Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 2

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 1 April	3 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 redirect to East Sahuarita, Arizona. Sandstein 07:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sahuarita Heights, Arizona[edit]

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

Just a neighborhood on the east side of Sahuarita; no evidence to the contrary. Mangoe (talk) 23:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to East Sahuarita, Arizona which is another name for the area. MB 02:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, Per above , a search on google does not show an independent city of Sahuarita Heights. better redirect to East Sahuarita, Arizona. Alex-h (talk) 08:28, 6 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. Consensus is for the article to be retained. Discussion can continue on the article's talk page, if desired. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:28, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barack Obama presidential eligibility litigation[edit]

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

This can be summed up as "There are a lot of racists and nutcases who filed vexatious suits in a vain effort to make a point. Judges and everyone with a few brain cells dismissed them." It is unclear why every one of these people should be memorialized on Wikipedia in such detail, and this is summarized and may be expanded on at Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Legislation_and_litigation Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 23:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snow keep. The fact that myriad RS have made this topic notable seems to be ignored here, making this a spurious AfD. -- Valjean (talk) 02:49, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At no point did I say there were not sources. However of the sources that there are, a significant number are primary sources of docket files and court motions, and the rest are disconnected news articles about individual frivolous suits. More than a third of the article is just cases brought by Orly Taitz, already covered on her article. The rest are excessive details of crazies bringing forward Barack Obama citizenship conspiracy theories – the primary notable topic! – which need not be listed in individual sections in such redundancy. Reywas92^Talk 04:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you fricking kidding with this nomination? I could see an argument for a technical merge with articles about the conspiracy theories about Obama's eligibility, and we could have a reasonable discussion about that as a matter of how and where best to present the information. But arguing that a subject is non-notable because crackpots and trolls are behind the phenomenon is silly. - Wikidemon (talk) 05:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's exactly what "may be expanded on at Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories#Legislation_and_litigation" means... Please don't put word in my mouth, I did not say the general topic has no notability, nor that crackpots preclude coverage of the topic at all, rather that we should not have an article that lists every one of these individual suits, giving excess detail to all of them. Reywas92^Talk 05:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In fact, this was forked from that very article, with several people saying in Talk:Barack_Obama_citizenship_conspiracy_theories/Archive_13#Proposals_for_splitting_the_article that the list of suits should pared down and summarized rather than split! Reywas92^Talk 05:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since you do recognize the general topic has notability, why on earth did you start an AfD? There are plenty of other methods of dealing with an imperfect article. Just use the ordinary methods for article improvement and don't misuse the AfD process. You should withdraw this AfD and start a discussion on the article's talk page. The last comment there is from November 2017. You didn't even discuss this. That's not right. We just need to cut down on extra wordiness, and where lawsuits have reached a conclusion, then leave out most of the preliminary fluff. -- Valjean (talk) 15:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article was created as a fork from the main article about the Obama citizenship conspiracy theories. Because editors there complained the main article already was too long. Yes, some editors had suggested to just pare the section down in the main article, but that didn't happen. Without re-expanding the main article's section (which would be contrary to the intent of the fork -- trimming the main article), just deleting this article would address none of the concerns that led to the eventual fork. Weazie (talk) 17:53, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per Weazie. This is a flawed nom which doesn't take the creation history into account. StonyBrook (talk) 21:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessica Kardos[edit]

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

Non notable actor with no evidence of notability. Only source has been IMDB since 2016. Little hope for future improvement. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Haven't found any significant mentions in reliable media, just several user generated pages. No evidence of notability. Less Unless (talk) 10:07, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be an IMDb mirror. It is virtually such, but that is not what it is supposed to be.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think the subject's voice work meets the WP:NACTOR threshold—but the problem with voice actors is that there is often relatively little coverage about them, as is the case here. I would suggest relisting the AfD to allow for some time to search for sources, which are very much lacking at the moment. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:33, 9 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. BD2412 T 04:27, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Troy Nelson (hockey, born 1962)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NHOCKEY. Only played in lower-level minor leagues. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails our criteria. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Flibirigit (talk) 08:31, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:NHOCKEY. Less Unless (talk) 10:10, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not seeing any evidence of notability. Rlendog (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability. Nowhere close to WP:NHOCKEY (May have been a leading scorer on a team – a fourth-tier semi-pro team where most stats are incomplete or not kept at all. Is list as 18th in the article but was actually 19th highest scorer in a single season of the USHL when it was not yet Tier I and just one of several Junior A leagues at the time, certainly not a top career scorer even if the USHL was in NHOCKEY#4. Recorded 2 games in the IHL – much less than the 200 specified). John Torchetti is just about the only notable player to come out of these leagues, and it wasn't because of his playing career. Yosemiter (talk) 01:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:, Is not notable as he did not play in major leagues.fails WP:NHOCKEY. Alex-h (talk) 08:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable hockey player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NHOCKEY and WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:11, 9 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 Titi Ogufere. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 03:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Design Week Lagos[edit]

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

Article about a non-notable festival that fails WP:GNG. The only reliable source on the article is an announcement about the launching in 2019. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redrirect or merge with the founder's page, Titi Ogufere. There is actually some decent coverage here, but not really enough for a standalone article. I imagine it will be notable in a few years time, when it gets more coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect All the information in the article is available at the organizer's page, there's nothing to merge. A redirect is the most appropriate option as currently there's not enough coverage for a standalone article. Less Unless (talk) 10:16, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:45, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of populated places in New Mexico[edit]

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

This page is a fork of List of municipalities in New Mexico and List of census-designated places in New Mexico, and incomplete list at that Mattximus (talk) 21:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I asked on the talk page 4 years ago if anyone opposed to deletion, and nobody opposed. I then forgot about it, but just saw it now. We already have List of municipalities in New Mexico which includes population for all cities, towns, and villages. We also have List of census-designated places in New Mexico which includes all census designated places and unincorporated communities. This third list is completely redundant. We can add population numbers to the latter, but it doesn't make sense to have 3 lists for the same thing. This page was chosen as redundant since it is an orphan article, no page on wikipedia links here. Mattximus (talk) 21:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Duplication bad. List of census-designated places in New Mexico is bad too though. It has a lot of unincorporated places that are not CDPs and should not be listed there, and it lacks populations like this page has. You've done a great job with these sorts of articles though. Reywas92^Talk 21:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The idea is not bad, but why is there are arbitrary cut-off at 1,000 pop? I don't think this is a workable list. Please ping me to convince me otherwise. FWIW, my triplet sister and our mother lived in NM, and I visited at least a dozen times. Bearian (talk) 01:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheikh Muhammad Rashid Bilal[edit]

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

Per WP:BIO and WP:VERIFY, no reliable sources and I couldn't find any sources about him or about his role or works, the refs in article are interviews and notes without links, the book in refs has invalid ISBN. Ibrahim.ID ✪ 21:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: there is no article for this person in Amharic Wikipedia (Ethiopia's language) and it wasn't created before since 2010, that is strange because if this person is famous in Ethiopia (as article claims) why nobody create it in Amharic Wikipedia yet? --Ibrahim.ID ✪ 17:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps more relevant, is that there is no interwiki link to an article about this subject on the Oromo-language Wikipedia (as the subject was Oromo). I would guess the article would've been more likely to have appeared there, and/or easier to establish notability there, than in the Amharic language (if not in both). (If it does exist, then I am not sure how to search for it there, as the spelling is probably different.) -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethiopia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Very Weak Keep.~~ In this case the primary sources (oral history) may be all there is on the subject, but on their own I don't think they establish notability. Comment: The ISBN does appear to be valid (ISBN 9783825856717). However, the context in which Muhammad Rashid is mentioned, is relating the oral history about someone else (at whose shrine Muhammad Rashid is the imam). I can only assume that it's the same Muhammad Rashid as the subject of this article. Furthermore, it doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the sentence that cites this source. I'm not sure this book citation adds up to making the subject notable (again, assuming it's the same subject). -- Gyrofrog (talk) 22:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing to very weak delete. I stand by my previous comments regarding oral history, however I did not remember that I had already raised the issue of primary sources back in 2011, on the article's talk page. About 5 years ago an anonymous user removed the maintenance tags, without explanation. If no one has come along in over 8.5 years to improve things I have to assume that no improvements are forthcoming. -- Gyrofrog (talk) 19:22, 6 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. Perhaps the merger option could be further explored on the talk page. Sandstein 07:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obama tan suit controversy[edit]

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

Is there any relevance to this article? Despite the numerous references, this is nothing but a bunch of vulture journalists jerking each other off. What was the "controversy" here? Some people didn't like his fashion choice on one day. That's hardly a controversy. This deserves maybe one sentence in another article. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 20:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 21:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not an encyclopedia worthy subject in spite of the references. If we must: redirect or merge it to Barack Obama Lightburst (talk) 22:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. First, I note that this topic probably, somehow, passes the GNG. That said, GNG only establishes a presumption of notability. As the nominator put it, this topic is only covered because "a bunch of... journalists [were] jerking each other off", not because suitghazigate (thoughts?) had any impact whatsoever. Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm going to have to pull WP:IAR as a reason to delete this. Somehow it manages to pass WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT somehow, but deleting this makes the encyclopedia better. Completely trivial. Hog Farm (talk) 23:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Obama Tan Suit controversy caused enough noise to have it pass WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. Yes, you may personally think that it was a dumb controversy (I also hold this opinion), but it happened. I'm thinking this is a case of WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT. Amielkpo (talk) 00:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Mdaniels5757 said, GNG only presumes notability. This article falls into trivial or sensational information as described in NEVENT: Even in respected media, a 24-hour news cycle and other pressures inherent in the journalism industry can lead to infotainment and churnalism without proper fact checking, and they may engage in frivolous "silly season" reporting. What is there to say about this topic? Obama wore a tan suit. Some people didn't like it. Others did. Some people thought the controversy is frivolous. That's all. Everything else in the article is merely providing context. I think it makes sense to ignore all rules here if this really qualifies for an article.—Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 01:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If we keep these types of articles, Wikipedia will soon turn into one of those sources considered inappropriate per it's own guidelines. Absolutely unworthy subject. Here it's more about common sense then WP:GNG Less Unless (talk) 10:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPOV and WP:CENSOR. The topic has had enduring coverage and seems comparable with our other articles about the dress of VIPs such as Anthony Eden hat or Eisenhower jacket. The worst case would be merger into one of the numerous pages that we have about Obama per policies including WP:ATD, WP:NOTPAPER, WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:05, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not a fair comparison with Eden or Eisenhower, because those were about lasting trends, while this was about a one day's wardrobe choice controversy. StonyBrook (talk) 21:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a dumb controversy but it passes WP:GNG and WP:NEVENT. I disagree with User:Less Unless about it hurting the quality of the encyclopedia because Wikipedia is known for covering some wacky topics, yet that hasn't led to Wikipedia being dismissed as a tabloid or the sort -- concerns over reliability are what people usually have over Wikipedia, not over the subjects it covers. I ought to clear up a COI though, as I contributed a good deal to the Obama tan suit controversy article. Apathetizer (talk) 17:46, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Probably the dumbest dispute to have graced the moldy minds of right wing talk show hosts, and I think the article gives far too much weight to the people who had a problem with it, but it is a topic that passes GNG and NEVENT. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:08, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hog Farm; this article makes us look absolutely awful and has only continued to have any kind of fleeting N thanks to AM talk radio 'remember when?'ing this non-troversy. Nate • (chatter) 02:09, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Maybe a silly topic for some, but Wikipedia explores plenty of similar minutiae of all types, so long as the sources are there and the article is in compliance with Wikipedia policy. I think there is an element of WP:IDONTLIKEIT with this one. There is nothing wrong with this article. It's rather illustrative of American political and popular culture, it can inform the reader and does no damage. Zloyvolsheb (talk) 04:10, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. How can we vote "delete" when this was widely covered in reputable media outlets? We shouldn't decide "notability" on subjective or other arbitrary criteria. We may not want to believe this is notable, but the various good/primary sources prove that it is, concurrent with wikipedia standards.Nic T R (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Even reputable media outlets still air a lot of junk news to fill airtime and column space that doesn't deserve later consideration, thus my vote! here. I'll say no more besides that. Nate • (chatter) 22:24, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A prime example of how a "dumb" subject, even one primarily notable for how dumb it is, can be an encyclopedically valuable article. In this case, the importance comes from the ongoing polemic reference to this nothingburger, by Trump critics, to rhetorically contrast Obama's "scandal-free" presidency with Trump's constant norm-flauting. This use, and the conservative push-back against it, makes this an important story to record with detailed context. Certainly this is not a case where WP:UNENCYCLOPEDIC should trump the relevant WP:NEVENT policies. I added some material clarifying this importance [1].

