Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 April	21 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. Spartaz ^Humbug! 07:58, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apogee Electronics[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NCORP. The only significant coverage found during a WP:BEFORE is the single Mix Online reference. Other references are either unreliable or mention the organization in passing without providing any detail. There must be multiple independent reliable secondary sources providing SIGCOV for an article to satisfy the guideline's criteria. Spectrum {{UV}} 2604:2000:8FC0:4:68BA:3B32:8613:8B6D (talk) 23:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Creating discussion page on behalf of IP nominator, who kindly provided a fully copypaste-able template at WT:AFD for me to paste above. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 00:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing seems compelling with the sourcing or company that passes notability standards. That they won the TEC Awards a bunch of times is mah and there's nothing else in the article except that they exist. The article has also been mainly edited COI editors and it continued after multiple accounts where blocked. The company should have gotten it after the first account was blocked and went through the proper process to edit the article. Even without that though, it still doesn't seem notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The awards and cited coverage in Mix are technically enough to demonstrate notability. Cutting-edge digital audio work in the late 1980s was well covered but is not readily available online. ~Kvng (talk) 03:56, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Widran, Jonathan (October 2018). "Apogee Electronics". Music Connection. Vol. 42, no. 10. p. 8. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Petersen, George (2005-10-01). "Apogee Electronics at 20: Still Advancing the State of Digital Audio". Mix. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Liang, Mike (2014). "Apogee ONE". TONEAudio. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
Robjohns, Hugh (September 2011). "Apogee Symphony I/O". Sound on Sound. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
"Apogee Electronics". Bonedo (in German). 2014-11-25. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.

Sources with quotes

Widran, Jonathan (October 2018). "Apogee Electronics". Music Connection. Vol. 42, no. 10. p. 8. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
Over Three Decades of Sonic Innovation: Two years after celebratings its 30th anniversary, Santa Monica-based Apogee Electronics continues its trademark audio innovation. The company made its name designing filters that solved many of the initial problems associated with digital audio. Companies like Sony and Mitsubishi began using Apogee's conversation filters in their larger systems — which led to a substantial difference in sound quality.
The result was a more accurate conversion of a musician's performance. Apogee became an innovator in making studio quality recording available to users at all levels, from multi-channel installation in a commercial facility to personal audio interface in a home environment. Today, its converters and audio interfaces are regarded as the reference standard in the industry, as evidenced by their use on recordings by Lady Gaga, The Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, The Chainsmokers, Foo Fighters, Beyonce, Alabama Shakes and Ryan Tedder. [quote from Apogee employee].
Petersen, George (2005-10-01). "Apogee Electronics at 20: Still Advancing the State of Digital Audio". Mix. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
Pro audio has always had its share of boutique companies, many dealing with high-end analog products. In a world where technology is constantly changing, the survival of a small company specializing in digital products is unusual. However, Apogee Electronics is not your usual company.
Apogee made its debut with the 944 filters
The company began in 1985 with a conversation among three industry veterans: Bruce Jackson (now with Lake Technology), a top live sound engineer noted for his years of mixing Bruce Springsteen, Swiss digital designer Christof Heidelberger (now founder/CTO of BridgeCo) and Betty Bennett, then president of Soundcraft USA.
...
With the idea of marketing replacement anti-aliasing filters designed and manufactured by Heidelberg, Jackson and Bennett, they founded Apogee Electronics in December of 1985.
A year later, Apogee made its debut at the 1986 AES show in L.A. In a small, out-of-the-way booth, Jackson demonstrated the effect of Apogee’s 944 Series low-dispersion, linear phase active lowpass filters retrofitted into a few channels of a Sony PCM-3324 24-track digital machine. Using an oscilloscope, Jackson ran square waves into the deck. The waves that were routed through Apogee’s anti-aliasing filters looked like square waves; the waves coming from the 3324’s stock filters looked like watermelons. Clearly, something was very wrong with digital and very right with the 944s.
The article includes quotes from people affiliated with Apogee Electronics.
Liang, Mike (2014). "Apogee ONE". TONEAudio. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
Those not well versed with the world of professional audio may not be familiar with the name Apogee. Founded in 1985, Apogee Electronics is highly regarded by audio professionals and recording musicians for its advanced, high-performance AD/DA converters and audio interfaces. Apogee’s award-winning audio interface, the Symphony, is widely considered to be a reference standard in major recording studios around the world.
Robjohns, Hugh (September 2011). "Apogee Symphony I/O". Sound on Sound. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
Apogee Electronics were founded in 1985, right at the dawn of the pro‑audio digital age, and initially made a name for themselves making replacement anti‑alias and reconstruction filter blocks for the leading digital recorders of the day. Back then, the delta‑sigma converters that are ubiquitous today weren't even on the drawing board, and making baseband analogue brick‑wall filters that didn't sound utterly horrendous was a serious challenge. However, the technology quickly moved on, and the demand for third‑party filters disappeared quickly, so Apogee moved into manufacturing complete digital audio converters and, later, master clocks. The company also came up with their unique UV22 dithering algorithm and helped lead the way into noise‑shaped word‑length reduction.
I still own and use a PSX100 two‑channel converter, which I value as much for its clever signal routing and formatting capabilities as its converter quality, which is still quite respectable 12 years on. In more recent years, the Rosetta and X‑Series continued Apogee's reputation for high-quality converters, and the company have also moved progressively away from conventional stand‑alone converters and towards fully‑fledged computer interfaces. However, Apogee took the decision some years ago to restrict their development to only support Apple Mac systems (10.5.8 and above, in fact), much to the frustration of the PC fraternity, including me!
"Apogee Electronics". Bonedo (in German). 2014-11-25. Archived from the original on 2020-04-25. Retrieved 2020-04-25.
The article notes:
Apogee Electronics stellt seit 1985 professionelle Audio-Geräte her. Bekannt ist die US-amerikanische Firma vor allem für die Entwicklung von hochwertigen Audio-Interfaces und Wandlern.
Die kalifornische Firma wurde 1985 von Betty Bennett, Bruce Jackson und Christof Heidelberger gegründet. Das erste Gerät war das Active Filter Model 944-G. Dieser Anti-Aliasing-Filter brachte die wärme in digitale Musik-Produktionen dieser Zeit. Für die Innovation bekam die Firma den TEC Award. 1991 wurde der AD-500 & DA-1000 veröffentlicht. Das war der erste Stand-Alone digatal Konverter überhaupt. Sechs Jahre später brachte Apogee den AD-8000 auf den Markt. Es war das erste Mehrkanal-Audio-Interface mit 24 Bit Auflösung. Im darauf folgenden Jahr entwickelte Apogee die AmBus HD Card, welche den AD-8000 direkt mit Pro Tools verbinden konnte. Im Jahre 2000 gab es dann ein weiteren TEC Award für den Trak 2. Dieses Gerät war der erste hochauflösende Konverter und Mikrofonverstärker für Pro Tools.

From Google Translate:
Apogee Electronics has been manufacturing professional audio devices since 1985. The American company is best known for the development of high-quality audio interfaces and converters.
The California company was founded in 1985 by Betty Bennett, Bruce Jackson and Christof Heidelberger. The first device was the Active Filter Model 944-G. This anti-aliasing filter brought the warmth to digital music productions of that time. The company received the TEC Award for the innovation. In 1991 the AD-500 & DA-1000 was released. It was the first standalone digatal converter ever. Six years later, Apogee launched the AD-8000. It was the first multi-channel audio interface with 24 bit resolution. The following year Apogee developed the AmBus HD Card, which was able to connect the AD-8000 directly to Pro Tools. In 2000 there was another TEC Award for the Trak 2. This device was the first high-resolution converter and microphone amplifier for Pro Tools.
The article includes links to multiple reviews that Bonedo has done of Apogee products.

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

Cunard (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music Connection notes, "Companies like Sony and Mitsubishi began using Apogee's conversation filters in their larger systems — which led to a substantial difference in sound quality. ... Apogee became an innovator in making studio quality recording available to users at all levels, from multi-channel installation in a commercial facility to personal audio interface in a home environment. Today, its converters and audio interfaces are regarded as the reference standard in the industry, as evidenced by their use on recordings by Lady Gaga, The Rolling Stones, Taylor Swift, Jay-Z, The Chainsmokers, Foo Fighters, Beyonce, Alabama Shakes and Ryan Tedder."
Sound on Sound notes, "Apogee Electronics were founded in 1985, right at the dawn of the pro‑audio digital age, and initially made a name for themselves making replacement anti‑alias and reconstruction filter blocks for the leading digital recorders of the day. ... In more recent years, the Rosetta and X‑Series continued Apogee's reputation for high-quality converters ..."
TONEAudio notes, "Founded in 1985, Apogee Electronics is highly regarded by audio professionals and recording musicians for its advanced, high-performance AD/DA converters and audio interfaces. Apogee’s award-winning audio interface, the Symphony, is widely considered to be a reference standard in major recording studios around the world."
Mix notes, "In a world where technology is constantly changing, the survival of a small company specializing in digital products is unusual. However, Apogee Electronics is not your usual company."
Cunard (talk) 10:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per the sources outlined by Cunard. Also, not that it goes towards showing notability much, but they do hold the naming rights of a Div I football stadium. Apogee Stadium. Sulfurboy (talk) 00:42, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Different Apogee from what I can tell. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the substantial coverage in reliable sources identified in this discussion that show a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 01:02, 28 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most consecutive volleyball victories in all competitions[edit]

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

I don't think that this meets WP:LISTN, it's basically just a Guinness World Record as far as I can tell. This falls afoul of WP:IINFO as well. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. WP:NOTIINFO. Ajf773 (talk) 09:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The streak recognized by the Guinness Book of Records is mentioned only once at the bottom (it is noted, quite properly, in VakıfBank S.K.), while the article goes on in great length (and triviality) about an unofficial contender! Clarityfiend (talk) 07:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia should not be used as a directory. desmay (talk) 19:44, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete looks like some sort of bizarre coat-rack to dispute what is recognised as the official world record.....or something :-S -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 07:48, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, It is not about the game or the club,the topic is not something useful for Wikipedia. Alex-h (talk) 13:38, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Basically a long list of obscure sports results contesting a Guiness World Record (also obscure). No evidence of coverage to pass WP:GNG is presented. Alan Islas (talk) 17:34, 27 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sofa Club[edit]

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

Failing WP:NORG. Sources are apparently based on press-kits. Lack of substantive coverage in independent, reliable media. Sources 1 and 7 are unrelated. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 17:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional content without significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:06, 28 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:43, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bart van de Ven[edit]

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

Scant coverage doesn't point to notability. Of the five sources provided, I don't have access to two, but the others confer no sense of notability. One of them is to an older article in Het Laatste Nieuws, in which I found a couple of other articles mentioning his name, but only in passing. I find no other significant, independent coverage of him. Google Scholar cites a number of papers co-written by a Bart van de Ven also from Ghent, but that Bart van de Ven's field is psychology. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 23:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable medical doctor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Sources are invalidIranwikimanage (talk) 11:37, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any in-depth RS coverage (such as would suggest notability) in the first several pages of Google results: aside from one Academia page, the results are mostly pinterest, youtube, and twitter pages, review pages, Amazon pages of books the person wrote, etc. On Google Books, the person is mentioned in Eric Plemons, The Look of a Woman: Facial Feminization Surgery and the Aims of Trans- Medicine (2017), but I didn't spot any in-depth coverage. I agree with the nom, here. -sche (talk) 17:14, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walker (band)[edit]

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

I'm not seeing coverage that adds up to WP:GNG, the only coverage worth considering toward GNG is [1], which is threadbare as far as coverage and written up in a local section of the Independent. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Most of the content is unsourced, and many of the sources, such as this one, and this one, are just primary, made by the author or trivial passing mentions that don't have enough context about the band, such as this one. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 08:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom, not a notable band. Spleodrach (talk) 17:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. As Rosguill noted, the only real source is via the Independent, and the article appears in a section of the paper designed for hyperlocal coverage. JSFarman (talk) 17:51, 26 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. Nominator withdrawal; however, the article definitely needs improvement. (non-admin closure) Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bye Bye Birdie (1995 film)[edit]

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

PROD with rationale Unsourced, mainly a casting list and a small blurb. was removed before fixing the verifiability issue mentioned. Therefore I'm listing it here, as it has no sources, consists of a cast and song list with no actual encyclopedic content (besides a very small lead section). WP:BEFORE check failed to bring up anything of note as well, so it likely also fails WP:NFILM. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 20:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural chill for a minute: This article has existed for four hours at the time that it's nominated for deletion. It is still being built by the person who created it. The problems you're talking about can be solved by editing (by you, if you care about it) and doesn't have to be speedy deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered dratifying but at the time there was little encyclopedic content. Nominated simply because they removed the PROD without fixing the issues listed. Will withdraw if issues are fixed, obviously. Kirbanzo ^{(userpage - talk - contribs)} 21:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect The tv movie has had a section on the primary article (with more informative details) for several years. The 1995 film isn't really stand-alone notable, only as an iteration of the primary. Schazjmd (talk) 21:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as notable because it has been reviewed by Variety, People, TV Guide, and Los Angeles Times. It also looks like it was covered by Entertainment Weekly at least. Also, it won a Primetime Emmy for one of its songs. All this supports a standalone article. The content at Bye Bye Birdie can be spun off to this article. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:06, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify how I performed WP:BEFORE, I recognized Jason Alexander as a famous enough actor and put in the search query bye bye birdie jason alexander. When I saw the Variety review, I added review to the query and found the other reviews. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 21:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: In addition to what Erik just wrote, I've got a New York Times review as well. Searching for "bye bye birdie 1995" brought up reviews in the New York Times, Variety and the LA Times within the first 20 results. I also added a sentence about the Emmy Awards nominations and win. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:30, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Emmy-winning film with multiple reviews. When I Google search bye bye birdie 1995 review, the first two results are the Variety and New York Times reviews. Not sure how that was missed in WP:BEFORE...--DiamondRemley39 (talk) 21:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:41, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moxie (cannabis company)[edit]

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

Three independant mentions, this passing mention from the Associated Press and these [2][3] two longer articles about their "Tiger King inspired strain". In my view not sufficient to demonstrate WP:GNG. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree with the nomination that this doesn’t meet general notability guidelines. The content of the article itself also seems promotional. Woerich (talk) 06:44, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any reference that meets the criteria for establishing notability as per NCORP. Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion nor a Yellow Pages directory service. HighKing⁺⁺ 17:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No reliable sources/in-depth coverage for this cannabis company. Kori (@) 17:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as promotional content with promotional sources, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 01:14, 28 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:40, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jack Polick[edit]

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

Non notable actor, currently the only external link is IMDB. I have completed WP:BEFORE and cannot find anything substantial.

This was first nominated for AfD in 2010, when it was deemed that his “cult status” in Jackass made him “notable”. There appear to be no substantial sources to back up this claim. Looking through his IMDb credits, it’s clear that all of his other roles were minor or uncredited.

Since 2010, there have been no sources added to the article and no major edits either. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if any of his roles had true cult status, we would have sources to back up this claim. Until people provide reliable 3rd party inbdepent sources showing this to be the case we should delete the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Though he has appeared in some big films, none of the subject's roles appear significant enough to meet WP:NACTOR. I haven't found any non-trivial coverage on him, either. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:11, 26 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pure Grinding / For a Better Day[edit]

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

Not notable per WP:NSONGS or WP:GNG → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~: I found a couple of sources which talk about the EP: [4] and [5]. ~~These sources are reliable enough for the song to pass WP:NSONG. My vote stands.~~ ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment those sources talk about the individual songs both of which have their own articles. However, because the EP itself is only containing two songs and didn't chart itself, its not notable. → Lil-℧niquԐ1 - (Talk) - 08:37, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Changed my vote. Not necessary for an EP with 2 notable singles to have its own article. I'll just leave the sources I mentioned to their perspective pages. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:45, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 22:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adriana Lita[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:Academic and WP:GNG. Not overly promotional but does read like a CV. No evidence that papers are notable, and publications do not make a subject notable without more (per WP:Academic) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Heavy citations on Google Scholar [6] give an easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:PROF#C1 (and has worked on significant research projects). Reading like a CV is grounds for editing, not deletion. XOR'easter (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:PROF#C1 as stated above. TJMSmith (talk) 01:49, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as although the article needs some work, the subject appears to be notable. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:01, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Paucity of sole-author contributions makes me wonder if independent achievement has been demonstrated. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep She has 7436 citations on Google Scholar. Also, in some fields it is almost impossible to write sole authored papers and almost all papers have multiple authors. She is the first author on paper that was quoted 647 times. Lainx (talk) 17:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Her list of publications at Google Scholar convinces me that WP:NPROF is met. Papaursa (talk) 17:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I second User:XOR'easter, Passes WP:PROF#C1. Pratat (talk) 09:29, 27 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pran Sukh Yadav[edit]

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

This article has been deleted thrice before (twice prodded for failing GNG; once for copyvio) and has recently been subject of an edit war over which unsourced version is preferable. Searching for sources, I find only trivial mentions in unreliable sources such as this website, book published by ISHA and another book titled Freedom Struggle of 1857 published by "Diamond Pocket Books Pvt Ltd" that I cannot link to since it is on the spam-blacklist. All three sources copy freely from each other despite supposedly having different authors and publishers (ISHA Books is known for such practices of copying content from wikipedia etc and publishing books with apparently fictitious authors and editors).
If deleted, the page may need to be salted. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abecedare (talk) 18:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As the nominator has mentioned, there is very little online that mentions Pran Sukh Yadav in any great detail. Any sources that do talk about him are unreliable. Until new and more reliable sources come to light, there is little reason for this article to remain up. Even the only source on this article is a broken link. He seems to be more of a mythical folk hero than an actual figure. Many claim that he was a general in the Sikh army but I can find no Sikh sources that mention him.YaRaabAlHind (talk) 20:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do not delete: The references are now available for the article. And thus here by I request to remove the nomination of deletion. The information which required the citations are now made available by me. Thanks. HinduKshatrana (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@HinduKshatrana: None of the references you added are helpful in establishing notability. One is a search listing for 'Pran' on a news website, which brings up links related to the famous actor Pran; another is a 'circular' ref publishing articles from wikipedia; the third is a generic non-reliable website containing a trivial reference to Pran Sukh Yadav (Besides his Indian generals such as Hari Singh Nalwa, Pran Sukh Yadav, Gurmukh Singh Lamba, Dewan Mokham Chand, and Veer Singh Dillon, he employed Europeans in his army.)) I couldn't find any mention of Pran Sukh Yadav in this book you cited (see full text here) or find proper bibliographical information for the other cited book.

