Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 25

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 24 April 26 April >

Purge server cache

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. Mistakenly nominated twice through WP:TW, apologies (non-admin closure) Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McGinnis[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scott McGinnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor. Deprodded with no reliable sources added. The articles only sources are IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes, neither of which are reliable nor indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 07:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dimitri Flowers[edit]

Dimitri Flowers (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Nothing better in BEFORE. fails all applicable SNGs. No indication of any achievements, much less any that would make for notability. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 05:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Flowers was a first-team 2017 All-Big 12 fullback at Oklahoma. He was a backup until his senior year when he won some playing time due to injuries to others. Career stats here nothing to write home about, but as an Oklahoma back, he did get some coverage. See here and here. Cbl62 (talk) 08:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete falls way short of notability guidelines for a football player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In addition to the sources above, I was able to dig up [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8]. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 00:05, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Second source is an SBNation blog, third source is a University of Oklahoma student newspaper, fourth source is from the Jets website (not independent of subject), fifth source is a Jets Fansided blog, sixth source is an SBNation blog, seventh source is an SBNation Oklahoma Sooners blog, eighth source is not significant coverage. First source might be okay. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:59, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Still think there's enough here for GNG. I didn't even look too hard for Oklahoma sources. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 15:15, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Koridas: A CBSSports news wire for an NFL player is run-of-the-mill since it only consists of roster transactions. Sports-Reference is just a statistics listing, and an SBNation Oklahoma Sooners blog is not considered a reliable source. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:45, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - In addition to the aforementioned sources, this is a significant RS as well. --MrClog (talk) 15:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Agreeing to mentioned sources above. Jcoolbro (talk) (c) 18:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Regards, SONIC678 04:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New Moon (TBA)[edit]

New Moon (TBA) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Regards, SONIC678 04:54, 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. Sandstein 07:17, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Devils Pulpit, Kentucky[edit]

The Devils Pulpit, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

GNIS dump. A search revealed that this is a rock formation, not a community, and a non-notable one at that. –dlthewave ☎ 04:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:39, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:39, 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 redirect to Rosslyn, Kentucky. Sandstein 07:57, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cat Creek, Kentucky[edit]

Cat Creek, Kentucky (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Maps show a "Cat Creek Church" at this location, which is along a creek called Cat Creek. Searches did not return evidence of a community or anything else that would meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 04:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TheCatalyst31: What content would be merged? The Cat Creek article is really just a name and location, and the location doesn't correspond to Rosslyn. –dlthewave ☎ 16:32, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified what I meant; it's really more of a redirect than a merge, though the Rosslyn article should probably mention Cat Creek as an alternate name. (And those locations are about two miles away from each other by road, which is close enough for them to fall under the same post office.) TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 17:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for clarifying. I would be happy with a redirect. –dlthewave ☎ 19:24, 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. Disregarding socks and IPs. Sandstein 07:58, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Olof K. Gustafsson[edit]

Olof K. Gustafsson (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Sources like [12],[13], and [14] but only as statements from the company. Notability isn't inherited, so just because the company is notable (for scams), this person isn't. [15] doesn't seem to be very reliable. I'm pretty sure [16] is an advertisement, although I don't speak Swedish. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 04:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – no independent notability. The source here is not an advert as such, but it is an interview (of the "plucky youngster plans to become rich" variety) so does not show any notability. --bonadea contributions talk 08:53, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Many of the largest news outlets in the world including Fortune Magazine, Fox News, CNN News and many more have covered this subject. This is clearly far and beyond most articles on Wikipedia. 15 sources of high credibility for an article of a few hundred words with multiple sources for each sentence. -- 08:57, 27 April 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2605:380:53:794:0:0:0:92 (talk)
  • Keep – This is absolutely a keep, the article was nominated for deletion prior in 2016, and at that time it was found to be notable. Since then, there have been interactions with Donald Trump, making this a highly valuable article to keep. -- 14:02, 27 April 2020 (UTC)
    • @Verbatimusia:, it wasn't "found to be notable". Someone de-PROD'd the article so it wasn't deleted, that's not finding an article to be notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Half of the bio is about a couple of Trump-related items, the rest is about the Escobars. There's barely anything about the subject. This is not a notable individual. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – He is the CEO of a large company which is featured everywhere on the internet. This is a must-keep, and appears this PROD was started by biased people, clearly a keep. -Krimlopio (talk) 19:20, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Notable as written about in large news outlets, in addition seems to have had some significant campaigns in the political field, raising $10 million for an impeachment of Donald Trump is notable by itself.2605:380:32:794:0:0:0:C (talk) 19:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You say the same thing as the other IP address... Sam-2727 (talk) 22:18, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fox Crossing, Montana[edit]

