly fabricated. There are no sources in English or Arabic (or any other language) about this person to confirm any of the claims of notability. The existing sources are self published (ie. Press releases, etc...) and there is no other coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 19:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - There are no reliable sources, there are no press reports about this person, there are no sources for the tournaments he did, there is an exaggeration and falsification - Fareeq Almayoofee (talk) 19:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fake information without sources - Ahmed alnasre (talk) 19:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unreliable sources, there are no sources talking about something prominent to the personality. Al-Dandoon (talk) 20:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ as the sources appear to be unreliable. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

After seeing the amount of !votes that have been cast from what could possibly be sock/meatpuppets, I have decided that I will withdraw my vote. I don't have a strong opinion on what happens here, and I don't want to become part of a campaign for deletion, even if the sources are not verifiable and the article will likely be deleted. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Utopes I can assure you from my end there's been no campaigning, I don't know who the other accounts are but I'd encourage you to take into account my nomination and consider the arguments I presented as opposed to whatever these sock puppets hope to accomplish. Praxidicae (talk) 16:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae I don't disagree with the nomination, and I don't doubt your good intentions. The content is not verifiable and written with a clear POV. However, I just am not going to cast my !vote because I do not know whether there is a takedown campaign from other SPAs that are participating here. The article will likely be deleted due to overwhelming consensus, and rightly so based on the current state of the article. I just am not going to join in on the WP:SNOW. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 16:52, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fake information without sources - Osama Baqir (talk) 20:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC) Osama Baqir (talk)[reply]
Note What I see is that most of the editors putting delete votes have very few edits in their accounts. Olisaiuer (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it can be very disruptive, and self-defeating, when we get such a bunch of sock/meatpuppets turning up, even if we agree with their bolded opinion, because it puts other people off from evaluating the subject properly. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam. MER-C 11:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia articles should not be paid for nor solicited by the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note I am an editor in Arabic Wikipedia - Fareeq Almayoofee (talk) 17:49, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Praxidicae, I don't read Arabic, but it is clear from the nomination statement that you do, so could you please give those of us who are more ignorant an analysis of the Arabic sources in the article? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't speak Arabic but I consulted with a native ar editor and used google translate. It's effectively an unverified press release in both of the two sources. It's the equivalent of publishing something on Yahoo's press service, i'm also ignoring the patently unreliable sources which are effectively blogs that look like a news outlet. (I did however, search the name in Persian/Farsi, Arabic and English and came to the same result.) Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot to ping @علاء: who I consulted with. Praxidicae (talk) 18:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: Praxidicae usually consults me before any RfD related to Arabic topics. Also, Arabic Wikipedia appreciate her work a lot of times. About this articles, sources as follow:

1/2/3 = Ahmed Ghaleb youTube channel
10 = Ahmed Ghaleb Instagram account
5/6/7/8/9 = unreliable website (+ copy/paste from each others)
4 = Website include any human rights violations, and you can't trust it that much, as any one can make a report.

So, Delete as non-notable paid article --Alaa :)..! 17:00, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that, both of you. It confirms the impression that I got from using Google Translate, but I know that it's difficult to judge sources when I don't understand them. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - even assuming this protester exists and was kidnapped and released unharmed, he's not notable in any way and one incident does not make him notable. Bearian (talk) 21:17, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew McNeile Jones[edit]

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

Article on an English painter. I removed so many junk sources from this article (Facebook, Linkedin, artplu.com, saatchiart.com, youtube, gallery blurbs, event announcements and so on) that I decided to take a closer look at the other sources. There is almost no independent coverage at all for this artist. 95% of the given sources are primary gallery sources, or the Singulart/ArtRabbit/artplu.com/saatchiart.com type of website that is a sell-your-painting-get-visibility site. GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I couldn't find sufficient WP:RS to satisfy NARTIST. None of the exhibitions on his CV are sufficient [10] and the only article I could find on him is a short Competition Spotlight from an open call: "Competition Spotlight artists are chosen from competition finalists. Visit www.artistsnetwork.com/learn more2015 to view winning entries from our 2014 Annual Art Competition."^[1] --Theredproject (talk) 21:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ "Andrew McNeile Jones: Oxford, United Kingdom * www.mcneilejones.co.uk." The Artist's Magazine, June 2015, p. 80. Gale In Context: Biography, https://link-gale-com.central.ezproxy.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A408784368/BIC?u=cuny_centraloff&sid=BIC&xid=61aeae81. Accessed 13 Apr. 2020.

Hold This concerns a BAFTA-winning director and producer with a succesful national career as a painter. Unfortunately his film career ended in 2002 and not many sources are available on the internet regarding the period before 2002. As a painter, he did several exhibitions, won several awards and has been mentioned in Vogue Magazine and The Independent, but these sources are on paper and no electronic version is available.Christo jones (talk) 21:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Christo jones: I did a database search and wasn't able to VERIFY the BAFTA award. All I could find was his LinkedIn [11]. Did you find WP:RS that VERIFY the award? --Theredproject (talk) 18:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete couldn't find any passable sources. Fails WP:GNG. Curiocurio (talk) 00:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof. Bearian (talk) 21:30, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2016 Sydney Film Festival[edit]

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

Boilerplate "article" which has existed for four years without ever having any substantive content added to it. As written, this just states the dates on which the festival was held and lists the names of the award jury members, but otherwise just comprises empty sections which aren't actually listing even one film that screened at it. Basically, somebody rushed a boilerplate article into place in the expectation that it would be added to in the future — but nobody ever actually added to it, and it exists in isolation as there are no other articles for any other year's running of this film festival at all. We can certainly keep separate articles about individual annual runnings of film festivals if they actually have content (see: Berlin, Cannes, TIFF), so I'd be perfectly happy to withdraw this if somebody with better access to archived Australian media coverage than I've got can actually improve the article — but if nobody's prepared to do that, there's no value in holding onto it in this state. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per nom. Nothing of value here. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject is well covered in Sydney Film Festival. Teraplane (talk) 05:36, 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) 23:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dillon[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC and WP:ANYBIO. Unable to locate any biographical information in reliable secondary sources. Magnolia677 (talk) 16:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable social media figure.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no evidence of notability based on the sources provided. Mikenorton (talk) 17:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - cannot see anything to establish notability. Eagleash (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article offers no evidence of notability. I have failed to find any. Maproom (talk) 21:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - barely legal and barely famous. Also there is a total lack of significant coverage, much less any coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 21:37, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nimal Yatiwella[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The content is blatant hoax and has been written as a WP:PROMO. The cited sources are bare urls and most of them are unreliable primary sources. Abishe (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 16:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP: ANYBIO / WP:NACTOR. The RS provided don’t even mention the individual. The other references such as YouTube and Wikipedia are not acceptable sources. Dan arndt (talk) 23:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V. This is possibly a fan page, but we are not a fan website. Bearian (talk) 21:33, 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 The Wire. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Day Co-Op[edit]

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

A WP:CONTENTFORK comprised of WP:ALLPLOT. DarkGlow (talk) 16:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Wire, this article is sourced entirely to primary sources, and as such fails WP:GNG, and as it is comprised entirely of in-universe information it fails WP:PLOT. Since it is all in-universe information, there is nothing to Merge. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of this passing WP:NFICTION, pure WP:PLOT. At best redirect to an article that mentions this organization. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:32, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The Wire - Entirely made up of in-universe plot information, sourced only to the show itself, so there is nothing here that should be retained. Its a reasonable search term, though, and should be used as a redirect to the article on the show. Rorshacma (talk) 05:41, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massacres of Albanians during the Great Retreat[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK of Great Retreat (Serbian) based on the misinterpretation of secondary sources, some reliable and others not (see my exposition here ). Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Serbia-related deletion discussions. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 15:49, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, merge complaint material to Great Retreat or, in the case that there is material that cannot fit there, to an extended version of Massacres of Albanians during the Balkan Wars (the Balkan theatres of World War I as Balkan War III is not an unknown concept). --Calthinus (talk) 13:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It seems that none of the reliable sources used backs what the article says. If there are relevant sources, content based on them can be added to the Great Retreat (Serbian) article. Ktrimi991 (talk) 14:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. If there should be anything left when the non-RS sources have been weeded out and the text is adjusted to what the RS sources say, I am sure there will be room for it in the Great Retreat article. --T*U (talk) 16:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as per @Ktrimi991 and @TU-nor.Resnjari (talk) 21:41, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camilla Di Giuseppe[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG without multiple, independent sources covering the subject in-depth. User:Namiba 14:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 14:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable broadcast journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator. Not notable television personality....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 17:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per John Pack Lambert. 2001:569:74D2:A800:4422:FAA9:E88D:89F0 (talk) 05:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As always, television journalists are not automatically notable enough for Wikipedia articles just because their own staff profiles on the self-published websites of their own employers offer technical verification that they exist — the key to making a journalist notable enough for Wikipedia is to reference it to coverage about her in independent sources, such as books and other media outlets that don't issue her paycheque. But besides her staff profile, the only other source used here at all is IMDb, which is also not a reliable or notability-clinching source either. The article states nothing about her (e.g. winning a noteworthy journalism award) that would be "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 19:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Bearcat mostly. No independent sources about her, the journalist. PK650 (talk) 22:44, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scorpio Babers[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haven't looked into it, but come on, the name alone is too good to delete, no? Cbl62 (talk) 13:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

+1 Eagles 24/7 (C) 13:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can't help but wonder -- was his mother (a) a superfan of General Hospital (old time fans of the show would understand), (b) really into astrology or (c) just a genius at picking kick-ass names for her babers? Cbl62 (talk) 19:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm partial to Hamp Cheevers, for the record. Eagles 24/7 (C) 19:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet even our insanely over broad inclusion criteria for football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom -- despite my fondness for the name. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 05:10, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think he meets GNG per [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] . Is this professional? He's apparently in finance now. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:08, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Fun tidbit: the third source (from Bleacher Report during their era of user-created content) was written by long-time Wikipedia editor (and creator of this actual article!) Chrisjnelson. Eagles 24/7 (C) 02:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the sources mentioned show significant coverage, merely routine reporting of signings by teams that cut him before ever playing an NFL game--so he fails to meet WP:GNG. Being on practice squads does not meet WP:NGRIDIRON. Papaursa (talk) 02:42, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:03, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mikey See[edit]

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

yet another non notable musician, sourced to blackhat SEO fake sites, press releases and interviews with no independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save I am new to new to Wikipedia editing, but not new to research. This page was my second edit and, as such, I would like to salvage it. I have read through the sources, and all but Vents magazine are reliable sources. I can also tell you; I edit for fun, not for pay. As for notability, Mikey See is a notable singer, new, but a significant source for Wikipedia. The grounds for deletion are unfounded, as I will show: The "sourced to blackhat SEO fake sites" and "press releases and interviews with no independent coverage" have not been cited.

Mikey See 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.1 EX.CO Formerly "Playbuzz" is reliable and even has its own Wikipedia page. Deadline News UK is in the top 50 news websites in the UK.

The criterion for published works: this criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries 2

Tyga, Akon, and Justina Valentine satisfy the criterion for non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.

Mikey See has been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network as heard here on 106.1.