Note also that a recent biography of Obama devotes a sidebar to this event. FourViolas (talk) 01:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Specifically, the ongoing at-least-annual "remember when" analysis of this event and contrast with indicates notability under the WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE guideline: cited as a case study in multiple sources after the initial coverage has died down, which clarifies WP:EVENTCRIT's language: national impact and very widely covered in diverse sources, especially if also re-analyzed afterwards. FourViolas (talk) 01:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Public image of Barack Obama#Personal appearance, where it would find a good home. This news story has sources and is clearly noteworthy, but it is too much to say that it is deserving of a standalone encyclopedia article, as others have stated. StonyBrook (talk) 20:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per FourViolas and Devonian_Wombat. O, the audacity of taupe! Look, I'm not so old that I'm not the only person who knows that to this very day it was and is a huge problem for many media types on the Right. They made it such a yuuuuuuuge issue. Now, with tens of thousands of Americans dying, it seems trivial, which of course it was. That's the point of the article: the media attacks a black man or a women over their attire. It was headline, above-the-fold news for weeks, and remains a popular meme on social media to this day. Of course it passes WP:GNG. Even a Chad or a Karen knows that. Future readers yet unborn need to know how the silly season used to be. Bearian (talk) 01:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Halfway House, California[edit]

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

This is not an area which passes our notability requirements. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:GEOLAND. Lightburst (talk) 20:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC) I am also nominating the following related pages because [The following are also areas, neighborhoods which do not pass WP:GEOLAND#2]:[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all (removed one already in Estates AFD) Not notable communities, mass-produced in error. Reywas92^Talk 20:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All Pacific House looks like a roadside lodge of some sort and I would expect the same of the others. No sign that they were notable populated places. –dlthewave ☎ 15:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article lacks content and significant coverage. Koridas (Speak) 17:25, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, not a notable place without significant coverage. Alex-h (talk) 08:59, 6 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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 11:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Paul (actor)[edit]

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

See also David Paul (actor), which has been nominated. Only sources are imdb and a freelance pop culture piece about the twins. No major appearances, includes minor role in major movie that was cut and movies that are not notable. Does not pass GNG or NACTOR ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Paul Twins (aka "The Barbarian Brothers") were popular for a time in 1980s and 1990s, although their articles are poorly sourced due their fame being pre-internet. They got a good deal of coverage in newspapers and in magazines such as Sports Illustrated and were the leads in The Barbarians, Think Big, Double Trouble and Twin Sitters, so would meet NACTOR as well as the GNG. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - I should have been more thorough - unfortunately I did not perform a search under 'Barbarian brothers', and the name itself was too common to come up with relevant results. Thank you for your work on this. I would attempt to close this myself but that has resulted in a lot of major formatting errors in the past... thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:28, 3 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. Withdrawn by the nominator. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 11:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Paul (actor)[edit]

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

Actor with only minor roles. Sources do not establish notability - one is imdb, one is in regard to one of the movies, one is an obit from 'the Saxon' which may or may not be reliable in the first place, and last is an archived copy of a pop culture freelance piece about David and his brother.

I don't see this passing NACTOR or GNG. Some uncredited roles, and then an appearance in a movie that was later deleted. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Barbarian Brothers were weightlifters and actors who starred in terrible movies that were enjoyably bad and that have a cult following. There are enough RS to combine into one article. I noticed People, LA Times, UPI, books about '80s action movies published by reliable publishers, etc. Those editors who know about weightlifting could identify reliable sources for that aspect. Caro7200 (talk) 20:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Paul Twins (aka "The Barbarian Brothers") were popular for a time in 1980s and 1990s, although their articles are poorly sourced due their fame being pre-internet. They got a good deal of coverage in newspapers and in magazines such as Sports Illustrated and were the leads in The Barbarians, Think Big, Double Trouble and Twin Sitters, so would meet NACTOR as well as the GNG. Sources: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,9,10. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 03:42, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination - I should have been more thorough - unfortunately I did not perform a search under 'Barbarian brothers', and the name itself was too common to come up with relevant results. Thank you for your work on this. I would attempt to close this myself but that has resulted in a lot of major formatting errors in the past... thank you. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 15:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caveman Principles[edit]

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

Probably not notable. Article was writen by the author who made few contributions other than promoting his book. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 18:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The article doesn't seem to have ever cited any reviews in reliable sources or any other coverage, nor have I been able to find any. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 14:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Fenix down (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magnus Tappert[edit]

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

Has not played in a fully professional league, i.e. not in the highest leagues of Norway, Swedeb or Denmark. Geschichte (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I can't read it, but this ref [2] exists and could count towards GNG (any Värmlands Folkblad subscribers?). Mdaniels5757 (talk) 22:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 13:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 13:39, 3 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. No evidence of significant coverage. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:12, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sound Squad New Years Revolutions[edit]

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

A non-notable series of events. There are currently no valid sources being used as references. Searching for sources brought up a few very old event listings/ticket sales pages, but no actual coverage that I could find. Without valid reliable sources, it would appear to fail the WP:GNG. Rorshacma (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Rorshacma (talk) 18:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability in article or in searches. No significant coverage in anything beyond YouTube. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:50, 9 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) 09:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slug Signorino[edit]

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

Fails WP:NARTIST I can find no in-depth coverage, only primary sources and passing mentions or listings, nothing which actually discusses him. Theroadislong (talk) 18:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was considering AFD'ing this myself, for exactly the same reasons, this morning. The subject's cartoons were widely published but there is very little secondary coverage of the actual subject. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:31, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Subject of this article does not seem to have enough SIGCOV to substantiate notability as per NARTIST criteria. Netherzone (talk) 23:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. — Bilorv (talk) 12:10, 5 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 nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Steven (Editor) (talk) 22:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cummings Elementary School[edit]

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

Recently created disambiguation page of Cummings Elementary School - elementary schools are usually deemed non-notable and none of the schools on this list have articles. Also per MOS:DABRED, it says "Do not create red links to articles that are unlikely ever to be written, or are likely to be removed as insufficiently notable topics." Is this disambiguation page needed? Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Steven (Editor) (talk) 18:43, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - School guidelines say: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Schools/Article_advice.
- "Non-notable school articles are generally blanked and redirected to the school district's article (USA)"
Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Common_outcomes#Schools also states:
- "Most elementary (primary) and middle schools that don't source a clear claim to notability usually get merged or redirected to the school district authority that operates them (generally North America)[...]"
A non-notable school is supposed to redirect to its school district. But what happens when more than one school shares the same name? In fact there is no intention to write an article about any elementary school school here. The intention is to direct readers to the proper school district Wikipedia article which is to contain the relevant information about non-notable schools. Therefore we must make and keep disambiguation pages like this.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: if the names were unique, each would have a redirect. As they aren't, they need a dab page. I've tidied it up and added another one (Memphis). PamD 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I see that my tidying away of comments in the dab page has been undone: I've never seen a dab page with such comments, as the entries in the blue linked pages should have sources to justify the presence of the school names in the lists on those pages. A dab page just points to where the topic is mentioned. I'm not going to get into an edit war, but other dab page geeks might care to have a look. PamD 20:43, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@PamD: Oh, I see. I'm fine with a discussion over it! I felt that it was important to show proof/evidence in case people years down the line say "Oh, it's unsourced. How do we know it's the case?" I am aware schools often change names or close, and editors of a later generation may not take the time to verify/check for inclusion but just quickly remove entries they feel are unsourced. Maybe it's less tidy, but having proof somewhere will help editors unfamiliar with the people who wrote the page/made inclusions understand how and why it happened. An alternate solution is to store evidence in the talk page of the redirect. WhisperToMe (talk) 21:13, 3 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 RadhaKrishn. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 09:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kannante Radha[edit]

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

This article is the about the Malayalam dubbed mythological series RadhaKrishn which can be specified in the original article itself as no difference between the both except channel, language and date. Noobie anonymous (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Noobie anonymous (talk) 17:18, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As the nom mentioned this is just a dubbed version. This show runs in various Indian languages and it is meaningless to have a separate article for every version. - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to the other version then. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:57, 10 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) 09:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Md Najmul Islam[edit]

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

Non notable police officer. Fails WP:GNG (Lacks significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject). There are 14 refs in the article, all of them are routine coverage & just mentioned the person name (passing mention), some of refs even doesn't mentioned the person name & others are directory. The Bangladesh Police Medal-Service (bpm-seba) isn't a notable award (not enough for a standalone article), every year at least 100+ police personal receive this award.

The person who created this article, looks like very close to the subject, just look at this photo took by article creator. Not just that, the article creator also has his own article Dhruba Joetirmoya Gope, created by a sock. So, Md Najmul Islam article created by "User:Dhruba Joetirmoya Gope" & Dhruba Joetirmoya Gope article created by a sock. I won't be surprised if they all are the same person and i'm quite sure paid-editing, conflict of interest, advertisement is going on here. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 16:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable police officer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Subject fails WP:GNG. There is nothing online to suggest the person deserves a biography in Wikipedia. -The Gnome (talk) 09:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Appears to be good at his job, but lack of significant coverage means that he fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 12:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Mr. Limon, was it wise to report my user account just because I created the article Md Najmul Islam? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.30.39.160 (talk) 15:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

lock evasion Dreamy Jazz 🎷 ^{talk to me | my contributions} 17:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Random IP thank you for admitting to being a sockpuppet globally locked account. I have filed an SPI. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:GNG. Gritmem (talk) 20:05, 10 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zetetics (band)[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NMUSIC. — Jeff G. ツ 15:52, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:01, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why is the page requested to be deleted? I personally know this music group and all the information on the page is correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.215.224.98 (talk) 19:45, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which criterion at WP:NMUSIC does it satisfy, and how? — Jeff G. ツ 06:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it does not have to pass WP:NMUSIC it can also qualify as notable by passing WP:GNG. There are plenty of references in the article a number of which are Ukranian which I do not have knowledge of, but at least two of the references are reliable sources that have significant coverage. These are here from L'Officiel a French print magazine, and TSN.ua which is a national Ukraine tv channel with coverage referenced in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:27, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:47, 2 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. Consensus is that the subject does not meet Wikipedia's notability standards to qualify for an article. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samaira Sandhu[edit]

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

The article has been moved back and forth several times however I still think the subject does not pass WP:NACTOR and WP:NAUTHOR. KartikeyaS (talk) 14:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:59, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, she fails WP:NACTOR, as she has only appeared in one notable production, she fails WP:NAUTHOR, since as far as I can tell not a single review of her book exists, and sje fails WP:GNG, as all the sources in the article are either primary, promotional fluff pieces or passing mentions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I seem to agree that this person fails the Wikipedia criteria of notability mentioned on Wikipedia:Notability (people)#Entertainers. No lead roles in the movies she has acted adds to the problem. Cedix (talk) 11:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor is it a directory. There are three criteria for establishing notability for celebrities, references do not support this person meeting any of those factors. Topic fails WP:NAUTHOR. HighKing⁺⁺ 09:33, 7 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. BD2412 T 04:30, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalilah Enríquez[edit]

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

I can't find anything to demonstrate notably for this person: in addition, a significant amount of detail was added by an editor whose username is suspiciously close to that of the subject, so there's a possible CoI to throw into the debate. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Plenty of coverage. Couple of recent news items show she is well known as a journalist, and the national library included her in a list of just 28 "Belizean women authors" (the link was dead but I found an archived copy). The article needs more cleanup - too many inline external links, most of which could probably be reformatted as references. PamD 17:26, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The evidence advances notability beyond any minimum criteria. The listing in a national library gives further evidence that more sources can likely be found and maybe someone will take interest in this area. Otr500 (talk) 12:45, 6 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 04:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cybex test[edit]