To avoid playing whack-a-mole with more sources, can you please read WP:HISTRS for the kind of sources we are looking for and, if they are not accessible online, provide relevant quotes so that we can judge how deeply they discuss the article's subject? Abecedare (talk) 01:30, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG as lacks WP:SIGCOV in WP:RS. Mztourist (talk) 04:26, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, pending evidence of non-trivial coverage from reliable sources. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 19:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete , Does not have enough reliable sources, does not meet WP:GNG , Alex-h (talk) 14:05, 24 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicola Giusfredi[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. No article exists on this subject in Italian Wikipedia. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Couldn't find a single source online or in print about her. Naturally there would be if she were a notable artist, at least in Italy! PK650 (talk) 22:36, 23 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Umberto Allori[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [7]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:24, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trimmed a lot of the unsourced content. My searches in English turn up very little, and this article appears to be part of a larger effort to promote certain Italian writers and authors of limited notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:06, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:35, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniele Menicucci[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [8]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have the impression that this is promotional, and possibly part of a concerted promtional effort in tandem with the other articles mentioned in the nom. The article has 45 external links. Seriously! The article creator's patently bad editing makes this very difficult to assess time-wise. There is sourcing, but I am under the impression that it is promotional. The refs I checked were either dead, minor mentions, event announcements, or this Youcanprint.com print on demand book-for-sale page.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete. WP:A7, WP:SNOW – bradv🍁 01:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Police brutality amid lockdown[edit]

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

The article lacks WP:NPOV and has no reliable references to the claims made in the article. If its found to be notable as per consensus, I propose it to be merged with 2020 coronavirus lockdown in India. Amkgp (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Even nothing to merge. -Nizil (talk) 18:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:SOAPBOX Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 18:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above. Whispyhistory (talk) 20:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete the phenomenon has not received significant coverage yet. It has passing mentions when other nations/global organisations praise the indian respnse, and in these articles, the media says something along the lines of "police force deserves huge credit, but the have been brutal". —usernamekiran (talk) 22:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as patent nonsense and no need to wait for 6 more days. Wareon (talk) 05:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and agree that there's nothing to merge as it's unencyclopedic and unverified. StarM 18:15, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Coronavirus pandemic anti-Muslim riots in India. Wareon (talk) 02:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it could be merged to related articles if content was better, but I don't think it is worth it. --MarioGom (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 09:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - nothing of value to merge either; agree with all of the above, especially Wareon voting for speedy delete Spiderone 16:01, 22 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gino Broletti[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [9]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable artist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trimmed half of the unsourced content and not much is left. My searches in English turn up very little, and this article appears to be part of a larger effort to promote certain Italian writers and authors of limited notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article is essentially a list of works, and no significant coverage or reliable sources for anything. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable artist. Failed to find a single source, particularly in print, which is saying something considering his age and the fact he's Italian. One would expect at least a local newspaper describing his work in some fashion. Alas, no. PK650 (talk) 22:41, 23 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ornella Fiorentini[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [10]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I trimmed along listing of the creative writing workshops has has held. My searches in English turn up very little, and this article appears to be part of a larger effort to promote certain Italian writers and authors of limited notability.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:00, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matilde Calamai[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [11]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Some argument has been made for notability but there is general consensus that this is TOOSOON. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toby-Alexander Smith[edit]

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

Smith does not meet WP:NACTOR. DarkGlow (talk) 13:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - this article has no references and does not meet WP:NACTOR. Soaper1234 - talk 14:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be based on reliable sources, not twitter, instagram and IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Yes, the article is currently poorly referenced, but he is a series regular on a major TV show, and there are numerous news items about him in the role. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak Delete~~ Weak Keep: The subject needs at least two significant roles in notable productions, as per WP:NACTOR. His role in EastEnders certainly counts as one, but I can't see any others—unless it can be shown that the production of Mamma Mia! he was in was notable. Ssilvers, you have voted to "Keep"—have you found any coverage on that production? Dflaw4 (talk) 07:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smith played a smaller role in Mamma Mia!'s long-running London production, but he understudied Sky, a bigger role. He also performed on television in the Laurence Olivier Awards broadcasts in 2013 and 2014. The article doesn't mention his concert at the Palladium, which could be added. Since 2016, he has been guest-starring steadily on TV. His role in Doctors in 2018 was the leading role of the episode on which he guest-starred. EastEnders is his first role as a series regular, but it has drawn interest, and it seems seems silly to delete the article when, objectively, it is almost certain that he will have more significant TV roles. I'd say that this is a case where the letter of WP:NACTOR should bow to the general spirit of the notability rules. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: Based on Ssilvers' comments, I have upgraded my vote to a "Weak Keep", despite the article being a little bit on the WP:TOOSOON side of things. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is WP:TOOSOON.

He just started on the show in 2019, and although it seems like a popular show, he doesn't even appear in the EastEnders page as a listed character (or on the Mamma Mia! page as an actor).
I don't think it means much that he was an understudy for a main part in Mamma Mia!; that doesn't make him notable.
Having a concert also does not confer notability.
Notability requires significant coverage in reliable secondary sources; a lot of his news references feel like tabloid (see WP:SBST).

If his career picks up and he gets more notable parts, then an article in the future might be warranted, but delete for now. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:00, 28 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. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 14:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistanis in Somalia[edit]

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

A very small community, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the community being 'small' isn't a parameter to determine notability, because immigrant populations can increase or decrease over time. A community which has a small population may have had a larger population in the past. What should matter is the sources discussing the subject. Currently it appears to indicate that there was once a decent Pakistani population in this part of Africa, so the article could still discuss the subject in past tense. Mar4d (talk) 15:23, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources provided are reliable including https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:BookSources/9781469166070 and https://doi.org/10.1080%2F00396339408442722. Suggest nom refer to WP:CONFUSESTUB. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 12:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The sources are good quality and reliable. The community is notable. There are both historical and cultural references to the Pakistani community here. Even the film Black Hawk Down mentions about a Pakistani stadium in the city. Cedix (talk) 12:20, 25 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:32, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Kashmir Walla[edit]

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

Does not meet basic notability criteria. No significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject WP:ORGCRITE. DTM (talk) 12:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:52, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NMEDIA and per nominator. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:05, 23 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Fantini[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [12]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable painter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- this person does not appear to be notable. Furthermore the article is unduly promotional and very poorly translated, so it is a candidate for WP:TNT in any case. Reyk _YO! 16:52, 24 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giancarlo Bianchi[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [13]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:31, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Vavuso[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [14]. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:30, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Michael Musone[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST/NAUTHOR. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article on this subject was deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [15] The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

La Pergola Arte[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails NCORP. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. The article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte. Please see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Lilly Brogi for the full context. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:09, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Galleries need excellent sourcing to be notable; I am not seeing that here, at least for my searches in English. There also seems to be promotional effort afoot with related articles. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lilly Brogi[edit]

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

Promotional article that fails GNG and NARTIST. There are no independent Reliable Sources that offer significant coverage the subject. Almost all sources are Primary. Was deleted three times on Italian Wikipedia [16] for promotion.

This article is part of a cluster of articles associated with La Pergola Arte, which I will be nominating all at once, and will explain that cluster here (but not on every single deletion nomination). They have been created by two SPA accounts Arenavittorio and Amazingart67. Most of these articles derive their notability from the "literary competition "Lilly Brogi La Pergola Arte" award," for which I could find no WP:RS. I will be nominating the cluster of articles:

Lilly Brogi
Peter Michael Musone
Vincenzo Vavuso
La Pergola Arte
Giancarlo Bianchi
Mario Fantini
Matilde Calamai
Ornella Fiorentini
Gino Broletti
Daniele Menicucci
Umberto Allori
Alfredo Vernacotola
Nicola Giusfredi

I have flagged Claudio Kevo Cavallini, Mauro Montacchiesi, and Anna Balsamo for notability, but have not deleted -- others may choose to do so, especially if they can evaluate the sources in italian.

I have cross-referenced Italian Wikipedia: The majority of these subjects have been deleted from Italian Wikipedia for notability and promotion: [17], [18], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24], No articles on La Pergola Arte, Alfredo Vernacotola, and Nicola Giusfredi were attempted to be created on Italian Wikipedia.

I first noticed this cluster of articles two years ago, and flagged many of them at the time. I have followed them, and not seen any improvement. Despite what seems like a major bulk delete, I have been careful to look at each of these over time. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 17:05, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 18:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony D'Algy[edit]

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

The article is sourced only to IMDb which is not a reliable source. My search for other sources came up with directory listings and the non-reliable Find a Grave, but no sources providing indepth coverage. The unticle has been tagged as unsourced since 2014, and has existed for 13 years. Wikipedia is not meant to be a directory of every person who ever had a credited part in a film. We need reliable secondary sources to show that people actually had impactful acting careers. The number of articles on actors and actresses sourced only to IMDb is staggering, and the refusal to accept that as reasonable grounds to prod delete articles, and the refusal of those who remoal the proposed deletion tags from articles to add any other sourced besides IMDb in the process means we are currently in a situation where we have lots of under sourced articles on actors and actresses. Many of these are not much more than bare filmographies which is its ownproblem. John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:NACTOR - this guy appeared in 60+ films across three decades. The main issue is that span was from the mid 1920s, and he's Portuguese. However, within a few seconds I found some sources straight away, and have included them in the article. Sadly, I don't speak Portuguese, but I'm betting there's a ton more in his native language. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And here's the discussion that Lambert alludes to in his "The number of articles on actors and actresses sourced only to IMDb is staggering, and the refusal to accept that as reasonable grounds to prod delete articles, and the refusal of those who remoal the proposed deletion tags from articles..." comment. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 17:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although I speak fluent Portuguese, I wasn't able to find other portuguese sources. However one of the sources you found is from the Diário de Notícias, a well known Newspaper of record in Portugal. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Being in a lot of films is not a sign of notability. What is needed is significant roles. He may or may not have had them, but I have seen enough long lists of uncredited bit parts, and even lists that include on the cast list outright extras to know that merely being in many films is not a sign of notability.12:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Find sources above yields 3 critiques from the New York Times with his own name, therefore I'm leaning Keep. Regards, Comte0 (talk) 15:02, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. As well as the sources identified above and in the article there is coverage at doi:10.5209/HICS.55901. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: I think there's enough here to merit an article. I can't read the Portuguese sources, though, so input from someone who can would be great. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:46, 23 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:28, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andy Davis (American football coach)[edit]

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

Appears to fail WP:GNG with only a single primary reference, which was simply a link to the league home page. It is a generic name, but there is nothing in these searches that looks like this coach has any inherent notability. Yosemiter (talk) 16:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Can't even find routine coverage of this person. There are several people with this name associated with American football that appear in news sources but I cannot verify that any of them are him. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~The reference in the article led to a site that has since been changed to what appears to be a Japanese site of some kind. It might be harmful so I've removed it.~~ I've added an archive link. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article was created in 2012 as a stub for an individual who purportedly coached a team in the Women's Spring Football League. After eight years, it remains a stub, and the one source referenced does not even mention Davis. In addition to the searches referenced by Yosemiter and Eagles247, my searches did not turn up any coverage (let alone significant coverage) at Newspapers.com. Aside from failure of WP:GNG, the absence of sourcing raising WP:BLP concerns as well. Cbl62 (talk) 17:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable football coach.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article provides a potential claim of notability, but nothing to back it up. A Google search turned up nothing meaningful to be added. Alansohn (talk) 20:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. In all honesty, I'm not really sure that coaching in the Women's Spring Football League (?) is all that much of a claim of notability to begin with. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and any other notability standard. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:32, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ejgreen77: I could not even find routine coverage on the team much less trying to find significant coverage the coach. Since I doubted the pay was a livable wage, I was trying to refine searches to seeing if there were any local high school coaches by his name, but still came up with nothing. Yosemiter (talk) 12:42, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 01:27, 25 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyle Schultz[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG, the only source I could find were of the Wiffle Ball league he's commissioner of (not really an independent source), and an interview with NPR [25], which is a primary source, since it's an interview. Primary sources do not establish notability. Hog Farm (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This may even qualify as a Speedy Delete per WP:A7. best, GPL93 (talk) 16:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a totally non-notable sportsman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - a non notable individual engaged in a minor sport on a non notable team. Nothing here. Nothing in BEFORE. WP:SNOW applies. John from Idegon (talk) 22:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG. Loksmythe (talk) 00:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG, but I don't see anything suggesting this should be speedily deleted. Best to let this AFD run its course. Smartyllama (talk) 13:19, 23 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. — JJMC89 (T·C) 00:52, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harold Ambler[edit]

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

Page seems to fail WP:BASIC. The subject seems to fall under WP:BIO1E, with almost all coverage centering on a Huffpost article from 2009. In a related manner, there is a lack of WP:SUSTAINED coverage, with most appearing near the 2009 date.

My review of the seemingly strongest sources show that they do not cover all necessary criteria to support notability. Interviews tend to be short and promotional, with no in-depth coverage by secondary figures. (There are also some in which Ambler plays a more 'expert' role, but these don't contribute to notability). Jlevi (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Jlevi (talk) 16:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - this is even with the present state of the article being a vast improvement over puffed-up and promotional previous versions, which listed passing mentions in a newsblog as separate paragraphs. BLP1E at best, no evidence of notability, lots of promotional puffery - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:CONTN says the "present state of the article," or "Article content" does not determine notability. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not my argument - it's that it doesn't now, and that this is after cleaning the nonsense out - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rhode Island-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (article creator).

Collapse too long discussion, to substitute short summary

Note the usual recruiting of huge anti-fans here: Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Harold_Ambler, and the removal of secondary sourcing leading up to this Afd.[26] Ambler has been covered from 2009 through 2017, in numerous independent, reliable sources (as well as many less reliable blog type secondary sources). Ambler's 2009 piece "Mr. Gore: Apology Accepted" was the third-most e-mailed blogger piece on The Huffington Post for more than 18 months. His 2009 book, Ever True: The History of Brown Crew, got attention on TV and radio (and is referenced in Wikipedia). His 2011 book, Don't Sell Your Coat, was endorsed by Freeman Dyson (and others): "How did the good politics of social justice become chained to the bad science of global warming? Read Don't Sell Your Coat to find out." - Freeman Dyson. In 2012 he was interviewed extensively about his background, books, controversies, science and politics views, etc. on WBLQ radio, and on MRC TV. Not only is there significant secondary coverage, but there is (I think it's called) tertiary coverage of his TV appearance, in a report by Union of Concerned Scientists.[27] In 2009, 2012, and 2013 he was on Fox TV several times for several minutes each for interviews about his views, books, politics, controversies, etc. In 2014 he was a speaker at the Libertarian party National convention. In 2017 his views were covered in a paragraph in The_Spokesman-Review, about equally with Allan_Savory, Michael Crichton and Joel Salatin, as examples of climate skeptics.[28] Ambler got significant attention (pages) in independent books in 2010 and 2014. Plus he has a music career from 2007 to ~present, with some notice in independent reliable sources. So, WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but this looks more like WP:SUSTAINED to me anyway. WP:BLP1E is "often misapplied" as it is being misapplied here - See Wikipedia:Who_is_a_low-profile_individual. -- Yae4 (talk) 17:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you could highlight the top two or three sources that you feel follow the WP:BASIC criteria, that may help subsequent reviewers sort all of this out. Jlevi (talk) 17:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Two specific references are linked in the above comment, both failing WP:BASIC. The first is just one out of four quotes used as an examples of 'denigrating climate science.' This doesn't qualify as significant coverage, and the coverage is primarily of media outlets, rather than of Ambler himself. The second is a single paragraph, and so again fails significant coverage. I don't suggest that these are the strongest sources, but strong sources have not yet been highlighted specifically. Jlevi (talk) 19:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stuff cleaned out was a completely standard WP:REFBOMBing, e.g. all the "citations which briefly namecheck the fact that the subject exists, but are not actually about the subject to any non-trivial degree." It wasn't good and didn't add notability - David Gerard (talk) 18:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Videos and audios are worth thousands of words, so the following videos, and one book at the end: 2009, ~5.5 minutes on Fox News Red Eye re: Ambler's blog, HuffPost piece, why, what happened, his background and experiences, whether people take science and climate seriously, his wife's reaction, musician with interest in sports and climate, celebrities and qualifications, his book Ever True: History of Brown Crew and connection with climate interest, mentions his future book on climate, background as rower and surfer.[29] 2012, 5 minutes on Fox Business, Varney and Co. re: book Don't Sell Your Coat, affects on his ability to publish, why a skeptic, what he did to investigate, credentials, celebritites, historical climate perspective, answering questions from 3 panelists, family, environment, pollution, etc.[30] 2012, almost 5 minutes Fox Business, Varney and Co. re: Celebrities Posing as Environmental Experts, influence, pollution, climate trends and calls for reduced CO2 emissions, clarifying CO2 effects and magnitudes in historical context, Keystone pipeline, big oil and fuel benefits, 3rd world, travel.[31] 2012, 22 Minutes on Spatharakis' radio show on WBLQ, re: background, Don't Sell Your Coat, background, Q/A...[32] 2012, 24 Minutes on Spatharakis' radio show on WBLQ, re: Music career, performing, Q/A, move to Austin and return, connections with climate skepticism reactions... [33] 2012, 3 minutes (2:20-5:15) on MRC TV discussing H. Clinton's visit to the Artic, and climate-related history and manipulation of perceptions, etc.[34] 2013, 2.5+ minutes on Fox Business, called a "sensible environmentalist," answered questions and discussed tar sands oil extraction and CO2, Keystone pipeline, Nasa/Hansen, carbon footprints versus moral footprints, benefits of low cost fossil fuels for poor people.[35] and 2014, 3 pages coverage in book The Joy of Hate.[36] -- Yae4 (talk) 19:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, this is a very lengthy reply with a whole lot of sources, several of which I have already discussed specifically. Have you got two that satisfy WP:BASIC? I recognize that flooding tons of sources might seem like a reasonable strategy, but for me I just need two(ish) good ones. I feel like they haven't yet been provided yet, and that is exactly the problem. Jlevi (talk) 19:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For an example of this problem with sourcing so far, the Red Eye interview is discussed in particular in this diff. To review, the short, promotional, Ambler-focused, and non-analytical nature of the Red Eye interview means that it cannot count towards the WP:BASIC notability requirements because it is a primary and non-independent source. Given that the Red Eye interview is included in the sources listed above as suitable for showing notability, I feel that it is reasonable to ask for a slimmer set of sources for consideration. Jlevi (talk) 19:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The guy has been on TV and radio numerous times, for much more than "soundbites," over several years. I've listed elapsed times and summaries, so pick however many you have time or interest to review. We disagree on what a Q/A interview counts towards, or whether a program is independent of the person being interviewed. -- Yae4 (talk) 19:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm on radio and TV numerous times, and that doesn't contribute to my Wikipedia notability. Please answer in terms of WP:GNG and sub-pages of it, not this repeated handwaving - what are the sources that convincingly establish notability, per the letter of the Wikipedia notability guidelines? This will form a convincing argument. Remember, you're trying to convince people who don't already agree with you - David Gerard (talk) 22:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gerard, I hate to compare, because it may look like casting aspersions, so I'll start with a point of agreement: "The encyclopedia is primary, not writing and discussing rules and policies."[37] I agree. Since you suggested a notability comparison: There are a couple similarities, but a lot of differences, supporting Ambler's notability. Similarity: Both advocate against a kind of hysteria (Ambler-Climate or Gerard-Bitcoin/Cryptocurrency). Similarity, but with magnitude and scope difference: Ambler wrote two published books on widely different topics - history of rowing (~600 pages), and climate (270 pages), with some connections; Gerard recently self-published one (180 pages). Ambler wrote or edited for several prominent publications over several years. Contrary to what Jlevi says, people interview and ask about Ambler the person- his experiences, his involvement in controversy, how it affected him and his family, his motivations, his music, his writing on more than just one topic, his art - music, finances, selling his guitar, and getting it back; not just what he says about a boring, nerdy topic. This is seen or heard in the TV and radio links already given. Ambler gets outdoors in the weather and does interesting things - rowing, surfing, performing music, and also writes about interesting things; Gerard writes about a nerdy computer-related topic. Ambler talks, in broadcast interviews, about people who mostly sit indoors looking at screens; Gerard may be one? Ambler was included in speeches in the US Senate.[38][39] Does Gerard appear in Parliament speeches? A "TV star" described Ambler, among 3 pages coverage in an independently published book, as "a charming, good-looking person to star in one of those commercials for the New York Times Sunday edition..."[40]; I did not find similar about Gerard (not to say it doesn't exist). Ambler's first book, Ever True, has been a source in Wikipedia since 2011.[41] AFAIK, Ambler is not involved in Wikipedia, and there are no arguably promotional links to his web pages and books, aside from this new Article; Gerard's 2017 book appears only in (many) Talk pages and User pages, more than a couple times in context of potential COI concerns being raised.[42] Web crawlers know all about Gerard's WP User page and associated links (to personal/business pages).[43][44] Ambler has WP:SUSTAINED independent coverage for over a decade; Blockchain (or Gerard) has 2-3 years? -- Yae4 (talk) 11:53, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a more concise, limited set of sources, in chronological order, showing 5+ years of significant, independent coverage. (Claims of "copyvio" issues with a couple links are being dealt with.)