Fox Crossing, Montana (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Another GNIS dump. This one is a simple river crossing, not an unincorporated community, and I found no evidence that is meets GNG. WP:BEFORE search was complicated by a subdivision near Helena of the same name but the few articles that actually mention it do so in the context of a landmark or crossing, with no mention of a community [17] [18] [19]. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Montana-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 03:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the apparently lost concept that WP:V and WP:N should be satisfied before creating articles. Or merely, you know, looking at the map of the coordinates you put in. Reywas92Talk 05:15, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I looked at the Google Maps satellite image and there are no houses anywhere near by. I agree it must be just a name for the crossing over Kennedy Coulee.Brianyoumans (talk) 15:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dagger head box[edit]

Dagger head box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not convinced this passes WP:GNG. It's possible this is discussed in print sources I don't have access to, but a Google search brings up precious little in reliable sources, discounting sales sites and web forums. Found a mention as a plot element in a work of fiction. WP:GNG fail. Hog Farm (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 01:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unsourced since creation 14 years ago and no indication in searches that this is either a plausible search term or a recognized trick name. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 22:07, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 08:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marina Suwendy[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Marina Suwendy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Flatly fails general notability. I found one article she wrote for The Star Online, and 3 other passing mentions as manager of "MWD Depository Sdn Bhd", although I'm not sure this is the same person. PK650 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. PK650 (talk) 23:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:10, 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. North America1000 03:36, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BoardSpace.net[edit]

BoardSpace.net (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG. Non-notable website. -- Computer165 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Computer165 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Computer165 (talk) 23:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:WEB, and WP:V. No reliable secondary sources found to verify the website. The inline citations provided were instructions on how to play specific games, with no mention of the website itself. --Dps04 (talk) 16:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Some of them are too primary, only have trivial mentions, and one of them doesn't even mention BoardSpace. Kori (@) 20:58, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. North America1000 03:40, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boonie Bears: Homeward Journey[edit]

Boonie Bears: Homeward Journey (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable film, no significant, independent coverage, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 23:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep as it does have two reliable sources reviews which are significant coverage, namely The Dove Organisation here and Common Sense Media here. Note that Common Sense Media was the subject of a recent RSN discussion that determined that it is a reliable source and it is also a main critic at Rotten Tomatoes, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Shulgasser-Parker, Barbara (2019-09-20). "Boonie Bears: Homeward Journey". Common Sense Media. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    2. "Boonie Bears: Homeward Journey". The Dove Foundation. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    3. 张中江, ed. (2013-03-06). "《熊出没之过年》收视率创央视少儿频道纪录" ["Boonie Bears: Homeward Journey" ratings hit the CCTV children's channel record] (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    4. 翁惠娟 (2013-02-08). "《熊出没之过年》今晚登陆央视" ["Boonie Bears: Homeward Journey" broadcasted on CCTV tonight] (in Chinese). Phoenix Television. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    5. 千帆, ed. (2013-09-10). "快乐又益智 《熊出没》携大电影及百余种产品亮相" [Happiness and puzzle, "Boonie Bears" debuts with big movies and more than one hundred products]. Global Times (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Boonie Bears: Homeward Journey to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 23:17, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep per the sources presented by Cunard. --MrClog (talk) 16:00, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard's sources. -- Toughpigs (talk) 16:19, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy redirect to Flag carrier#List of flag-carrying airlines. (non-admin closure) Reywas92Talk 23:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of flag-carrying airlines[edit]

List of flag-carrying airlines (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced article intended to be a mirror of Flag carrier. Jetstreamer Talk 22:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Jetstreamer Talk 22:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 22:43, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Volkov (businessman)[edit]

Dmitry Volkov (businessman) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possible PR/promo: created from account of big Russian PR agency (indefinite blocked on ru-wiki). Page fails WP:PEOPLE. More then 2 year page have multiple issues (include low notability), and isn't solved. Кронас (talk) 21:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the next few days I'll try to provide sources to confirm compliance with WP:BIO. According to WP:TNT the claim seems to be unreasonable. Correcting the text to be more encyclopedic is not an unsolvable problem and will also be done within a few days. GreyMax (talk) 15:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grand Capital[edit]