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

This article has no sources and its only links are to a seemingly defunct website disguised as official information about the NFL combine and the website of the manufacturer of the machinery used to carry out the Cybex test. This is a thinly veiled advertisement for that company's work and the article seems to have no particular encyclopaedic relevance. – Pee Jay 13:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Found a lot of stuff online in the news and third party sources about this, seems to have significant coverage. Article needs editing, but AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 03:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I would say this subject is a pretty niche test when it comes to the grand scheme of NFL player recruitment, and even more niche in terms of Wikipedia as a whole. If this content is kept, I feel it might be better to merge it with another article than to retain a standalone article. – PeeJay 06:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That may be true, but WP:GNG is a really good standard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:12, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - In that case, as I requested below, I think it would be nice to see some examples of this extensive coverage of the test. – Pee Jay 22:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Article has notability but isn't really fit to stay on the project as-is because it has no sources. Send to draft space via WP:ATD-I for now. Swordman97 ^{talk to me} 04:06, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:03, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As others have said, it's notable, and AFD is not cleanup so it should be kept. Smartyllama (talk) 12:35, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you mind providing some of the sources you've found that indicate this topic's notability? It's all well and good saying it, but if you can't prove it, the closing admin should probably ignore your comments. – PeeJay 15:00, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - [3], [4], [5], [6], [7], etc. Many more but I really don't have time to be posting hundreds of links here right now when you can Google it yourself. These include scholarly papers, news articles, etc. Clearly sufficient. Smartyllama (talk) 20:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not sure I agree that those constitute sufficient coverage. The last two only mention the test in passing, and the two scholarly articles refer to the test only as the apparatus that happens to be used for those medical examinations. The first one is the only one that covers the test in sufficient depth, and even then its scope is limited. AfD may not be a substitute for cleanup, but if no one is willing to perform that cleanup, how long can we justifiably allow an article with unsubstantiated notability to remain on the encyclopaedia? – Pee Jay 23:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The text purports to be about a test, yet this is a test that was distinctly not notable when it was ostensibly used and is still not notable enough now. There are only two scientific research-papers, one dated 1993, and one 2006, extant about the subject. The rest are explanations of the term in sports websites (here) that explain everything sports-related under the sun, and a couple of news articles, one about scouting (here) and one about injured athletes (here), in which the subject is name dropped precisely once. This is hardly enough for a Wikipedia article. All it does is promote the eponymous machine that was used for the test, whereby the machine & the-company-producing-it are also non-notable. The fact that the text was uploaded by a kamikaze account doesn't help. -The Gnome (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing notworthy! Gritmem (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or merge/redirect as appropriate). The provided sources, in my view, don't constitute in-depth coverage. The SportsRec article, for example, was a couple paragraphs that covered it fairly superficially; neither the Maitland et al. nor the Bayar et al. articles were actually about the test and focused on its role as a generic isokinetic testing system; Cowboyswire mentions it exactly once in a list of others; USA Today mentions it once in a long article not about or related to the test. There is certainly no long-term notability. I have been unable to find actual substantial non-trivial secondary coverage in reliable sources. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:54, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Nomination Withdrawn - Procedural Keep. Nominator withdrawal due to a wider discussion being requested to take place on the whole topic for which these articles fall within. This withdrawal is without prejudice. (non-admin closure) Sparkle1 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prescot North (ward)[edit]

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

The article and the associated Prescott North Article fail notability guidelines for inclusion on Wikipedia. Only these two wards from Knowsley Borough have separate articles. The Town Council results were for some reason included in the main text of the Knowsley Borough Council election results for 2019 but in a hidden capacity. These individual council wards do not warrant their own individual inclusion unless they themself are notable. The only sources on the page of from the Government creating the ward, the census data and Knowsley Borough Council. Wikipedia is not a place for the indiscriminate collection of information and this is an example of Wikipedia being used to indiscriminately collect information on one pair of local government electoral areas. Secondly, these articles also fail on the grounds that only their creation and not every ward in Knowsley Borough is a form of POV pushing. Why only these two wards and not the rest. Wikipedia is very clear on POV there must be as neutral a POV as possible. Which means in effect it is all wards or no wards unless a specific exemption is carved out under different inclusion criteria. Sparkle1 (talk) 14:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are either unnecessary duplications of other pages on Wikiepida, being individual ward results where the heard results are included in a main article on the local elections, or fail to establish notability in the same or similar ways as described above for Prescott Noth, some are little more than redirects:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep As a quick dive into Category:Wards of England shows, we have articles on local government wards for many districts of the UK. I think a centralised discussion on notability is required rather than one on a specific district. Number 5 7 09:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case why not have the discussion here and expand the articles proposed for deletion to every UK local government electoral area (ward, division etc.) Sparkle1 (talk) 10:44, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A single AfD is an inappropriate venue for a discussion that affects so many articles (possibly into the thousands) because it is highly unlikely to attract the necessary audience to make a decision of such a scale. Number 5 7 14:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am happy to procedurally withdraw this if an appropriate venue can be found that will attract a wide enough audience. I am wary of some wikiprojects generating wide enough discussion. There needs to be a bright line possibility at the end of the discussion and not just a fudged compromise. This is what I am wary of; If there is a fudge with no clear direction. Wikipeida could easily become a repository for information duplication with the information in local election articles, and on individual ward pages and potentially in other places. None of which is good for anyone. There is also the inherent question of are these subdivision of local government notable enough to be on wikipedia at all in the own right. Sparkle1 (talk) 17:58, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would suggest holding it at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, and at a minimum, posting notices posted at WT:E&R, WT:ENGLAND, WT:NIR, WT:SCOTLAND, WT:UK and WT:WALES. As a courtesy, I would also recommend pinging a few specific editors who do a lot of work on ward articles such as Crowsus, Draqueeb or Sionk. Number 5 7 19:14, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will therefore procedurally close this as there appears to be a more appropriate venue. I shall ping the projects but I am not going to go down the route of individual users as that could be considered canvassing. Also why those editors, simply "doing a lot of " makes their participation in the discussion no more or no less important than any other participants. Sparkle1 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clifton East, Chalkwell (both 2019) and Castle Hill (2018) were kept. Natland was deleted, but that was in 2007. There's no evidence of POV, just that some articles haven't been created yet - similarly there are featured articles about villages, and other villages' articles are only stubs. Peter James (talk) 14:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion on the necessary wikiproject has been started here Sparkle1 (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep they are not at all boring to locals. I ran workshops here in Montana on how local librarians etc can start articles on their locales and the demand was high. Participants in USA told me that people really care about their neighbors and neighborhoods, and I suggest in UK as well, Keep them. Rjensen (talk) 20:34, 3 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) 09:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Linda Blease[edit]

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

Highly advertorialized WP:BLP of a media personality, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for media personalities. The notability claims here are not being written about neutrally, but are literally swimming in a pool of self-promotion, and the references are not reliable source coverage about her in independent media, but her and her employer's own self-published websites about themselves. Nothing stated here is "inherently" notable enough to exempt her from having to be referenced much, much better than this. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belize-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 13:40, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's probably pertinent to note that the page appears to have been created by someone connected with the subject, whose WP page I'm opening an AfD discussion for. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 15:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet notability criteria for entertainers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:50, 3 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. My understanding of the relevant background is this: There is a lot of reliable coverage of this Islamic religious gathering contributing to the spread of COVID-19 in India. At the same time, there are a lot of tensions between Hindus and Muslims in India, and there is also increasing state-sanctioned Islamophobia and persecution of Muslims in India.

All of this divides our editorship, as is evident from some of the more questionable "keep" and "delete" opinions, and makes it very difficult to assess consensus. There is no numerical consensus, and both sides make valid arguments: there is a lot of coverage, which contributes to notability, but there are also existing articles about both the religious movement and COVID-19 in India, which calls into question the need for yet another article.

In my view, arguments based on notability criteria should not be given decisive weight in the context of this kind of topic. We have established notability criteria in order to distinguish unimportant topics such as run-of-the-mill garage bands or housing developments from important ones. But notability arguments fall short where all agree that the topic at issue is important, but that the question is how to best order and present the content.

In this context, I believe that the arguments made here against creating another article are significantly more persuasive in the light of the purpose of Wikipedia, which is "to create a high-quality, free-content encyclopedia in an atmosphere of camaraderie and mutual respect among contributors" (Motorsports, 2020). Both COVID-19 and the India/Pakistan topic area are highly volatile and rife with misinformation and tensions in the real world and on Wikipedia. It is beneficial to the project and our readers to limit the number of articles in which such topics are discussed, in order to force editors with different points of view to come to an agreement over how to neutrally address these issues, rather than to create forks that, if only because of their number, are difficult to keep consistent, neutral and free from misinformation that can have a disruptive impact on the real world. For these reasons, I am giving more weight to the "delete" opinions in this discussion. Sandstein 06:43, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Delhi[edit]

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

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

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

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

This is a WP:POVFORK of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India and Tablighi Jamaat. There are no dedicated pages for any other coronavirus hotspots. It is difficult to justify it for this one. Even Tablighi Jamaat had created a much bigger hotspot in Malaysia earlier in March, which doesn't have a separate page. (See Tablighi Jamaat#2019–20 coronavirus pandemic.) And there were other gatherings the organisation held in Indonesia and Pakistan, which also became hotspots. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by the nominator - I am withdrawing the the nomination because the size of the hotspot has turned out to be much larger than previously known. Right now, this appears to be a legitimate topic for an article. Meanwhile, a similar article for Pakistan may also become necessary.[8][9]. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 13:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT delete This page give information and awareness to people that how social distancing is important and what is the impact of social gathering in this lockdown. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kakariyachirag (talk • contribs) 05:05, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait like M4DU7 said. ~~Delete~~ ~~per nom. Maybe merge the content with 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Delhi~~. Shanze1 (talk) 15:33, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly rename to "COVID-19 hotspots in India". There are at least 10 distinct hotspots for COVID-19 in India (possibly as many as 24) and we can't have an article on every hotspot.VR _talk 15:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or possibly merge portions of this article with 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India --Hindustanilanguage (talk) 16:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. merge to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India.--Fathimahazara (talk) 18:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT DELETE This article merits a presence because of the implications it has for India. This is the the inflexion point in the Covid-19 cases in India. Further,Kautilya3 there are no pages about hotspots in India because there isn't any other hotspot in India. So far 9000 people have to be quarantined due to this event. 400 positive cases and 19 deaths have been reported due to this event. That's 20% of all cases and 36% of all deaths.

This means that the chance of Community level transmission has been greatly increased by this event. Therefore it definelty merits a Wiki page. I further urge Spasiba5 and Bharatiya to join the discussion.-- Trojanishere (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please refrain from WP:canvassing users. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is calling someone to join this discussion whose account has been indefinitely blocked by the Arbitration Committee. Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTEVERYTHING- does every controversy need a separate Wikipedia page? Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the tone of the article is violation of WP:POV - it lacks neutrality. WP:Attack… A separate page named CoVid Hotspots in India seems better and then include every single incident in it, which anyhow is related to Coronavirus, or violated the rules of lockdown. Any social and religious gatherings or whatever. Facts need to be mentioned that the 13 March Circular did not prohibit the religious gatherings, this came later. Wikipedia demands Neutral point of View - Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk) 21:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Delhi or ideally Wait for a couple of weeks to see the full extent of the spread resulting from this event. I don't think any superspreader event in the world is quite similar to this in terms of nationwide spread and news coverage, so the OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST argument does not hold water. M4DU7 (talk) 22:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete This article smells too much like it's targeting Islam in general and Tablighi Jamaat in particular. As Muslims, we all know that it's well-known throughout the Indian subcontinent that Tablighi Jamaat is a non-political party and its members are trained and told never to talk negatively about any other religious sects (and I am not a formal member of Tablighi Jamaat or any other Islamic religious sect, just an ordinary Muslim). In fact, the nominator for deletion of this article @Kautilya3: has gained even more respect in my heart for his fairness. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DO NOT delete - The article has detailed information about a deadly disease. It is in the immediate interest of lot of people who may visit the locality and may look for information on the internet, will be definitely useful for them. Article is not Islamophobic, its just giving out facts. Its just coincidental that people involved here are muslims of Tablighi jamaat. Amitized (talk) 05:52, 3 April 2020 (UTC)Amitized[reply]
Delete This is only biased kind of article creation. Hotspots are every where in the world. --Irshadpp (talk) 05:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The article provides great information and resources to the spread of Wuhan Coronavirus. The reason why this article is justified is primarily because this single event is now linked to over 30% of COVID-19 cases across India. There is no such article from anywhere else because no such event took place anywhere around the world of this scale. The article should not be deleted. TheodoreIndiana (talk) 08:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reliable source for the claim "no such event took place anywhere around the world of this scale"? -- Kautilya3 (talk) 10:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I present:

As the pandemic continues, people practicing their faith have become unwitting but powerful vectors in the spread of the virus. A cultlike church helped fueled the pandemic in South Korea. A synagogue north of New York City was at the center of an early outbreak. An evangelical congregation in France was the source of hundreds of infections.^[1]

References

^ Joanna Slater, Niha Masih, Irfan Shams, India confronts its first virus 'super-spreader,' a Muslim missionary group, Washington Post, 3 April 2020.