2009 HuffPost piece. Signficant, independent coverage at HuffPost and elsewhere.

2009 First book published, Ever True History of Brown Crew. Referenced at Brown Crew.

2009 5.5 minutes interview on Fox News Red Eye.[45]

2011 Second book published, Don't Sell Your Coat.

2012 5 minutes on Fox Business, Varney and Co.[46]

2012, 46 minutes on Spatharakis' radio show[47][48] on WBLQ, in high population region.[49][50]

2012 3 minutes (2:20-5:15) on MRC TV re H. Clinton.[51]

2013, 2.5+ minutes on Fox Business, re Keystone pipeline.[52]

2014, 3 pages independent coverage in book, The Joy of Hate.[53]

These cover Ambler's personal life, personal experiences, and personal motivations for developing both books. The subject of these interviews is Ambler, and the coverage spans both of his books. Books are not "events", and in any case, Ambler has written two notable books, not one. Ambler is also not a low-profile individual, as he has given interviews to notable broadcasts including Fox News and WBLQ, and professionally performs music. -- Yae4 (talk) 03:01, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will cover these in order.

Huffpost: Not intrinsically notable, and notability of an article is not the same as notability of its author. Which of these provides significant coverage Ambler as an individual? Of those, which comes from a reliable source? And are they independent?

A book is not intrinsically notable, its notability does not necessarily confer notability to its author, and it would be a primary source with respect to Ambler. Most related materials appear promotional.

2009 Red Eye interview: This diff

second book: similar to the first book

Fox Business: I can't get this video to load. Could you perhaps provide timestamps for secondary coverage from the interviewer? It's highly likely to have the same promotional/fanboy problems of the Red Eye interview

2012 radio shows: As shown by our discussion on interview notability, this is a tricky piece of the puzzle, and should not stand without consideration. Are you able to address the questions raised in the discussion above?

MRCTV is just a video hosting site (I think?). The Weather Wise-Guys would need to be evaluated separately as a source, and this probably falls under WP:USERGEN. Haven't looked into it, however.

Joy of Hate: Alongside the long interviews, this is the other source that might help support a keep position. Note that the primary focus of the piece is the Huffpost event, though some other details are mentioned in the first paragraph. In addition, the source is pretty clearly

So the three pieces that need to be carefully evaluated are the two long interviews and Joy of Hate. In addition, there may be some source elided from the above list. Those are my quick comments. Jlevi (talk) 03:31, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are plenty of sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What are the ones that nail it for you, as an experienced Wikipedian? - David Gerard (talk) 21:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This one is tough because Ambler has indeed received coverage that is about him, but I find the nominator's argument more convincing. As a published writer, Ambler can be evaluated under WP:NJOURNALIST / WP:NAUTHOR which requires not just getting published, but having your publications recognized by others as significant contributions to the field. His news work is typical reporting and opinionating just like many other non-notable writers. His Don't Sell Your Coat book indeed received coverage, especially from media sources slanted toward climate change denial, but that coverage is almost entirely short and promotional. (While it's a little off-topic, see also WP:NBOOK which requires non-trivial notice.) As for Ambler's other press coverage, he got noticed and quoted and briefly interviewed by a fair amount of denial-oriented media for that one controversial column in Huff Post in 2009, but that came and went, so WP:BIO1E applies as well. Again, I consider this article to be a close call, but in the debate above, the article's supporters are only perpetuating its main problems -- trying to promote a fringe individual and blaming vague conspiracies for the subject's own insignificance. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:55, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The arguments for keep depend on mis-application of notability standards and effectively come down to WP:ILIKEIT and WP:ITSIMPORTANT while the arguments for deletion are based on serious deficiencies in the sources. The assertion that having "the third-most emailed piece in 18 months" is notable matches no criterion I've ever seen here, for example. Using a book cover blurb as evidence of notability verges on indiscriminate fanboyism. Despite great effort and great argumentation, the notability of the article subject rests on his writings, which are not covered in a significant way by reliable sources. The coverage that has been presented that is significant is not reliable, and vice versa. There are no relevant targets for redirect or merging. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eggishorn, That quote is also a (too subtle) reference to cartoonist Cook and blogger Nuccitelli's paper that "was the most downloaded paper for that week across all Institute of Physics' journals,[18]" which was deemed worthy of mention, while not mentioning the paper needed correction, twice. See Skeptical_Science#Projects. -- Yae4 (talk) 16:02, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a difference between whether an article should be created at all and whether certain details should be contained in the article. The first is a question of WP:notability. The when asking whether a particular detail about a notable topic is itself WP:NOTEWORTHY, that is a matter of WP:DUE weight and other content policies. A deletion discussion is one primarily of WP:Notability by various measures. Jlevi (talk) 17:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is essentialy a case of WP:BIO1E that is being blown way out of proportion and which cannot reasonably be considered a fundament for a biography. Fails WP:BASIC. Asav | Talk 14:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have also been interviewed a couple of times on radio and TV and been mentioned in a newspaper. I have not written any books yet but not all authors are notable.Chidgk1 (talk) 15:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per Asav's excellent summary of the situation. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 22:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is basically a WP:COATRACK on which to hang climate change denialism. Guy (help!) 23:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Asav & Guy. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:26, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Asav & Guy. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 12:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:BASIC for lack of significant coverage about the subject in independent sources. - MrX 🖋 18:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Snow delete. And WP:TROUT the article writer. jps (talk) 23:28, 27 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tivolisaga (Original Swedish Cast Recording)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. There are some reviews in Swedish newspapers about the play, but I can't find any reviews about the album itself, and without an article for the play a redirect there isn't possible. I'm not convinced about a redirect to the bluelinked co-author of the play, either – he was only one of the writers and not one of the main performers on the album. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 15:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not sure if the drama itself is notable, but its related recording appears to have little to no coverage from reliable sources. There's nothing that we can really use to build an article off of. I agree. Deletion seems to be the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about both the musical and its album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:42, 22 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahlem Fekih[edit]

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

non notable actress, paid for spam, see also relevant discussions here on Fr wiki and here on arwiki. No coverage in english, french or arabic. Praxidicae (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable actress.--Faisal ^talk 00:52, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable, I read the article is notable. I am Tunisian, she is known in Tunisia and among the first influential personalities in 2019 in Tunisia, she has more than 800k to instgram and a lot of notable sources in french and arabic. according to the arabic database elcinema com she has 3 roles in 3 series --Eyatu Ben (talk) 05:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 19:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: As an actress, the subject does not appear notable—however, I need to qualify my vote by saying that I can't read any of the non-English sources, nor am I providing an opinion as to her other professions listed in the article. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:48, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real coverage. None of her roles indicate notability. Best, GPL93 (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable. I read the deletion page on the French Wiki and it was deleted for the same (good) reasons; not notable and likely promotional. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:09, 28 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Brickey[edit]

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

Non notable artist. Fails NARTIST, due to lack of independent reliable sources with significant coverage of the subject. He is included in one regional art museum collection, not two. Most coverage is trivial, see [54] [55]. Theredproject (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 15:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The painting that is in the collection of the Springville Museum of Art, Sampson Before the Apophysis of the Philistines [56] is a donation from "Anthony's Fine Art and Antiques", who appear to "represent" the artist, although it is not cleqr to me that he has a gallery in the traditional sense. Most of his sales seem to be (inkjet) prints that he sells through his website. Their biography claims that "his award winning paintings have appeared in various publications and museums". Brickleys website makes the exact same claim. I have not been able to find any evidence that this amounts to something that satisfies WP:NARTIST. The award mentioned in the article, Visitors' Choice Award in the 2009 International Art Competition of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is not notable. The Herald Extra , here: [57] makes brief mention of Brickey winning first-place at the Freedom Festival Fine Art Exhibit at the Covey Center for the Arts in Provo. That too, is not "a well-known and significant award", per WP:ANYBIO. The databases I have consulted show no secondary market for his work; I see no significant exhibitions in public galleries or museums, nor a monograph. Vexations (talk) 16:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As stated above, the artist's work simply isn't notable. I'm not sure what to say beyond that. We don't have the reliable source coverage that we need, and so deletion is totally the right call. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 18:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hachem Gaddouch[edit]

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

non-notable youtuber, can't find any coverage in independent sources in English or Arabic (or any other relevant languages) Praxidicae (talk) 15:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable YouTuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a notbale Youtuber in Tunisia and he's very well-known in instagram too, sources are notable like Tuniscope, Mosaïque FM --Eyatu Ben (talk) 01:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 19:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I looked through all 6 pages of google searches for "Hachem Gaddouch" and found no coverage in secondary sources, non notable. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:11, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 15:33, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Endless, Nameless (song)[edit]

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

First things first this song was only ever a bonus track or "hidden" track on some copes of the album it was from. That for a start means it is not that notable. The information provided by the sources seem to repeatedly describe how the band leader "was pissed off" and so trashed their instruments and the studio while still being recorded. apart from the other releases where it appears as a b-side and on a rarities box set, I really don't see how this conforms to Wikipedia:Notability (music) QuintusPetillius (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - The song doesn't appear to be notable in and of itself. I agree. This should go to the parent album. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Is every song on an extremely iconic album notable, even a hidden one? I think so. Few albums deserve an article for every song, but this is probably one of them. It is also informative and reliably sourced. Caro7200 (talk) 18:21, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200: no, the song doesn't have WP:INHERITED notability from its parent album... it has to pass WP:NSONG on its own merits. Richard3120 (talk) 21:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: It is not a case of strictly--or only--inherited notability . . . iconic albums are by definition made up of notable songs in a way that merely classic or excellent ones are not. The text of the article, and its sources, demonstrate notability, in my opinion. My "vote" is still keep. Caro7200 (talk) 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that doesn't mean that every song on a "classic" album will necessarily merit its own article, or indeed that it will be possible to find enough material to create an article for each individual song. Richard3120 (talk) 00:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Even in the context of the broader album, this is a mere bonus track that's not known for having any particular aspects that really stand out. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 00:56, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a bonus track . . . it's a "hidden" one. Or better phrased, an unlisted one. The listener doesn't have to expend any additional energy to hear it--she or he just needs to wait out the silence. This is a mostly well-written, informative, referenced, well-viewed article that has been around since 2005 . . . not sure why it's become such a deletion "priority." And as the Rolling Stone article states, "Thanks to Nevermind, these sort of hidden tracks would remain popular until WinAmp and its descendents revealed track lengths before the listener pressed play." Caro7200 (talk) 13:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The references supplied would normally meet GNG by themselves, and they're just of the tip of the iceberg. Doctorhawkes (talk) 10:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GNG. GNG trumps notions about what characteristics of a song may make them seem non-notable. Rlendog (talk) 12:12, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Caro7200. Sources in the article are good enough for the song to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:45, 22 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. Sources provided have been debunked Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daddy Couture[edit]

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

paid for spam, non-notable brand, the sources i've removed are completely fake black hat seo sites and what's left are contributor pieces and press releases. A search reveals nothing better. Praxidicae (talk) 14:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. gnu 57 23:40, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~Weak Delete - the article could certainly do with some more work but editors have made attempts in recent days to improve the article, and the Forbes piece seems substantial. Gay Star News, QX magazine and Out.com are respected LGBT news outlets. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, this is a contributor piece, this is basically just a mention and not at all coverage, this is almost identical save for a few words to gay star news, which means its probably a press release, but even if not, it's just an announcement and this is just an interview. So 0 coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Cardiffbear88's assessment. There are enough RS for this subject to pass notability. --Kbabej (talk) 14:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Prax is spot-on - that Forbes piece is written by a contributor, it is UGC, and is therefore not reliable and confers no notability. The other sources are press releases, soft-soap interviews and passing mentions. This is spam. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:52, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, per Praxidicae. Simply put, WP:CORPDEPTH is not met by press releases and paid-for articles on Forbes. "Forbes", really, considering the reliability of contributor pieces relative to real Forbes content. "Fauxrbes"? Maybe. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 15:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
More sources found - almost every respectable LGBT news organisation I can find has an editorial piece on this company, plus there are lots of in depth analysis pieces. Here’s a selection: Editorial and interview at New York Fashion Week, analysis in a fashion magazine, editorial in a business magazine, another LGBT website, another business website, another business website, another LGBT website. Yes, there are lots of paid articles but these seem to me to be editorially independent and based on the popularity of the company and its success particularly at New York Fashion Week. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:51, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those are press releases combined with interviews and not coverage. As for some of your other sources, if you bother to look critically at them, 3 of them are blatantly fake black hat SEO "news" sites and thus unreliable. Ie. bestinau and dailyscanner are both completely fake sites operated by a black hat firm that promotes fake press for their clients. Sites like Elucid Magazine might not be fake but they're certainly not known for editorial oversight nor do they have the level of readership to establish notability for the same reason a local podunk news outlet doesn't establish notability. And this website which is invested in marketing and promoting clients is definitely not a reliable source to establish notability and it's also operated by the same black hat seo firm(s) the first two I pointed out are. Praxidicae (talk) 15:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that certain ones I was unaware were on the black list aside, I would ask you to remain WP:CIVIL. Even placing those aside, there are enough sources here to demonstrate WP:GNG. There is nothing in WP:GNG to suggest that readership numbers, niche magazines or local news can’t contribute towards notability, especially when the subject is covered in multiple sources independently. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about my comments was uncivil? And no, you're incorrect, none of the sources you've provided have coverage and in fact, most of the sources you've provided should be blacklisted as they are intentionally deceptive and run by, again, black hat SEO firms. (Since apparently I need to spell it out, my comments about the sources have nothing to do with you, it's about the source and the firms promoting this brand.) As far as Elucid goes, please tell me what their history is wrt editorial oversight and reliability, or perhaps who the author is of this piece? Was it endorsed by their editorial board? Do they have an editorial board? Praxidicae (talk) 16:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, GNG isn't what we're discussing here - we're discussing NCORP. Randomly clicking on three of the 'new sources' you found, I saw one which was actually labelled as an advertisement, a passing mention on someone's blog, and an obvious press release republished without so much as a byline. These sources are miles away from meeting the requirements. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:16, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girth Summit and in digging more into my suspicions about Elucid, we should be blacklisting it at this point rather than considering whether it's readership is relevant. It doesn't bode well when the only identified staff on their website, in this case, their editor in chief, is openly soliciting these deceptive practices on fiverr...(i tried to link but fiverr is blacklisted) Praxidicae (talk) 16:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Praxidicae, I'm inclined to agree with you. I'm not au fait with the blacklisting process, but would support any such suggestion. GirthSummit _(blether) 16:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK I’ve changed my vote. Praxidicae your tone has not been particularly civil during this exchange and I would ask you to WP:AGF in these discussions. Phrases such as “if you bother to look...”, “Since apparently I need to spell it out...” and “And no, you're incorrect...” demonstrates a needlessly aggressive tone when I’m trying to engage in constructive discussion, and this is not the first time I’ve felt it in your AfD contributions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:37, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cardiffbear88, thanks for being willing to reconsider your position. FWIW, I think Prax could probably have worded a few statements differently in the interests of collegiality. Please recognise though the huge amount of work she does keeping covert spam off our project - that's frustrating work, and frustration sometimes leads to blunt turns of phrase. I'm glad we've all ended up in the same boat. GirthSummit _(blether) 20:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ; the above discussion takes care of every quasi-useful search result I found. No significant coverage in a reliable secondary source, delete. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hairil Sufi[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No sourced senior appearances. BlameRuiner (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 12:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 15:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EC8OR[edit]