He is on Next Big Sound and the criterion for being on Next Big Sound is being notable. In closing, if edits are required, please list them. I will gladly do any edits necessary, as this is one page that should never be considered for deletion at all. Dr Wing (talk) 00:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — subject of article is a 22 year old who clearly doesn’t meet WP:MUSICBIO & doesn’t have in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence WP:GNG isn’t satisfied either. Even bare notability he doesn’t possess. Celestina007 (talk) 01:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator, Olisaiuer, for spamming. MER-C 17:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:MUSICBIO. He is still an up-and-coming artist whose music have not been discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I did a couple of searches. Just by Google hits, a lot comes up, including this article. However, there is also a makeup artist with a similar name and many are about him, not this subject. I literally found nothing in news or newspapers about this musician. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 21:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save

This page has independent coverage.
There is no evidence of blackhat SEO fake sites cited.
The cited reference link to the subject’s Yahoo! Coverage is independent coverage, not an interview, and not a press release. A press release would be on Yahoo Finance, this subject’s link is not a press release.
Popdust is not a blackhat SEO fake site. Popdust links are cited as reliable references on the following subject Wikipedia pages: Judy Garland, Keanu Reeves, Hailee Steinfeld, Loren Gray, Miley Cyrus, Kendrick Lamar, Maroon 5 and countless others.
The subject meets the requirements on WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Deadline News article is a top, respected news agency in the UK.Hugncuddle (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save: Mikey See is, in fact, notable and exceeds the notability requirements for a music artist by Wikipedia standards for WP:MUSICBIO. On WP:MUSICBIO it states: “Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.) may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria.” This artist meets the following three criteria as follows:

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. [note 1]
1. Dr. Wing has shown one citation on April 14th, 2020, with Deadline News UK listed on the page already, as well as others.
Mikey See has received non-trivial coverage in reliable, independent sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country.
1. I was able to get confirmation of his performance on tour listed, such as the one with Akon in October 2020 here on Songkick.
2. I was able to confirm his tour performances with Justina Valentine as well, here, as well as on Patch events (not a community member post) and Hype Magazine here,
3. Also, I was able to find numerous video clips of the subject, Mikey See performing on these international and national tours.

Mikey See been placed in rotation nationally by a major radio or music television network.
1. The subject, Mikey See has been on heavy rotation on not just one, but four major FM radio stations as well as Sirius XM which are all nationally syndicated, including, but not limited to, 105.5FM The Beat, Shade45 on Sirius XM, WBLI and WPTY.

I am in agreement with Dr. Wing on this to save the page. There is a responsibility to adhere to the notability requirements here. WP:MUSICBIO clearly states that a subject has to meet one of the conditions, and this subject has met and exceeded that benchmark.Chase9876 (talk) 05:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save: Declaration for deletion shows no proof. There is no evidence of anyone being paid or spamming cited.

The artist meets the requirements needed. If there is evidence of UPE, the creator's account should be banned, not the artist's page.

Independent Coverage: Yahoo Lifestyle | MICHAEL CAPRA et al v. CHINASA BROXTON OKOROCHA et al

The news article found on Yahoo Lifestyle validates the independent coverage by a reliable source as required by WP:MUSICBIO. The page should stay.Darkquasar12 (talk) 05:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save: I concur with Darkquasar12 and Dr Wing. I am a music industry veteran, on the business side, not talent, and I can assure you that the subject Mikey See is, in fact, notable. I keep reading the opening sentence of WP:MUSICBIO, which says, "... may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria." I do not understand how this can be misunderstood. The subject far exceeds the minimum requirement of one of the criteria on WP:MUSICBIO . The page complies with wikipedia's guidelines and should remain.SoCalDogLover (talk) 07:40, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art Beatz[edit]

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

once i removed the blatantly fake/fabricated blackhat seo sources, we were left with a whopping 2 sources - neither of which are coverage. I can find no independent verification of his supposed producing credits and the allmusic profile can be changed by anyone for the most part. There is 0 coverage of this person. Praxidicae (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iraq-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree, there's no suitable coverage. The references the nominator removed were mostly interviews. One looked OK on its own, but it was on a website that, from its home page, deals primarily with garbage, so I think they have people posting there whatever they're in the mood to, with no editorial review. Largoplazo (talk) 16:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the above, quite aside from that at least one of the creator's articles is flagged for potentially being a paid editor. Ravenswing 17:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am the creator of the article and the nominator has placed that {{Undisclosed paid}} template on that page. I am not sure what has made them do that. Olisaiuer (talk) 20:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, this is in regards to your commentary, on the page for Art Beatz. You stated "I can find no independent verification of his supposed producing credits and the allmusic profile can be changed by anyone for the most part." First, I am in the music industry, work with The Recording Academy and I will tell you that Allmusic profiles can not be changed by anyone, you have to go through Tivo and a vigorous verification process. In addition, you state that you can not find any information regarding Art Beatz as a producer on the song, so I am asking the creator of the song's page in January 2019 who referenced Art Beatz in the opening sentence come to the defense here. I somehow doubt that AlligatorSky or any of the other early contributors to the Goodbye_(Jason_Derulo_and_David_Guetta_song) page such as Nielshoogvliet would feel that your statements regarding Allmusic and Art Beatz producer credits are warranted or valid here. SoCalDogLover (talk) 23:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)SoCalDogLover[reply]

Yeah, not so much. Surf over to Allmusic's FAQ, and you'll see a raft of answers on how to submit (or correct submissions on) albums, biographies, photos, credits and the like. That those submissions are nominally vetted isn't impressive: IMDB does as much, and never has been regarded as a reliable source for the purpose of supporting notability by Wikipedia. Neither has Allmusic. Ravenswing 15:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, you removed this source as well. Is that not a RS? Olisaiuer (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is 100% not an RS. See WP:RSN. Praxidicae (talk) 00:45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not as long as it encourages "Citizen Journalists" to submit pieces, and boasts about its "crowd-sourced editing" it isn't. Ravenswing 15:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator, Olisaiuer, for spamming. MER-C 17:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources aren't up to standards for establishing notability, mostly minor blogs/websites and interviews. An AllMusic profile can help in determining notability, but he does not have a profile, but rather just a list of credits, something afforded to anyone who works on music released for retail, per AllMusic's/TiVo mission statement. ShelbyMarion (talk) 21:39, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blerta Leka[edit]

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

Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), never competed at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:37, 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) 22:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holly_Brockwell[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. This page is about an individual that falls foul of most of the eligibility requirements for a person of notability. While the individual has received coverage through self publicising, none of the topics have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. They were a flash in the pan and quickly buried amongst the wealth of similar stories. Simoncroftuk (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Simoncroftuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources covering the subject in a variety of ways over time and including accolades and awards too. The subject therefore passes WP:GNG and notability does not expire. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the nominator in the first effort to delete this piece. Ms. Brockwell was an early hire by Jimmy Wales to work for one of his series of entrepreneurial ventures. It was promotional fluff to curry favor with special people from its inception. There is zero percent chance this piece would have been written if she was not a (now former) Wales employee. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That theory is 100% wrong. Just look at the timeline. The subject established a reputation by 2015, winning a Woman of the Year award. The article about the subject was created here in 2016 with no mention of Wales. They were subsequently recruited by Jimbo's WikiTribune in 2017, over a year later.

For the truth, one just has to look at the previous discussion where the author stated, "She is a tech journalist and activist for female inclusion in tech and media, expanding on the article could be beneficial especially for the argument of making Wikipedia more open to women in the tech industry. I started this for that reason as I thought more women that have actively worked towards the inclusion of women in tech should have their pages."

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Holly Brockwell was created by someone Andrew knows personally, Karolina Janicka. They worked together in Shoreditch updating Wikipedia on election night. The reason the page was created was as part of an academic paper titled The Wikipedia Gender Gap, which was an experiment to add more women in tech onto Wikipedia. Janicka stated in her paper, "I decided to create a Wikipedia page for Holly Brockwell who has been the centre of another assignment of mine, but seemed interesting to work on since she is also the founderof Gadgette, a website for showcasing and sharing technology with an exclusively female community. I thought that it was interesting that Holly was working towards engaging and persuading women to take part in the technology community and wanted to showcase her efforts on Wikipedia and maybe in this way bring to light other activities and movements forthe inclusion of women in tech" It is quite clear this page was created through activism, not through Ms Brockwell's notability. If running a tech blog that is no longer updated, writing for some other tech sites and being female can be defined as meeting the requirements for WP:GNG then we need to add the hundreds of thousands of women globally that do the same, but unfortunately aren't the subject of an experimental piece of work.

Simon🐉(talk) 8.45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete It is WP:TOOSOON for an article on this author. She has been mentioned in a couple of newspapers a few years ago, mainly op-eds or for claiming outrage. But otherwise, information about her can only be found in the typical industry listings and unreliable social media self-promotion. Gadgette also suffers from it's own notability issues. It has not nearly enough coverage to be used as credentials for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naved K. (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Naved K. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as not meeting notability guidelines. There is not significant independent coverage. Listing works by the subject is not significant. The Drum Woman of the Year at SheSays Awards is not a significant award. There appears to be a lot of self-aggrandizement here. Note all the op-ed. --Bejnar (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: insuffient coverage in reliable sources to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 15:46, 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) 22:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fioralba Dizdari[edit]

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

As per previous AfD, Fails WP: GNG, has only won a national beauty pageant (see WP:1EVENT), never competed at international level. No other significant achievement since. Fails WP:NMODEL. Dan arndt (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a contestant in the Miss Universe Pageant is not a default sign of notability and baring that we have nothing at all suggesting notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 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) 22:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holly_Brockwell[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a promotional medium. This page is about an individual that falls foul of most of the eligibility requirements for a person of notability. While the individual has received coverage through self publicising, none of the topics have gained sufficiently significant attention by the world at large and over a period of time. They were a flash in the pan and quickly buried amongst the wealth of similar stories. Simoncroftuk (talk) 11:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Simoncroftuk (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [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 13. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple sources covering the subject in a variety of ways over time and including accolades and awards too. The subject therefore passes WP:GNG and notability does not expire. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I was the nominator in the first effort to delete this piece. Ms. Brockwell was an early hire by Jimmy Wales to work for one of his series of entrepreneurial ventures. It was promotional fluff to curry favor with special people from its inception. There is zero percent chance this piece would have been written if she was not a (now former) Wales employee. Fails GNG. Carrite (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That theory is 100% wrong. Just look at the timeline. The subject established a reputation by 2015, winning a Woman of the Year award. The article about the subject was created here in 2016 with no mention of Wales. They were subsequently recruited by Jimbo's WikiTribune in 2017, over a year later.

For the truth, one just has to look at the previous discussion where the author stated, "She is a tech journalist and activist for female inclusion in tech and media, expanding on the article could be beneficial especially for the argument of making Wikipedia more open to women in the tech industry. I started this for that reason as I thought more women that have actively worked towards the inclusion of women in tech should have their pages."

Andrew🐉(talk) 20:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The page for Holly Brockwell was created by someone Andrew knows personally, Karolina Janicka. They worked together in Shoreditch updating Wikipedia on election night. The reason the page was created was as part of an academic paper titled The Wikipedia Gender Gap, which was an experiment to add more women in tech onto Wikipedia. Janicka stated in her paper, "I decided to create a Wikipedia page for Holly Brockwell who has been the centre of another assignment of mine, but seemed interesting to work on since she is also the founderof Gadgette, a website for showcasing and sharing technology with an exclusively female community. I thought that it was interesting that Holly was working towards engaging and persuading women to take part in the technology community and wanted to showcase her efforts on Wikipedia and maybe in this way bring to light other activities and movements forthe inclusion of women in tech" It is quite clear this page was created through activism, not through Ms Brockwell's notability. If running a tech blog that is no longer updated, writing for some other tech sites and being female can be defined as meeting the requirements for WP:GNG then we need to add the hundreds of thousands of women globally that do the same, but unfortunately aren't the subject of an experimental piece of work.