-- Kautilya3 (talk) 14:29, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE:People have the right to know no regarding what has happened at tablighi jamaat Wikipedia is all about spreading for giving information on related subjects more than 8000 people have been here and most of them are being tested positive covid-19 virus and this article is not about spreading hate against Muslims or are any misinterpretation of the related subject and I wish you consider this and do not delete the related article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.237.28.148 (talk) 11:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete The article provides information and resources.

Zezen (talk) 12:13, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete The article provides great information about a new form of biological warfare. Almost 30% of COVID-19 cases across India are linked to this congregation. Moreover the foreign participants entered the country under different pretext and some of them are yet missing. Also these foreign participants may have malicious/criminal intent. The behaviour of the participants towards the health workers is traumatizing. No such incident has been reported anywhere else in the world as it may be one of its kind or a beginning of series of such events. The people have a right to know. Before jumping to any conclusions Wait for a few months to see the full extent of the spread resulting from this event. --Parth.297 (talk) 12:36, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Delete as per others, and also some fishy keep !votes. EG: @223.237.28.148: your only edit was to !vote in this AfD. Article seems to be there to make a point, and not to inform. Zezen: The article provides information and resources. The article may be good, but if there is no reason for this topic to be on WP, then... >>BEANS X2^t 14:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
DELETE Strongly support the points made by Ngrewal1 above. This article reeks of anti-Muslim sentiment and presents a heavily biased view. A toned down, more neutral version can be added to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. Sahitana (talk) 18:11, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:POVFORK of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India and Tablighi Jamaat, which encourages bias and POV push. Cheers.– Akhiljaxxn (talk) 18:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India. It is clear that this is an inflection point in COVID-19 spread in India, and therefore it must be covered. However, there are simply too many pages on the COVID-19 pandemic and we should look to streamline and condense information. This page sets a precedent that every super-spreader event must have its own page, which will simply be unmanageable. This incident is better categorized as a part of the broader Indian pandemic. Nmurali02 (talk) 21:32, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ngrewal1.— Hammad (Talk!) 02:58, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do Not Delete Significant event that lead to a explosive spread in India. This NEEDS to be documented.Numancia (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MergeShould be covered in Tablighi Jamaat and other related articles (2020 coronavirus pandemic in India, 2020 coronavirus pandemic in Delhi etc. Not the only Jamaat gathering either were there in Malayasia, Pakistan etc. If there was to be an article at all then it should cover all of them. Don't agree with the Ngrewal on religious targeting, the Jamaat might be a non-political entity that does not take away from the significance or insignificance of this article. Gotitbro (talk) 06:35, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wait for now. the group is well known for its large annual gatherings especially in Bangladesh and Pakistan (Bishwa Ijtema, Raiwind Ijtema) which have lead to accusations and controversies in the past as well (such as the 2019 Tezgam train fire, where group members were accused of carelessness that led to the fire). Should wait for the full extent to emerge in the next few weeks before taking any action here, otherwise my argument above stands. Gotitbro (talk) 06:56, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do Not Delete Significant event leading to virus spread in India. This has nothing to do with religion. Crackjack (talk) 10:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete Event related to significant (~650 direct cases so far)^[1] up rise and spread of cases throughout the country.(no need to attach any reference here, one can just google and look on the effect) Nothing to do with religion.

References

^ Sharma, Nidhi (2020-04-04). "647 coronavirus positive cases in two days linked to Tablighi Jamaat". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-04-04.

Sanyam.wikime (talk) 11:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. I agree with the users above who have said that this is a WP:POVFORK of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India and Tablighi Jamaat, which encourages bias. Millions of people are getting infected and will get infected in the coming days. All these incidents does not need a separate article. At best may be a mention in "Coronavirus in India" article is needed. And it is already there. Accordingly I think this can be deleted. Cedix (talk) 11:48, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cedix: This account was created just a few hours ago [refrence ], without exploring any other things the user directly participated in some deletion discussions and know is participating in this discussion using specific policy words. Hard to explain ! - Sanyam.wikime (talk) 12:03, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think I already clarified this when I said that "Delete per nominator. I agree with the users above who have said that this is a ... ". For your information I copied the comment "*Delete WP:POVFORK of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India and Tablighi Jamaat, which encourages bias and POV push. Cheers.– Akhiljaxxn(talk) 18:23, 3 April 2020 (UTC)" as I fully agree with it. Is this prohibited ? Why is it hard to explain ? --Cedix (talk) 12:08, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revisiting this after a 5 days since I last reviewed. I reiterate that the reasons stated for deleting this still hold true. I also agree with some of the new reviewers that this is a violation of WP:NOTNEWS. The notable topic here is "Coronavirus in India". The article has been filled with trivial and biased, non encyclopedic details. A para in the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India is already there and that's is needed here. Cedix (talk) 12:55, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not Delete Significant and very notable event that lead to a have corona virus infection to a major number of people who attended it. This has nothing to do with religion rather than an event that went unexpectedly pandemic across the country.--Mims Mentor (talk) 18:22, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India instead. Articles about this pandemic in Malaysia have section that discusses the Tablighi jamaat. Dede2008 (talk) 04:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the scope of the subject has significantly broadened now and move the title to 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspots so that we can cover about Pakistan, Malaysia and Brunei.[10][11] Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 16:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per above. I have no issue with the title change since that will be really needed to expand our coverage. Tessaracter (talk) 18:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep: scope of the subject has broadened now. The event has already received significant coverage, and will be remembered for a long time. Also per Tessaracter, and Mims Mentor. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:RAPID and passes WP:GNG there is both and National and International coverage and issue has blown much bigger then what it was earlier .Now the only question is whether it will be lasting now that cannot be concusively determined at this point.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Aman.kumar.goel so we can cover their Pakistani hotspots. Störm (talk) 16:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per Aman Kumar Goel. At this point, it satisfies WP:N, WP:V, WP:RAPID. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Aman.kumar.goel, Usernamekiran, Störm, and Rsrikanth05: and others, take a look at Talk:2020 Tablighi_Jamaat_coronavirus_hotspot in Delhi#Requested move 7 April 2020. Tessaracter (talk) 18:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Noted. Will take a look. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as unencyclopedic per WP:NOTNEWS. Wikipedia is suffering more from the moral panic surrounding this virus than the virus itself. -- Netoholic @ 20:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Significant enough to be worth keeping, given that it appears to be the largest source of infection in India, contributing around a third of cases - [12][13]. There are enough international sources linked to this event and continued interest on it for the article to qualify under WP:GNG. The nominator has also withdrawn the AfD. Hzh (talk) 11:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:GNG the subject has received enough wide coverage and attention. The content has been written well with adequate sources. Abishe (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep: A significant event/issue for covid19-related articles in India. Meets basic criteria. DTM (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Though VR has a good point, to create/rename an article or section - "COVID-19 hotspots in India". DTM (talk) 08:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you and yes I agree. There are already other hotspots emerging in India, Pakistan and other countries that are not related to this event. We shouldn't have an article for every hotspot, but rather an article that covers all the major ones.VR _talk 14:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep: There already exists a similar article 2020 Tablighi Jamaat coronavirus hotspot in Pakistan. This was a huge event and got significant media coverage. Manas (talk) 12:18, 9 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 01:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seaford Head Golf Course[edit]

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

Non-notable local sports facility. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 12:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 12:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 12:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 12:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment there’s already a deletion discussion open on this article (see below). Mccapra (talk) 13:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not true I think, Seaford Head Golf Course is not the same as Seaford Golf Course. Nigej (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah apologies! Mccapra (talk) 17:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed. There are two golf clubs/courses in the same town, and hence they are quite similarly named and easy to confuse. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 13:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing notable. Nigej (talk) 13:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:43, 8 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:50, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stavros Flatley[edit]

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

Non-notable reality TV contestant, no evidence to suggest they meet WP:ENT Curt ^内蒙 11:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Curt ^内蒙 11:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Curt ^内蒙 11:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Lots of appearances and continuing coverage over more than ten years (example) mean that they easily pass WP:ENTERTAINER. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep meets ent as has been significant part of multiple notable shows, as well as less significant roles in many more. Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. One of the best remembered acts on a very popular show. Most such acts are not notable; these are. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 8 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Egypt[edit]

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

A too small community, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:26, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a notable group, the mere fact that people from Pakistan exist in the nation of Egypt does not mean the topic of Pakistanis in Egypt passes GNG. Demographics of Egypt is not a good redirect target, as it does not mention Pakistanis, and this article contains nothing of relevance to be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:59, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There are Pakistanis in Egypt but there is simply no notable interest on the subject of Pakistanis in Egypt. Now, if there was one Pakistani in Egypt... -The Gnome (talk) 19:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per reasons above. Gritmem (talk) 20:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:28, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quarantine (Poem)[edit]

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

Article previously was almost entirely copyvio and nominated for speedy deletion by User:Þjarkur under WP:G12, though the violating material was then removed by the page creator; little is left. There doesn't seem to be any coverage of the poem in third-party reliable sources. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Courtesy ping for Þjarkur, as I think the above one won't have worked. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 09:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is easily a keep. It was one of 12 poems shortlisted for RTÉ's selection of "The-best loved irish poem of the last 100 years". [14][15] Guardian: "And Eavan Boland’s Great Famine poem “Quarantine” makes me cry." [16] New York Times cooking section: "And, finally, do read Eavan Boland’s fine dark poem Quarantine" [17] Irish school children are made to make presentations on it [18]. "One of my favorite contemporary political poems" [19] Analyzed in literary journals [20]. – Thjarkur (talk) 10:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, I'll happily withdraw this. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 11:28, 2 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 03:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsieur Adi[edit]

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

This page seems to be written by the person itself, especially because a personal Instagram selfie is being used. Almost all edits are made by Mattia86, probably the artist himself. Sources are doubtful (linking to promotional things he could've sent to the promoters himself) and there's an Instagram selfie as "artist photo". Please mind that this person has less than 200 followers on Instagram (https://www.instagram.com/adambalbusse). Seems to me this is a classic case of "fake it until you make it".