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

Few sources and no claim to notability JDDJS (talk to me • see what I've done) 14:25, 20 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) 14:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:52, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep meets WP:BAND #5 with multiple releases on Digital Hardcore Recordings. A quick search found these articles [58], [59] and [60]. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as well as the sources identified above they also have a staff written biography at AllMusic here, and three staff written album reviews. Oveall they pass WP:GNG imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Physics Post - WYU[edit]

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

The article does not assert the importance or significance of the subject. The references includes Facebook pages. Amkgp (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 14:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't even tell if this is about the department (many university departments aren't important enough for their own articles) or about a Facebook page. The passage in the article of "Early, Physics Post - WYU Page was created on Facebook and acted as a Mailbox for students, especially studying at Physics Department of West Yangon University. Later, all official announcement and declaration from the Department has been publishing to Public." sounds like it's referring to the Facebook page, which would certainly be non-notable. Hog Farm (talk) 16:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Run-of-the-mill vanity piece for a school publication with no claim to fame Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:08, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with rationales provided. Woerich (talk) 17:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:A7. Ninja✮Strikers ^«☎» 08:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pollards Corner, Virginia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

Articles for deletion/Pollards Corner, Virginia

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

Non-notable place. I could not find any reliable sources or significant coverage of Pollards Corner, so it should be deleted. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:GEOLAND as a legally recognized, populated place. Smartyllama (talk) 14:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Above statement is false, GNIS listing is not legal recognition and does not confer verifiability or notability. Like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Acors Corner, Virginia, it's a corner of the road where someone named Pollard must have lived.
Zero newspapers.com results, zero GBooks results other than the USGS Virginia Geographic Names, which lists it as a locale, indicating the discrepancy in the unreliable GNIS. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, GNIS is not a reliable source for establishing whether places like this are actually unincorporated communities, no other sources indicate this was one. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:39, 25 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 Already deleted by User:MelanieN per WP:G4 and WP:G11. (non-admin closure) -KAP03 (^{Talk • Contributions • Email}) 17:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun Mark[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The person seems to lack WP:GNG. The references are also seems to be unreliable. Parts of the article are also promotional in nature. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Amkgp (talk) 13:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable photographer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milan Kordestani[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

more paid for spam about a non notable "entrepreneur", sourced to black hat SEO fake sources and nothing in the way of actual independent coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Still a non-notable businessman. He is all of 21-years-old. We really need to create more control to stop this indiscriminate creation and especially recreation of articles on non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mehki Raine[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article review/curation. Zero sources to indicate wp:notability under wp:GNG. Nothing to indicate passage under the SNG. The one reference is a link to website whose mission is to support "early artist development". Nothing additional found in a web search. Creator is blocked and a brand new account substantially focused on this article has been editing. North8000 (talk) 13:15, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Gamboa[edit]

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

non notable musician, no coverage to be found. Praxidicae (talk) 12:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:22, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails about every notability criteria for inclusion. Celestina007 (talk) 16:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Really? How did "this" get approved as an article? ONE line of text. Non-notable. TuorEladar (talk) 17:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:EXIST and WP:PROMOTION. A promotional attempt that is simply one of many as the musician tries to get his career off the ground. Run of the mill industry directory listings and streaming links belong elsewhere. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:28, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kassotis family[edit]

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

Recently created page about a Greek family, apparently by an account with an autobiographical COI. Despite superficial appearances, nothing of this is properly sourced - wikilinks go to pages that don't even mention the item in question, book links go to works that mention the general events in question but not the specific people allegedly acting in them. The only potentially legitimate source is a local historian from the 1950s who may have mentioned one family member as playing a role in the local village history of the mid-19th century. All the rest is just unpublished or self-published "family archives". Nothing that would establish clear notability of any one member of the family, let along notability of the family as a whole. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi guys. As the editor who wrote the article I'm actually ok with this and acknowledge all the above points. This was a draft for some time and only moved it here after I became autoconfirmed to gather more feedback from other editors (not much feedback for draft pages out there). I understand it doesn’t fit all the criteria but as a personal favour for the future can I ask exactly where things went wrong with the sources? I know I botched this one but it’s important to understand that it wasn’t intentional and I did this mostly for practice for better future articles on other subjects. This family are actually relatives of mine and it was my first historical project after I tried to complete my own family tree for years. I didn’t embellish anything and all the things I wrote are real but how exactly could I present them better? Is it the language barrier of the sources or the content of the sources themselves? Also what’s an ideal source for the names of the family members if not the registry office of their country of origin? Are there better ways to prove their relation and more importantly their existence? Thanks in advance and sorry for taking up your time with all this. Please don't yell at me, I come in peace. CapJoe2 15:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As a gesture of good will I’m going to speed up the process and vote for the deletion of the article since I am unable to find information in the British and American encyclopaedias mentioned above and that’s proof enough that maybe writing this page was a mistake. Again I’d like to point out that this was a practice project for me, I didn’t do it in bad faith or to make Wikipedia a less informative place and that I will take the feedback received here and be a better editor in the future. If you’re reading this I encourage you to vote for deletion too so we can put this to bed. I’m the one who created the article in the first place so if I couldn’t find any English sources chances are you won’t find them either so let’s kill this one and move on. Thanks for your time and for your advice regarding sources. CapJoe2 (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 07:18, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. dibbydib (T ･ C) 23:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - another article about a family that has one or two notable members, but the family itself is not notable. Bearian (talk) 13:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China-Thailand meme war[edit]

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

I don't think the subject warrants a stand-alone article. It was a Twitter drama which lasted a couple of days, and was briefly covered by the International news media, but I don't see indication that this single event is likely to generate WP:LASTING effects or be subject to WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE. At most a few sentences at China–Thailand relations should suffice. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Paul_012 (talk) 11:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete with no prejudice towards including a very truncated account in China-Thailand relations per nom, since it generated just enough tension for officials to respond. Otherwise WP:NOTNEWS is clearly in play here, and we can always recreate it in the future if any great intellects point to this meme war as a turning point in whatever history Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In context, this event has had little to no meaning in the grand scheme of foreign relations between the two nations. I'm not really sure what to say other than that. This is a minor bit of trivia for those who follow the history of meme culture, and really deletion is the right call for sure. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above and WP:SUSTAINED. dibbydib (T ･ C) 23:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The article possibly contains original research, as none of the sources mention the meme war, instead, they just mention the memes. Also, it doesn't pass WP:NOTNEWS. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 17:26, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Insignificant subject. China–Thailand relations can make mention of the issue if there is anything really important. Tessaracter (talk) 15:16, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is not a suitable topic for a stand alone article. - MA Javadi (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - per nom. Some details can be included in China-Thailand relations article. — Emperork (talk) 09:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Martin Ski Dome[edit]

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

Declined PROD. A long-defunct ski area that was only open from 1938 to 1956 and was outshined by its neighbor. Very few citeable documents available online or in local newspaper archives in terms of lasting coverage. Sounder Bruce 05:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 05:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Sounder Bruce 05:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Because sources aren't easily available online doesn't mean they don't exist. From just one publication I have found a dozen references to the Martin Ski Bowl/Husky Chalet in the Cle Elum Miner Echo, Tacoma News Tributes, and Seattle Times. The Husky Chalet wasn't outshined by local neighbors because there was no patronage competition. The Husky Chalet was owned and operated by UW students for use by members of their ski club. Opening just before WWII was a tough break for Northern Pacific. Mattsim (talk) 19:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mattsim, Do you have any links to those publications? Or are they just books. Because I'm pretty sure Seattle Times and Tacoma News post their material online. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 20:04, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Koridas, Seattle Times doesn't seem to have their archives indexed by the Google. However, they are available, indexed for the diligent researcher. Here is just one research document littered with references that is publicly accessible at the moment. There's also a few books that I don't have the titles for right now because ironically, they're out at a ski lodge in Martin. When I have access again, I'll collect titles and ISBNs. In the meantime, I've added a bunch of Seattle Times citations, not because they're especially good ones, but because they demonstrate the material exists. Mattsim (talk) 00:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article notability should be based upon when it was open and would've been rather notable in terms of ski resorts from that time period. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:44, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Johnston (Canadian actor)[edit]

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

A non notable actor. Seems to have only done minor roles, with no evidence of substantial secondary sources. Inappropriately sourced just by IMDb for several years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. According to IMDb, all three of the films named in this article are ones in which he played minor supporting characters — in not a single one of them does his name appear above IMDb's "See full cast" cutoff, in one his character doesn't even have a name and in the other two his character was not significant enough to even be mentioned in our article about the films. These are clearly not "significant" roles for the purposes of NACTOR #1 — and even if they were, NACTOR still requires reliable source coverage about the actor and his performances before it actually gets passed, which is entirely absent. Bearcat (talk) 01:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even close to being a notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: It's astonishing (to me, anyway) that an actor with so many credits under his belt would struggle to meet the notability criteria. I am basing my vote on a very, very weak case for WP:NACTOR as well as some sources that I have found at newspapers.com. I have applied for them to be clipped at WP:RX and am not sure if they are relevant or helpful, but will post them here as soon as I get them. I will then update my vote accordingly. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Here are the articles; I presume they all refer to this Andrew Johnston, but I can't be sure: here, here and here. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:46, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To even consider keeping him we need to actually put the articles as sources on the page. Also, we need to know for sure they all refer to the same person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, none of those clippings are bolstering the case much; most importantly, as noted by John Pack Lambert, there's no actual verification present that those three clippings are even all referring to the same person — neither "Andrew" nor "Johnston" are rare enough names that we can simply assume that any source that mentions an actor named Andrew Johnston is guaranteed to be referring to this Andrew Johnston, so we would need sources that more clearly establish that they're talking about the same person. Secondly, even if we accepted that they are the same person, NACTOR still isn't just looking for verification that roles were had — we need sources that are strongly enough about him and his performances to verify that the roles were significant in some way, not just sources that mention his name in passing. Bearcat (talk) 21:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I share your concerns, John Pack Lambert and Bearcat. The photo in one of the articles does match his photos on IMDb, however, so that's a start, and I refined my searches to Canadian actors as well. Further verification is still strongly preferred, though. I'll stand by my "Weak Keep" vote at the moment, and will wait and see what other editors have to say. I can provide more sources, too, but the same verification issues will likely arise. And, John, if the article were to be kept, I would certainly add the sources. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:50, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:32, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Kudos to Dflaw4 for their work in trying to find sources, but for me if we're struggling to confirm that the only sources we can find are actually about the subject of the article, that subject is probably not sufficiently notable for an article. I'm not comfortable with keeping a BLP based on an IMDB entry and a few press clippings that are probably, but not definitely, about the same person. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:10, 27 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. Meets the technical requirements of WP:MUSICBIO, not enough support for overriding that fact. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:27, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrian (singer)[edit]

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

Non-notable, Found very less info of her on the internet. Most of them are from PR Agencies, and She does not pass the notability criteria Tatupiplu'^talk 15:29, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 15:54, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is WP:TOOSOON. The subject has had some low-charting singles on fringe charts. If she had charted on the Hot 100 or similar I could see more press developing. As such, she's just a member of the Diverse City Band who has released a few singles. If she were to meet WP:GNG, I would reconsider. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:46, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as has charted on national Billboard christian music charts and has coverage in Christian music reliable sources such as CCM Magazine already in the article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - She's not notable in terms of her own career. She's a part of a large group with some notice, but she doesn't merit her own page as of right now given our notability guidelines. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 11:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. Apart from her low charting singles, I was not able to find critical reviews of her music. I believe it is WP:TOOSOON for her to have a separate article at this time. I'm confident she will become notable once she continues releasing quality music. I am going to give her music a listen; hopefully it is great. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per meeting WP:MUSICBIO based on charted singles. TJMSmith (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep if Hot Christian Songs is considered a national music chart (I think it is?), per WP:SINGER. Ikjbagl (talk) 03:02, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:21, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Forbes (actor)[edit]

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

Non notable actor. IMDb inappropriately used as the only source. No evidence of other substantial sources that would indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:04, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails NACTOR: a few minor or walk-on parts, several of which are merely descriptions (doctor, dad, policeman) rather than named characters. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has had a major theatre career, with at least two long runs in major roles in the West End, and roles in other major productions. See this and this. If someone ~~does an adequate research job (just searching~~ searches his name, ~~really, and~~ together with the name of each show already listed in the WP article, they will find plenty of good references. -- Ssilvers (talk) 04:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Ssilvers Please WP:AGF - I did way more than WP:BEFORE and I didn’t spot these. Well done you finding two more sources than I did, but there’s no need to suggest that I just didn’t bother looking - it’s just rude. I will leave it up to other editors to decide whether these are enough to indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize and have struck out, I hope, the phrases that offended you. I hope that someone does follow up, though, and find more refs. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you on the frustration of people nominating without checking the actor's name and the titles, especially for non-film credits. I'll be adding references shortly. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 20:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The article itself isn't great, but I concur with Ssilvers—his starring role in Follies, in particular, is bringing the subject quite a bit of praise. Even if the second source provided by Ssilvers is somewhat of an interview-style article, there are many other articles which provide some coverage, too, like the following: https://www.londontheatre.co.uk/reviews/review-follies-returns-to-the-national-theatre-starring-joanna-riding-and-janie-dee and https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2017/sep/10/follies-olivier-london-review-dominic-cooke-imelda-staunton#img-1. I believe the relevant notability criteria are made out. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I'm finding coverage of his theatre work in reviews and I will add it to the article. And walk on parts? He played Nathan Detroit and the lead in Follies. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It would seem that Forbes is, first and foremost, a theatre actor; secondly, an audiobook narrator; and has worked on film and in television from time to time. If the additions I have made to the page don't sway voters or the admin closing this, I'd like to bring up that the subject has dozens of audiobook credits that have not been considered and that there is an Audible session with the author of many of the books he's narrated. I've been busy in AfD these past few days and I must second Silvers's request for thoughtful, intensive BEFOREs, especially for BLPs of people who have worked in multiple mediums. It's important to search for performers by the titles of the works they've been in... and go to media databases for pre-internet era coverage. I would also encourage nominators to add what they've found in their BEFORE to the article or to the AfD discussion--otherwise we don't know what has not been found or what the nominator has considered and finds to be not enough. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 14:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I also found a review (https://books.google.com/books?id=-oNpAAAAMAAJ&q=peter+forbes+actor&dq=peter+forbes+actor&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiVn-_mkYTpAhXDHc0KHcW8CN0Q6AEIXDAI) in Google books, but as I can't view the theatre and haven't been able to tell which one, I won't add it to the article. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 15:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- DiamondRemley39 I hope you’re not suggesting that I didn’t complete WP:BEFORE. As you will know, BEFORE is not exhaustive and just because someone has found sources doesn’t mean I didn’t bother looking. I don’t know why I keep having to explain this to editors. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Cardiffbear88 I didn't say that and you don't have to keep explaining anything to anyone. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:22, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Cobbold (1708–1767)[edit]

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

Deprodded. Not seeing what makes him notable (likely fail of WP:NBIO). Sources are very poor - few mentions in passing in family tree, company websites, and such. BEFORE shows very little (don't confuse him with his father Thomas Cobbold (1680–1752) that gets a little bit more coverage and has borderline notability). Bottom line, he doesn't seem to have done anything that meets NBIO, and sources don't discuss his life in more than a passing 2-3 sentences. At best this could be merged to the article about his father, unless anyone can find a better place to retain this content? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Thomas Cobbold (1680–1752), his father, the founder of the famous brewery. Worth a decently-cited mention there. This action could have been taken without recourse to AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As User:Piotrus has noted before, sometimes this Thomas has been confused with father, Thomas Cobbold (1680–1752). This conflation has meant that often sources are unclear that it was this Thomas who moved the brewery to Ipswich, following which the Cobbolds became a very significant family in Ipswich. This is also confirmed by Diego Ricchiuti when working on The Vernon Project for Ipswich Borough Council (See Research: The Cobbold family] done while Diego was a student in Ipswich. As regards both Thomas Cobbold's he remarks: "For the first two members, there are only few information that can be found and confirmed, mainly because they were important figure in Suffolk but not England hero as Vernon." Baring in mind Diego's focus of research is connections with Admiral Vernon, it seems likely there is materially to be found as regards Cobbold's significant impact on the urban development of Ipswich. However, I am afraid my personal library is not really up to the job of supporting this, and thanks to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic, local public library resources are not currently open. Thus I would suggest that we have a pause in this discussion until after the current lockdown restrictions are sufficiently lifted to gain access to suitable reference resources.Leutha (talk) 09:20, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addendum: As Thomas senior founded the second oldest independent brewery in England it is hard to see why his notability should be considered borderline. The sort of sources available locally include Frank Woolnough's Souvenir of the bi-centenary of the Cliff Brewery 1723–1923 (1923), which although written nearly a hundred years ago is a good source. As we approach the tri-centenary of the Cobbold brewing business it strikes me that Wikipedia would be falling down in its remit not to have suitable pages on all the notable members of this significant Ipswich family.Leutha (talk) 09:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable brewer per the sources identified above. Cheers! Andrew🐉(talk) 22:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sarah J. Halstead[edit]

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

Supported entirely with unreliable/primary/non-independent sources. WP:BEFORE did not yield anything better. Fails WP:GNG, fails WP:ENT. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a poorly sourced and written vanity article which checks all the boxes for UPE. Not a single reliable secondary independent on the article. BEFORE shows nothing better. Three or four of the sources are reprints of the exact same press release. John from Idegon (talk) 11:55, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I don't think either WP:GNG or WP:ENT is made out. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I created the page, and apologize for the fact that it is not as well-sourced as I wanted it to be. After enjoying Sarah's stand-up special, and realizing that she has a significant following on social media, I thought she met the WP:ENT for having a following. PickleG13 (talk) 04:58, 25 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:23, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyaa Kool Hain Hum (film series)[edit]