Grand Capital (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No claim to any notability. Fails WP:NORG. Possible PR/promo, created from single account (possible sock puppet). Long time have template about low notability. Кронас (talk) 21:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete One more puff piece trying to pass itself off as a Wikipedia article.TH1980 (talk) 02:14, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NORG. Also note that Russian forex brokers do not have a great reputation to begin with.[20]Grmike (talk) 12:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly Fails WP:GNGLordofthesky (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social Discovery Ventures[edit]

Social Discovery Ventures (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NORG, long time have strong advertisement. Possible PR/promo, created from account, possible sock puppet of PR agency. Long time have templates about different problems. Page edited only by PR agencies from Russia (some accounts indefinite blocked on ru.wikipedia.org). Кронас (talk) 21:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malta-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:46, 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 redirect to List of schools in Kedah. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:23, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SK Taman Hi-Tech[edit]

SK Taman Hi-Tech (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Can't enough primary or secondary sources on the school to warrant it of its own page. I struggled to even find an official website; could only find a facebook page. It doesn't appear to be notable enough. Allenthalben (talk) 20:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Allenthalben (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Allenthalben (talk) 20:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - the article is less than even a stub. I am unable to find any sort of information about this school. -- Whpq (talk) 01:08, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tentative delete based solely on the fact that the school fails WP:V. If there was verifiable evidence that such a school existed, I would be in favour of keeping it, but I'm unable to source the same. It's a long shot seeing as the article creator hasn't been active for over a decade, but in case they have email notifications turned on, pinging Wanwahidi as they haven't yet been notified - can you find any reliable third-party evidence that this school exists? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 11:44, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak redirect: Doesn't fail WP:V ([21][22][23]), but also doesn't meet WP:NSCHOOL. It appears at List of schools in Kedah, and that's where it looks like it belongs, ref WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per above. Given that it is on a list pf schools, a redirect is okay. -- Whpq (talk) 16:51, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:54, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

E & E McLaughlin[edit]

E & E McLaughlin (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no evidence of notability ,except in relation to the food companies that have moved into one of their buildings. DGG ( talk ) 17:11, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:17, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - It's extremely difficult for a warehousing conglomerate that works primarily B2B to get press coverage. Not sure what publication would care enough to verify the 1 billion sqft they own, that the fish farm is indeed the largest in the country or that The Factory (formerly Kelloggs) is also Canada's largest indoor playdium - one national source did call it a $100 million side-venture, however. Therefor these claims were left out but it's clear they hold a lot of cards. There are 10 references on the article and many more following a Google search for either of the brothers' names. A company like this wouldn't have a PR team involved to win them coverage and that should be noted by voters. Pilot333 (talk) 01:29, 19 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The criteria for notability requires significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. A lack of sources as indicated above by Pilot333 is a reason to Delete. Regarding the sources in the article:
I am also unable to locate any better references and these ones don't even come close. Topic fails WP:NCORP/GNG HighKing++ 16:26, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a quick search gave no secondary in-depth sources, which fails WP:Notability. CrazyBoy826 (talk)   00:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The coverage available in the article and in searches only demonstrates a regular company going about its WP:MILL business. No significant coverage in Independent sources, as HighKing's analysis demonstrates. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Datanomics[edit]

Datanomics (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Concept and relevance/impact not clear from article. Significant part of the text is promotion for the concept's "developer", whose two personal Wikipedia articles had been deleted some days ago (see past deletion discussions). Either highlight relevance of concept more clearly or consider for deletion. --PeterAndBrian (talk) 13:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - I fail to understand the significance, relevance or impact of this concept in any way from the article, and if the article doesn't convey that, it's not much use. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 17:41, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Content-free marketing glurge, and not even noteworthy glurge at that. XOR'easter (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 18:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to EMS Synthi 100 where the company is mentioned. Datanomics was modest UK synth manufacturer, and it seems like a reasonable search term. Deletion would be OK, too, as we would not lose much. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 17:58, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I do not think it relates to the company Datanomics. Another indicator showing that the article is very diffuse and confusing. --PeterAndBrian (talk) 18:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the term is ambiguous (per above) so a redirect would not be in order. buidhe 20:22, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:51, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Greg Lopez[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Greg Lopez (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Still fails WP:NPOL as a local politician. While he has declared his intention to run for governor in 2022, this page should not be recreated unless he gains national coverage from non-local sources between now and then. KidAd (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC) KidAd (talk) 20:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Lopez is notable as he was the youngest mayor ever elected in Colorado history and served as a state director for the federal Small Business Administration. - Jon698 Talk 1:27 26 April 2020
  • Delete He was elected mayor at 28. That is not very young. Some places in the US have elected mayors at 18. The youngest x to do y is not a sign of notability. State heads of a federal organization like the SBA are not default notable. No real sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Parker CO is not a large enough city to confer "inherent" notability on its mayors just for existing as mayors, but neither unsuccessfully running as a candidate in a political party primary nor his age at the time of his election to the mayoralty make him more special than other mayors in and of themselves, and being director of a local chapter of a federal agency is not "inherently" notable either. The sourcing here, further, is not adequate to get him over the bar that he would actually have to clear: if you have to rely on blogs, alternative weekly newspapers and primary sources just to even get the sourcing into the double digits, because substantive coverage of his mayoralty in major media is relatively lacking, then you just haven't shown what's required to make a smalltown mayor notable. Bearcat (talk) 16:06, 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 speedy keep. Demonstrated notability, nominator blocked. (non-admin closure) Sam-2727 (talk) 18:13, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jintara Poonlarp[edit]