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The refs cited in the article are either unreliable or promotional links to the subject's music. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just noticed that the article is up for a speedy deletion. The article has been running for years and Monsieur Adi has been working in the music industry for years. It is not just a case of "fake it until you make it" as timo I have been following him for years and the artist allegedly deleted all of his social media accounts except his verified Facebook page with nearly 15000 followers as well as on Spotify where the current number of monthly plays is at over 200,000 and some songs have logged million of plays. As for the photo, you will notice that the photo has been posted on his official pages. Linking to the artist's personal Instagram page is odd. Links to where he has been featured in the past on The Guardian, Out Magazine, Mixmag Magazine where his name is featured on the of an actual printed magazine cover, and others can be through Google just as I have. I am happy to prove I am not the artist in some way. Considering the level of work he has done and who he has worked with, deletion seems misguided and seems that this is targeted. I just felt the need to keep his page up to date and has been a personal pleasure to do that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mattia86 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above such as The Guardian so deletion is not necessary in this case in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:42, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete - - Sources are not appropriate. A radio station expecting something is not a reliable source of having achieved something. Also, the post on The Guardian is a blog post. It's not an in-depth article with credibility. Also, Mattia86 is not neutral in writing the article, as is expected on Wikipedia. Mattia86 is biased, seems to be "defending" the artist with Spotify plays, instead of objectively contributing. !testTimo92! (talk) 18:40, 5 April 2020

The Guardian article is not a blog and you nominated this article without signing it and then pop up with a delete vote which is very bad behaviour, especially as I reminded you yesterday to sign the nomination, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If the radio station is not good enough for you, his name is listed on the Wikipedia page for the The Mrs Carter Show World Tour itself. Here you can find in this archive the print of the actual Billboard Magazine listing the box office totals for that tour right here. That seems highly reliable and I am sure Beyoncé would have shut this down herself if it was not true. In terms of neutral writing, I do not believe I have overstated or understated his work. I simply listed the facts that I got from multiple respectable sources and publications. Yes, I am a fan, but I imagine most people writing Wikipedia pages are fans of the subject or edits that they are making. Where in my writing of this article is it not neutral? As for The Guardian as well as Out.com, I do not think those count as a blog as it is connected to a newspaper and/or magazine that is in print and in this day and age, online articles are a legitimate and reliable source. And even if so, you will be able to find that he has been featured in multiple magazines, has had multiple releases of his remixes on major labels, and has been on a major tour. Even Beyoncé herself included him in her own video from her tour which can be found here on her own Youtube page where it clearly states that he is the DJ for the tour. Nothing has been made up and it has all be reliable. As for his work, take a look at Discogs.com to find a list of what he has done as well that you can find here. It seems that Timo92 is targeting this page/artist for some reason and I would be curious to know how and why they found this Wikipedia page if 1.) They did not know the artist before due to the lack of notability - which judging, by this being the first nomination for deletion in the 7 years this page has been up, Timo92 must know the artist somehow and 2.) was able to find the artist's personal Instagram page? It sounds like the case of someone taking something personally as this page has been on Wikipedia for years and has had multiple edits done by others that could have put this up for deletion had it not met criteria for being on Wikipedia. Would it then be right that someone allegedly having a problem against the artist when the artist has enough notability to meet the guidelines placed, be right to delete the article?

Mattia86 (talk) 22:40, 5 April 2020

– I am not sure what Timo92 has against me or this particular artist, but it seems there is something now. Please correct me if I am wrong. They stated that I committed vandalism of the page when I did not put the strike through their "delete" nomination. It was Atlantic306 and they explained why. Therefore I just put it back after the fact it was edited by Timo92 himself. Again, it is strange how Timo92 found this page after years of its existence and decided to nominate it for deletion as well as link to the artist's personal Instagram page in the nomination and now has accused me of "vandalism" when I did not do anything of the sort. If I am accused of being unbiased, I believe Timo92 is not unbiased as well in this situation given the circumstances. I state again, if this artist is not notable given the extensive coverage for years and has never had a nomination for deletion during its 7 years of existence, how did Timo92 find this article as well as the artist's personal page? It's either a case of knowing the artist through notability and/or knowing the artist in a personal manner somehow which then makes this a personal issue and therefore not an unbiased nomination. Mattia86 (talk) 13:14, 8 April 2020

Delete no chart ranks. Gritmem (talk) 20:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Gritmem, here are some official club chart rankings from the UK. He is a part of Katy Perry's remix package for Rise where his name is mentioned which can be found on Billboard here. Finally, here is a link to Billboard where you can see his chart positions for his song Bad Habits. All the best. Mattia86 (talk) 13:10, 11 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) 09:59, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Russia[edit]

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

A small community of 3,560, mostly expats, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 09:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:56, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Nothing notable to support an article. Mccapra (talk) 05:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Just a lot of original & collage work. There are Pakistanis in Russia but there is simply no notable interest on the subject of Pakistanis in Russia. -The Gnome (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing noteworthy. Gritmem (talk) 20:09, 10 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:20, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Sri Lanka[edit]

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

200 Pakistani are in Sri Lanka which is too small for separate article. Fails WP:GNG. Most information is covered under Memons in Sri Lanka. Störm (talk) 09:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:44, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the notable community of people from what is today Pakistan already has an article. The rest is not notable. Mccapra (talk) 05:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Someone took to heart a mission to raise up texts about Pakistanis in various places. -The Gnome (talk) 19:33, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Gritmem (talk) 20:09, 10 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. Although the discussion here has been sparse, this AFD was initiated through discussion at WP:GOLF, in which there was a consensus that the article runs afoul of WP:OR (WT:GOLF#Problems with List of golfers with most PGA Tour of Australasia wins) and should be deleted. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of golfers with most PGA Tour of Australasia wins[edit]

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

The PGA Tour of Australasia do not appear to maintain such a list, and don't even confirm the year the tour began (although this can be referenced from third-party sources, it is generally given as when the Order of Merit was reintroduced). In addition, it is unclear what tournaments would be counted with two tiers running simultaneously towards a single money list some years and separate money lists in others, and many tournaments being counted for the order of merit some years but not others. As such, this list is pretty much WP:Original Research and unreferencable. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:09, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:21, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is a follow-up to WT:GOLF#Problems with List of golfers with most PGA Tour of Australasia wins. My own view is that this should be deleted. It can be re-created when we have some suitable data. Nigej (talk) 14:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 03:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Buccaneer (3D printer)[edit]

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

One of the innumerable 3D printer projects, but this one seems to have folded in 2015 and gone nowhere since.

https://3dprint.com/100792/pirate3d-buccaneer-sinks/ Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:57, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 09:48, 2 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of golfers with most Sunshine Tour wins[edit]

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

The Sunshine Tour do not appear to maintain such a list, and don't even confirm the year the tour began (although this can be referenced from third-party sources, is not 100% certain with different sources providing different years). In addition, it is unclear what tournaments would be counted with two tiers running simultaneously towards a single money list some years and separate money lists in others. As such, this list is pretty much WP:Original Research and unreferancable. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 09:02, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Similar issues to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of golfers with most PGA Tour of Australasia wins. Nigej (talk) 14:29, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:28, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sunshine Tour is a men's professional golf tour. Such an article about wins could be useful. But it has to be referenced. I agree with the users above. - Cedix — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cedix (talk • contribs) 10:41, 4 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. Yunshui ^雲 _水 09:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seaford Golf Club[edit]

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

Non-notable local sports facility. _wjemather ^{please leave a message...} 08:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Golf-related deletion discussions. <signature>

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. <signature>

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:23, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is little more than an advert for a private business. The only reference is a 404 dead link to what appears to be an advertorial in a trade magazine, and a Google search just throws out links the venue's own website. ~dom Kaos~ (talk)
Delete no indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Every golf course has a story but that doesn't make it notable. Nigej (talk) 13:43, 2 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. BD2412 T 04:32, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Lynch (executive)[edit]

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

inadequate coverage to establish GNG. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:35, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 08:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTLINKEDIN is redirecting to WP:MEMORIAL. If you mean résumé, then it is not.Karieol51 (talk) 16:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please follow MOS:LISTGAP. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 01:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep held significant posts, has in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources. Karieol51 (talk) 16:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Link to the sources please. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 01:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and Dom Kaos. --BlameRuiner (talk) 11:14, 8 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) 00:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MagicVortex[edit]

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

Limited coverage, weak delete per WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 19:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:29, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 19:47, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, It seems all but two of the sources are dead links and I couldn't find anything else online when I looked. So the company fails WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep with some heavy updating. It seems to have been big enough in its prime to make it to some pretty mainstream print magazines. Just swap everything to past tense. Or do we just remove every article for defunct web services now because the links died? --~ฅ(ↀωↀ=)neko-chan^nyan 22:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It depends. If the vast majority of the links are dead and there are no archived copies or the information can't be supported by newer ones I'd say yes. The core of Wikipedia is verifiability of article content and that can't be done if every source in the article is a dead link with other way to confirm what's in the article. There's also zero way to determine if the sources where reliable or not when they where originally used as references. Which is a large part of this AfD. Like with ref 7, Sage Analytic, it seems like it was a bad ref to start with. While we already know an Alexa ranking can't be used for notability anyway even if it wasn't a dead link. I'm not much for creating a bunch of permanent stubs either. Basic information is better stored in Wikidata at this point IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:10, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete per nom. I did not find any significant coverage. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:59, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I find only a few one-paragraph product reviews in trade magazines. Nothing that meets basic notability threshold: in-depth coverage by independent, reliable sources. Glendoremus (talk) 18:25, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - DELETE*** - the content seems to be promotional in nature. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wikirapguru (talk • contribs) 17:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice to future recreation if more substantial (and accessible) coverage arises in the future. BD2412 T 00:09, 11 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 Setting Sons. The history is available if somebody wants to merge material. -- RoySmith (talk) 02:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boy Soldiers[edit]

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

Article about a song, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NSONGS. As always, every song is not automatically entitled to have its on standalone article, as a separate topic from the album it came from, just because it exists -- the notability test for songs requires evidence of distinctions, such as notable music awards and/or chart success, and it requires reliable source coverage about the song in media. But there's no such claim here, and the only reference being cited is a user-generated lyrics database, which is not a notability-supporting source. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:53, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All this information i can ensure is reliably sourced, it has been fact checked by myself, and other Genius moderators - eggmanjames 17/3/20, if you need direct evidence of this i have a book based on what Paul Weller said and i shall take the information from that as of which i based my work on. (https://genius.com/Genius-what-is-a-moderator-annotated) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eggmanjames (talk • contribs) 16:07, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genius is not a reliable or notability-supporting source for a song. Reliable sourcing for Wikipedia content is magazines, newspapers, academic journals and books, not user-generated online databases. Bearcat (talk) 16:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:19, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. No assertion of significance or importance per NSONGS or GNG. Since it was not released as a single, I'm not even sure this would be useful as a redirect back to the album's article. —C.Fred (talk) 16:30, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per available information in reliable sources. There's this, which seems to be an entire section, but I can't see it. This I also can't see, but what I can see indicates the song is of particular importance to the group's overall stature. Entire chapter regarding the song here. scrap here regarding the topic. More here. These are only results from Google Books. I have not checked JSTOR or Newspapers.com yet, but I think this is sufficient. Certainly the article, as it exists as of my signing, does not contain any indication of notability, but notability is based on available sources, not the current state of the article. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:47, 17 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect and merge to Setting Sons: 78.26, that's not correct... the chapter isn't dedicated to the song, they've just used song titles by the band for chapter headings in the book – there's only one paragraph talking about the song. The last source also dedicates a whole three lines to the song – both sources only talk about the song within the context of the album, going through each song one by one... WP:NSONG states "If the only coverage of a song occurs in the context of reviews of the album on which it appears, that material should be contained in the album article and an independent article about the song should not be created." I can't read the first two links you put, so I've no idea if they are anything more than passing mentions, or simply the use of the same title but not talking about the song at all – certainly everything else I can see is nothing more than a passing mention. The full Robert Christgau review can be read here [21] and shows that it doesn't talk about the song as being important in the group's canon, simply that it shows they are left-wing. This isn't one of the Jam's better known album tracks or B-sides, certainly nowhere near "English Rose", "The Butterfly Collector", "Pretty Green", "Boy About Town", etc. Richard3120 (talk) 13:24, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per nom. Title is too generic to be a useful redirect. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 12:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Delete and Redirect are both presented by commenters but have not converged into a consensus. I think this AfD needs more time .
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 19:39, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Setting Sons: Per Richard3120. Despite the fact that the song is partly discussed in these links: [22], [23] and [24], the article is far from passing WP:NSONG. It's not released as a single. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:35, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge the content to Setting Sons and redirect the title. --KartikeyaS (talk) 06:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:58, 2 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 We seriously need an SPI of a number of accounts here.... Consensus by non concerning accounts is not notable. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 18:14, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Kevin Leyes[edit]