Simon🐉(talk) 8.45, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Delete It is WP:TOOSOON for an article on this author. She has been mentioned in a couple of newspapers a few years ago, mainly op-eds or for claiming outrage. But otherwise, information about her can only be found in the typical industry listings and unreliable social media self-promotion. Gadgette also suffers from it's own notability issues. It has not nearly enough coverage to be used as credentials for WP:GNG. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Naved K. (talk • contribs) 15:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Naved K. (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete as not meeting notability guidelines. There is not significant independent coverage. Listing works by the subject is not significant. The Drum Woman of the Year at SheSays Awards is not a significant award. There appears to be a lot of self-aggrandizement here. Note all the op-ed. --Bejnar (talk) 15:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above: insuffient coverage in reliable sources to pass the most basic requirements of WP:ANYBIO. ——SN 54129 15:46, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 09:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stanley Shaw Bond[edit]

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

Non-notable, no significant coverage in cited sources (the obituary was published by a journal he owned and isn't independent) Amisom (talk) 11:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. The notion that he was a true changer of his field of work is not supported by indepdent sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes it is. Try taking a look rather than giving your uninformed position. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Feel free to specify which sources back up your 'informed' position? Amisom (talk) 19:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three of them are at [17], [18] and [19]. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Satisfies GNG. Further sources include, amongst others: [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37]. James500 (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Plenty of coverage and has an entry in Who Was Who. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable for creating a notable work Halsbury's Laws of England, that still getting mentioned in the news today. Dream Focus 19:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Formula One World Championship[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. At this time there is very little to no discussion about the 2023 season. Besides 1 driver contract and a handful of circuit contracts we know absoulutly nothing about the 2023 f1 season. There are some rumours about 2022 rule changes being postponed to this year but until those come it is too soon for an article on this season.
SSSB (talk) 11:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, and nothing here is even sourced. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per WP:TOOSOON. There should be no problem bringing the subject back closer to 2023. Capt. Milokan (talk) 13:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've just fixed a formatting error on this comment.@Capt. Milokan:
SSSB (talk) 14:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I PRODded the article just yesterday. Delete per WP:CRYSTAL. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is no minimal content to speak of. If the 2022 regulations are delayed again we can easily restore it.
5225_C (talk • contributions) 00:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:07, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: - Much 'too soon' and WP:CRYSTAL; not enough available information at this time. Eagleash (talk) 12:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nominator. HawkAussie (talk) 07:57, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aliaa Magda Elmahdy[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

after 8 years, the article clearly become (WP:BLP1E), after 2012 she totally became inactive and nothing new, no social or political impact, no further effects or awards or honors, nobody remember her nor media coverage, she just a person who posted a nude picture in her blogger page and it sparked some controversy in Egypt in that period and nothing then.
she is not compared with Mohamed Bouazizi because what she do leads to nothing, nothing change and nobody mention her, she also failed to make any attention to woman cause, sexism, sexual harassment as article said, I'm from Egypt and working in online media and confirm that.
the article actually exaggerate her role or works because she isn't a real activist, The April 6 Youth Movement issued a statement denying claims that Elmahdy is a member of the group, she doesn't make any notable works or add anything in women rights and before 2011 she was unknown person, she grabbed many attention because she publish a full nude picture only, and the middle east is so conservative and that thing make a huge controversy.
the threats from ISIL is doubtable because she claims that only to the press, no evidences nor a statement from ISIL nor police investigations.
the article also is (WP:COAT and WP:MASK) because it was stuffed a lot of famous names or events to make it a big deal, (for Example: she protested against the "sharia-dictatorial" proposed Egyptian Constitution, drafted by Mohamed Morsi's government), I and many friends protested against it, is that important? or make us a famous people?

note 1: you can find a lot of sources and links about her in google, interviews with CNN and others, but we talk about (People notable for only one event) without (WP:IMPACT), I know the first nomination in 21 November 2011 was (Keep) but it's 8 years and many things are changed and she didn't became a symbol or make any impacts or notable works, we should reconsider it
note 2: this person has 20 article in Wikipedia in many languages, but that make her a high notable person because many users translated the article when she was under spotlight. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 10:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable activist. WP:BLP1E is no longer applicable when the subject has been covered for her multiple acts of activism over several years in the last decade, due to the sustained coverage it passes WP:GNG also. See these newspapers from all around the world 2011 NYT 2012 2013 [38] [39] 2014 [40] [41] 2017 2019 [42].Cedix (talk) 09:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

if you read these articles you will find they talk about the same thing (her nude photo in 2011), second: most these links from low profile websites and opinion articles and don't specially talk about her, they talk about many persons and mention her because her photo, third: a (Notable activist)?! what exactly did she do and what are her achievements? posting a single nude picture and become viral? if she a notable activist why none make her a speaker in any event or honored her or put in fame lists (like Asmaa Mahfouz)? make a film or a book about her? like Loung Ung, if anyone become viral for one thing and people talk about what it for long time. is that make him an notable person? so why we use WP:BLP1E rule? --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW: the link in 2014 talks about ISIL threats and I talked about this point (#4) --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 22:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Reason, whether same event continued for longer time or not event remains unique being first one in Egypt. Whenever next nude protest will happen in Egypt this event will naturally be taken note of. So, logically speaking, at the most one can think of change of page title to 'nude protest in Egypt' When the next one takes place just one can add new event and then title can be made plural to 'protests'.

Fresh Comment: Even Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia talk page arz:نقاش:علياء_المهدى too does not seem to have any deletion request, only request on that talk page is to censor external link to the photograph. I search her Arabic words name "علياء المهدى" on google news the seems being discussed at least for criticism or analysis.

Bookku (talk) 09:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there were enough coverage in the past. Wikisaurus (talk) 19:27, 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 09:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rajkamal Kahlon[edit]

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

no works in the permanent collection of major museums, no substantial critical studies of he rworks DGG ( talk ) 10:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for artists.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since when is it required for an artist to have a permanent collection in a major museum to be notable? However, there are works in permanent collections of museums such as the Museum van Hedendaagse Kunst Antwerpen in Antwerp [43]. This artist had several exhibitions in museums. [44] and has been mentioned in many art books and by New York Times.[45][46]Christo jones (talk) 21:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I see plenty of coverage in independent, reliable sources. The artist has helpfully compiled a list of press coverage here: https://www.rajkamalkahlon.com/press Then there is a monograph about her work Rajkamal Kahlon: Double Vision (with critical essays). The Museum of Contemporary Art, Antwerp is a well-established, serious museum with a substantial international collection. Kahlon's work has been the subject of critical analysis in publications such as Artforum. The subject meets WP:ARTIST on multiple criteria, as well as the GNG. I have added some additional sources to the talk page of the article. Vexations (talk) 17:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons and sources Vexations has put forth. --Theredproject (talk) 15:16, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Pakistan Army PAC MFI-17 crash[edit]

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

WP:NOTNEWS. Military training accidents are very common. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – nothing wiki-notable about this event. Tragedies like this one happen almost on a daily basis, either in civil or military aviation. --Deeday-UK (talk) 09:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – This article should be deleted because it is similar to the article 2020 United States Air Force E-11A crash which is also proposed for deletion. --Stunts1990 (talk) 11:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - NGV, military accident with no notable consequences! If ti was civilian it would still be deleted!!--Petebutt (talk) 04:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as with most military training aircraft accidents this is not noteworthy in wikipedia terms. MilborneOne (talk) 10:50, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG nothing notable about a trainer crashing, happens all the time. Mztourist (talk) 11:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Sad but routine accident. Pichpich (talk) 00:41, 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 redirect to Stephen Weeks. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 09:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hall affair[edit]

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

This is an odd article. It is almost certainly written by an editor with an undeclared COI. It is packed with OR. Not one source can be checked. It is highly POV, inflating the significance of the incident, and the role of Mr Weeks within it. The language is unencyclopedic and, at times, potentially libellous. All in all, I doubt it warrants saving. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 09:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge Very curious read. It needs chopping down and interpolated into the relevant primary article. No Swan So Fine (talk) 18:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 09:50, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vaidya Rama Kant Mishra[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Vaidya Rama Kant Mishra

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

The subject is a distinctly non-notable author of works suggesting "alternative cures" for cancer. There is practically nothing online beyond self published texts, listings in book catalogues, and blogs. -The Gnome (talk) 09:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete passes neither the notability guidelines for academics nor those for writers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 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.

Al Wahda Mall[edit]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 14:26, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

No proof that the article is notable enough RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911 (talk) 09:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - A 3.3 million square feet mall[47] up for deletion? Very extensive coverage from the Khaleej Times and The National and Forbes calls it one of the best five malls in Abu Dhabi. [48][49][50] Most certainly much more coverage exists in the native Arabic language. Oakshade (talk) 16:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 09:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Next Austrian legislative election[edit]

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

Need independent, reliable source for the subject claimed. Those who know German and could find sources to support, pls provide. As of this stage 2024 election would be WP:TOO SOON. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP THIS PAGE ! I added sources already. --The Pollster (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep Not too soon; we have numerous pages on next elections of uncertain date, for example Next United Kingdom general election (which could also be 2024). I've added an electoral system section, which has several references. Number 5 7 14:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep This is customary practice as per current conventions; articles on next elections are useful so long as there is information on them. And in this case, there is: in the form of one split article, Opinion polling for the next Austrian legislative election. Thus, by no means can this be regarded as "undersourced". I've witnessed the attempts to repeteadly move the page into draft space, then have it deleted... sadly, this looks disruptive to me and should be speedy closed. I cannot see any benefit in seeking to have this removed from article space so badly. Impru20^talk 17:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep - Subject is five years away and isn't that far, so it passes WP:CRYSTAL. Also the article has obtained reliable citations from the parliament and the state, so we don't have to worry about that either. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 20:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Thank you user Number 57 for adding more content and sources; however those info are copied from 2019 Austrian legislative election. My initial AfD questions/would like to have sourced content on the subject stated which is 2024, but no such info is given. The electronic system is for any year election but not for 2024. Kindly provide sourced content "directly talk about election 2024" as of now is WP:TOOSOON. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep basing a decision on deleting the article as it would be "too soon" fails to recognize how parliamentary politics work as the election could theoretically be called much sooner as the article states. Like in most countries can imagine that the article will be periodically updated until the time of the election with important information, like changes in candidates, party support, political platforms and the like. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:40, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Drew Paul[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:V, and WP:PROMO. The only independant coverage of this man is a passing mention of a soundman [51] and a local news story from 2010 for having saved someone from drowning [52]. There is no other independant coverage of him. Pieczenik is his mentor. These awards are either not notable or not verifiable at all. No mention of him in documents from the Carnegie Institute, it doesn't even appear that the event awards prizes. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 08:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I suspect this is the creating user's own identity (or maybe a close relative). In any case, I see nothing WP:Notable. White Whirlwind 咨 08:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Delete After reviewing the article and sources I have found this subject to be sufficiently notable and Sources are also reliable. Do not delete this articleWP:PERFECT. .". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Johnwick858 (talk • contribs) 10:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Don't Delete I have looked the sources provided are 100% notable and this is not the creating user's own identity (and no one closer to him),So should not delete. WP:PERFECT. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Syedmurtaza128 (talk • contribs) 12:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Blocked socks: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Syedmurtaza128. MER-C 16:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - likely paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. The two socks above were paid spammers. MER-C 16:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet any of the relevant notability criteria. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for someone claiming to be a polymath Paul doesn't appear to be notable in any of the avenues he has pursued. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:26, 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) b uidhe 09:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pentaho[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