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

The article is a copy of the other three articles, nothing new. There is no significant coverage or important to the series as well. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Delete or Redirect to the first movie. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man ^(Talk) 14:48, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This is not an article about a film, it is an article that summarises key points about three films in a franchise. Thus, it is expected that it would contain content found in the individual articles and thus, WP:NFILM may not be relevant here. Note also how List of Star Trek films and television series addresses the franchise, with summaries of content found in other articles. Not every article subject requires independent notability. For instance, would we need to establish a TV series' list of episodes as independently notable in order to branch off a list article? Of course not. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 16:09, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Star Trek films and television series article has numerous WP:RS, where this has hardly any which discusses it in a series way. How about the notability WP:NRV? - The9Man ^(Talk) 06:15, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep copying within Wikioedia is permitted and the films are notable, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: I think the nominator is trying to say its a content fork, with the "series" of films not passing the notability criteria, imv. —usernamekiran (talk) 23:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- But in the reviews of the films following the first one aren't the reviews making comparisons and similarities with the earlier films so that effectively the films are being subject to coverage as a series, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This is bound to happen because of the same film titles. It is "passing mention" to the series, not significant coverage. The most important thing here is, they are not even sequels. They are just random films containing similar star cast, and titles. The stories are differet, and even the characters portrayed by actors are different. Like Cyphoidbomb observed above; all other franchises/film-TV series have something in common. Not this film series. This film series is not mentioned anywhere out of press releases. This article is a content fork, and all the information is already covered in individual film articles. In the lead (and/or somewhere else in the article) it can be clearly stated "X was followed by Y, and Z". "Y was preceded by X, and followed by Z", and so on. There is no connection between films, no story continued, so we dont need article from that angle/requirement either (like we can explain continuity in "episodes" or "seasons" articles). —usernamekiran (talk) 20:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perfectly explained by usernamekiran. - The9Man ^(Talk) 18:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per my own comments above. —usernamekiran (talk) 00:20, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Film series typically have their own article on Wikipedia. No reason why this one should be different because it is less "important" than another series. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 15:31, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because it is not actually a film series. This is very well explained by usernamekiran above. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The stories being unrelated and the characters being different does not make it "not a film series" (see the Cornetto trilogy or the Revenge trilogy for example). The three films share the same producers, same stars, same themes, same titling scheme,... It's a film series. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 10:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy Evil Dude: Hi. Your rationale is very well explained in Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Cornetto trilogy, and other similar series have received significant coverage in reliable sources. This film series doesnt have significant coverage. Wikipedia:Existence ≠ Notability. This series fails general notability criteria. Like I said in my previous comments, there is no continuity, or any other reason to have a separate stand alone article. Everything can be explained in in the articles of individual films. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

from an interview with star Tusshar Kapoor: "It’s the third part of the Kya Kool Hai Hum trilogy, the first adult comedy franchise in India, and it’s an exciting film for me because it’s been projected as India’s first p-rn com". From an interview with 3rd film star Aftab Shivdasani: "The film is the third film in the franchise, and it’s got nothing to do with the story of the first and second film.". The films have been discussed as a trilogy by reputable, reliable outlets such as Mint, The Express Tribune and FirstPost. Coverage in India has been significant. Enough. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Happy Evil Dude: interviews, and press releases are not considered as significant coverage. Most of the, almost all of the coverage that I could find is about the individual movies with passing reference to the series. Again: verifiable existence is not notability. —usernamekiran (talk) 11:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you're splitting hairs and you know it. I've said what I have to say. That is all. Happy Evil Dude (talk) 20:11, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - It is correct that interviews and press releases don't confer notability. However, I'm not convinced that the series needs to have secondary coverage specifically about the fact that it is a series in order for there to be a page for the series. It would seem that the series has notability if each individual episode is notable enough for an article. And I disagree with the idea that there needs to be a common story for it to be a series; it is common for a series to have different plots throughout its episodes, with actors playing different roles in each episode. As an example, take the series American Horror Story; each season has a different plot and the actors play different characters. The stories don't necessarily have anything to do with each other. However, it is still clearly a series, as you can tell by the fact that the same people are involved and the titles imply a series. Here, you have three titles implying a series (How Cool We Are > How Super Cool We Are > How Cool We Are 3) and many of the same people working on the movies. It's clearly a series, each episode is notable, I don't see why we wouldn't allow a page for this. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:54, 28 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. After 3 weeks of discussions, it's still unclear where the community wants to go with this. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Campus placement[edit]

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

Completely unreferenced article about a topic, written much more like a WP:HOWTO guide than an encyclopedia article. Wikipedia is not WikiHow, so the key to getting a topic like this in the door is not just to write a step-by-step guide to the process that's completely unsupported by any sources — what would be needed is an article that contextualized it with properly sourced independent analysis about it. For one thing, not all "campus placement" follows exactly the same process across the board: there can be regional variances in different locations, the process can change depending on the nature and needs of different employers and industries, and on and so forth, which is an example of the kind of thing that a properly written article would need to note and source. Furthermore, this has been flagged for both referencing and basic notability issues since 2010, without ever having seen any significant improvement on either front. I am, of course, willing to consider withdrawing this if somebody can actually repair the article with real sources and an encyclopedic tone, but after a decade in this state it's time to call the question. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't even work out what the purpose of this article is: it clearly fails to meet standards in its current form, and I can't see how it could be re-edited into anything that might pass muster. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 17:30, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stubify. The subject definitely seems to be notable. There is this book on the subject, and this book has a substantial section on it, as does this book, and there are many scholarly papers on the subject [61][62]. So I think that WP:STUBIFY very much applies here as after all the HOWTO stuff is removed there won't be much left. SpinningSpark 18:04, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, bibliomaniac 1 5 01:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This needs to be drastically rewritten. No doubt. At the same time, the topic is absolutely notable. I agree with the above user's comment completely. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 15:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I stubbified the page. My informal impression is that "campus placement" is a more common term in India while "campus recruitment" is more so in the United States. Either way, it seems a worthwhile topic to cover — "how do college students get jobs" is obviously of social significance — although most of the sources turned up in a casual search are marketing glurge. XOR'easter (talk) 15:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. It's hard to see how this can be an actual article, and not merely a stub. And if it's a stub, then it's effectively a dictionary definition and Wikipedia is not a dictionary. erc ^{talk/contribs} 23:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Graduate recruitment, with which it is now redundant after the stubbification. That article, in turn, needs additional sources, but some of those have turned up (e.g., just to close my browser tabs, [63][64][65]). XOR'easter (talk) 00:45, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Well, why don't we kill both articles then merge it all into Recruitment? I mean, I guess since we're involving other articles, it's technically outside the scope of AfD, but what's special about college recruitment? I agree that the concept "how people (college students) get jobs" is notable, but is it notable separate and apart from recruiting people in general? Instead of having a random job fair or random ads, you place those fairs/ads within a university. That's not some unique, novel concept that needs its own wiki page. erc ^{talk/contribs} 15:41, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I have no strong feelings about that one way or the other, but I suspect that there are enough details peculiar to recruitment at colleges specifically that a separate page is not a bad idea. For example, allowing the military to recruit on campus may be more controversial than their having recruiting offices downtown. XOR'easter (talk) 16:13, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 14:00, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akan (musician)[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the references cited in the article discuss him. I was able to find two reviews about his second studio album. The first review was published by Ghana Web, a platform that writes opinion pieces. The second review (a good read) was written by an amateur reviewer for a wordpress blog. I also found this source published by More Braches; unfortunately, it cannot be used to establish notability since it isn't independent of the subject. The subject has not gained in-depth coverage and does not deserve a separate article at this time. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 00:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't Support Deletion - This article has about 6 or 7 independent sources speaking to it which is the English Wikipedia standard for article creation. Even with that I recognized the article still needed work so I made it a stub so it could be updated as we move forward. This article meets the required standard of Article creation and I believe I did that when I was writing it a year ago. I am completely at a loss where you point that none of the reference articles attached to this article speaks about him can you be kind to point that out. I believe the subject deserves a Wikipedia article because it meets the basic notability criteria and it was marked a Stub for that same purpose. Owula kpakpo (talk) 13:58, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owula kpakpo: To reiterate, the sources in the article do not discuss the subject. I am going to dissect all 10 of them below.

The first source briefly mentions his song "Helebaba" and does not discuss him; the source cannot be used to establish the song's notability.
The second source is an announcement about his debut album Onipa Akoma. The album fails WP:NALBUM so the source cannot be used to establish notability.
The third source is simply an opinionated list compiled by Pulse Ghana; Akan is only mentioned in the source and is not discussed.
The fourth source is actually the kind of source that is needed to justify Onipa Akoma's notability. However, I don't think one solid review and background info is enough for the album to pass WP:NALBUM. It's a shame because the album is arguably one of the best Ghanaian albums released in 2017. If it won or was nominated for a VGMA award, then it should pass WP:NALBUM. I actually like the review I linked above; unfortunately, it can't be used.
The fifth source is just a promotional link about "Me Sika Duro"; the song is not discussed in the source.
The sixth source is a press release about the song "Ma Jaacki"; the song is not discussed in the source.
The seventh source is just the track list for Onipa Akoma; track listings do not establish an album's notability.
The eighth source is a press release about his cover of Skepta's "Konnichiwa"; the song is not discussed in the source.
The ninth source is a press release about the "Helebaba" video.
The tenth source, although not published as a review, can actually be considered a review of Akan's "Me Sika Aduro" video. If the song itself was notable, this review would complement it. Unfortunately, that's not the case.

The subject does not deserve a separate article at this time. He hasn't been discussed in reliable sources. My dissection of the article's sources is a testament to this fact. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Versace1608 , I am currently at a loss why you think the sources I have sited doesn't discuss the subject when they mention the subject in their reportage. Some of the sources are linked to the music which when you look carefully is linked to only his discography and to a specific music on the discography. Like I said above there are more sources I am finding about the subject which I have already added to the article. Also this article passes off as a stub so it meets the basic criteria for article creation if that has changed kindly point that out to me. And if you read the article and the sources attached you would notice the difference between each source I used and what it's backing in the article.Owula kpakpo (talk) 15:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owula kpakpo: Being mentioned in a source isn't the same as being discussed. All of the sources mentioned the subject's name but none of them discussed him. The additional sources you added to the article do not disuss Akan. The Quartz source only mentions his name once; a large portion of the article is about ELi and his environmental practices. The second source is a good review about the "Aprodoo" music video; the entire article is about the video and not about Akan. The source itself is a blog that doesn't appear to be notable (the blog only has two contributors). A separate Wikipedia article cannot be written about the blog because the blog fails WP:GNG and WP:WEB. An article being a stub is irrelevant to our discussion. Just because an article is a stub doesn't make it exempt from being judge against WP:N. FYI, in order for a subject to have a separate article, they will need to meet Wikipedia's notability requirements. Akan doesn't meet our notability requirements at this time. If he wins or gets nominated for a major award like the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards, he should have enough to pass the notability threshold. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Versace1608 , I disagree that to be a notable musician from Ghana you have to win a Vodafone Ghana Music Awards because not every musician gets nominated in that award scheme. It's like saying in other to be notable musician in the US you have to win or have been nominated for a Grammy Award, Billboard & BET Awards those are not what the notability criteria states. Akan is a musician and his video is being reviewed how that fails to be a review about his music beats my imagination. There are so many notable Ghanaian musicians who would not be nominated by any award scheme but would be notable I can give you examples. I have been contributing to articles around musicians in Ghana for a while and I am sorry a lot of nuanced would be lost on you if you are not from here.Owula kpakpo (talk) 17:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Owula kpakpo: I am not saying he needs to win a VGMA in order to be notable. I said if he wins or gets nominated for a VGMA, he would pass criterion 8 of WP:MUSICBIO. As things currently stand, Akan doesn't meet any crtierion of WP:MUSICBIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:53, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 09:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Keep, notable artist who is well known across Africa. I feel like this article can be improved with more sources but there is definitely enough info on the internet to make it pass WP:musicbio Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 14:39, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apollo825: How is he well-known across Africa? Can you provide a reliable source to support your statement? Which criterion of WP:MUSICBIO does he meet? You can't say he meets MUSICBIO without backing up your statement. I am awaiting your response. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:45, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

::: Did a bit of digging around but if these could be added to the article I'm sure people will acknowledge his notability. Al Jazeera mentions him, online info, ghana motion releases, Live FM Ghana, Harmattan Rain, unorthodox reviews, musicarenagh. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 14:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apollo825: You still didn't answer my question. How is he well-known across Africa? You need to back this statement up with reliable sources or remove it from this AFD discussion. Passing mentions by Al Jazeera is not enough to warrant a separate article. Music in Africa is not a reliable source; the website reads: "Music In Africa provides a platform for musicians and contributors to embed music and videos solely for promotional purposes". Ghanamotion is a blog that promotes artists through advertising; it is no where near being a reliable souurce. The Live FM Ghana source is simply a press release about the subject's album; it is not even a critical review of the album. Harmattan Rain is an unrelaible blog source that accepts content from artists. Unorthodox Reviews is a blog that lacks an editorial team. The last source is a promotional link; there's absolutely noting notable about it. You need to do some more digging because nothing you've presented here confer notability. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:14, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I struck out votes and comments made by Apollo825, a sock user. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — like Versace1608 already said subject of our discussion doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO nor satisfy GNG. The influx of junk Africa related articles especially in Nigeria which has increased exponentially in this collaborative project is due to the fact that honest African editors who don’t engage in edit for pay are all going inactive & those who edit for pay & engage in sock puppetry & meat puppetry are on the rise, increasing exponentially day by day & are now dominating & it’s only a handful of honest African editors left to stand & fight the good fight of defending the integrity of the encyclopedia.Celestina007 (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. -- Amanda (aka DQ) 13:59, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul McFedries[edit]

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

Currently, the article is supported only by an Amazon profile, and a profile on an affiliated website. He seems to be a fairly prolific author of technical books (Idiot's Guide to Windows 98, Windows 7 Unleashed, that sort of thing), but I wasn't able to find any of his books reviewed anywhere in non-UGC sources that might point towards an NAUTHOR pass, and I could find no coverage of the man himself in any significant depth in any reliable, independent sources which might point towards a GNG pass. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 08:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 13:19, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabiru Gombe[edit]

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

Subject of article is a non notable secetary general to a notable person who founded an Islamic religious movement. Per WP:NOTINHERITED we know this doesn’t do anything to prove subject’s notability. The only two reliable sources used in the article are BBC Hausa, but having optimized Google Translator I discovered they were merely mentioning him in passing(anyone can confirm this using that wonderful tool) Furthermore Subject of article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:GNG & WP:BASIC. He does not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of him. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 08:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This User User:Celestina007 is telling lies in present of the public about the two references provided in the article by saying "He/She discovered they were merely mentioning him in passing" because he/she use Google translation tool, why don't you tell us the headlines and a brief contents of the translation lets see weather it is a pass by or not? I am Hausa Native so you can not say what it is not, when I translate it to English, this is what I see exactly:-

1- https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42130508

Headlines: "Sheikh Dahiru Bauchi is calling my name in the sermon - Kabiru Gombe"

Contents: "The Secretary General of the Jama'atu Izalatul Bid'ah Wa Iqamatus Sunnah (JIBWIS), Sheikh Kabiru Gombe, denied that he used to mention Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi in his sermon. Sheikh Kabiru Gombe made this clear during a visit to the BBC in London last week, saying that he has never mentioned the name of Sheikh Dahiru Usman Bauchi in his sermon.The clergyman said, "If anyone has a tapes of his preaching mentioning the name of the teacher, then the door will open for him to spread to the world."------- How is this a pass by? when he is the one narrating and addressing what happened between him and other Islamic cleric.

2- https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42130507 This references is an interview of Him with BBC

Headline: "Women are more important than men - Sheikh Kabiru Gombe" This translation is not even accurate, it soppose to be translated this way "Women needs sermon/ preaching more than men"

Content: "The general secretary of the Jama'atu Izalatul Bid'ah Wa Iqamatus Sunnah (JIBWIS), Sheikh Kabiru Haruna Gombe, told the BBC why he often preached against women, The cleric made the remarks during a visit to the BBC in London on Thursday, He said he has experienced that mothers have been left behind and that the focus on women's preaching has not been fully addressed, he said, "Even if the women are preaching, it is usually better to be hung up on fire or by the teachers, than to be taught about the teachings of Islam and how to worship the Lord God," he said "--------Under this reference when taken to the BBC site, a Video of the interview is even placed to watch online, So how can you then say it is merely passing, when it is even an interview between him and BBC Hausa broadcasting, please be serious.

3- here is another independent reliable source reference not included in the main article https://www.bbc.com/hausa/labarai-42338468 On this they placed an audio of Kabiru Gombe preaching about the importance of using musk perfume in pubic parts for woman, it is an audio, but thank God his name is in the Headline and his picture is there to see, in such away that you wont make false claim by saying is a pass by mention.

4- https://aminiya.dailytrust.com.ng/ba-dabiar-malaman-sunnah-ba-ne-su-ce-wane-yana-wuta-sheikh-kabiru-gombe/ Also you did not mention Daily Trust a Nigerian English broadcasting, and it is there in the artilcle, Dailytrust is the English one while Aminiya Dailytrust is the Hausa version using the same trademark logo broadcasting in Hausa language, and it is independent reliable source with no dought, you mean you did not know about this reference in the article or you did not click on the reference?

What about this Legit.ng an independent reliable source https://hausa.legit.ng/1122999-makwabcin-sheikh-kabiru-gombe-ya-kai-kararsa-gaban-kotu-kan-zarginsa-da-aika.html and this https://dabofm.com/ana-saka-ran-dawowar-sheikh-kabiru-gombe-da-bala-lau-gobe-talata-daga-amurka/ Dabo FM, it is an online radio station website for broadcating online, the Radio station is based in Jaipur North of India. And I want those that will vote Keep or Delete to check Find sources Books and Scholar, there are sources there.