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

This article is lacking significant media mention in reliable source. Self profile link such as linkedin, forbes profile, YEC profile etc are used for citation. rest are non trivial mentions in reliable source. also the topic fails general notability guideline Below in the box (talk) 17:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I don't know if the nom here is a sock or not and I wouldn't have come across this article if the creator hadn't triggered a filter, but I would've nommed it myself had I come across it otherwise. There is no in-depth coverage of Leyes, all the pieces included in the article are passing mentions, interviews, self written or otherwise not coverage and I can find no better sources. Praxidicae (talk) 20:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Leyes has been discussed in multiple national Argentine print and digital media for example[25], [26], [27] and you still did not find in-depth coverage? Please check the Spanish references. Hissamelriys (talk) 20:32, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:ABF nomination from a SPA that has only 3 edits. Hissamelriys (talk) 20:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC) Retracting my comment because it is not on the content. I will post my reasons for keep again. Hissamelriys (talk) 20:38, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please clarify how ABF applies when the only comment here is only on content? Not to mention that I am clearly not an SPA and have pointed out policy specific reasons as to why it should be deleted? Praxidicae (talk) 20:16, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think the article should be deleted then please nominate yourself. WP:ABF applies to the nominator only. It is sad that a "suspicious" SPA account can open a AfD and I have to prove why would a "new user" is not WP:ABF. Hissamelriys (talk) 20:22, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're missing the point. I don't need to nominate it, because it's already nominated. The intent of the nominator as far as I can tell isn't relevant. Feel free to refute the points I've made as they're based in policy. Praxidicae (talk) 20:34, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, ok! My bad. I retract my comment on WP:ABF. Hissamelriys (talk) 20:36, 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} 20:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:14, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - self promotion or paid promotion which signally fails WP:GNG. I too am curious about the nominator. A sock ? Or perhaps an regular IP editor who believes a user name will have more clout at an AfD. Whatever, it appears to be a good call. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:31, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG states If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. Kevin Leys has received significant coverage in [28], [29], [30] which are reliable sources as well as independent of the subject. Hissamelriys (talk) 06:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject has received in-depth coverage in national newspapers of Argentina such as Clarín (Argentine newspaper), La Nación, Perfil and many more. I can add more Spanish references if required. And for using Forbes, LinkedIn and YEC, I used these sources as per WP:ABOUTSELF because he is a member of these organizations. Hissamelriys (talk) 06:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are coverage available and the person is having great influential image and enough resources on web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 08:11, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Hissamelriys: How came he is notable? This article is highly promotional too.

In November 2016, Leyes was selected as Youth Councillor in the Youth Parliament of the City Council of Merlo by the Merlo Government. How title such such as Youth councilor at a small city level relevant for Wikipedia? In 2017, Leyes was selected as a Youth Ambassador by the U.S. Embassy in Argentina and the United States Department of State, that gave him a full scholarship to represent Argentina in the United States. In the citation that is used, it is clearly written that he was invited for some school project. also that article in Clarin is about him attending some entrepreneurs workshop called "tremp camp" beside having lack of media mention in significant source, the topic is not even slightly notable enough for Wikipedia Below in the box (talk) 08:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Below in the box he is notable because he has in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources and AFD is not cleanup. Anyway what is stopping you from editing from your actual account? Hissamelriys (talk) 09:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also Hissamelriys (the creator of the article) is trying to invite other Wikipedian on this thread, which might be a violation of Wiki community guideline. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Alexf&diff=prev&oldid=947358210 Below in the box (talk) 09:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok,so you mean I would randomly message an Admin to influence him to vote a Keep here? Why aren't you using the word "Canvassing"? Is it because it might expose you're not a new editor? It is really sad to see how easily anyone can game this system. Hissamelriys (talk) 09:33, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent improvements in the article. I have reviewed the article and it meets WP:GNG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 05:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Most of us are tuning in to the black eye the wikipedia has acquired for the roadblocks to keeping articles on notable women. Well there is also a bias against creating article on notable young people. As above I see considerable spanish language RS.

Praxidicae, is the policy basis for you to discount interviews, in RS, as adding to this individual's notability?

WP:NOTME is something to guard against. A lot of us here were smarty-pants of some kind, when we were youths. Some of us were A students. Others of us thought we were just as smart as those ,A students, and would have been A students ourselves, if it weren't for this or that factor. But there is a big difference between a smart kid, who is an A student, or wins a science fair, or who is recognized as pretty damn smart by his or her friends and family, and the smart kid who gets international scholarships, and then gets multiple interviews in genuine RS about it. Getting international scholarships won't make anyone notable - even winning a Rhodes scholarship won't win anyone notability. But having RS write about your scholarship, does start to earn you genuine notability. Geo Swan (talk) 18:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per WP:ANYBIO, as per above. Gritmem (talk) 08:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete undisclosed, paid-for spam. There is no evidence of notability. Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. GSS ^💬 06:07, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"There is no evidence of notability", are you sure? You just confirmed Geo Swan's above comment. I cannot explain to a person who choose to close his ears. Hissamelriys (talk) 06:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ofource I'm sure and confident. GSS ^💬 06:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Leyes has in-depth coverage in independent references? Hissamelriys (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep per WP:SK#1. Discussion about a page move can occur on the talk page, or perhaps simply boldly performed, per WP:COMMONNAME. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edith A. Moravcsik[edit]

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

Reason North8000 (talk) 20:42, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notes left at article talk page: Reviewed under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process

Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I just reviewed this article. In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. The article has only one source, and it is a directory type listing of her. Also, without such coverage to draw from, the article is just resume type material. I have nominated the article for review under Wikipedia's "Article for Deletion" process so that the community may decide.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment She publishes as "Edith Moravcsik" not "Edith A. Moravcsik" so the finding tool won't work well. Using the former, I found some signs of independent interest in her work[31] but particularly this interview. Unclear if she meets NACADEMIC but the article would need improvement to demonstrate it. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:06, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
NEW I've added new resources! --Crosstor (talk) 14:41, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that some of those new links links strengthen the case for keeping. (They were added as external links.) North8000 (talk) 20:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you think it should be kept then you can withdraw the nomination and close it.--KartikeyaS (talk) 05:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per recent improvements in the article however it still needs further copyediting and references. --KartikeyaS (talk) 05:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and Move if Edith Moravcsik is the name she publishes under not Edith A. Moravcsik it should be moved there. Her full name can be included in the body of the article.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw With the reference / link additions, they bring it close enough to where I would have not taken this to AFD. Article needs work but that's cool. North8000 (talk) 23:39, 7 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 International Association for Cryptologic Research , selectively ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Cryptology Conference[edit]

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

This is essentially a forking and a WP:NOTADVERTISING signpost of a conference that does not stand on its own WP:GNG to have its own article.I believe it should be redirected into International Association for Cryptologic Research and accordingly, I have done so, however an editor insists that this be pushed through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:45, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Calling this page an advertisement seems like a stretch, though I agree the references are in a sorry state. As an IACR member, I have somewhat of a conflict of interest. But, at least within the field, this conference is considered among the most reputable and influential. The conference proceedings (published as Advances in Cryptology) should probably be evaluated per WP:NJOURNALS. But from where I stand they appear highly cited in other papers (e.g. 2,400 citations of the 2010 edition) and even on Wikipedia. BenKuykendall (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I am wanting is not to delete, but redirect to IACR and have it as a subsection under IACR so when people enter this into the search bar, it goes to IACR page. This is what I did, however, Dwaro (talk · contribs) insists that it goes through the formal deletion procedure. " But, at least within the field" would imply that the conference itself is likely not notable on its own to merit its own discrete Wikipedia page on a general encyclopedia. Wikipedia is not an encyclopedia of cryptography. Graywalls (talk) 04:30, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graywalls: I know what a redirect is. If you want to merge for editorial purposes, this is not the right venue to discuss this. Regardless, since you argue that the topic is non-notable and took the page to AfD, it seems appropriate to debate this point. I am not arguing that the general notability guidelines are met -- it is often quite hard to find good coverage of academic publications. Instead, I am proposing WP:NJOURNALS as another means by which we can show the topic is notable. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:17, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's an essay. Not a guideline or policy. I'm seeking to merge it, because I do not find that article satisfies GNG to merit its own article and there's more than enough space in IACR page to accommodate it. Dwaro is insisting that it goes through AfD. Graywalls (talk) 03:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. There is clear notability from my perspective, but this fact is tough to prove. The convention appears to be covered by reliable sources such as this: [32] and other sources similar to it. While it can be argued that this source cannot be used as it is "self published", I would argue that it is still published as it was written, to my knowledge, written by individuals without affiliation to the organization besides being participants, and the organizers published the work. It is naturally difficult to demonstrate the notability of a convention, even when the convention results in the output of several reputable and scholarly works. (While not being used to support my !vote, the article has existed since 2002 and redirect targets do exist, so I am strongly against deletion.) Utopes _{(talk / cont)} 02:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Would you clarify that you're mildly suggesting keep, because you feel that it is notable, or because you feel that it meets the general notability guldeines applicable on Wikipedia? Thank you. Graywalls (talk) 04:34, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Significant enough to have its proceedings published every year - [33][34] etc. (and I don't think these books can be considered self-published when it is published by Springer). Hzh (talk) 08:48, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: publication, even by a reputable publisher, is generally not sufficient to show notability; see WP:BKTS. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:18, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have misunderstood WP:BKTS completely. WP:BKTS is about whether a book is notable enough to have its own article, not about whether the book can be used to establish the notability of a different article. Hzh (talk) 22:50, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hzh: I think I did misunderstand your argument. To clarify, you want to cite the proceedings themselves as evidence the conference is notable? To me, this does not pass the bar as an independent source. BenKuykendall (talk) 23:55, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD is about the conference, of course I am talking about the notability of the conference. The publisher is independent, the publication of the proceedings is like publication of papers (which they are), the difference being that these were also presented at the conference. Hzh (talk) 10:59, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to IACR and trim to essentials. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 10:07, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to International Association for Cryptologic Research. KartikeyaS (talk) 05:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:54, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge the lead to International Association for Cryptologic Research. While I was not able to find sufficient independent sourcing for notability per WP:GNG, basic facts about the conference series are verifiable and the parent org is a good merge target. The big table of yearly details is undue, but the lead or a summarized version of it would fit nicely in the parent article. With verifiable content and a good target, merge is preferred per WP:ATD. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 18:39, 2 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) 08:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Beyond Tha Noize[edit]

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

Fails to address the requirements of WP:NMUSICIAN. The main contributors to this article all appear to have an association with the artist or the record label (which is a conflict of interest). The information is not supported by references to independent reliable secondary sources. The article uses BadCharts and there is no evidence that any of the recordings appeared on any notable/acceptable charts. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 07:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:46, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Very confusing and self-serving article. I'd like to see at least three reliable independent sources giving substantial coverage of the subject. Of the refs supplied:

A listing with no coverage of the artist.
Serieux is a sponsor of the artist: not independent.
Spinning Records a label: not independent.
to 9. iTunes refs: no substantial coverage of the subject.shaidar cuebiyar (talk) 10:45, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete first two references are dead. 6 just links to iTunes, so basically an ad. Teraplane (talk) 00:03, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The Spinnin Records Talent Pool chart is not a reliable chart. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:59, 3 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 move to draft. BD2412 T 00:05, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gouri Kishan[edit]

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

This article has previously been deleted under the WP:G11 criterion. I have reviewed those edits, and agree with that speedy deletion. Turning to the version of the article re-created on 14:48, March 15, 2020, it asserted that Ms Kishan was an actress in a number of films without any references. I have added one reference, but it would appear to me that the subject of the article fails the WP:NACTOR test for notability, the various WP:ANYBIO tests, and to be quite frank an WP:IAR test for pure gossip about a living person. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:52, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:01, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:03, 16 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Even though the article is almost non-existent, I think it's worth keeping. The subject is an up-and-coming actress who has already had supporting roles in a couple of notable films—in particular, '96 (film), which has brought her some fame. She also has some more projects coming up, so I don't think it's too big a deal that the article was created a little prematurely. As for WP:GNG, she's mentioned countless times in Indian news articles, and she also gets coverage that goes beyond mere mentions, like the following:

→https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2019/aug/08/sunny-wayne-gouri-kishan-film-moves-into-post-production-2015591.html – New Indian Express