There is no evidence that the handful of awards Pentaho won, it's only claim to notability, are notable themselves. I see no evidence it's otherwise notable. StarM 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. StarM 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: oh weird, totally didn't realize it was a second nom. My nom statement still stands, and wow, things have changed since then. StarM 02:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article is decently sourced, and while some of the RS citations are questionable for notability purposes, there's enough coverage here overall. Modernponderer (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per books on the books link. The WP:VAGUEWAVE nomination seems to have totally ignored these; and it is required to account for these during WP:BEFORE. Thankyou.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment I did, they still don't seem to establish notability. The company exists and published books. We may disagree, and this may ultimately be kept, but I completely disagree that you take issue with my nomination when your deletion comment doesn't even address the substance of the issues I saw StarM 13:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup we disagree. VAGUEWAVE nominate deserves a VAGUEWAVE keep in my book. To me it 'seems' they establish notability.Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This primary topic is the Pentaho software and not the company. There are sufficient references in the article that contain Independent Content and meet the criteria for notability. Topic passes GNG. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:32, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:11, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Teakettle Junction, California[edit]

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

Another remnant of unincorporated community spam. This is a sign that has teakettles on it. There are a number of "Look at this silly thing in Death Valley!" pages with pictures of it like Atlas Obscura but this does not warrant its own article. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 17:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an area which does not pass WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND Lightburst (talk) 23:21, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nomination makes it clear that the place has coverage and it is easy to find more such as the Smithsonian. It therefore passes WP:GNG and the nomination is just blatant opinion contrary to core policy. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Djflem (talk • contribs) 07:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It's clear WP:BEFORE wasn't followed as it took a 2 second Google search to find the Smithsonian article and I'm not following the nom's "spam" claim as this is not a business advertising itself. Oakshade (talk) 18:30, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did see that, as mentioned in the nom like the AtlasObscura page, and not everything mentioned as a small random curiosity warrants its own article. The spam is mass-production of "unincorporated community" sub-stubs that like this are not actually communities. Reywas92^Talk 19:52, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not buying WP:BEFORE was followed. AtlasObsura is not Smithsonian Magazine which was more than a "mention" and is in-depth and you made no reference of the of latter in the nom. Secondly, nobody is claiming this is a "community" as that is simply a straw man argument. Even the time you first prodded this, the lede stated it was a junction, not a community.[53] Oakshade (talk) 00:09, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oakshade, I am not obligated to explicitly link every one of my search results! That's why I said "a number of" which also included that, and this is "like" the AO page. Not every one of the thousands of curiosities that Smithsonian magazine talks about needs its own article. YES someone DID call it a community in his mass-productions: [54], and YES when I prodded it the {infobox settlement} said "unincorporated community" right there at the top and was categorized as one, so there's no damn straw man. Screw your failure to AGF and calling me a liar. Reywas92^Talk 00:46, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can violate WP:CIVIL all you want, but you're just throwing another straw man argument. Nobody claims that WP:BEFORE requires you to link all your search results. If you did follow WP:BEFORE then you just ignored the in-depth Smithsonian piece. If you don't like the fact that in-depth coverage from Smithsonian covers things you don't think are notable, then you can make your case to change WP:GNG on its talk page. And at the time you prodded it, the lede states:
″Teakettle Junction is a junction in Inyo County, California."

That the phrase "unincorporated community" was in the infox doesn't change what the article is about. Oakshade (talk) 04:43, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merged to Places_of_interest_in_the_Death_Valley_area#Teakettle_junction. WP:NOPAGE. Reywas92^Talk 19:59, 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 keep. Seems like we have a consensus that notability guidelines are satisfied even if the article is currently unsourced. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gay skinhead[edit]

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

Article has no citations. Unclear that it discusses a recognized topic. No doubt there are skinheads who are gay, but how much scholarly literature is there that discusses "gay skinheads" as a specific topic? We cannot have an article about the subject if there is no significant literature about it. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 07:08, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are multiple reliable independent sources, e.g. 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 11:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even if an article could potentially be written about this topic, the article text as it stands is worthless. Someone who wanted to write an article would have to begin again from scratch. Note that your first and second links are actually to the same article, so that's only three sources in total. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 11:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, sorry. Here’s another one instead. There are any number more, as a search makes clear. I don’t think the existing article is a good candidate for WP:TNT. It’s fairly brief and to the point, and just needs inline citations. Nothing that ordinary editing can’t deal with. Mccapra (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Literally every sentence is uncited, and there is no means of determining the factual accuracy of the material. Some of the material is written in an eyebrow-raising way ("Some are attracted to skinheads' outward displays of white masculinity") that might make one wonder about its neutrality. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:ARTN. I'm going to spell out the excellent sources found by Mccapra, just to make life easier for other participants here. :)
- "Gay Skinheads: Negotiating a Gay Identity in a Culture of Traditional Masculinity" by Kevin Borgeson and Robin Valeri, The Journal of Men's Studies (2015)
- "All hyped up and no place to go" by David Bell, Jon Binnie, Julia Cream and Gil Valentine, Gender, Place and Culture: A Journal of Feminist Geography (1994)
- ""Oi! Skins": Trans-Atlantic Gay Skinhead Discourse on the Internet" by James Haines, Intercultural Communication (1999)
- "An Analysis of Skinhead Websites and Social Networks, A Decade Later" by Robin Maria Valeri, Nicole E. Sweazy and Kevin Borgeson, Michigan Sociological Review (2017)

That's four academic sources spanning more than two decades of academic research and discussion, directly about this subject. I also see an hour-long TV episode on the subject that aired in the UK in 1992. I agree that the current article is inadequate and unsourced, but WP:NEXIST says that notability is determined by the existence of reliable sources, not their use in the existing article. WP:ARTN says that poor writing does not decrease the subject's notability. There are clearly enough sources to demonstrate notability here. I added those links to the article in a Further reading section so that editors who want to improve the article can use those sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Reliable sourcing exists, article needs regular editing to improve it, it was never a good candidate for deleting. Gleeanon409 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Article has been reliably sourced and just needs a bit of cleanup. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 20:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sources discussing gay skinheads have been linked to in this discussion, but that doesn't mean that the "Article has been reliably sourced"; no one has taken the trouble to add content based on those sources to the article, so as it stands it is still a totally uncited article. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 01:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable topic per above and not bad enough for TNT imo. b uidhe 03:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - This appears to be a notable enough topic. Many sources have been provided. While we clearly need more (and the article needs to be revamped), deletion totally seems to be the wrong call here. I'd also like to propose that we consider, as a separate discussion, renaming this to LGBTQ skinheads so that we can more clearly include information about bisexuals, transgender people regardless of orientation, and so on. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The only sources provided are those that discuss gay skinheads specifically. The article title should reflect what the sources actually state. I'll consider the nomination withdrawn at this point, in the absence of support for deletion. Freeknowledgecreator (talk) 22:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE and WP:SNOW. Clearly passes WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 21:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heer (Geo TV serial)[edit]

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

My search for sources did not turn up SIGCOV bij independent RS. I originally PRODed the article, but Atlantic306 objected. Atlantic argues that Pakistani sources about entertainment are likely available offline, but that said sources tend to not be kept online after a while. Noting that it is unclear why this would be true, that the serial is only 4 years old and that the type of media that report on such programming tends to at least have an online branch or even be completely online, I nominate the article for deletion. MrClog (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 01:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep its from previous experience of trying to find Pakistani tv sources online for nationally broadcast TV series that are most likely to be notable that I have come to that conclusion. The newspapers and magazines do not keep 4 year old entertainment reviews online unless they may be behind paywalls. That everything on Wikipedia must be sourced to the internet is a fallacy especially when the internet may come down in some countries in the current crisis. As this was a nationally broadcast series on a popular channel there should be sources available as per WP:TVSERIES offline if not online so it would be helpful if some Pakistani editors with access to offline sources could contribute to this discussion but then again in the state of lockdown access to those sources may not be available, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:13, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have done quite an extensive search for sources, but couldn't find any online. I am not convinced by the assertion that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES, per the explanation in my nominator's comment. --MrClog (talk) 16:03, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Two citations are plot summaries and the other one is an interview, which is a primary source. Analog Horror, (Speak) 03:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I added 1 new reference, 3 more categories and also cleaned up the article as best as I could. Two sources are independent – The News International (newspaper) and HIP in Pakistan, a TV drama review of Heer (Geo TV serial). Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The News International is a passing mention. The article talks about an actress and mentions a few recent roles of her, including one in Heer, but does nothing more than mentioning it once. HIP in Pakistan is in my opinion probably not a high quality source -- its Terms and Conditions page is literally empty for example, but it also allows outside contributors to submit articles (and we cannot see whether the author of the review is a staff member or a "contributor") Like Forbes Contributors, I don't think we can accept that as RS. It also has no public editorial policy. (But even if it is RS, it is only one source with SIGCOV.) --MrClog (talk) 21:22, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MrClog You may be taking it too seriously? Go easy please. Realistically speaking, these light entertainment TV shows, we all know, are not reviewed by sophisticated international business websites like Forbes. These small entertainment websites are never going to match Forbes in staff resources and quality of coverage. Like I said above, Sir, I only did the article the best I could. If it gets deleted, it does not matter much to me. Cheers Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just a clarification: I didn't say Forbes should report on a show for it to be notable. I said that when a website accepts articles by outside contributors and doesn't tell us what articles were written by contributors or staff, they are not realiable, just like how articles written by Forbes Contributors are not reliable. And there are quality sources that report on entertainment. --MrClog (talk) 09:21, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All understood. No problem. As an editor here, did the best I could with available sources. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There are no sources cited that provide significant coverage in reliable, independent sources, and I haven't found any. Although Atlantic306 asserts that such WP:SOURCESEXIST, that is not enough -- there must be evidence that there was WP:SIGCOV. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 01:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mdaniels5757's last comment. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:47, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 09:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Occupational hazards with fire debris cleanup[edit]

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

This article looks to be an exercise or essay that makes self-evident observations in an effort to list substances that might be encountered at the scene of a fire. It adds no value to the encyclopedia. Note: WP:NOTGUIDE is the best match I could find in the convoluted and confusing WP deletion nomination guidance. Eric ^talk 15:27, 25 March 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 March 25. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:56, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:NOTESSAY, any useable info from this could be moved to a new section (Fire debris) at Debris (would we then require a "redirect" to retain editing history?). Coolabahapple (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, naughty nominator for not informing the article creator/substantial edit .... editor:), i have done so. Coolabahapple (talk)
- Shocked indignation Mais non, Coolabahapple! Never naughty, ever the Boy Scout. But it might not have been apparent, as I had to do some steps manually after I either ran into a glitch or made some error starting the nomination. Haven't done one of these in a while, and the "guidance" is a mind-numbing morass of circular links and redundant clutter. Eric ^talk 13:47, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

me bad, please trout me ps. agree that afd guidelines are a bit of a swamp (and not necessarily like this funny one). Coolabahapple (talk) 13:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This article follows the correct format and content for occupational hazards topics, for which a listing of hazards (including hazardous substances) is vital. It is not formatted as an essay, nor is the content self-evident. The sources are reliable and are specific to fire debris cleanup. There also isn't even a suitable existing article that this could be merged into. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 18:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment The sourcing is not the issue; the topic is. This is not encyclopedia material. And is most certainly not "vital": Anyone whose occupation it is to spend time at fire sites will already have been educated on the matter, and will not be looking to Wikipedia for guidance. We might just as well have an article conjecturing on hazards a diver might encounter working underwater (every potentially dangerous item that has ever become submerged, every potentially dangerous underwater creature, etc...), or an article on all the bad things that might happen to us on a on a walk down the street. Eric ^talk 04:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That's an odd example, given that we actually have four whole articles on diving hazards. It's not true fire workers will not be looking to Wikipedia for guidance: they may want to supplement information given by their employer, they may have been given insufficient or no information by their employer (especially if they are in countries that have lax or no regulation), or they may be a volunteer or disaster survivor. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 08:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Four articles? That is downright depressing. Eric ^talk 12:55, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Technically only one of them is about the full range of diving hazards in general. Diving is a hazardous activity, mess up the wrong way and you die. That is before taking account of any exposure to site specific, water condition, and job-specific hazards. Cheers, · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or TNT. The problem here is WP:NOTADVICE. Looking a bit deeper, I see that User:John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) is a Wikipedian in Residence at NIOSH. In general this is a good thing, and looking over his editing history, it looks like he's made lots of valuable contributions, in line with his WIR role. But, the tone of this particular article just doesn't fit with our mission as an encyclopedia. It's giving advice, and mostly referenced to WP:PRIMARY sources. Perhaps it could be rewritten from scratch, but in it's current form, it's not appropriate for mainspace. I wouldn't be opposed to moving this to draft or userspace where the rewriting could happen. And, for what it's worth, I looked at List of diving hazards and precautions, which was mentioned above at WP:OTHERSTUFF. It suffers from the same problem. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @RoySmith: I agree that public health articles like this do need to walk a line of heeding WP:NOTADVICE. The usual approach is to factually state what the hazards and hazard controls are, and avoid wordings that tell people what they "should" do or being formatted as a how-to. The article does conform to this. Can you tell me in what manner you see this article as giving advice? Also, almost all of the sources are secondary sources; under WP:MEDRS guidance from public health agencies are reliable secondary sources. I agree that the article content could continue be improved, but from my experience I'd say it's a very reasonable start to an article. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:50, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  John P. Sadowski (NIOSH), I'm a little hesitant to point out specific passages that violate WP:NOTADVICE because I don't want to give the impression that if those specific passages were fixed, the rest would be OK. With that in mind, however, here's a few of the most obvious.
  