Jintara Poonlarp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Self promotion article, questionable notability, most sources from his own website, lacks references - see WP:BIO. Part of the mass cross-wiki spam campaign. es:Jintara Poonlarp, vep:Jintara Poonlarp, sh:Jintara Poonlarp, hy:Ճինտռա Փօնիաբ, gl:Jintara Poonlarp, ta:சிந்தரா பூன்லாப், kk:Динтара Фунлап lt:Jintara Poonlarp were already deleted, in some cases deleted several times after recreating by the same user. Many other inwikis are machine translations. Jhilr (talk) 20:25, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:28, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep She is among the top Thai Luk thung singers. There are already references in the articles. Sample news coverage from Thailand number 1 newspaper Thai Rath [24] (each photo links to her full news article). US Embassy in Bangkok danced her song on Thai Traditional New Year [25] which acknowleged the popularity in the video description (youtube to the song from official channel: [26]). --Lerdsuwa (talk) 03:01, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. Disruptive nomination. --Paul_012 (talk) 11:16, 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 delete. The "delete" arguments that any coverage is in fringe or niche publications of dubious reliability have not been convincingly rebutted. Sandstein 08:06, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Berthe Petit[edit]

Berthe Petit (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails... pretty much any notability guideline that I can see. This person seems to be only covered in Lulu.com books, or OSV books (a small Christian press), and amateur Catholic sites reminiscent of Geocities and Angelfire. Also created by a vanished user which seems to write from the Christian perspective. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--this "small Christian press" business is an illegitimate criticism. Wikipedia is not supposed to discriminate by size of publisher, or by religion. To preserve credibility, Headbomb should strike that from the deletion proposal. Barring that, could an administrator do it for us?--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:08, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, if you prefer, replace that with "small non-academic press whose goal is to uncritically promote their own religious views, rather than serve as a reliable source on anything". Even there, reprints and new editions [27] are handled via pay-to-publish services like CreateSpace. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 04:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP is no place for discrimination.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 05:39, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neither is Wikipedia a place to cry "discrimination" as an excuse to elude the notability guidelines. Every subject, whether religious or not, is evaluated to the same standards and the reliability of sources is a key metric. Pointing out that a press is small and publishes with a specific religious mission is not discriminatory. They themselves say: There is an overarching mission statement that is etched into the exterior of our building: To serve the Church. It should go without saying that serving the Church is not the same as serving the readers of this project. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:46, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
By discrimination I was referring to the "small Christian press" rhetoric, not the nomination itself. I don't see people complaining about small secular presses. If it was a "small African-American press" that would also be wrong, as if somehow white presses are better.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:40, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People complain about small secular presses (and small Jewish / Muslim / Taoist / whatever presses) all the time. But you'll find those in AFDs that pertain to non-notable atheists and agnostics, or of those other religions, rather than AFDs concerning Christians. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 19:06, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The vast majority of the article is uncited and littered with CN templates. The only WP:RS in the References is an apostolic letter and there is no clear evidence to substantiate the article's implication that Petit's revelations directly influenced the content of the letter. The Freze book is no longer even listed by its publisher and is now self-published so should be treated accordingly. There are no sources that can be found that contradict Headbomb's characterization. In sum, there is no indication that the article subject qualifies under even the most lenient interpretations of notability criteria. The argument to keep is only an appeal to subjective importance and there are no logical merge or redirect targets. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:03, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:51, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 20:20, 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 merge to Material-handling equipment. Keep voters are not citing coverage that could be used to expand the article or would make WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yard ramp[edit]