→https://www.cinemaexpress.com/stories/news/2019/nov/10/gouri-kishan-confirms-being-a-part-of-vijay-lokesh-kanagaraj-s-next-thalapathy-64-15407.html –Cinema Express

→https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/review/2020/feb/08/jaanu-review-an-intimate-love-story-that-largely-works---2100475.html – New Indian Express, brief praise in a film review

→https://www.newindianexpress.com/entertainment/malayalam/2018/dec/13/anugraheethan-antony-is-a-universal-story-1910675.html – New Indian Express

→https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/movie-reviews/021018/96-movie-review-vijay-sethupathi-trisha-tamil-prem-kumar-best-adhithya.html – Deccan Chronicle, praise in a film review

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/tamil/movie-reviews/96/movie-review/66032687.cms – Times of India, brief praise in a film review

→https://www.thehindu.com/entertainment/movies/from-june-to-vikrams-cobra-20-year-old-sarjano-khalids-dream-start-to-his-film-career/article30942188.ece – The Hindu, discussed in relation to another actor

I think that working on the page would be better than outright deleting it. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:13, 19 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Essentially not an article at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:43, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If she gets notable later we can have an article on her. Mccapra (talk) 08:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 March 24.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Mccapra. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:50, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with Mccapra. Not notable currently. - The9Man ^(Talk) 17:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I have updated the page. It is now in a workable condition should the page be Draftified or "kept". I would invite the other voters—John Pack Lambert, Mccapra, ~dom Kaos~ and The9Man—to view the page in its current form. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or draughtify. @Mccapra:, even with your additions, I'm still not convinced that she's currently notable enough to justify her own article: her roles to date appear to be as supporting characters. However, I'm happy for the page to be moved back to draft space if others agree, in anticipation of her upcoming films having widespread cinema release (which, given the current global pandemic's effect on other cinematic releases, is difficult to predict with any certainty). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:19, 3 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) 08:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Katie Glass (journalist)[edit]

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

Does not seems to follow WP:JOURNALIST, not notable enough to have a mainspace article. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:52, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:17, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Glass's work does not appear to have attracted sufficient attention in independent sources, as required by WP:JOURNALIST. The article about her in The Jewish Chronicle ([35]) is good coverage, but not enough to pass WP:GNG. The interview with Glass from Vuelio.com ([36]) is not really independent coverage, as it consists entirely of cookie-cutter questions with no original reporting. The only other sources I could find through Google are blurbs from publications she has written for, like this or this. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 19:49, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:47, 3 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) 08:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Niño Kevin D. Baclig[edit]

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

No significant coverages except writing an opinion article to a local newspaper and a passing mention in an regional news webpage article. Allenjambalaya (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Allenjambalaya (talk) 06:39, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and possible COI by creator.--RioHondo (talk) 15:27, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I barely found anything about him. Article easily fails WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.- SUBWAY 08:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:35, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Midway Corners, Indiana[edit]

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

Appears as named intersection in 1964 topo, no indication it is a notable community. No relevant GBooks or newspapers.com results. Reywas92^Talk 06:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 06:14, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per our SNG or GNG. Lightburst (talk) 22:51, 3 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. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fara (company)[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. Several articles cover the event of FARA being acquired by Ticketer ([37] [38] [39]) and I found two articles about the company itself ([40] [41]). I do not believe this qualifies as enough significant coverage with in-depth information on the company containing independent content to meet WP:NCORP. userdude 05:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:41, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks like the page was set up for promotional reasons and not even around anymore.--Akrasia25 (talk) 12:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete as per G12. Most of the article has been copied word-for-word from this older version of the About Us page of their website. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:16, 9 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. KaisaL (talk) 05:21, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harlequin Theatre, Redhill[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:NBUILDING. Has minor local coverage ([42] [43] [44]), but no more than any ordinary cinema would be expected to have. Does not appear to have any claim to meet WP:NBUILDING#1 or #2. userdude 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. userdude 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No assertion of notability; the theatre's website doesn't even have a History section. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and per Ssilvers. BD2412 T 00:04, 11 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. This started out as a delete consensus, but it seems like Cunard's arguments convinced folks, and it now reads more like a keep consensus. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marion Roach[edit]

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

I don’t believe this subject passes WP:AUTHOR. I see a couple of book reviews and interviews, nothing more. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, didn't find enough RS. Caro7200 (talk) 12:47, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article lacks any secondary sources at all. This is a relic of the pre-2006 era when we had no notability requirements at all.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ per GNG. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:38, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep after the update, appears quite notable. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 07:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

"Marion Roach". Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors. Gale. 2012-12-07. Archived from the original on 2020-04-05. Retrieved 2020-04-05.
Fichtner, Margaria (1985-09-08). "Alzheimer's: 'Another name for madness'". Edmonton Journal. Southam Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2020-04-05. Retrieved 2020-04-05 – via Newspapers.com.
Evans, Christopher. (1985-09-08). "The cruelest of incurable diseases" (pages 1, 2, and 3). Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. – via Newspapers.com.
Rosenfeld, Ruth (1985-10-15). "Roach gives personal account of Alzheimer's". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
Eckhoff, Sally (2005-07-20). "The mystery and allure of redheads makes for a hot topic". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Chicago Tribune.
Madigan, Nick. (1985-08-29). "Alzheimer's Disease: Madness Without Method" (pages 1 and 2). The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. – via Newspapers.com.
Lanham, Fritz (2005-07-24). "The Roots of Desire by Marion Roach. To dye for: Redheaded author revels in her fiery birthright". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
Mair, Elizabeth Floyd (2011-08-07). "An author in all of us: Marion Roach Smith believes writing is good for everyone, and she just happens to have an instruction manual". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
Galehouse, Maggie (2011-06-20). "Author Marion Roach Smith explains how to put life experiences into words". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
Shields, Anne (1985-09-27). "Another Name for Madness by Marion Roach". The Santa Clarita Valley Signal. United Press International. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
Brock, Chris (2011-08-07). "'Memoir Project' Encourage You To Tell a Story, But With Purpose". Watertown Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
Bronstein, Scott (2001-10-20). "SLU Grad Overcomes Fears to Pen Forensics Book". Watertown Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.