  Hmmm, I was going to point out that the first paragraph contained a "should" (the prototypical advice word), but I see that was changed just earlier this morning.
  
  The Hazard controls section seems particularly problematic. The article is ostensibly about hazards, but this whole section is about what you should do to avoid being injured by those hazards. Even though it doesn't explicitly say, should, it obviously implies that. What you should wear. How you should safe the electrical system. How you should ventilate the space. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  I'd also prefer to see a more neutral title. Occupational hazards with fire debris cleanup is not incorrect, but Fire cleanup hazards would be better. For one thing, these hazards apply to everybody. Obviously, the people most likely to be exposed to these hazards are fire fighters, police, demolition workers, etc. But the title implies a certain WP:POV, which is, How can people with these occupations protect themselves from the hazards associated with their jobs. That is, of course, NIOSH's mission. But, a more WP:NPOV view (which is an encyclopedia's mission) would be, Describe the hazards associated with post-fire cleanup. It's the difference between describing something vs giving advice about how to protect yourself from it. -- RoySmith (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  A topic does not have to be neutral. There are valid article topics on controversies. This is not even that. The title is not biased, it is specific. The article content must be neutral. In normal life untrained personnel should not be exposing themselves to the kind of hazards this article should be discussing, that work should be left to professionals with the right equipment and training, because it is hazardous to health and safety. In a disaster where ordinary people do their bit for the community, it would be prudent to read up on what this article should contain before deciding to rush in. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A description of hazards isn't really complete without a description of how to control them. If this article were more filled out, it would describe the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of each hazard control, but that's more of an issue for a GA review; for a start-class article like this, just stating what they are based on reliable sources is more or less what's expected. You have an apt point about the title, as "Occupational hazards of..." versus "Health and safety hazard of..." versus "Hazards of..." imply slightly different scopes. But that's an easy change to make. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 01:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NOTADVICE, as per RoySmith. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Notified: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Occupational Safety and Health, Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine. John P. Sadowski (NIOSH) (talk) 04:34, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete WP:NOTADVICE, as per RoySmith--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article is not formatted as an essay, and does not give advice. It may not be currently perfect but there are hazards specific to fire cleanup which can be discussed encyclopedically. The word should in the lead refers to a legal and ethical obligation, not advice. See the article talk page for more details. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 15:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:49, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Nearly all of this article reads as a factual encyclopedia article to me. I'm not seeing an essay or how-to here. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 04:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. I don't see what's wrong with it. Bearian (talk) 15:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, The article has been changed significantly since listing. This may be reflected in more recent input to this discussion. · · · Peter Southwood ^(talk): 06:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been greatly improved since it was nominated. It has many reliable sources, and doesn't read like a how-to guide at all. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The person above me is correct. The article has gone through the Heymann Standard, as it has been updated, cleaned, and adequately sourced. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 01:34, 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) 08:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of healthcare workers who died during COVID-19 pandemic[edit]

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

Extremely incomplete list. Some of the people are notable in their own right; they should and do have articles. Butthe total list at this point is probably i the 100s, and is likely to be much higher l The relevant policies aer NOT INDISCRIMINATE and NOT MEMORIAL

This is one case where a category might be more appropriate DGG ( talk ) 06:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There will be a high number of people who fit this category, most of them non-notable. Ajf773 (talk) 08:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 Kanghuitari (talk) 11:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect/delete With such a sadly large number, consensus and practice is clear that the list should be limited to those notable enough for articles already. Reywas92^Talk 21:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per LISTN criteria. Natureium (talk) 23:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NLIST and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Mohanabhil (talk) 15:01, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTMEMORIAL and the emerging consensus based on related AfDs. --MarioGom (talk) 09:20, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge notable people into List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019 SportsOlympic (talk) 10:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 17:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Merge notable people into List of deaths due to coronavirus disease 2019, then delete this list. Normal Op (talk) 07:34, 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 delete. Redirects can be processed at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Geierman[edit]

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

Mayor of Doraville. Doraville has a population of 8330. DGG ( talk ) 06:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 08:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete mayors of places with less than 10,000 people are vitually never notable. No reason to find an exception in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Doraville GA is not large enough to hand all of its mayors an automatic presumption of notability just for existing as mayors, and being the first LGBT mayor of his own small town (but not even close to the first LGBT mayor in the history of the United States as a whole) is not in and of itself a free pass to being more notable than most other mayors — "first member of an underrepresented equity group to do a not inherently notable thing" is not an instant notability clincher in the absence of nationalized attention, and we are not a venue for creating the "nationalized" media profile of a person who doesn't already have a nationalized media profile — but this is referenced to a mixture of primary sources that aren't support for notability at all and a small smattering of purely local election coverage. Smalltown mayors do not automatically get over NPOL #2 just because you can technically reference the fact of their election to local coverage of the election results themselves — the key to making a mayor notable enough for a Wikipedia article is to write and source something significant about his mayoralty (significant issues he championed from the mayor's chair, significant successes or failures in the mayor's chair, etc.), not just writing and sourcing a paragraph or two about his pre-mayoral biography. Bearcat (talk) 20:52, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I suggest that the article be redirected to Doraville, Georgia#Government as an alternative to deletion. MarkZusab (talk) 13:28, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elda Dushi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

As per previous AfD, Whilst the winner of a national beauty pageant (non-notable competition - also see WP:1EVENT), did not place in the international pageant. Has no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article was previously deleted. We in past discussions rejected creating a list of international pageants that mere competing in makes one notable. The sourcing here is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Even if the event was notable the subject does not pass the "barest" and most minimal (WP:GNG, WP:NMODEL of notability guidelines for a BLP, allowing for only a couple of sentences of a dictionary entry, resulting in a pseudo biography. There also seems to be some confusion: The article states: "...crowned Miss World Albania 2007 and represented Albania at the Miss World 2007.". Only one source is provided and there seems to be issues with the year. The reference provides only "Elda Dushi, "Miss Albania 2008". In the show "Miss World" would be defined by the press of that time as Nicole Kidman or Albanian Sharon Stone. Since the announcement as "miss", Elda has not appeared on television.". There is no inherent or inherited notability, so sourcing would be a determining factor, and that is not evident. Otr500 (talk) 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Black Girl With Long Hair[edit]

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

Most of the content cannot be attributed to reliable sources and therefore cannot meet the notability guidelines. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 05:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 06:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The website just doesn't appear to be really notable. And... well, I'd like to make a detailed argument, but that's just about that. The website hasn't attracted the particular coverage that we need, and so deletion definitely appears to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 10:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough coverage about this site in reliable sources to justify an article. --Kinu ^t/_c 08:59, 21 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stella Nova[edit]

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

A group that appears to fails both the WP:GNG and WP:NORG. There are no sources currently being utilized in the article. I searched for additional sources, both under its current name and its original name, and essentially found nothing in reliable, secondary sources. Its only claim to notability in the article is that several of its ex-members went on to do notable things themselves, but notability is not inherited, so that does not contribute to notability of the group. It survived a prior AFD way back in 2006, but the argument for Keep was largely based on Google hits, which is not a valid rationale for notability. Rorshacma (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 22:33, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously undeleted (May 15, 2007). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2006-02 Scifi Modelers Club of New Zealand ✓ keep

Logs: 2007-05 ↻ restored, 2007-05 ✗ CSD A7

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cewbot: a restored speedy deletion does not prevent SOFTDELETE. However I took your comment to be an objection to such an action so I relisted. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 17:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:13, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed Thank you for reporting. --Kanashimi (talk) 09:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 05:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article topic lacks significant coverage from reliable, independent sources. (?) It had no meaningful hits in Google Books and News searches despite being a contemporaneous org associated with the English language. There are no worthwhile redirect targets. If someone finds more (non-English and offline) sources, please {{ping}} me. re: soft deletion above, started a discussion at WP:PROD but it wouldn't be eligible either way because the subject had a prior AfD (albeit under a former name). czar 04:49, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- This is a badly sourced article about a non-notable club. The sources that it does have are primary, or tangential. Reyk _YO! 08:27, 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 delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harald Schenk[edit]

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

I can find solid sources for several other Harald Schenks, but not for this one, so it looks like he does not pass WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - agree with above editor Freeranging intellect (talk) 16:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or any criterion given in WP:NACADEMIC. --Kinu ^t/_c 22:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No evidence of passing WP:PROF, WP:GNG, or any other notability criterion. As the nominator suggests, there is another Harald Schenk with a couple of reasonably-cited publications on scanning mirrors but he appears unrelated and even then the case for WP:PROF#C1 would have been borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:15, 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) feminist #WearAMask😷 07:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sally Spectra[edit]

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

Tagged with notability problem since 2016, and a number of other issues since 2012. The current article is pure WP:PLOT. BEFORE shows a number of mentions in passing, but nothing reliable, in-depth and going beyond PLOT or a sentence or two of passing remarks. Still, I have been positively surprised at people rescuing such soap opera bios before, so I am skipping prod and putting it here. Can anyone figure out if this is salvageable? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 15:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sally Spectra was a celebrated character from The Bold and the Beautiful, with two Daytime Emmy nominations and even a wax figure at Madame Tussauds. There's a lot of information about the character in books and newspapers. These are some of the sources that I used today to improve the article:
- Soap Opera History by Mary Ann Copeland, Publications International (1991)
- The Bold and the Beautiful: In Celebration of Twenty Years on Television by Eva Demirjian (2007)
- The Bold and the Beautiful: Three Decades of Lust, Love & Drama! by the editors of People Magazine, TI Incorporated Books (2017)
- "Sally Spectra adds plenty of spice to 'Bold and the Beautiful' by Connie Passalacqua, United Media Syndicate (Aug 31, 1991)
- "What a Gal: Sally Spectra, we salute you" by Leslie Gray Streeter, The Palm Beach Post (Jan 16, 2007)
- "Soap opera diva debuts in wax at Madame Tussaud's" by Carol Bidwell, Los Angeles Daily News (May 17, 1998)

I believe that my additions to the article demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, Since I can’t access most sources given, I’m just going to go off what information they provide in the article. The article given to display her reception after the actor’s death does seem a little plot-focused instead of actual coverage, but I think it does contain genuine commentary and counts towards a GNG pass. The character also seems to have gotten coverage for being the first soap opera character to have a wax figure at Madame Tussaud’s, so I think this just passes GNG, even though the rest of the sources are passing mentions and/or in-universe material. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources identified and added (nice work Toughpigs!) demonstrate that this subject passes WP:GNG. — Hunter Kahn 12:47, 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) 08:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Nasser[edit]