Yard ramp (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article has been tagged for OR for 10 years. Has a single reference, to the web site of a company that manufacturers these. My own searching finds lots of places that sell or make these, but nothing that that meets WP:SIGCOV, WP:RS, WP:INDEPENDENT, WP:SECONDARY. Maybe this could be covered in Loading dock, but without sourcing, there's nothing viable to merge, and Loading dock is a mess anyway. -- RoySmith (talk) 16:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This seems to mention it in a non sales context [28]. Toasted Meter (talk) 19:01, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 20:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Notable topic. Extremely common equipment used all over the world. It's commonness makes it notable. The article in bad shape for years is a case of WP:SOFIXIT. Strange that the nom proposed merging into Loading dock when they are AfD-ing the Loading dock article. Besides, these frequently aren't used in loading docks - even the photo in this article shows it being used to load a truck, not a loading dock.Oakshade (talk) 20:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - after a struggle, I've now managed to find some citations (although not many) where this product is discussed, and included them in the article. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 10:50, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Naypta, That's not a very strong set of sources to base an article on. I was able to find the first source (Order-Fulfillment and Across-The-Dock Concepts, Design, and Operations Handbook) on-line in worldcat. There's a single paragraph about this which has a generic description of what these things are. Basically, a WP:DICTDEF. I could not find the other book by the same author, so I can't review it. The rest of the sources are a manufacturer of these (ramplo.net); a patent, which is a WP:PRIMARY source; and three government standards which don't even mention Yard Ramp in them. This is not the kind of sourcing we base encyclopedia articles on. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:12, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: I agree it's not fantastic, but it is a better position than the original was still. Given the widespread use, the patents based on the device, and the (even minimal) sourcing, I reckon it's worth having around, even as a stub - which is effectively what it is now I've cut a lot of the unreferenced stuff from the article. If you'd like to cut it further down, go ahead :) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 23:21, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Naypta, I've trimmed the page back to only material which is supported by references. We're left with four sentences, and an image which turns out to be a copyvio so I've nominated it for deletion on commons. -- RoySmith (talk) 13:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: Hrm, I'm not sure I'd have cut back as far as you did - I think some of the other sources might have led the concept notability, even without directly mentioning the thing by the same name - but I can understand why you have. In light of that, I'd go for weak delete. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:49, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Naypta, I went through each section that I cut and compared it to the cited reference. If I could not find anything in the cited source which supported the statement, I deleted the statement. If you can find any WP:RS which support any of the deleted material, feel free to restore it, but make sure you include a reference which actually verifies the statement.
    I certainly agree that yard ramps exist, and that they're useful and widespread pieces of industrial equipment. We have sufficient sources to pass WP:V. But, to pass WP:N, we need multiple WP:RS and WP:SIGCOV. We don't have that. Maybe this could just be a paragraph in Material-handling equipment? -- RoySmith (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @RoySmith: That's definitely fair, I think you're right re SIGCOV. Merging into the MHE article could be a good compromise, and sounds like a good idea to me given as you say that it clearly meets verifiability - Oakshade and Andrew Davidson, what do you think, seeing as you've both expressed an interest in this? Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 14:54, 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. Sandstein 08:19, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Osunlade[edit]

Osunlade (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A prolific musician who's worked with a lot of people, but I cannot find sufficient coverage of him in his own right to pass WP:MUSICBIO: media sources appear to be mainly events listings, interviews, self-published music streaming sites and press releases. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:29, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:23, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has a staff written bio at AllMusic and two staff written album reviews here, here, and here which coverage is mainly an indicator that extra reliable sources coverage is available as well, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:12, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:26, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 20:19, 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. Sandstein 08:20, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vasili Byros[edit]