Conclusion Per those Six Independent reliable sources, 3 from BBC Hausa, 1 from Daily Trust, Legit and Dabo FM, it pass WP:GNG. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 21:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko, how do any of those sources satisfy “in-depth significant coverage of the subject in reliable sources independent of them” where & where in those sources was he himself discussed with in-depth? Literally every source discusses him in passing or states an action he performed but none discuss him significantly. See WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 23:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply User:Celestina007 You are asking a confusable complicated question which is roughly congested with meaning words leading it to meaninglessness, simplify the question to be straight forward, and went directly to the point, from the Q, you made mention of reliable, independent and source, which of these references lack this quality? point it let me see? is it BBC Hausa, Daily Trust, Legit.ng or Dabo F.M, make clarification, and explain in details as I do in the first place, remember! no lying.

Further references: Let me make it clear by adding additional references from books and scholars:

Scholars: http://www.ethnographiques.org/2011/Sounaye and https://openaccess.leidenuniv.nl/bitstream/handle/1887/23853/ASC-075287668-3441-01.pdf?sequence=1#page=223

Book 1:Boko Haram:The History of an African Jihadist Movement by Alexander Thurston, Priceton Univ., ISBN 978-0-691-17224-8, Page 232

Book 2:Salafism in Nigeria:Islam, preaching, and politics, by Alexander Thurston, Cambridge University Press, 22 sep 2016. ISBN 978-1-107-15743-9, Page 103. Thank You.----- An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T® 20:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — @Anasskoko, I’d ignore the fact that you implied that i say meaningless things & I’m a liar & go straight to the point.

In my reason for taking this to an AFD, you’d see that I concured to the fact that he has two reliable sources mentioning him but merely in passing, I verified this by using the Google Translator if you’ve ever studied WP:GNG you’d notice it says “in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject” emphasis on the “in-depth significant coverage” having two or three reliable sources merely mentioning you in passing & not discussing the subject significantly or with in-depth does nothing for WP:GNG. So let’s see it

Reliable source Y
independent of them Y
in-depth significant coverage N
Overall value & adherence to WP:GNG = N

So you see, per WP:GNG the subject of your article isn’t notable. Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The subject is only known for a single event, being the secretary of a notable organization. Per WP:BLP!E, this isn't enough to warrant a separate article. A Google search of the subject doesn't show him having in-depth coverage in reliable sources. The two BBC sources cited in the article are not independent of the subject; both sources are actually from the same video interview. Ref 1 and 9 are identical sources that only mentioned the subject once. Ref 6 is about Garba Binkola's response to Gombe's comments; it is not independent of neither Binkola or Gombe. Ref 5 looks like info that would fit the personal life section of his bio. Ref 8 looks like an interview source (I am basing this on the article's title). As it currently stands, there's not enough in-depth coverage of the subject. In my view, a separate article is not needed at this time. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is nothing much to mention about this subject and the subject is only notable as per WP:1E. I agree with the facts of Versace. Abishe (talk) 06:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep One of the most prominent Salafi clerics in Nigeria. A quick research shows that he is mentioned in hundreds of media articles. It would be good if some people could avoid giving their opinion about something they have clearly no idea about. --DonCamillo (talk) 08:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCamillo, please you are more than welcome to provide us with this “hundreds of media articles” that are reliable sources that discuss subject of our discussion with significant in-depth coverage I beg of you please do so! you are more than welcome to do so! Wikipedia biographical articles generally are about what can be verified via reliable sources with in-depth significant coverage independent of the subject. If all this boxes don’t tick

then your analysis of what is or what isn’t is very flawed. Anyways you might want to see WP:GNG. Oh lest I forget; It’s great how sleeper accounts pop up every now & again to make statements & !votes in AFD’s & go back to slumber again. I mean what are the odds? Your last edit was on the 19th of December 2019 & your next would “coincidentally” be on the 23rd of April 2020, straight to this AFD to vote. Finally per your comments above It would be good if some people could avoid giving their opinion about something they have clearly no idea about I really don’t need to know jack shit about Christianity, Hinduism, or in this case, the Islamic religion or clerics, what I do need to know & which I already know, is Wikipedia’s policies in establishing notability & how to access the innumerable tools I have been given to by this collaborative community to work with. All else is irrelevant as only the integrity of the encyclopedia is what is pertinent. Feel free to stop by when you have those hypothetical “hundreds of media articles” Celestina007 (talk) 09:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your accusations are really... interesting. I happen to do quite a lot of work on the Hausa Wikipedia and noticed that the article was recently created there: I just clicked on the interwiki link and saw the AfD notice. So nothing strange there. Is that satisfactory? English is my 3rd language so, no, I do not primarily contribute on the English Wikipedia.

Yes, hundreds of articles are available about the topic of this article, and over a quite long period of time. Look for yourself (BBC, RFI, Aminiya...). Most of them happen to be in Hausa. Basically, to summarize, Kabiru Gombe is the "number 2" or maybe number 3 of one of the largest Islamic movements in Nigeria, with millions of followers. He is regularly interviewed by different international and Nigerian media to give his opinion on various matters. He is mentioned in the scientific literature about Nigerian Salafism (books by Alexander Thurston and Roman Loimeier whose authority on the topic is, I'm afraid, stronger that yours) as a prominent cleric within the so-called Salafi Muslim community in Nigeria. So, yes, strong keep', again.

As a non-Nigerian interested in Nigerian-related topics, may I add that I am truly shocked and disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated here... --DonCamillo (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DonCamillo, Just as I thought all talk & you still didn’t bring the Hundreds of reliable media you claim are out there. Do you know why you couldn’t bring them here? Because they are simply non-existent. I don’t give a damn that you are from the Hausa tribe interested in Nigerian related topics. Sentiments be damned! Who cares??? If you can’t provide us with the Hundreds of reliable media you claim exist that substantiates or proves subject’s notability then please move aside for experienced editors who actually know what they are doing to weigh in & quit consistutung a nuisance here using sentiments to draw pity to your cause. Furthermore from your statement above “As a non-Nigerian interested in Nigerian-related topics, may I add that I am truly shocked and disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated here” I’d like to say that I am a Nigerian citizen & have lived in Nigeria & with Nigerians for 20+ years, so I am as Nigerian as they come & you can’t love articles related to my country more than I do. If your next response isn’t with those magical Hundreds of reliable media you claim you discovered I’d most likely not respond to you again as obviously you clearly do not know what Wikipedia is about, Good fucking Bye! Oh lest I forget this comment above Look for yourself (BBC, RFI, Aminiya...). Most of them happen to be in Hausa I’m not going to assist you look for crap. That’s the burden of the article creator & oh well yours now since you want to play Devil’s advocate. Subject of article lacks in-depth coverage which makes him ineligible to qualify under GNG how hard is that to grasp? Celestina007 (talk) 12:50, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DonCamillo, I disagree with your statement about being disappointed by the way Nigerian-related topics are treated. FYI, the number of Nigerian-related articles on Wikipedia far outweigh the ones that have been deleted. Like i said earlier, the subject's only claim to notability is his secretarial role at the Izala Society. The sources cited in the article and the ones available online do not show him having in-depth coverage. Passing mentions in books are not enough to warrant a separate article. @Celestina007: Please bring your tone down; its not that serious. Let's try to discuss this in a civil manner. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, easy. I am not accusing you of anything. I'm very glad you're Nigerian. I'm not, and not part of any tribe whatsoever. Just saying that I'm quite surprised to see people (not necessarily you, you're not the only one speaking here) discarding very easily the no. 2 or 3 of one of the major Muslim movements in Nigeria whereas minor religious leaders from a lot of countries have articles here and no one is trying to delete them...

Regarding the sources, again, look for yourself. I'm sure you can use Google. You have twenty of them on BBC Hausa only (you can use site:bbc.com to do a search within a specific website). I gave you a summary of what these articles show. The article is already supported by a lot of sources, I added two of them myself. Just read them instead of ranting. Thanks, --DonCamillo (talk) 13:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCamillo: What exactly do you mean by number 2 or 3? Do you have reliable sources to support this info? He holds a secretarial position. How exactly is this position a top tier position in a religious organization? Please elaborate. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: He's not a secretary, he's the "Secretary-General" (babban sakatare in Hausa - there is a source in English in the article now). I don't know the Izala structure that deep but from the media reports it seems that he is the number 2, coming after the "President" (shugaba in Hausa), who is Abdullahi Bala Lau (and probably deserves an article too!). They are regularly interviewed together as the most prominent leaders of JIBWIS also known as Izala. --DonCamillo (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCamillo: You should focus on creating an article about the the president, not about the second or third person in command. Just because he is the "Secretary-General" doesn't mean he automatically deserves an article. Like I said earlier, he lacks in-depth coverage and is only known for this role. He literally hasn't done anything outside of this. I can even argue that he is trying to inherit notability from the organization. As you know, notability cannot be inherited here. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 14:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Versace1608: But... who are you to tell me which article I should focus on? Sorry, I don't understand. No one has ever talked to me like that on a Wikimedia project, is it normal on the English Wikipedia? Is there a Wikipedia police that tells people which topic they have to work on? Very weird. And I never said he deserved an article because he is the Secretary-General, he deserves it because of his position in a movement with millions of followers in Nigeria and of the in-depth coverage he gets in Nigeria. The article shows it very clearly, now that it has been improved by at least four different editors. Kindly have a look at it, instead of trying to police what other editors are working on. Thanks. --DonCamillo (talk) 14:36, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DonCamillo: I am not trying to police you or anyone for that matter. My apologies if you took offense to my comments. You suggested that the president of the organization deserves a separate article and my comments were a response to that. Thanks for improving the article but the subject still has not been discussed in-depth. The position I hold in this AFD will change once I see in-depth coverage. This AFD discussion will probably end up closing as no consensus, which wold result in the article remaining in mainspace. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep first! please if you can, try and improve the article. Secondly! please do not accuse or question me of why? just because I voted contrary to your view, and lastly please do not expect me to respond to anybody's question of why? I express my view and opinion as you would not do if my vote goes in support of your view. Per WP:GNG and the bunch of sources provided in the article all are reliable, thanks I'm not seeing anyone looking for the subject in reliable sources and so I see the article subject has passed to be on Wikipedia. Em-mustapha ^{User | talk} 17:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M-Mustapha, Your comment above which reads “please do not accuse or question me of why? just because I voted contrary to your view” is very much strange to say the least as this is your first !vote here so far & no one has ever accused you, questioned you, or badgered you in any way whatsoever. Perharps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to. Also, Per your comments above which reads “Per WP:GNG and the bunch of sources provided in the article all are reliable” which is similar to DonCamillo’s rationale you both have failed or rather, have refused to provide in this AFD the links to the reliable sources that proves the subject of the article has possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them. The reason is simple, there is none of such in existence. You may choose to prove me wrong by providing us with such sources. Furthermore In Wikipedia’s AFD procedures we don’t just !vote a keep or a delete without providing congent rationales. Oh! I actually just remembered you explicitly said “Do not question me of why” & “do not expect me to respond to anybody's question of why?” that’s pretty convenient if you ask me. Fine by me, but just so you know your point is very much invalid.Celestina007 (talk) 20:25, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK! Celestina007, Let's start; I am now being accused! for running several accounts; "Perhaps you may need to check which of your accounts you are currently logged in to" being question of why! just because I voted contrary to your view. “as this is your first !vote” why I voted that, and maybe being badgered! "you both have failed" "your point is very much invalid".

Let's start; This is not my first AFD opinion and I do not run several accounts but I renamed it almost thrice all with reasons. I'm just an Uninvolved Editor and I only come here to vote when I see an encyclopedic quality is wanted for deletion so I come to rescue. I see some people are trying to points out who is Nigerian and who is not, May be we all have something to say on this, google search, bing search and any other internet search engine is enough for me, google it or bing it, you would find them (thousands of Audio and video files).-Em-mustapha ^{User | talk} 11:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M-Mustapha, only you accused your own self of sockpuppetry as I never said that explicitly. Although your multiple grammatical errors & less than satisfactory command of the English language does remind of a certain Nigerian editor on this collaborative project from Nothern Nigeria. you claim through a google search you encountered thousands of sources & DonCamillo, claims he saw hundreds, but to post just one of those hundreds or thousands that show subject of article possessing in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them becomes a mission impossible for you both. The problem is those hundreds or thousands of sources are non existent! you both are in a catch-22 scenario.

How do you mean you may ask? I’d tell you; you both admire the subject of the article (perhaps because he is a religious figure you consider pertinent to your religion), you both assumed that he was notable without doing a proper research.you both !voted keeps assuming “surely he must be notable” you both have now undoubtedly done a google check & clearly have seen he doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG but of course your ego & admiration for him may have impaired your judgement and would make you not !vote appropriately or strike out your previous !votes to !vote correctly now you know he doesn’t satisfy GNG. But no, you’d rather resort to making bizzare claims saying he has hundreds and thousands of media sources to show he possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of them instead of own up to the fact that you have !voted wrongly as those hundreds or thousands of reliable sources is nothing but a blatant lie. Celestina007 (talk) 12:18, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come one, this is not serious, you're very agressive. The article has many sources now and the articles I mentioned are still online. There are rules on Wikipedia, you cannot accuse other editors like this at random without any proof. I can't see how it is suspicious that two editors who are very active on the Hausa Wikipedia give their opinion about an article when sources are mostly in Hausa. Seems very normal to me. So kindly leave people alone, read the sources that have been provided over the last days and hopefully... change your opinion? Thank you. --DonCamillo (talk) 12:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes 55% of WP:Bio. I think some improvement tags would be better like( more citation need, BLP source and Notability rather than AFC) so it could be updated and improved time to time. According to what i read in the sources the only things that wasn't discuss there is the birth year and little about his education but everything about him was there. (F5pillar---^{Let's talk🖋📩}) 15:42, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@F5pillar: How did you derive 55% and which criteria of WP:BIO do you think he satisfies? Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:54, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG. I repeate, according to the sources in the page. I read all the sources in the page and seems all require was there only his birth year and little about his education wasn't discuss. (F5pillar---^{Let's talk🖋📩}) 16:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@F5pillar: You did not answer my question. I asked how did you derive at that number and your response is WP:GNG? For your info, WP:GNG is not the same as WP:BIO. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:49, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to DonCamillo and M-Mustapha's additions to the article. Celestina007 and Versace1608, please take a look at WP:BLUDGEON; your aggressive questioning and investigation of people who vote Keep are not helping your arguments. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:23, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: WP:BLUDGEON is an essay and not a guideline. There's absolutely nothing wrong with responding to others in an AFD discussion; I have not been uncivil in any of my responses. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Thanks to you User:Toughpigs, they have been aggressive to people in this AFD, tending to push others very hard to their point of view, that's the reason why other editors are afraid of voting keep in Nigerian related discussion, if find out two of them have tag 📍 an article for deletion, not all editors like Hawking around, so a borderline suppose to be drawn for each one of them, to stop pushing voters aggressively, thanks to the Lord we are Bold, had it been we are not, this article could have been deleted for a thrash reasons. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)} 19:51, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anasskoko: How do you know others are afraid of voting keep and who are these "others"? For your info, there's no policy that prohibits me from responding to statements that I do not agree with. I'm entitled to respond to your comments and so are you. There's absolutely nothing wrong with engaging with others. At the end of the day, this is an AFD discussion and we are here to talk until consensus is reached. For your info, articles are deleted based on consensus and not on the number of delete votes. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 22:50, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLUDGEON: "When someone takes persistence to a level that overwhelms or intimidates others, or limits others' ability to interject their opinions without worrying about being verbally attacked, then this activity has risen to a level of abuse. This can be considered an act of bad faith as the purpose is to win at any cost." — Toughpigs (talk) 23:10, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: I am not trying to win at any cost or trying to intimidate anyone. If you check my AFD stats, you'll clearly see that I've voted delete in articles that have been kept. I don't have the mindset that every AFD discssion will go my way. If that was the case, I'd be nominating articles two or three times after they've been closed as keep or no consensus. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 23:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Toughpigs, just like Versace1608 already said no one is trying to win anything here & neither do I badger others nor bludgeon. If you look throughout this AFD I’ve only requested that one, just only one of those “hundreds or thousands” of reliable sources they claim are out there be made available here on this AFD & so far no one has done so. Like I said in the end nothing but the integrity of the encyclopedia matters if the community decides that this article be kept then so be it. I literally have served the community quite well & the universe has aided me in my journey so far & all things being equal I will continue to serve the community. Only the integrity of the encyclopedia is what is imperative every other thing is secondary. Someday I’d retire & so would you but the project lives on & posterity would continue from where we stopped. you probably are right, by the grace of God this should be my last entry in this particular AFD for now because I think I have made a fair point + I just cracked my glasses & wouldn’t be getting a new one till tomorrow + astigmatism is a bitch. haha! Celestina007 (talk) 23:57, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep This is a very well-known cleric in northern Nigeria. Please take a look at how well covered he is in Hausa media. Greenwhitedino (talk) 01:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 07:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghost of Dead Aeroplanes[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Kleuske (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 15:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Ha, well, this album has more coverage, as it was four years further into the Internet age: CMJ, AllMusic, Drowned in Sound, Boston Phoenix, to start. Interested to hear what other editors think. Caro7200 (talk) 15:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Unfortunately I misspelled the name of the album when creating the initial link, and it should be Ghosts of Dead Aeroplanes. The band and album where wildly covered in printed UK/Europe press at the time, sadly those sources don't appear to be online. Missbarbell (talk) 15:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Missbarbell, sorry, didn't notice that you had just created these, should have paid more attention. My opinion is that they should not have been nominated so quickly. Caro7200 (talk) 16:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I assume that nomination for deletion to 'Academics and educators' was a mistake? Missbarbell (talk) 16:57, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Prolapse (band)#Discography per Kleuske.—S Marshall T/C 17:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Caro7200. I found album reviews from CMJ, Slow Thrills and Tom Francis. I believe those sources, including the ones from NM and Drowned in Sound, are reliable enough for the article to pass WP:GNG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:17, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 08:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, this source here shows it meets criteria 1 of WP:NALBUM. Apollo825 ^{- talk to me baby -} 17:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified by Superastig. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:58, 24 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. BLP1E arguments appear valid Spartaz ^Humbug! 08:04, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frenzo Harami[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited are song lists, video links, promos and trivial mention. No awards or charted songs. Some reliable secondary sources discussed how one of this musician's songs was banned on BBC, but notability is not established by one event. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:04, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:08, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Has a charted song. Was due to add this to the page but it slipped my mind. As the creator of the article I do believe at the time I created the article WP:TOOSOON, however since then a lot has been added to the article to just about meet WP:MUSICBIO, the charting single, although recent, was a collaborative single.TwinTurbo (talk) 00:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: TwinTurbo (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