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

Fails WP:ANYBIO, article recreated after deletion Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete his academic position is not at a level to make him notable, and sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No independent, reliable sources present, and does not appear to meet any of the general notability guidelines. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest notability, poor referencing, seems like a self-promo more than anything. DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forsbergs School[edit]

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

The sources I saw in my WP:BEFORE search seemed a bit questionable (directory listings, primary sources, etc.) I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 03:59, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The one citation in the original version did not mention the subject. I didn't realise this at first, and assumed that the addition of the ones I identified would satisfy the GNG. This might not be the case if additional sources aren't identified. --Paul_012 (talk) 04:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this appears to be a commercial trade school and as such, would need to meet WP:ORGDEPTH. It doesn't. John from Idegon (talk) 17:47, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Euan Rellie[edit]

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

Lack of notability Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Abbyjjjj96 (talk) 03:48, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability is very marginal at best. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 14:35, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quincy Junction, California[edit]

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

Where the Quincy Railroad connects with the UP (ex-WP). All references to the place are railroad-related or refer to it as a spot on the railroad; there's a development backed up against it but no sign there was ever a town. Mangoe (talk) 03:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete GNIS is not a reliable source for identifying populated places. This is a railroad junction and completely lacks minimum requirements for notability-- in-depth discussion by independent, reliable sources. Glendoremus (talk) 04:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable community. Reywas92^Talk 06:41, 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 no consensus. (non-admin closure) A a s i m 07:17, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Tauzin[edit]

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

GNG fail. Cannot find sources. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have found a mention of him in this book: Pornography and Silence: Culture's Revenge Against Nature, as well as the subject's entry in the National Library of Australia - here, where it's stated that 'The subject of this copper plate by Mario Tauzin is reproduced in the Erotische Kunst im 20 Jahrhundert, p. 47" Fisher Library Rare Books and Special Collections copy was purchased by William H. Deane from the International Museum of Erotic Art, San Francesco, in 1973'. There's some info on him here which as far as I understood from the googletranslate says there's a book about him and he founded an Academy (I may be wrong as I don't speak French). Here is another book by him, more info here. Also [%22FRM5050-X0031_0000173_FRM5050-X0031139419%22,false,%22%22 here] is info on his work at Centre Pompidou. In general I think he passes the WP:GNG, there should be more French sources. Less Unless (talk) 18:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I saw those sources, and in particular:

The National library of Australia. A library collection is not an indicator of notability as a museum collection is, as it has a very low barrier for inclusion.
The Millon.com source is not a source but rather a book for sale. The French says, in essence, This book has twenty plates of the artist's work. One of an edition of 300. Price 100-300 Euro. The mention of an academy translates to roughly "some friends got a house and founded an informal academy".
The Vincent Lecuyer link is not a reliable source either; it just says a painting was sold. Auction houses and dealers sell painting by non-notable artists all the time.
The Ader-paris.fr link is another auction house, and does not contribute to notability. For a painting that sold for 120-180 Euro.
The last link, from the Pompidou, says that a poster he designed is in the collection of 11,000 (!) boxes of papers by Marc Vaux held by the museum. " Mario Tauzin, publicité pour l'élection du plus beau modèle lors de la Nuit de Montparnasse du 3 juillet 1948." is just a poster for an evening event in Montparnasse.

So, little of the above qualifies as WP:SIGCOV, and the last three are really not even RS. The "Pornography and Silence: Culture's Revenge Against Nature" might be OK but I cannot see what it says. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also found this one - Book.

What I am trying to say here is that lack of online sources doesn't always mean the subject is not notable. Mentions of him in 2 books can be a sign of notability. Alternatively draftifying could be an option. Less Unless (talk) 18:26, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If we cannot find reliable sources, they are not notable by our standards.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 19:58, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He drew some erotic illustrations for a book but that's about all that can be said definitively. There are no references that meet basic notability standard calling for in-depth discussion from reliable, independent sources. I see that the original article was taken from a website selling a book that was illustrated by Tauzin--not reliable or independent. Also, I question the copyright status of illustration used in this article. His work was published in 1930--wouldn't that still be under copyright? Glendoremus (talk) 04:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:29, 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 no consensus. Opinion is split with no one side's arguments better then the other side's Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:16, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Karslake[edit]

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

Not seeing any claim to notability. Per WP:NOTINHERITED, he is merely the former brother-in-law of someone notable, and died from COVID-19. If he was notable, we would be seeing obituaries, but there are none. Clearly fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 11:21, 28 March 2020 (UTC) Article now edited so as to provide active reference for extensive aspects of personal notability. User Jimroland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimroland (talk • contribs) 18:03, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not independently notable, all sources point to his relative. Clear case of WP:NOTINHERITED. Störm (talk) 12:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete, Störm you obviously didn't read through latest edit. Reference 2. "Cheshire Art Gallery" doesn't even mention his relative. User Jimroland. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jimroland (talk • contribs) 00:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Cheshire Art Gallery (a non-notable commercial gallery) webpage is a standard artist bio puff piece for someone who has had work exhibited there, and in no way confers notability. Edwardx (talk) 11:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete - certainly the source provided by Jimroland confers individual notability. Will also add a second source. Zanoni (talk) 09:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not delete , Here is another source which doesn't talk about his sister. https://www.msn.com/en-gb/travel/news/artist-paul-karslake-recreates-bansky-s-artworks-in-the-style-of-the-old-masters/ar-AAHAiC2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.14.68.243 (talk • contribs) 18:36, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep has work on public display including the portrait of Dodi and Diana, Princess of Wales in Harrods. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 09:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Have never seen someone's work being displayed in a store as a valid criterion for meeting WP:NARTIST. In any event, as Dodi's father no longer owns Harrods, I would be surprised if that portrait is still there, especially as Innocent Victims was removed a few years ago. Edwardx (talk) 11:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, question - does being a Fellow of the Royal Society of Arts achieve WP:ANYBIO (well-known and significant award/honor)? also, although their are around 29,000 fellows that is only 110 awarded per year over its history. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In short, no. Please see Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2018_December_22#RSA. Edwardx (talk) 11:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

thanks for the info. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Borderline case of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. This is Paul (talk) 14:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*(Note: frivolous response) same 1st name so obvious COI

Coolabahapple (talk) 23:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He was a FRSA, and his death itself (possibly from CoVod19) was been reported in two reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 15:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm not convinced that the subject passes WP:GNG independently and that their notability is not linked to WP:NOTINHERITED. StickyWicket (talk) 21:09, 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 delete. czar 16:41, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alfred Loedding[edit]

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

Brief mentions, not enough to pass WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:50, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note Due to a syntax error, this AfD did not appear correctly until the following timestamp: Raymie (t • c) 19:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:54, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:17, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. For what it's worth, his articles got a decent amount of citations in the 50s. Also there appear to be a number of mentions in fringe UFO books. Don't know if they both amount to a solid notability claim. He's certainly an interesting character. Best, PK650 (talk) 07:06, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough reliable sourcing to justify having an article considering how fully a fringe figure he is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacking reliable sources. Psychologist Guy (talk) 02:39, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erick Weiss[edit]

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

Non notable actor. Article is merely a mirror of IMDb, with entirely minor roles. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 10:41, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable actor. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an IMDb mirror. Having one episode apprearances in shows is almost always a sign that someone is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as not notable. An unsourced list-class article providing only a filmography. Otr500 (talk) 00:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Keep~~ Weak Delete: I am voting "Weak Keep" because there may be coverage which merits a closer examination. I have applied to WP:RX to have the articles clipped and will provide them here as soon as possible. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the articles: here, here and here. I presume they all refer to this Erick Weiss. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to put the sources in the article, not just mention them here. You also need to show that they all refer to the same person, which you have not. Barring these actions being done we should still delete the page.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Pack Lambert, so long as the sources WP:NEXIST, they can save an article from deletion. However, having had the chance to view the articles myself, I am not sure that there is enough to save this article anyway. I will wait to see what other editors think, but I will likely downgrade my vote on this occasion. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Even if the above sources can all be shown to refer to this person and are added to the article, we still have the fact that he lacks a significant role. Passing roles in TV shows or very minor roles in films do not constitute the significant roles we are looking for. Contrary to what some editors have assumed not everyone who had a credited role is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my vote above: The only source which really helps, of the three that I provided above, is the one which states that the subject is "top notch" in his multiple roles in a play, which doesn't really meet WP:GNG. There are other sources at newspapers.com, although I think they are probably of a similar nature—brief praise, but little in-depth coverage. In addition, even if we assume that the play referenced in the above source is notable, I don't think the subject quite scales WP:NACTOR—not with his film and television roles, anyway. Therefore, I am downgrading my vote to a "Weak Delete". (However, I would still encourage others to chime in on the sources I provided, because it might be that my analysis of my own sources is wrong.) Dflaw4 (talk) 08:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable actress. Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 20:33, 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 merge to Southern Gospel Music Association. The specific target could also be Dollywood, to be determined via talk page discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 12:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Southern Gospel Museum and Hall of Fame[edit]