Sources with quotes

"Marion Roach". Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors. Gale. 2012-12-07. Archived from the original on 2020-04-05. Retrieved 2020-04-05.
The article notes:
Born April 7, 1956, in Queens, NY; daughter of James Pilkington (a sportswriter) and Allene (a teacher) Roach; married Rex Smith (a newspaper editor); children: one daughter. Education: St. Lawrence University, B.A. (cum laude), 1977.
The article notes:
New York Times, New York, NY, copy person, 1977-78, news clerk, 1978-80, news assistant, 1980-83; National Public Radio, All Things Considered commentator; Arts Center of the Capital Region, Troy, NY, writing instructor; member of board of directors of Alzheimer's Resource Center.
The article notes:
In Marion Roach Smith's first book, Another Name for Madness, she relives the decline of her talented and relatively young mother, Allene, from Alzheimer's disease, and the impact it had on Roach Smith and the rest of the family before Allene was finally placed in a nursing home. ...
Roach Smith later shared what she knows about writing memoirs in The Memoir Project: A Thoroughly Non-Standardized Text for Writing--and Life. The author at the time had long been teaching courses in memoir writing, and this book distills her wisdom about working in the form. She distinguishes between memoir and autobiography: An autobiography deals with essentially an entire life, but a memoir deals with a much more bounded portion of a person's life, perhaps even just a day or an hour. The book emphasizes such tried-and-true principles of writing as "write what you know" and "show, don't tell." One significant piece of advice the author provides budding memoirists is not to write about themselves but rather to write about a theme that is bigger than the self. Thus, she proposes that a memoirist adopt an "algorithm" such as the following: "This is an (x) and the illustration is ( y). In other words, the x is what the story is at its heart, while the y is the specific illustration about which the memoirist will write." Another key piece of advice Roach Smith offers is to avoid topics that are too big. She thus urges her students and readers to start small and to keep matters concrete. Additionally, she urges memoirists to keep their focus on the word or image that captures the essence of their experience.
...
Roach Smith collaborated with Michael Baden, a former New York City chief medical examiner, in writing Dead Reckoning: The New Science of Catching Killers.
...
Roach Smith, a redhead herself, is the author of Roots of Desire: The Myth, Meaning, and Sexual Power of Red Hair, in which she writes that red hair has often been viewed with suspicion and linked with witchcraft, eroticism, and evil.
Fichtner, Margaria (1985-09-08). "Alzheimer's: 'Another name for madness'". Edmonton Journal. Southam Newspapers. Archived from the original on 2020-04-05. Retrieved 2020-04-05 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
It is always rather difficult to pinpoint when these things begin, but for Marion Roach, the onset of the nightmare was as clearly defined as anything can possibly be.
It started that October morning in 1979 when her mother, teeth-clenched, hurled four of the family's seven healthy cats into the car, drove them to the vet and had them killed.
...
Marion Roach, her elder sister, Margaret, and their mother's doctor all believe that Allene Roach will be dead within a year.
...
To explain how, Marion Roach, a 29-year-old former staff writer for the New York Times, has written Another Name for Madness (Houghton Mifflin, $14.95), a stark and disturbing chronicle of her mother's desperate degeneration.
This new book is the outgrowth of an article she wrote for The Times' Sunday magazine in 1983, a piece that generated 500 letters and 400 phone calls, put Marion Roach on the Today Show and got her called to Washington to testify before the House Subcommittee on Aging.
Evans, Christopher. (1985-09-08). "The cruelest of incurable diseases" (pages 1, 2, and 3). Fort Worth Star-Telegram. Archived from the original (pages 1, 2, and 3) on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Yet Alzheimer's was not considered the disease of the century six year ago, when Marion Roach, then 23, realized her active 51-year-old mother was "losing her mind in handfuls."
...
Author of a new book, Another Name for Madness (Houghton Mifflin, $14.95), Marion Roach is careful to point out that her first hardbound publishing effort, 241 pages, is not entirely about Alzheimer's disease. It is not, she said in a Dallas interview, a medical treatise or "how-to" legal handbook.
...
Marion Roach, like her parents a journalist who had worked for the New York Times, set out to find out everything she could about Alzheimer's, a malady Time magazine last year called "a slow death of the mind" and perhaps "the cruelest" of incurable diseases.
...
In 1983, Marion Roach wrote an article for the New York Times Sunday Magazine about the agony surrounding her mother's experience, a project that led to Another Name for Madness.
Although the book is hardly preachy or filled with iron-clad advice, it should go far in allaying some widely held misconceptions.
Rosenfeld, Ruth (1985-10-15). "Roach gives personal account of Alzheimer's". Austin American-Statesman. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Another Name for Madness is about an Alzheimer's family. In telling her story, Marion Roach does not gloss over her very human reactions from the onset of her widowed mother's disease to the present. Her actions were not heroic. The picture she paints of herself is often one of confusion and indecision.
...
Marion and her mother lived together in a New York apartment, enjoying a relationship more like that of close friends than mother and daughter. But although her mother was only 50 and still a beautiful woman, the denial that something was seriously wrong was difficult to continue. ...
Marion, urged by her sister who lived in California, took her mother to a nuerologist. From that moment on, she would become an expert on the subject of Alzheimer's disease by virtue of the foremost teacher of all — firsthand experience.
...
The frustration of constantly dealing with the erratic, often bizarre behavior was taking its toil. Marion developed an ulcer and had sessions with a psychiatrist to get her through the stressful days, but she had sobered enough to write an article about her experiences for the New York Times Magazine. She has since testified in Congress before the House Subcommittee on Aging to plead for help in changing the insurance system that classifies Alzheimer's disease as a custodial rather than a medical problem.
Eckhoff, Sally (2005-07-20). "The mystery and allure of redheads makes for a hot topic". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Chicago Tribune.
The article notes:
For Marion Roach, it all started with a sideways--or rather an upward--glance. Footloose in Europe at 25, gazing up at ceiling of the Sistine Chapel for the first time, she noticed something odd. The innocent, pre-apple Eve was blond, whereas the Eve being kicked out of the Garden of Eden was wearing nothing but her long red hair.
...
It took several years and miles of travel for Roach's curious concern to grow to book length. "The Roots of Desire: The Myth, Meaning and Sexual Power of Red Hair" (Bloomsbury) was released earlier this month. It's one of the most extensive serious inquiries to date on what it means to be a redhead.
...
In Roach's case, the spark of inspiration for her book came in 2002 in the form of a scientific study she read in a medical journal.
Madigan, Nick. (1985-08-29). "Alzheimer's Disease: Madness Without Method" (pages 1 and 2). The Palm Beach Post. Archived from the original (pages 1 and 2) on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06. – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Listening in a radio studio was a young woman who could empathize. Marion Roach, a 29-year-old New York writer, has purged some of the pain of her mother's harrowing six-year battle with Alzheimer's disease by writing a book about it. In Another Name for Madness, Allene Roach makes what her daughter calls the "unbearably sad" transition from a radiant, talented former journalist who taught preschool children and loved sailing to a witless, confused woman who, at 56, is virtually speechless and completely unable ot take care of herself.
...
Miss Roach, who had never heard of the disease before her family's tragey and is now one of its most vocal experts, said that while she could not have killed her mother, "I understand the frustration the families go through."
...
The author, in a brief visit to Miami, field comments from listeners to a call-in radio show who sought solace from a person with experiences similar to their own.
...
Neil Rogers, the host of the radio show, asked his guest whether anything could have helped Roswell Gilbert's wife. Nothing, Miss Roach said.
Lanham, Fritz (2005-07-24). "The Roots of Desire by Marion Roach. To dye for: Redheaded author revels in her fiery birthright". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
Marion Roach, a writer based in upstate New York, is a member of the tribe. Her red hair is the first thing she mentions when describing herself. In The Roots of Desire she ruminates about red hair and our ideas about it. Part history, part science, part memoir, the book is a weaving, wandering thing, personal and essayistic. It's underdeveloped in places, and in places simply hard to follow. But it's richly salted with fascinating cultural lore, and an engaging read whether you're a carrot-top or not.
...
Roach is at her best when harvesting historical and cultural tidbits and spicing them with her own searching reflections. Less successful are her extended discussions of the genetics of redheadedness. There's a knack to translating scientific principles into terms comprehensible to lay readers, and Roach apparently doesn't have it.
...
She also throws in narratives of her field research. For example, having always heard that witches tend to be redheads she visits a witch camp in Vermont. Later she relates a trip to Great Britain in search of information about her redheaded ancestors. Thin and sketchy, these narrative segments are awkwardly integrated into the rest of the book.
That said, there's much to like about The Roots of Desire, particularly Roach's infectious joy in being a redhead, in the feeling of power it conveys.
Mair, Elizabeth Floyd (2011-08-07). "An author in all of us: Marion Roach Smith believes writing is good for everyone, and she just happens to have an instruction manual". Times Union. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
Local author Marion Roach Smith ...
Writing, as she argues in her new book "The Memoir Project: A Thoroughly Non-Standardized Text for Writing & Life," is hard work. ...
Yet in a recent telephone interview Roach Smith, who is the wife of Times Union editor Rex Smith, said she believes "everybody should write." Not everyone, she adds, needs to aspire to write for publication. Many people may have smaller-scale, more personal goals: to give a husband the 50th anniversary gift of an essay on why he is loved, to leave children an account of their ancestors' emigration or self-discovery.
...
Roach Smith is a former staff writer with The New York Times and has served as a commentator on NPR's "All Things Considered." She writes and records daily and weekly spots on Martha Stewart Living Radio. She is the author of "The Roots of Desire: The Myth, Meaning and Sexual Power of Red Hair" (2005) and co-author, with forensic pathologist Michael Baden, of "Dead Reckoning" (2001). She has taught memoir writing at the Arts Center of the Capital Region in Troy since 1998 ("I think I figured out the other day that I'd had 800 students so far go through the class").
She spoke from the home in Troy she shares with her husband and their 15-year-old daughter.
Galehouse, Maggie (2011-06-20). "Author Marion Roach Smith explains how to put life experiences into words". Houston Chronicle. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
"People started crafting and scrapbooking," says Marion Roach Smith, author of The Memoir Project: A Thoroughly Non-Standardized Text for Writing & Life. "The craft aisles in Michael's would get bigger every day. I would go there with my husband and say, 'Look! These people are writing memoirs!'"
...
Since 1998, Smith has been teaching a class called "Writing What You Know" in upstate New York. It focuses on memoir, which captures a scene or theme from a life and is not to be confused with autobiography, which tackles an entire life.
...
The Memoir Project, released this month by Grand Central Publishing, is packed with Smith's memories and how she transformed them into words. Details matter, she insists. What you take away from an experience - the image or phrase or feeling that stays with you - holds the soul of your story.
Shields, Anne (1985-09-27). "Another Name for Madness by Marion Roach". The Santa Clarita Valley Signal. United Press International. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
It is apparent from the very first pages that the author very much needed to write this book. As a journalist as well as a concerned daughter, Roach seems to pour her heart out as the pages unfold. Her sadness, anger and relief can all be sensed as she tells of the effects of her mother's disease on her life and her sister's life.
...
The book is well worth reading because of the information it provides on the mystery of Alzheimer's disease from a very personal perspective. It is both sad and happy to read and well worth the time.
Brock, Chris (2011-08-07). "'Memoir Project' Encourage You To Tell a Story, But With Purpose". Watertown Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
And nowadays, everybody seems to want to write about their life. But too often that telling gets bogged down with excess baggage and loses direction. Marion Roach Smith wants to change that with her new book, "The Memoir Project - A Thoroughly Non-Stardardized Text for Writing & Life."
Ms. Roach Smith is a St. Lawrence University trustee who lives and teaches writing in Troy. She's an alumni of the SLU class of 1977 and a former staff member of the New York Times and is a contributor of essays to National Public Radio's "All Things Considered." Her previous books are "The Roots of Desire - The Myth, Meaning and Power of Red Hair" and "Another Name for Madness," which drew on her experiences as her mother battled Alzheimer's disease.
...
Ms. Roach Smith teaches writing at a variety of venues. Her weekly memoir classes at The Arts Center of the Capital Region concentrate on short-form memoir. Her classes instruct how to write "with purpose." She said many students tell her they want to write their memoirs.
...
Ms. Roach Smith has experience in what to leave in and out of a memoir. In 1983, while working as a news clerk for the New York Times, she pitched a story idea to an editor about a little-known disease. In that same year, the magazine published her story "Another Name for Madness."
Bronstein, Scott (2001-10-20). "SLU Grad Overcomes Fears to Pen Forensics Book". Watertown Daily Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-06. Retrieved 2020-04-06.
The article notes:
Marion Roach says the scariest moment of her life was going to her first autopsy. "When I was driving to the autopsy I thought I had arthritis - my hands hurt so much from gripping the steering wheel," Ms. Roach said. "In the beginning I was in a chair in a corner of the room. I wanted to be as far away as possible."
But for Ms. Roach, a 1977 graduate of St. Lawrence University and a member of the school's Board of Trustees, overcoming her fears was a necessary step for her to take in writing about forensic science in "Dead Reckoning." The book was co-written by famed medical examiner Michael Baden.
...
Ms. Roach, Troy, besides being an author, is also a nationally known spokesperson on Alzheimer's disease. In 1985 she wrote the book "Another Name for Madness," the emotional story of her mother's suffering with the disease. The book was among the first to bring public attention to Alzheimer's and won wide acclaim, eventually leading to the establishment of a mayoral conference on the disease.

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

Cunard (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Teblick (talk · contribs) has done significant work on sourcing and expanding the article. Thank you for your improvements! Cunard (talk) 03:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, David Eppstein (talk · contribs), for your significant improvements to the article! Cunard (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are enough published reviews of enough of her books for WP:AUTHOR. I just added two more, for Dead Reckoning, to the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 03:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Now adequately sourced.--Ipigott (talk) 05:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sufficiently improved. XOR'easter (talk) 14:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY & sufficient sources to meet WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. - Whisperjanes (talk) 06:30, 8 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) 08:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney Beatz[edit]

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

Searching for several name combinations, all I could find was a press release, the video of a song he "produced", and two production credit passing mentions (single time each). He clearly fails both the GNG and the music criteria. PK650 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 03:24, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:SINGER. Could not find coverage beyond that mentioned in nom. userdude 05:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:51, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. With only a handful of non-notable singles produced, he doesn't have a music career to speak of. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:56, 3 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) 08:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apptium Technologies[edit]

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

Apart from being plagued by PR ad lingo, this is simply a non-notable product/company/thing ("solution providing a low-code platform for cross-functional teams" - whatever that is!). All I could find were press releases or minor mentions in unreliable sources such as "siliconIndia". The latter in fact look like paid advertorials. PK650 (talk) 03:19, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NCORP. [45] and [46] trivially mention the company. I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. userdude 05:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Even if this could be translated from Corporate Bollockspeak to English, it still fails WP:NCORP. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:54, 2 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) 08:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mathilde Anglade[edit]

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

Nominating this, together with The Bed Party, which seem to have been edited at least in part by the same account, possibly in contravention of WP:PAID. Both are non-notable, one being a theater production with no reliable/significant reviews I could find, the other being one of the performers involved, also with no SIGCOV. PK650 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 03:13, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:08, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:38, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:57, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: In my opinion, it is WP:TOOSOON for an article on the subject; she doesn't yet meet the relevant notability standards. Dflaw4 (talk) 05:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. GirthSummit _(blether) 11:32, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Bed Party[edit]

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

Nominating this, together with Mathilde Anglade, which seem to have been edited at least in part by the same account, possibly in contravention of WP:PAID. Both are non-notable, one being a theater production with no reliable/significant reviews I could find, the other being one of the performers involved, also with no SIGCOV. PK650 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 03:12, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No indication of notability. -- Ssilvers (talk) 06:38, 3 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) 08:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EdibleRed[edit]

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

No references or claim to notability. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 03:05, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:10, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No refs. Stub article. Pretty unknown,I think. 104.62.158.32 (talk) 17:42, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band fails WP:MUSICBIO. None of their albums or songs have been discussed in reliable sources. A Google search of the band doesn't show any coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:01, 3 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) 08:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleepy Hollow, Arizona[edit]

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

This seems to be a very tiny subdivision of maybe three houses in the hills near Payson. It's a bit of a mess because there are two other "Sleepy Hollow" places in the area: a street on the other side of town, and an RV park in another town. What tips this off is a real estate listing for a nearby house on Sleepy Hollow Ln. (other other street is a "Drive") a short distance from the supposed location, with a couple of other houses around it. The name comes from a Forest Service map, but the topos show a quite different picture: they show "13 Ranch" just east of the supposed spot, and indeed, to the degree that one can believe GMaps, there is a 13 Ranch Road leading south from the main road. At the spot itself, there is nothing at all. As far as believing GMaps: they completely hallucinate a road out of a power line, so their picture of things here is a bit shaky. Just to the east on the main road there is a cluster of various businesses (ATV rentals and camping/ranch accommodations), all of which think of themselves as in or near Payson, and none of which mention Sleepy Hollow. Neither do any of the real estate listings. I haven't seen the FS map but while the place is certainly populated, nobody seems to think of it as a settlement named Sleepy Hollow. Mangoe (talk) 02:00, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:11, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of a populated place called Sleepy Hollow at this location. –dlthewave ☎ 05:04, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I found one Arizona Republic article from 1996 about the "Lone fire" that says "rumors of an evacuation blew through Punkin Center and Sleepy Hollow". Not even sure if that was the same Sleepy Hollow since the two are 50 miles apart. Not enough to substantiate there is any sort of recognized community by this name. MB 02:41, 4 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 Withdrawn...wrong forum.. (non-admin closure) Regards, SONIC678 00:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of of churches in the Latter Day Saint Reorganization movement[edit]

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

Regards, SONIC678 00:52, 2 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] Joanna Slater, Niha Masih, Irfan Shams, India confronts its first virus 'super-spreader,' a Muslim missionary group, Washington Post, 3 April 2020.

[2] Sharma, Nidhi (2020-04-04). "647 coronavirus positive cases in two days linked to Tablighi Jamaat". The Economic Times. Retrieved 2020-04-04.

[1]

[1]