Frenzo Harami released the single "Sarangi" on 8 December 2019 alongside Ickey Singh and Raashi Sood. The single was produced by Swifty Beats and peaked at number 35 on the OCC Asian Music Chart where it remained for a week.^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ https://www.officialcharts.com/charts/asian-download-chart/20191213/asian/
^ https://britasia.tv/the-official-punjabi-music-chart-47-holds-onto-the-number-1-spot-for-another-week/
^ https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBhXdvJV4dI

Comment: it's pretty weak though... one low-charting single on a specialist chart, and a storm in a teacup BLP1EVENT that never got any mention again after one day. Richard3120 (talk) 02:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Low charting or high charting, it was still on a nationally recognised chart. I do agree that his music career is something that has just but enough to pass WP:TOOSOON, and yes he has been a subject of a single event that was noted by reliable sources but these same sources also mention his music and releases too. TwinTurbo (talk) 15:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is actually just a featured artist on that single, and not the main artist though, isn't he? Richard3120 (talk) 19:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Although it is listed without the mention of half the artists on the official charts company website, it Is a collaborative single - uploaded on Frenzo's YT channel, the single on Deezer. Frenzo is an international artist, he is recognised amongst the South Asian community in countries including Pakistan, India and Bangladesh as well as the UK. TwinTurbo (talk) 19:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC

I know he is on the song, but there is a difference between a "collaborative artist" who gets equal billing, and a "featured artist" who is a guest on the single... Deezer, Apple Music [66] and Amazon [67] all credit the single to Ickey Singh, and Harami is just one of the guests on the song. Richard3120 (talk) 21:29, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 07:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I really can't see how the subject passes WP:GNG or WP:MUSICBIO. His sole charting record anywhere was the lower end of a specialist chart, which wouldn't pass WP:NSONG itself, and he wasn't the main artist on the record, just a featured guest. The only other reliable sources mentioning him are a classic WP:BLP1E, a forgotten-the-next-day "controversy" that provided some mild shock-horror headlines for the media and clearly had no lasting effect, as the incident happened a year ago and there has been no mention of the subject in reliable sources since then, despite having released two EPs and two singles in that period. Richard3120 (talk) 15:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TwinTurbo, he was a collaborative artist on the charting single and he was also credited as the composer and songrwiter on the single. Article has improved significantly under WP:HEY since nom and has notable sources in his music career to which pass criteria 1 of WP:Musicbio too including this, this and this. Mr. Apollo (don't talk to me) 12:53, 23 April 2020 (UTC) — Apollo825 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]

Hmmm, so you've just joined Wikipedia, literally your first edit was this "keep" vote, you then created a user page in which you list editors who supposedly can help stop deletion votes, presumably without getting their permission to list their names or even notifying them that you've done so, and then you spam their talk pages to try and get them to vote here, in contravention of WP:CANVAS? I smell a rat. Richard3120 (talk) 13:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's no need to ABF. Not knowing about WP:CANVAS or our editing norms is consitent with being a genuine newbie. That said, you're right that Apollo is at risk of getting banned unless they stop canvasing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, I am going to assume bad faith if someone joins Wikipedia specifically to vote keep in an AfD, and then lists editors' names on their user page without their permission. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woah aren't you quick to jump to conclusions: I just happen to not remember my old account passwords User:Apollo828 and User:Johnny338. Anyways, I was hoping for a much warmer welcome back to Wikipedia, feels good to be back but anyways I was not aware of canvassing and I do apologise for that. Mr. Apollo (don't talk to me) 13:57, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Richard3120: User:TwinTurbo--the creator of Frenzo Harami--made this edit at User:Dream Focus talk page admiring Dream Focus' skill at not getting articles deleted. It was TwinTurbo's first edit to Dream Focus' talk page. Then 12 hours later, User:Apollo825 opened an account and made this edit to Dream Focus' talk page, where Dream Focus was specifically asked to participate in this AfD discussion. Why did Apollo825 just "randomly" leave a message at Dream Focus' talk page right after TwinTurbo? Apollo825 stated that their old account with a lost password was User:Johnny338, but that user had never edited Dream Focus' talk page. Something isn't right here. Magnolia677 (talk) 17:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What are you trying to imply? I left my message in good nature regarding another afd on Dream Focus's page. Both of Apollo's old accounts seem to be inactive for over five years and the same way you both are weaving around adds, isn't Apollo doing the same thing? TwinTurbo (talk) 17:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep obvious pass for GNG & WP:Musicbio criteria #1. While evaluating the coverage in RSs, I was listening to some of his tunes. Maybe still a little too raw & real, but quite virtuoso. I've never heard fusion quite like it before, would reccomend if anyone wants to hear something new. mtm might be right that he could be the next big thing. FeydHuxtable (talk) 13:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this an "obvious pass"? The sources that are reliable ones literally give you no biographical or musical details about the artist at all, simply that one of his songs was banned one day by the BBC. That isn't a pass of WP:GNG at all. Richard3120 (talk) 13:49, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GRM Daily amd Mixtape Madness are reliable secondary sources too. Mr. Apollo (don't talk to me) 13:59, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Madness is a blog and not an RS. GRM Daily would be okay, but the two sources are simply links to videos, they provide no in-depth information about the artist at all. Richard3120 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Madness is not a blog. I guess what you meant was that it's piece on Harami was in it's blog section. This can still be RS, please see WP:NEWSBLOG. Anyway, no need to get bogged down on the mmt source. He's had coverage in several other independent RS as even you seem to admit. WP:GNG says nothing about needing to give "biographical or musical details". To confer notability, they just need to give "significant coverage". Which they do. Oversall, the article has suffient biographical & musical detail to be useful for our readers,IMO. @ Apollo - welcome back! I did think about giving you a welcome and a tip towards wp:canvass, but the "don't talk to me" in your sig made me think twice, might be something to change if you decide to stick around. FeydHuxtable (talk) 14:23, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But it still isn't an RS, WP:NEWSBLOG or not – it's simply a link to a video on a website that describes itself as a "music discovery platform", where artists can upload their own music and it distributes news from other websites. Richard3120 (talk) 14:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mixtape Madness is a music outlet for british hip hop artist, they call their press releases "a blog". Either way there is significant coverage on his music releases apart from the BBC ban. and @FeydHuxtable, I have change my sig to make it more welcoming. Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 14:46, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show us where this "significant coverage" is? Richard3120 (talk) 14:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He got coverage for being banned by the BBC [68] for the offensive lyrics. I was given a notice on my talk page asking me to participate by a new editor not aware of the canvassing rules. Since I was canvassed I will not vote here. Dream Focus 13:54, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I know he did, but that's a WP:BLP1E, there's literally no other significant coverage apart from that event. Richard3120 (talk) 14:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't find anything else when I checked. Then after searching for a few minutes I started thinking about the canvassing thing so decided not to participate. Dream Focus 14:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. None of the subject's mixtapes or extended plays have been discussed in reliable sources. Having a low charting song and and another song banned by BBC are not enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:30, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete — No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject can be found & Per what Versace1608 said & also per this comment made by Richard3120 which reads Hmmm, so you've just joined Wikipedia, literally your first edit was this "keep" vote, you then created a user page in which you list editors who supposedly can help stop deletion votes, presumably without getting their permission to list their names or even notifying them that you've done so, and then you spam their talk pages to try and get them to vote here, in contravention of WP:CANVAS? I smell a rat.” Newbie or not, common sense should tell anyone including new users that stuff like that is absolutely wrong. Nothing more annoying than on/off Wiki canvassing, Sockpuppetry, meat puppetry, or recruiting in any manner, people who have the same thought process as you to come !vote on a particular AFD. Celestina007 (talk) 00:20, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meat Puppets is my fav rock band! :) Mr. Apollo (talk to me bebe) 01:43, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I do agree that this article is borderline notable, but if it must be deleted can I request it be moved to draft space under WP:TOOSOON & WP:WOOD TwinTurbo (talk) 04:07, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that this article could be potentially draftified as the rapper is borderline notable, but may need more media coverage or accomplishments before having enough material to be in the mainspace.--WuTang94 (talk) 05:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As per Dream Focus, I will not vote as I was personally contacted by one of the now-blocked accounts to participate in this discussion.--WuTang94 (talk) 23:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to comment on the SPI, but if Twin Turbo is now indeffed, that does make draftifying a less likely option, as he will now not be able to work on it. Richard3120 (talk) 23:43, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Totally fine with that actually. After re-reading the page, it looks like this page is mostly fluff at this point and does not need to be on Wikipedia. In the event that Frenzo becomes notable enough for his own page in the future, I think that it can be completely rewritten.--WuTang94 (talk) 00:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing admin - User:Apollo825 has been identified as a sock of User:TwinTurbo. Both are indefinitely blocked. Magnolia677 (talk) 18:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep after severe trimming - I removed a lot of the undue coverage, and I think the article might be acceptable now. He is really only famous for being banned from the BBC, which the article now reflects. Compare this version with this version. Ikjbagl (talk) 02:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ikjbagl: I added back the discography, but kept the rest of your trimming. Even so, I'm not sure if it's enough to merit the page being kept. Might be okay to be draftified for now, and if no notable sources are added, I think the draft will be automatically deleted after 6 months from my experience.--WuTang94 (talk) 03:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - @WuTang94: Thank you, that seems reasonable. An article about him being banned by the BBC might be more notable than an article about the artist himself. Ikjbagl (talk) 03:42, 27 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) 08:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angelique Monet[edit]

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

I PROD'd this in January, which was removed by potential COI editor without explanation, but that is within the rules of PROD. But I believe the reasoning I put up for the PROD remains valid. The subject fails WP:NCREATIVE, was created by an account with the same name as the subject, and has been a magnet for COI edits. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable. It's clear that it did not meet WP:GNG.--Richie Campbell (talk) 11:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete her beiuty queen title is not even her most notable thing. However he performance roles are not in notable productions so she is not a notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:12, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Tuskegee Airmen, Inc chapters[edit]

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

This is a list of chapters for an organization that doesn't have a main article. Its been around a while, but has basically no sourcing about the organization, just about the Tuskegee airmen themselves. There is a draft of the article at Draft:Tuskegee Airmen, Incorporated, which the draftee had merged into this article; I subsequently removed a fair deal of it. The draft article has the same problem this article does: lots of coverage of the Airmen themselves during WWII, and not of the modern-day organization. I could not find significant news coverage of the organization, thus it appears to fail WP:NORG. No notability for a standalone, I think that the whole article could simply be summed up with one sentence in Tuskegee Airmen to the effect of "The modern-day Tuskegee Airmen Inc. is a non-profit that purports to carry on the legacy of the Airmen". CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 06:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Neither version of the article (the list or the new article with the merged draft material) has any decent sourcing. It seems that the existence of the incorporated company could be mentioned in a sentence or two in the main article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 07:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. (The misplaced text about the Tuskegee Airmen matters not.) Clarityfiend (talk) 07:35, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. It's rare that a list of local chapters of an organization would meet WP:LISTN. b uidhe 09:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:LISTN we keep lists that aide in navigation or provide information. Lightburst (talk) 20:47, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The parent article provides the same information and this list provides no real navigation aid. Ajf773 (talk) 00:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is mainly not about the chapters; we're not a directory for organizations' chapters anyway. Reywas92^Talk 21:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and the remaining content is pretty much redundant to Tuskegee Airmen. Ajf773 (talk) 00:34, 22 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) Graywalls (talk) 04:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Provincial Reconnaissance Unit[edit]

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

WP:NOTAWEBHOST This basically looks like a verbatim copy & paste of a public domain document hosted at that seems to serve no purpose other than "hosting it" on Wikipedia and I don't think it serves any purpose. https://www.usmcu.edu/Portals/218/VN%20Advisors%20Boards_Marine%20Advisors.pdf

Graywalls (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 04:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the page does indeed copy selected information over from a public domain source, however I trimmed and linked it to provide a concise page detailing this paramilitary force that was responsible for implementing the Phoenix Program which is why it satisfies WP:GNG and should be retained. Mztourist (talk) 04:43, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Cup of Solid Gold. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

National anthem of the Qing Dynasty[edit]

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

All content of this article is covered in the article Cup of Solid Gold. There is no need for a separate page. Mopswade (talk) 04:29, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with above. Article also fails a smorgasbord of other policies, but the article can speak for itself. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's possibly an accidental duplicate of information that is already covered much more extensively at Cup of Solid Gold. I agree with the nominator that this second article is unnecessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cup of Solid Gold Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment apparently the page has just been recreated at National anthem of the Qing dynasty Mccapra (talk) 12:51, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That probably makes this AfD moot because the article has been transformed into something else. We voted on one particular song but now the article is about the history of several different national anthems. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:55, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At the same time, only the last song was an official national anthem. However this article could still be of use describing the history and epidemiology of (semi)official national anthems. Mopswade (talk) 02:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator, considering the revamped page discusses four songs instead of one, I suppose it has a chance of standing as an article. I'd say the article needs quite a lot of cleanup and a page move. I stand neutral for now. Mopswade (talk) 01:00, 24 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. Tone 08:08, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irizar i4[edit]

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

Deprodded by creator with no edit summary. PRO was "No evidence this vehicle is more notable than Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Irizar i3. BEFORE does not show any reliable in-depth reviews etc." _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:27, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Non-notable bus with no significant coverage or reliable sourcing. It's also full of trivial information and some of the article reads like an advertisement. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 06:00, 24 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. Tone 08:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious violence in Odisha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NOPAGE as India has 28 states and Odisha is the only state that has article about "Religious violence in..."

While the article documented some of the notable incidents involving Kandhamal region, almost all of them have their own articles now: 2007 Christmas violence in Kandhamal, 2008 Kandhamal violence, 2008 Kandhamal nun gang rape case, Graham Staines and Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda. That is why there is no need to continue having this article. Srijanx22 (talk) 03:45, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 04:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Goldsztajn (talk) 17:08, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don’t really understand this deletion rationale. There are certainly other articles that could be written about other Indian states, and the fact that they haven’t been written yet doesn’t mean we can’t have this one. If many of the individual incidents already have articles that just shows their notability and to me argues in favour of having an article discussing them all together, with a context such as the initiatives of the state government and state policy courts to deal with the issue. Mccapra (talk) 05:41, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree in full with the comment above. I think describing the article as a simple summary page for these individual incidents is a stretch. Also the nominatio themself even admits that the article covers almost all incidents. Lastly, after all of this, it is still acceptable within notability guidelines to have an article which describes an incident covered in more detail in other articles.ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not, per WP:NOPAGE. The article was created 13 years ago, and now all of the subjects of this articles have their own articles. Now when enough details have been already covered elsewhere then we don't need to preserve any other article covering exactly same details. Going by your logic, we will need to create a Religious violence in Eastern India, but WP:NOPAGE discourages this. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:40, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Redundant since there is no article about any other states. One can create the article about the incident if it is notable but having a directory for each state would only encourage POVFORK and increase unnecessary workload. Capitals00 (talk) 07:07, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a fairly encyclopedic topic and clearly meets WP:GNG. — Sagotreespirit (^talk) 11:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It fails WP:GNG. I note your !vote came less than a minute after you !voted elsewhere. Shashank5988 (talk) 14:53, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see how someone's submission patterns are a constructive part of this discussion. If an editor has a concern about unusual behavior they should bring it up in the appropriate mediums.ClaudeDavid (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- This is not a good article, in that it jumps straight from a medieval Catholic missionary to 1947 and then to the 2000s. The need for another 25+ sibling articles is no reason for deletion. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:49, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree in full, the existence of sibling articles is not merit enough for deletion, especially when, in the nominator's own words, there are other topics in this article that do not have articles of their own.ClaudeDavid (talk) 23:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I edited this article long ago, but now I don't see any sense in preserving it when same content can be maintained elsewhere. Shashank5988 (talk) 17:01, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A couple of points for the delete !votes: please remember WP:NTEMP, WP:ALLORNOTHING and AfD is not clean up. Some RSs all of which discuss religious (sectarian) violence in Orissa/Odisha as a state, in broader context.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5]^[6]

References

^ Kanungo, Pralay (2003). "Hindutva's Entry into a 'Hindu Province': Early Years of RSS in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 38 (31): 3293–3303. ISSN 0012-9976.
^ Wankhede, Harish S. (2009). "The Political Context of Religious Conversion in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (15): 33–38. ISSN 0012-9976.
^ "Communal Violence in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 43 (1): 6–6. 2008. ISSN 0012-9976.
^ Kanungo, Pralay (2008). "Hindutva's Fury against Christians in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 43 (37): 16–19. ISSN 0012-9976.
^ Ponniah, James (2017). "COMMUNAL VIOLENCE IN INDIA: EXPLORING STRATEGIES OF ITS NURTURE AND NEGATION IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES". Journal of Religion and Violence. 5 (1): 79–102. doi:10.2307/26671525. ISSN 2159-6808.
^ Mosse, David (2012). The Saint in the Banyan Tree: Christianity and Caste Society in India (1 ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-27349-8.