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

None notable "Hall of Fame" and museum that appears to just be a room of theater building in Dollywood Theme Park. The article seems to have been lacking any sourcing since it was created and nothing comes up in a search except for trivial, run of the mill coverage in some un-reliable sources. As an alternative to deletion I'd be fine with it being merged with Dollywood. Since it's mentioned there and is a feature of the park. Adamant1 (talk) 09:18, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement Parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 20:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This smacks of an "not liking it" nomination; Southern Gospel music has a solid following and in this nom, reducing what seems to be a considerable museum about the genre to a 'room' at a pretty well-established theme park (a 'room' would not have a considerable park-closing induction ceremony devoted to it yearly, for instance) seems cruel on its face. It needs sources for sure (this is a slam-dunk WP:RESCUE), but it's very far from deletion. Nate • (chatter) 02:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nate, if you are interested in the motive for this nomination, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/J. G. Whitfield.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I mentioned it being in a "room" in a theme park because I wasn't sure if notability should be based on it being a location or a company. I thought maybe if it was a location perhaps it could be merged into the theme parks article instead of just being straight deleted, like say a roller coaster that's not notability on it's own but is as part of a theme park would be, and when I did a search on Google for it looked like it was located in a room. So that's how I described it. It's called research. Which is something your suppose to do in an AfD. I know the default mentality when it comes to anything even semi-related to Christianity is to cry foul though, and treat the other person like they are only motivated by dislike of the subject. Personally, I could care less about the place. My only concern is if it's notable enough for an article and it doesn't seem like it is. Articles about Christian subjects aren't exempt from Wikipedia's notability standards and they don't get a pass by attacking other users motives. If you think its a slam dunk rescue though, by all means rescue it by providing some in-depth reliable sources that show it's notable. I could care less. Just saying it is and voting keep because you took offense to me using the word "room" isn't helpful though. To this AfD or the quality of the article. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, if you look it up on Google Maps you'll see its located in a side "room" (building, area, whatever you want to call it) of Showstreet Palace Theater. So its not in its own location and the theater that it is located in isn't even notable enough for it's own article. So should a side area of it have one? I don't think so. Also, it isn't even mentioned in List of Dollywood attractions. In the Dollywood article both are only mentioned in passing. There's nothing about this that warrants an article. Including sourcing or the lack of it and yes it is located in a room (or more like hall probably). Which you would have known if you actually looked into it instead of just being judgmental. Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Delete~~ ~~Merge to Dollywood~~ I thought that maybe the Hall of Fame would have more substantial coverage than the Southern Gospel Music Association itself, but it appears that this probably isn't so. All I've found are three trivial mentions (not including a lot of passing mentions for someone who has been inducted or a mention of it in tour guides. It's a shame - Southern Gospel deserves more recognition, but unless someone can find better sources, I'm going with delete.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC) I'm changing my vote to merging into Dollywood.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm a bit surprised by the lack of coverage considering the list of inductees. The only thing I can find are press releases and brief mentions in travel guides (things to do while visiting Dollywood). Not sure what it means but doesn't meet basic notability threshold. Perhaps a merge into Dollywood would be appropriate. Glendoremus (talk) 04:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep-- Just the museum by itself I agree would not be notable, but the hall of fame itself generates more news coverage than the museum-- they keep adding people, which generates coverage. Here is a small fraction of the news and magazine coverage: this, this, this, this, this, this, this, this. There are many, many more, and as such this article meets GNG. The association that runs the hall of fame also appears to be notable and already has an article.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only the Gaston Gazette isn't trivial (and arguably that mention is trivial as well).--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and the sources posted above by Ephiphyllumlover. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I went through all eight articled noted by Ephiphyllumlover: five of them had a trivial one-sentence statement that "so-and-so was recognized by the hall of fame"; two articles didn't appear to have any mention of the organization, and one had the equivalent of a paragraph in an article that was about something else. Even if you added this all up it doesn't achieve in-depth coverage by reliable, independent sources. Glendoremus (talk) 01:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If none of the above sources are good enough, here are more: Dillsburg man inducted into Southern Gospel Music Hall of Fame and Southern Gospel Music Hall of Fame Celebrates 15 Years and Southern Gospel Music Association Salutes Hall of Fame Inductees for 2011 and Troy Burns inducted into gospel hall of fame. All turned up on Google news--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 06:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The mentions of inductions don't substantially talk about the Hall of Fame itself, they talk about the inductees. The Cybergrass looks like it discusses it extensively, so that one counts.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isn't that what hall of fames do? They aren't about themselves. The fact that a variety of articles pay attention when a new induction is made proves notability.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 19:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That someone was inducted into the Hall of Fame probably makes them notable, but that doesn't mean that the Hall of Fame itself is notable. In order to demonstrate that the Hall of Fame and/or museum are notable, there needs to be sources talking about the Hall of Fame itself. Otherwise all you have is a list of inductees to the Hall of Fame, which might deserve a list article, but doesn't say anything about the Hall of Fame itself.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 23:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with your interpretation of what counts. But even then, there is substantial coverage of an event held by the hall of fame in one cybergrass article (including a paragraph summarizing the hall of fame), and you concede the other cybergrass article. Along with the Gaston Gazette, that would be three. These along with Dolly Parton, Gender, and Country Music By Leigh H. Edwards makes four sources demonstrating notability under GNG.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:39, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is also substantial coverage in Close Harmony: A History of Southern Gospel By James R. Goff Jr. with more discussion of it further on in the book. Another source could be here, but snippet view makes it hard to tell.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The hall of fame/museum has a video library that is available to and used by scholars, such as in:this paper. Historical photos from the hall of fame/museum are found in a variety of books of a third party nature and can be found by searching on Google Books. So the minimization of this as being merely a "room" seems incorrect.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:54, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The other Cybergrass source might be passable. Close Harmony talks about the SGMA with more detail, but the Hall of Fame itself is mentioned in passing. Same with the book about Dolly Parton: the mention is only a passing mention. The NRB source might have more details, so that one is possible. That someone's dissertation utilizes the Hall of Fame doesn't make it notable - it needs to actually be discussed by the dissertation.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 14:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pages 269 and 277 of Close Harmony discusses the hall of fame in detail. Only the first of the two links of Close Harmony discusses it in passing (but it is the opening of the book).--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 16:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're right. I didn't read that part close enough. I'm actually changing my vote now.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm striking my delete vote and instead arguing keep, per the discussion of the SGMA Hall of Fame in Close Harmony.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now it is 2 for delete and 4 for keep.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. The closing admin will tally the votes and assess the arguments based on their merits before making a judgment.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 00:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (with no objection to a redirect as appropriate) - Just not seeing it. I'm not a very tough customer when it comes to museums and notability, but all I see are plentiful brief mentions and no in depth coverage about the organization. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somehow misclicked and thought we didn't have a parent article. We do. That makes this an even easier "... or Merge to Southern Gospel Music Association". The coverage doesn't seem sufficient for a stand-alone article, but that doesn't mean it can't be included in Wikipedia somewhere -- and there's an obvious location. So per WP:NOPAGE and WP:NCORP, merge to the SGMA article seems pretty straightforward. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:00, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge not seeing significant coverage myself, and this can be moved either to Dollywood or the parent article found by Rhododendrites. SportingFlyer T·C 04:11, 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 keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:20, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superthriller[edit]

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

This page was created by a SPA and has remained an unreferenced near-orphan ever since. I can't find any media coverage of the band, and they don't appear to have any success in the music charts. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:15, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - received a little, mostly trivial, coverage when they debuted, then faded away a bit. Found one Guardian review... Caro7200 (talk) 13:05, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough sourcing to establish notability.TH1980 (talk) 23:37, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as The Guardian review, and a staff written bio at AllMusic. Also they have been on substantial tours of Europe and the US which is one of the criteria of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed), Will conduct a full search later, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the criterion is that the band "has received non-trivial coverage in independent reliable sources of an international concert tour, or a national concert tour in at least one sovereign country" (my emphasis): it's not whether the band has toured, but whether the tour garnered significant media coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update, additional references found: The Times (full article needs subscription), NME, The Guardian, The Guardian, The Guardian, and The Stage, imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:07, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've gone through those references. I can only view the first few lines of The Times but it appears to be an interview with one of the band members so would fail NMUSIC ("except for ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves"): the second ref is a ten-line album review from 2007: the third is a fourteen-line album review from 2005: the fourth is little more than a passing mention in a set of articles by a journalist about his efforts to work remotely by laptop: the fifth is a single line at the end of a round-up of that week's album releases: and the sixth is an interview with two members of the band, so would, like the first, fail NMUSIC. I'm still not convinced that any of these demonstrate any enduring significance. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted ge generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 00:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete per arguments by Dom Kaos. The sources cited by Atlantic306 are definitely not enough to warrant a separate article. It's kind of shocking that the band has not received significant coverage in reliable sources despite being around since 2003 and releasing four albums. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A full article in The Times and articles in The Guardian Uk as well as NME are more than enough for WP:GNG . A ten line review and a fourteen line review in reliable sources are significant coverage as well as AllMusic. The advice at AFC is a paragraph can constitute significant coverage so these reviews are more than that and significant coverage however you try and twist it, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 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 no consensus. Spartaz ^Humbug! 10:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Road to Hell (Sunstorm album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. Another in the series of articles by the editor creating articles related to Alessandro Del Vecchio, and another which fails notability. Has been redirected twice, but the creator has reverted the redirect without explanation or improvement, so this now has to be discussed at AfD. The sources from Blabbermouth are simply advance press announcements of the album's release, as is this article from Brave Words [55], but there don't appear to be any articles from reliable sources reviewing or discussing the album after its release. The Belgian Rock Report is a press release provided by the record company (it says so at the bottom). The Sonic Perspectives review is by a fan writing on a non-RS website that solicits CDs for review. Possibly the only thing that comes close to being an RS is Metal Temple but this looks like a worldwide community rather than professional journalists... and anyway, it's only one review, not the multiple sources required to pass notability. The other sources are blogs, Discogs, and the record company's website. I can't find any other reliable sources discussing the album in-depth. Richard3120 (talk) 20:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 20:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Agreed, no real RS, although the Blabbermouth was at least amusing... Caro7200 (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Exactly, what does it mean for you to deepen an album by the band of Joe Lynn Turner, one of the most important voices in the history of rock / metal? Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 9:29, 27 March 2020 (UTC)
  - This has been explained to you at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kee of Hearts (album), but you still don't seem to get it. I know very well who Joe Lynn Turner is, and the famous bands he has been in throughout his career. But that does not mean everything he is involved in is automatically notable, as stated in WP:INHERITED. Not even every record by the Beatles is notable. Every record has to be notable on its own terms, being reviewed or discussed in depth in reliable sources per WP:NALBUM, to qualify for its own Wikipedia article. Richard3120 (talk) 14:41, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I have further updated the article with reliable sources such as Blabbermouth, BraveWords and Fireworks (Rocktopia).

In case there are any fixes to do, I trust in your help. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 15:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but the sources from Blabbermouth and Brave Words are still nothing more than announcements of forthcoming releases, they don't demonstrate notability. They are also clearly press releases provided by the record company, not by journalists of those publications, because they use exactly the same wording in each article. So they aren't independent. Rocktopia might be the only source so far in the whole article that would pass as an RS – certainly none of the others do. Richard3120 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per Kekkofranco~enwiki. Sources recently added by the creator are reliable enough, hence making the article good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:00, 31 March 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. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It would have been a good idea to actually check the reliability of the sources before you made your vote, because then you would have seen that at best only one of the four reviews in the table come from reliable sources, and the sources that are reliable, such as Brave Words and Blabbermouth, are simply press announcements by the record label of forthcoming releases, they don't show that the album is notable. Richard3120 (talk) 14:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or redirect - Keep, or redirect to Sunstorm (band). --Jax 0677 (talk) 15:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677: "Keep" based on what? Can you show me where the reliable, independent in-depth sources are in this article? Richard3120 (talk) 16:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: In addition to Rocktopia, Metal Heads Forever and Musictap are independent and reliable sources. In fact there are also in other articles dedicated to other albums. My work on this during this "quarantine" continues and I will provide you with other reliable sources or that, however, this relevant record. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 18:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kekkofranco~enwiki: It may be your opinion that these are reliable sources, but we've had discussions on these and similar hard rock websites in the past, and the consensus has been that these are just blogs written by fans, not professional journalists. If they are in other articles they should be deleted from those articles as well, not used as a reason to add them to this one. Richard3120 (talk) 22:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: They are not opinions and I could say the same of what you write. Rocktopia is the site of the Fireworks magazine; Metal Heads Forever is an important music magazine in this sector, both on paper and on the web. Same thing goes for MusicTap. However I believe that if important sites / magazines like Brave Words and Blabbermouth find it important to publish info on such an album there will be a reason. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 12:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120:, note I said "Keep or redirect", meaning that if it can not be kept, it can be redirected with history in tact. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax 0677:, well, yes, I know that can be done, but you still haven't given any reason for saying "keep" in the first place. Richard3120 (talk) 20:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120:, I am open to either or. --Jax 0677 (talk) 20:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've been here for years, and still you don't know how AfD works??? You're supposed to give the reasoning behind your vote, not say whether it bothers you or not. Richard3120 (talk) 20:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Still not convinced that the sources are independent and authoritative? Rocktopia (Fireworks), Metal Heads Forever and also Metal Temple are present in many other important album articles on this wikipedia. In addition, I also found important feedback for The Rocktologist magazine. Sonic Perspectives also has a certain authority, otherwise they would not make interviews with important artists such as Eric Peterson of Testament. Kekkofranco~enwiki (talk) 11:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact they are present in other articles is a WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument and in no way proves they are notable sources. Even school fanzines can (and do) have interviews with famous rock stars, so that means zero, really, in terms of how authoritative they are. Richard3120 (talk) 15:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MelanieN (talk) 15:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Jax 0677: please give us a good explanation on why you voted to keep/redirect this article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:23, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Keep the "history in tact". --Jax 0677 (talk) 17:30, 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 delete G7 (edited by a single editor who requested deletion or blanked the page), by Fastily. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nidhi Ghildayal[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON. Doesn't meet WP:ANYBIO, WP:ACADEMIC [56], WP:NACTOR [57], or WP:JOURNALIST as a public health researcher (interviews/pull-quotes fail WP:INDEPENDENT and have been insufficient for media personalities to survive at AFD). ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 01:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that these people are not notable for being janitors, this list would have to be notable as a concept. While Andrew Davidson provides one example of such a list (the second one is not WP:RS), Clarityfiend provides a compelling refutation that the media regularly makes such lists and that it fails WP:LISTCRITERIA. There appears to be precedent on Wikipedia to include somewhat odd-seeming lists as a section in a broader article. However per WP:OSE we must consider each case on its own merits. My suspicion is that Janitor will not want this content there, but if you gain a consensus at Talk:Janitor to include the list feel free to request restoration at WP:REFUND to allow the merge to happen. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:35, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of janitors[edit]

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

AfD rationale is the same as my PROD rationale: Not a list of famous janitors, or even people whose janitorial work is notable (are there any? with COVID, maybe there will be soon), but a list of notable people who once worked as janitors. This is no more relevant than would be list of notable people who once worked in retail - everyone started somewhere.

De-PROD'd by Fayenatic london with the rationale (copied from talk page) "There was no consensus to delete Category:Janitors. IMHO the list should be kept as well, as it presents more information than the category, namely the grounds for the notability achieved by each janitor that has an article."

Category:Janitors was indeed kept by virtue of no consensus in 2015, but that doesn't mean we need a list of people who were once janitors and then went on to be notable for other things. (The category might be worth revisiting as well, but that's not so much my forté.) ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 09:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Posting links to precedent discussions:
- Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2015_December_22#Category:Janitors – closer stated "There's no consensus to delete this category, that is clear."
- Similar Wikipedia:Categories_for_discussion/Log/2012_April_1#Category:Electricians – no consensus to delete a similar category, nor about the similar List of electricians

– Fayenatic London 14:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my rationale already pasted above. For the record, although most of the notable janitors are notable for other things that they went on to do later, or things that they did as well as being a janitor, at least William Rodriguez was notable for what he did as a janitor (namely, evacuating survivors of one of the Sept 11 attacks). – Fayenatic London 14:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Fayenatic london. Satisfies WP:LISTPURP and WP:CLN. postdlf (talk) 15:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Trivial list. Practically every name on the list are not famous because they were janitors. Ajf773 (talk) 20:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Anything written about these notable people will mention their humble beginnings as janitors. Dream Focus 05:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does that have to do with anything? Chris Pratt was a waiter before he became an actor. Do we create List of waiters and put him on it? No, because he's not notable for being a waiter. He's notable for being an actor. Same thing for the people on that list - they're generally famous for something other than having been a janitor at some point. Hell, even the ones you could conceivably say are "famous janitors" are actually famous for other things. James Hampton is notable as an outsider artist. He happened to be a janitor, but it's the art that elevated him to notability. William Rodriguez is (rightly) notable for being a hero during 9/11. He happened to be a janitor, but it's the selfless heroism that made him notable. Ronnie Woo Woo is notable for being a superfan, not for his achievements in being a custodian. It is absolutely absurd to retain a list of people based on a characteristic that has nothing to do with what the entries on it are notable for. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not only that, the article on Ronnie Woo Woo makes zero reference to janitors other than being lumped into a category called Category:Janitors. Ajf773 (talk) 08:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It does mention that he worked as a custodian, but the fact that it's so easy to miss only highlights how little it has to do with his notability, and the pointlessness of this list. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete some of these people were not really janitors at all, many others it is a trivial background detail with no relevance to them. On the other hand I can come up with lots more notable people who at one point were paid as janitors. This is especially true because some universities have a large part of their janitorial staff as as students.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:LISTN – see this and that, for example. As we have a category too then WP:CLN applies. And the worst case would be merger into the main article janitor per our policy WP:PRESERVE. So, there's no case for deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Publications create silly lists all the time, e.g. people with moles, people who were homeless, people who owned islands, ad nauseam. Fails WP:LISTCRITERIA: "If this person/thing/etc. weren't X, would it reduce their fame or significance?" (Also, CLN says categories and lists can coexist. It doesn't say they have to.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:49, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See People with notable beauty marks; Homeless people; and List of high profile island owners. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Ajf773 (talk) 08:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of those are standalone lists. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those examples, which were selected by Clarityfiend, are all valid content which we store in various ways. That's the point of WP:CLN – that we structure and format lists in various ways; that they are all valid; and we don't delete one particular format, such as the stand-alone list, because they all have their merits. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:13, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unless it's backed up by WP:RS, the list should be deleted for failing WP:V. It was completely unsourced until today. b uidhe 22:52, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per solid reasoning presented by Fayenattic london, Dream focus, and Andrew Davidson. Woerich (talk) 02:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of them have provided what could be considered "sound reasoning". The list of people are wholly famous for other reasons than being janitors or custodians which they may have had an insignificant experience undergoing. Ajf773 (talk) 02:38, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Janitor. It is very clearly showcased above that the standard for things like this is not to have a standalone list, but to put the content into the main article or a category. Neither of these articles are that long anyway, so page size is not an issue. In any case, the information is almost certainly more useful at the main Janitor page than as a standalone list. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to janitor sounds quite sensible to me per above. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 03:15, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Janitor mainly because of the small length of the list. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 18:40, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Janitor per Devonian Wombat. I'm leaning towards the argument that the only people that would be appropriate to be on such a list would be people who were notable as janitors, as opposed to people who were notable for other reasons, but had happened to have been a janitor at some point in their lives completely unrelated to their notability. And, as such a list appears to be relatively small, it would be more appropriate to integrate it into the main article on the topic, rather than exist as a separate list. Rorshacma (talk) 05:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I oppose a merge, I can't see how this list adds any value to Janitor. Ajf773 (talk) 10:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I also oppose a merge as WP:UNDUE. Again, none of these people are famous for being janitors, or their contributions to the janitorial profession. They are people who were janitors at one point or another who then became notable for other reasons unrelated to being janitors. We do not maintain a list of people who were waiters once at waiter.
If this is merged, it should be stripped down significantly to only those people who were janitors at the time of their fame (James Hampton, Ronnie Woo Woo and William Rodriguez), and not include anyone who was incidentally a janitor and then became famous for something else they did. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I agree with PMC that only a very selective merge is appropriate. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete because of lack of verifiability and notability. Oppose merging. There's nothing that can be salvaged from this page -- why does a page about the duties of janitors need a list of random actors? None of these people are notable for being janitors and I am unsure if this could ever be notable. erc ^{talk/contribs} 23:32, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big Ghun[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 him. As a matter, all of them are promotional links to the subject's music. A Google search of the subject doesn't bring up coverage in reliable sources. The award he was nominated for is not notable. None of the subject's albums or singles have been critically reviewed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:51, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely fails general notabiity; as for WP:MUSIC, he doesn't appear to have charted anywhere, unless sources are presented for this. As for music sources, this looks like a blog and this is just his single announcement. PK650 (talk) 23:04, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christos Arfanis[edit]

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

Clearly fails the creative criteria, and I haven't found a single source that would support a claim under the general notability guideline. Absolutely non-notable at this time. PK650 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Procedural Keep, this is currently a Draft, and ~~therefore it should not be at AfD. If you think it should be deleted, go to WP:MFD instead.~~ even though it was in the main space when nominated, it is in Draftspace now, so I think an AfD is no longer needed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:50, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Devonian Wombat: The nomination was proper, as it was in mainspace at the time of nomination. The editor who had moved the article from draftspace to mainspace moved it back to draftspace subsequent to the AfD tagging. --Finngall ^talk 18:26, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, alright, the article is no longer a draft, so yeah, he clearly fails WP:GNG as there is not a single reliable secondary source that even mentions this guy, much less contributes to notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:39, 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) b uidhe 09:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glass v. Louisiana[edit]

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

Most writs of certorari filed with the USSC are denied. Justices Marshall and Brennan always for overturning the death penalty in cases for the court. Referencing for this case is no proof of notability. It is all routine coverage ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 00:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We've just deleted the article Jimmy L. Glass and merged it to this article. I think deleting this is now unnecessary, the case made headlines in 1985 and is pretty significant even now. Maybe more sources are needed but keep for now. Inexpiable (talk) 16:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this is not a run of the mill average dissent, but one that has been widely cited. Bearian (talk) 21:54, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevor Koverko[edit]

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

He is not notable for either his company or his car accident. Henever actually played in the NHL, but if he is notable as a hockey player nonetheless, the article would need to be deleted in its present form and rewritten DGG ( talk ) 00:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Has many unreliable sources, some primary, some passing, and one of them doesn't even mention him at all. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 01:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment He is notable as per https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(sports)#Ice_hockey

he has played for NHL: https://www.nhl.com/player/trevor-koverko-8471808 :he has not. Look at the stats tab --those are not NHL teams) DGG ( talk ) 00:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also as per advice of @DGG: I've rewritten the Bio.

Also he is significantly covered by INC (for his company) : https://www.inc.com/kenny-kline/how-polymaths-founder-former-nhl-draft-pick-trevor-koverko-is-pioneering-a-new-frontier-in-cryptocurrency.html

Rattyhats (talk) 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He is not remotely close to passing WP:NHOCKEY and I don't see enough elsewhere to satisfy the criteria needed for an article. Deadman137 (talk) 19:12, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has substantial coverage in reliable sources which are also secondary sources, therefore he passes WP:GNG.(Techwritar (talk) 22:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)) — Techwritar (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Felicia112 (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He is notable as per WP:HOCKEY, and also passes WP:GNG.Achiiiiver (talk) 21:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC) — Achiiiiver (talk • contribs) is blocked as a sock puppet of Felicia112 (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Subject meets notability, a quick search through Google "News" up till the 10th page shows an amount of coverage from WP:GOODREFS including CNBC, Wall street jornal etc.--Bingrick (talk) 21:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC) — Bingrick (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Felicia112 (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Keep Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC, subject has enough coverage by reliable third party source, I'd advice the sources be improved on, as there are more that can be used on the page.--Felicia112 (talk) 21:56, 15 April 2020 (UTC) — Felicia112 (talk • contribs) is blocked for having used sockpuppets in this debate. ST47 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The sudden influx of Keep votes looks fishy to me. Very similar-looking single-purpose accounts (plus one suspected of COI) whose only purpose seems to be voting in deletion discussions.—J. M. (talk) 00:49, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The subject seem to meet WP:GNG, I have made a couple of changes on the content and added more sources as references.Sanvox (talk) 16:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC) — Sanvox (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Felicia112 (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep There are multiple sources covering the subject from its career as a hockey player to corporate life, Keep as per WP:BIO Dunkankin (talk) 16:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC) — Dunkankin (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Felicia112 (talk • contribs). ST47 (talk) 23:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Comment @DGG: It really looks like we're dealing with sock puppetry or meat puppetry here. The single-purpose accounts adding the Keep votes look all the same (very similar user pages, very similar, almost blank edit histories). The last Keep was added by a new account that looks just like the previous accounts with the Keep votes (and the arguments are not convincing). It really looks like deliberate manipulation. Could someone please have a look?—J. M. (talk) 19:16, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it looks so much like it that there's I see little point in even bothering doing a checkuser, though if another checkuser wants to run it, I have no objection. DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The crypto junk needs to be removed. But is he notable enough as a former ice hockey player? — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 11:37, 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.

[1] "Andrew McNeile Jones: Oxford, United Kingdom * www.mcneilejones.co.uk." The Artist's Magazine, June 2015, p. 80. Gale In Context: Biography, https://link-gale-com.central.ezproxy.cuny.edu/apps/doc/A408784368/BIC?u=cuny_centraloff&sid=BIC&xid=61aeae81. Accessed 13 Apr. 2020.

[1]