Passes GNG. --Goldsztajn (talk) 13:51, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are finding sources for Odisha#Religion and 2008 Kandhamal violence. Both of which already exists. Now see WP:NOPAGE: when many similar notable topics exist, it is impractical to collect them into a single page, because the resulting article would be too unwieldy. In that case, a viable option is creating a new list or category for the broader topic and linking to the individual articles from it. Srijanx22 (talk) 14:07, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't believe you have actually read (rather than looked) at the sources – all contain descriptions of religious violence over extended periods of time in Orissa. The quote from NOPAGE is cherry-picking; the point of NOPAGE is the emphasis on the need for case-by-case analysis. The examples listed at NOPAGE relate to single incident events (eg a US presidential campaign). Events of religious/communal violence have taken place in earlier post-Independence periods in Orissa: Rourkela 1964, Bhadrak 1989. The effects of events have long term consequences and indicate historical legacies: Revisiting Kandhamal 10 years after the violence against Christians. Finally, Anjana Chatterji has a book length study on the subject which deals with the specific events and the wider issue at state level. Specific incidents need stand alone articles, as does an overall summary which places that violence in context. Regards,--Goldsztajn (talk) 16:09, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The topic is clearly notable. The article isn’t just a list of individual incidents. Mccapra (talk) 18:05, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The presence or absence of articles about religious violence in other states is utterly irrelevant. There are a substantial number of sources discussing this topic, as demonstrated above. Vanamonde (Talk) 18:25, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:NOPAGE and WP:POVFORK. Duplicate articles, or the articles providing similar information already covered in the main articles, should be avoided. Since we don't seem to have created an article for any other state, it doesn't make sense to give special status to this particular state. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:34, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep until the nominator answers whether or not members of his religion have been implicated in religious violence in the area.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for multiple reasons. 1. Redundant since there is no article about any other states. One can create the article about the incident if it is notable but having a directory for each state would only encourage POVFORK and increase unnecessary workload. 2. Same content exists in multiple places e.g. each incidence has own article as well some of those are also replicated in other places such as "Persecution of hindus/Christians", "Violence against xyx", etc, etc. 58.182.176.169 (talk) 17:32, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The fact that there aren't articles such as Religious violence in Maharashtra doesn't make this any less notable. As I see it, this article is a perfect example of WP:SUMMARY style. This topic summarizes the background, and the various periods of violence, and then links to the other articles for more in-depth coverage. CaptainEek ^{Edits Ho Cap'n!}⚓ 23:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep due to the strong reasons given by Goldsztajn and ClaudeDavid. This is a notable topic and as shown here and in the article the topic as a whole is also covered in several reliable sources. The individual incidents have their article as they are notable in their own right, the existence of individual events article does not make this topic any less notable. On the contrary, existence of several individual articles actually proves that such an article is both notable and necessary. I fail to see how this is a POVFORK. Some of the delete comments are quite amusing and it appears as if they are attempts on WP:CENSORSHIP. If there is a lack of similar articles for other states then they should be created. Cedix (talk) 13:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, and serves as a useful overview of the topic, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the deletion nomination implies WP:OTHERSTUFF. The article subject is definitely notable, verifiable and a relevant article topic. Could be moved to 'Communal violence in Odisha', the conflicts aren't necessarily 'religious' in a spiritual sense. --Soman (talk) 20:25, 26 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. Tone 08:07, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debra Shopteese[edit]

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

I see no evidence of notability . It could probably be realistically claimed hat the first Native American to sit on a state court is notable , but I do not see how that extends to " first Native American to sit on the Massachusetts District Court", Nor are judges of such courts generally notable -- they'e trial courts, not appellate courts, much less state supreme courts--I would be prepared to say anyone who has been a judge of a state's highest court can be assumed to be notable.

Nor is there anything here to show special notability: 3 mere listings, and one very local paper, the Patch edition for Jamaica Plain, MA, included under the heading of "Neighbor News", with the caption "This post was contributed by a community member. The views expressed here are the author's own" with the by-line, "Andrew McFarland, A Neighbor"-- in other words they printed it, but it had no editorial control of any sort--the definition of an unreliable source DGG ( talk ) 03:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:56, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 03:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Agreed in every respect. Quite aside from that, the claim that a state with courts stretching back nearly 400 years has never before have had a Native American -- or, at least one with as much native blood as the subject actually possesses -- as a judge in any capacity is farcical, never mind merely questionable. (Hell, if the Globe AND the Times AND the Post signed off on it, I still wouldn't buy it.) Ravenswing 13:42, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local level judge. This "first x to do y" is getting to the level of the absurd in this case. Bear in mind the USA had its first Native American Vice President in 1929. Larry Echo Hawk became the first Native American elected to a state wide constitutionally created office in the 1980s. The suspicion on this article is all the more wise because the Wampanoag and other Native American groups in Massachusetts were detribalized in the 17th-century, and have struggled to maintain even their identifies. It is telling that this woman is part of a group originating in Illinois and currently having a reservation in Kansas. Although her claim to Native American status seems to be valid as opposed to Elizabeth Warren's claim, the Elizabeth Warren factor makes claims of this nature ones that need reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well said. Ravenswing 22:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:06, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

26 Summer Street[edit]

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

I found no significant coverage for this film. Fails WP:NF. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. SL93 (talk) 03:33, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Agree with nominator. Hard to even come up with reasons to support this -- it just plainly doesn't meetWP:NF. ClaudeDavid (talk) 06:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as there is not enough substantial coverage in reliable sources to pass WP:GNG, for example there are no external reviews at IMDb and no listing at all at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 19:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 06:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lothar Haselberger[edit]

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

There are no independent sources in the article on the subject, and from looking his name up he does not seem to meet the criteria for WP:GNG. Zoozaz1 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 03:10, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

Keep He holds a named professorial chair so passes WP:NPROF. Mccapra (talk) 05:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NACADEMIC as holding a named chair. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as above. Holder of a named chair at a major university. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:31, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's true that the article could use better sourcing, but he does appear to mmet WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 17:04, 26 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. Tone 08:05, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nassau Junction, Missouri[edit]

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

As confirmed by the source, this is and has always been a railroad junction. Does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A station used to exist there, see [69], [70], and [71], but that looks like it's it. The brief mentions do not establish WP:GNG, and WP:GEOLAND is not met by the nature of the location. Hog Farm (talk) 04:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non Notable Junction. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:35, 26 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. There is no consensus about what, if anything, would be merged. A redirect could be created though there is no consensus here for that (or against it). Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Loose Pulley Junction, Illinois[edit]

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

No sign of a settlement here; maps show a railroad crossing. The one newspaper article that I could find mentions a "Mayor of Loose Pulley Junction" from the 1970s, but this isn't sufficient to establish notability. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I wrote the following at the talk page a couple of months ago:
Looking at the Google search, of the 94 non-dup hits, there are just three mentions ([72][73][74]) by human contributors, other than mentions in several copies of two locomotive pics. The rest are all junk (i.e., they exist for any place named anywhere).
The forum I originally cited is the only significant explanation of the name. It's not marked on the IDOT map (current cite #2); it should be just east of Byron.
It's entertaining folklore, but I'm having trouble seeing how this place could be considered notable. Maybe a mention in the Byron or other relevant article?
Pinging Magnolia677, who responded at the talk page. —[AlanM1 (talk)]— 09:17, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Delete~~ - Some blogs state that a railroad engineer once lived here [75][76], though I have not found a reliable source to support this. Magnolia677 (talk) 10:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge, per Andrew Davidson below. Magnolia677 (talk) 15:18, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Stillman Valley, Illinois per WP:ATD and WP:GEOLAND, "If a Wikipedia article cannot be developed using known sources, information on the informal place should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it." Andrew🐉(talk) 11:37, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's not really any content that could be merged, though. The anecdote about the name was sourced entirely to forums. –dlthewave ☎ 12:23, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The newspaper coverage and official map data substantiates the account and I expect that further digging will turn up more. There's no reason to delete and our policies and guidelines indicate that we shouldn't. Wikipedia's functions include its role as a gazetteer and so we should retain such details of placenames. The nominator is now reverting the valid details to the erroneous version which misrepresents the place as a community. It seems best to let readers see for themselves, so I repeat them here.
Loose Pulley Junction is a railroad crossing on the Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul and Pacific Railroad (MILW) main line near Rock River in Stillman Valley, Ogle County, Illinois, US.

From about 1910 to about 1970, there was a well-respected railroad engineer in the area, named Louie "Loose Pulley" Johnson. He lived in a wooded area along the east bank of Rock River, north of the MILW tracks. Around 1941, as a sign of respect, some fellow engineers painted a standard station sign "LOOSE PULLEY JUNCTION" and hung it along the tracks at about 42°7′34″N 89°13′26″W / 42.12611°N 89.22389°W / 42.12611; -89.22389. Engineers were known to routinely give a whistle salute as they passed the sign.

Perhaps submitted by those who made the signage, or maybe a cartographic surveyor, the location became marked on the USGS maps as of, at latest, 1971 and remains there today. It is also in the USGS GNIS database. The place can even be searched and found on Google maps, Bing Maps, and OpenStreetMap.

My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:58, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which reliable sources support this narrative? It was sourced to two forum posts, and the newspaper blurb doesn't mention any of it. –dlthewave ☎ 15:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The GNIS has over 2 million place names. WP containing features of a gazetteer does not obligate us to retain any part of that created from unreliable message boards because folks at USGS couldn't make their database correctly. This is not a populated place and the quoted segment of Geoland does not apply. Reywas92^Talk 19:36, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Stillman Valley as the closest community. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 20:33, 23 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. Tone 08:10, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bormister, California[edit]

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

Non-notable individual ranches in Modoc County, California. I was unable to find any evidence of these being anything more than ranches whose owners' names were put on a map at some point and therefore got entered into the GNIS database. CJK09 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CJK09 (talk) 02:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another case of GNIS mislabeling. These are individual ranches, not "unincorporated communities", and do not appear to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 12:54, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable place with no significant coverage. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 03:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 01:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pentland, California[edit]

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

Former junction on the Sunset Railroad where a spur led to Hazelton and Maricopa. No sign that there was ever a community here. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 01:51, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It was platted as a town in 1911 [77], oil was found there, there was a station there [78], it's used as a place name in newspaper searches as late as 2017. The railroad Y appears to have been called Pentland Junction on a 1931 topographic map. "pentland"%2B"kern" [79]. SportingFlyer T·C 03:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the evidence SportingFlyer found, here's another article that mentions a saloon at Pentland. There definitely seems to have been an actual community here. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 12:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Based on the evidence presented above, it appears that the nominator may not have exercised his due diligence. Pentland is also cited in numerous congressional reports eg [80] to add on to the list of actual historical citations Kingoflettuce (talk) 17:12, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the above by SportingFlyer. It appears this was a population center. Oakshade (talk) 19:31, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Thanks SportingFlyer for looking into it. Woerich (talk) 21:20, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While WP:NACTOR might be met, consensus is pretty clear that WP:GNG is not. Yunshui ^雲 _水 08:28, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josh Hammond[edit]

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

A throughough unremarkable career. Some of the films he appeared in it is open to question why we even have articles on them, others we don't have articles on. The only source is IMDb which is not reliable and not supposed to be used on Wikipedia. I search for sources turned up a college football player of the same name but no additional sources for this person John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Idaho-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:34, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Can't see any way he could possibly satisfy either the actor or general notability criteria. Extremely minor roles and no coverage of note. PK650 (talk) 07:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Notable. Hammond has many film and tv roles. I added refs. SWP13 (talk) 19:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Sadly, finding reliable sources for the subject is proving difficult. While I thank SWP13 for adding references to the page, I'm not sure that those references help meet WP:GNG. I found this reference, but I'm not sure if there is a consensus on the reliability of the website: https://www.efilmcritic.com/review.php?movie=5056. There could well be more and better sources out there, so I hope progress can be made. I am voting "Weak Keep" at the moment, based on the fact that the subject has had numerous supporting roles in big films and some starring roles in less notable ones, too. Sourcing is a real issue, though. Dflaw4 (talk) 04:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reasons above. Gritmem (talk) 20:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 April 12
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:34, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not demonstrated to the WP:GNG standard. Looking at refs 1-3 (refs 4-14 only support verification of the subject being in the movie)

Ref 1 https://filmgator.com/actor/josh-hammond Very brief personal biography facts, no secondary source content. Does not meet the GNG.

Ref 2 blu-ray.com/Josh-Hammond/454612/ Word for word the same information as Ref 1, but from a less suitable source. No, not even a worthy source for the article.

Ref 3 https://www.tribute.ca/people/josh-hammond/11233/ Almost good enough. But not. The entire content that is secondary source content is "Josh Hammond has successfully made the transition to working as an actor." The rest is directory information facts, primary source information. This summary has no named author. The secondary source information is not of nearly sufficient depth. If this is the best there is, https://www.imdb.com/name/nm0358717/bio?ref_=nm_ov_bio_sm is apprpraite, Wikipedia is not. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 02:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Other than Jeepers Creepers 2, hardly any of the subject's films have received a general theatrical release that I can find information about. Nor does he seem to have received any profile-type coverage in reliable sources, that is, newspapers or magazines writing about him and his career, as opposed to articles which merely mention his name in a film review or websites which basically recapitulate his IMDb page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:44, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP WP:NACTOR says "Has had significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions." Two of the three films he was in mentioned in the lead have him listed as a main character, that a significant role in those films deemed notable enough by Wikipedia standards to have an article. Dream Focus 05:14, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What is the evidence of the significance of the roles? Was his performance of the role reviewed or commented upon? A description of the character is not a review of the actor. "Listed" is directory information, primary source information, can you find any information that uses adjectives? --SmokeyJoe (talk) 05:25, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - In the top billing. If you are a main character, that's a significant role in the film. Black Cadillac (film) is about "Three young men" and he is listed as one of those three. The Brotherhood (2001 film) you can read the plot and see the character he plays is a main character. Dream Focus 05:32, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - At The Brotherhood (2001 film), it has three references, and none of the three say anything about Josh Hammond, so this WP:NACTOR point is creating a house of cards. It doesn't overcome his failure to meet the GNG. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 07:16, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question: Are his roles in the shows mentioned in the lead known and are there sources for them? Appears to be notable on the basis of appearances in multiple well-known productions and I’m inclined to agree with Dream Focus on keeping. Woerich (talk) 05:57, 20 April 2020 (UTC). Keep. I just read the comments again and somehow I missed where Dream Focus had literally answered my question. Fever doesn’t help. Woerich (talk) 06:02, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete even if the subject does meet WP:NACTOR that standard is supposed to indicate that the subject is likely to be notable through meeting the WP:GNG, meeting it does not guarantee that the subject should be included. The GNG requires significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. Of the sources currently in the article:

[81], [82] and [83] are copies of the subject's IMDB profile, so either they're mirrors of IMDB or the subject's agent submitted the same biography to both sites. Either way it doesn't count and IMDB is not a reliable source.
[84] looks distinctly like promotional material from the subject or his agent.
[85], [86], [87], [88], [89], [90], [91], [92], [93] merely confirm that the subject appeared in some film and do not represent significant coverage.
[94] is a review of a film he was in, all it says about him is that "Josh Hammond has the dubious claim of being the only member of the cast that speaks his lines halfway naturally", which is not significant coverage.
[95] is an interview with the subject published in a blog, which isn't a reliable source.
[96], to judge from the Google Books preview, just namechecks him as being in a film, which is not significant coverage.

None of these come close to demonstrating that the subject meets the GNG, and for a current US actor any references would likely be easily available. Hut 8.5 07:38, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowhere is that written down. People who hate the secondary guidelines keep repeating the same lie. When the notability guidelines were created, it was determined things were notable by various means. WP:NOTABILITY clearly states "A topic is presumed to merit an article if: It meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline listed in the box on the right". That's why they exist. You can be notable for your accomplishment in your specific field even if you don't have any random media out there talking about you. Dream Focus 13:46, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, it's written down. NACTOR is one of the additional criteria of WP:BIO, which says People are likely to be notable if they meet any of the following standards. Failure to meet these criteria is not conclusive proof that a subject should not be included; conversely, meeting one or more does not guarantee that a subject should be included. So passing NACTOR means you are likely to be notable, not that you are notable, and doesn't automatically mean the subject should be included. WP:BIO also suggests that articles which meet one of the additional criteria but fail the general criteria should be merged somewhere else, which is not what you do with notable topics. I would be much more sympathetic to keeping the article if it was about a topic which may not be covered in available sources on the internet, but an active American actor is exactly the sort of person who would have "random media out there talking about you" if they were at all important. Hut 8.5 16:54, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5. Sources aren't sufficient to sustain an article. Reyk _YO! 15:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Hut 8.5. The sources are not reliable or significantly about the subject to pass WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. --Enos733 (talk) 03:22, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:09, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eric Whitehead[edit]

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

The article is about one of the founders of a company, however the sources are entirely about the firm, not the individual. They also appear to lack independence as they are all interview style about the company without apparent fact-checking by the media. Details about the person are not independently verified. Have also raised for Dave Obaseki._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:13, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable American businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:47, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. No evidence of notability. Sources are advertorial/ press releases. Article was created by an SPA by hijacking an unrelated redirect. Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:03, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV, just passing mentions or press releases. Non-notable individual. PK650 (talk) 22:34, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - paid-for spam. I've blocked the creator for this. MER-C 17:28, 25 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:43, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dave Obaseki[edit]

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

The article is about one of the founders of a company, however the sources are entirely about the firm, not the individual. They also appear to lack independence as they are all interview style about the company without apparent fact-checking by the media. Details about the person are not independently verified. Have also raised for business associate Eric Whitehead. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:11, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. All of the refs appear to be press releases or advertorial - just a look at the photos gives the game away. All the sources are adverts for the company and not the person who is the subject of the article. All the celebrity name-dropping adds nothing as per WP:NOTINHERITED and neither does the "humble" mentions of philanthropy. Reads very much like paid editing . Fails the bar for WP:GNG by a long way. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 01:00, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. No SIGCOV, just passing mentions in unreliable or paid for articles about PTG365 . PK650 (talk) 23:04, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.officialcharts.com/charts/asian-download-chart/20191213/asian/

[2] ttps://britasia.tv/the-official-punjabi-music-chart-47-holds-onto-the-number-1-spot-for-another-week/

[3] ttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBhXdvJV4dI

[4] Kanungo, Pralay (2003). "Hindutva's Entry into a 'Hindu Province': Early Years of RSS in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 38 (31): 3293–3303. ISSN 0012-9976.

[5] Wankhede, Harish S. (2009). "The Political Context of Religious Conversion in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 44 (15): 33–38. ISSN 0012-9976.

[6] "Communal Violence in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 43 (1): 6–6. 2008. ISSN 0012-9976.

[7] Kanungo, Pralay (2008). "Hindutva's Fury against Christians in Orissa". Economic and Political Weekly. 43 (37): 16–19. ISSN 0012-9976.

[8] Ponniah, James (2017). "COMMUNAL VIOLENCE IN INDIA: EXPLORING STRATEGIES OF ITS NURTURE AND NEGATION IN CONTEMPORARY TIMES". Journal of Religion and Violence. 5 (1): 79–102. doi:10.2307/26671525. ISSN 2159-6808.

[9] Mosse, David (2012). The Saint in the Banyan Tree: Christianity and Caste Society in India (1 ed.). University of California Press. ISBN 978-0-520-27349-8.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]