Vasili Byros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC, I couldn't find any reliable sources. Antila333 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Antila333 (talk) 07:33, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi there, I think the person in question is notable within the field of music theory (partimento, Music schemata theory and 18th century music theory), due to his many published articles (JSTOR) and his Society for Music Theory Publication Award in 2017. Ronster2019 (talk) 09:38, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added New York Times source. Ronster2019 (talk) 14:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added Google Scholar id to External Links. Ronster2019 (talk) 02:47, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 20:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For the interest of discussion, I'd like to comment on the significance of winning an award or being recognized by the Society of Music Theory. For music theorists, the Society for Music Theory is a really respected institution, kind of like winning an Emmy for an actor. The institution has an entry in Oxford's Grove Music Online, and is probably the most influential organization for music theory in America. Music theorists don't tour or get charted in Billboard like pop stars so judging the notability of a music scholar should be related to their respective fields of research. I'm interested to hear thoughts on this. Ronster2019 (talk) 14:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Problem is that publishing stuff does not count for notability unless it gets independent coverage, such as book reviews. I see no indication in this case. It is only 10 years since his PhD so may be WP:TOOSOON: therefore delete. buidhe 00:12, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are two book reviews for the Oxford Handbook of Topic Theory where Byros' contributions are highlighted, one by Matteo Magarotto and another by John A. Rice, both referenced in the article. The Outstanding Publication award from the Society of Music Theory is quite a significant independent award for a music theorist. Independent coverage in academia is witnessed mostly by the impact factor of publications, which is assessed by the number of citations. That number is provided independently by Google Scholar: Byros' 197 citations are each equivalent to one instance of independent coverage. Ronster2019 (talk) 15:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination applies the wrong standard. this person should be evaluated not against NMUSIC (which has absolutely no relevance for music theorists) but NACADEMIC: Academics meeting any one of the following conditions, as substantiated through reliable sources, are notable.emphasis in original The sources added by Ronster2019 demonstrate NACADEMIC#1, "...a significant impact in their scholarly discipline, broadly construed". Specifically, their analyses of Bach and Beethoven has been called "outstanding" by multiple relevant independent academics. The two reviews of the Oxford publication and the SMT award are independent RS for this significant impact. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) buidhe 00:10, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apache Wells, Arizona[edit]

Apache Wells, Arizona (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A subdivision centered around a golf course, which the neighborhood owns: there's a history on the HOA website which might be taken as a source except there's no real evidence of notability. Mangoe (talk) 01:13, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I think there are enough sources to develop an article about this community of 1400 centered around a golf course/country club. This is a more detail history, although probably not a RS. A quick search found several newspaper articles including this about annexing into Mesa, this about Mesa absorbing the water company, and this about the community in 2008 when the clubhouse was demolished. Seems to be much more than a WP:MILL subdivision created by a builder. MB 03:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/redirect Still looks like a generic subdivision with a generic golf course to me, right next door to the generic Mesa subdivisions with generic golf courses of Stone Canyon, Alta Mesa, Painted Mountain, Rancho del Lago, and Los Alegres. Reywas92Talk 16:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Seems to be a notable enough community with the above refs, plus is not part of incorporated Mesa. Seems to be a well-regarded course too. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:19, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is part of incorporated Mesa, that's what the annexation article was about... I'm sure many of the country's 15,000 golf courses are well regarded but we only have articles on <5% of them. Reywas92Talk 17:40, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ok, I couldn't read the annexation article. Change my vote to weak keep/merge then. I still think there can be a decent article written on it (maybe the golf course is more notable), but we need more than what's currently there. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 19:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Easily passes WP:GNG from a simple newspapers.com search, it was a separate community before it was annexed, passed my criteria on User:SportingFlyer/Arizona placenames cleanup. SportingFlyer T·C 18:54, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Nosebagbear (talk) 17:43, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 20:18, 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. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 04:59, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Elvis[edit]

Duke Elvis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article does not possess in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A WP:BEFORE easily substantiate that. Per WP:NACTOR we observe three criteria, he fails the second and third woefully & as for the first criterion, he has appeared in a Television show but does not partake in a significant role as WP:NACTOR states. Celestina007 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 20:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Elvis though he does not play the lead role in The Johnsons TV series, he plays a very important role/character as ABULU,see link https://www.imdb.com/title/tt10437170/?ref_=nv_sr_srsg_4 And also, The Johnsons is not the only TV production he has featured in, he has featured in other notable movies as well, see links; https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11041194/ https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7295338/ https://www.nollywoodreinvented.com/2017/08/happyness-limited.html https://www.imdb.com/title/tt11989466/fullcredits/?ref_=tt_ov_st_sm https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yRq5HV8hi-o the above are just some of the notable movies Duke Elvis has featured in. I am not in support of the deletion of Duke Elvis rather, other editors can properly edit it if need be. --VictorHB (talk) 01:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC) This page was only created out of observation that a notable and public figure in the Nigerian movie industry such as Duke Elvis did not have a wiki page. Duke Elvis is featured in quite a number of movies and a very popular TV series The Johnsons where he played one of the major comic roles as ABULU. He is also a movie producer working on his first production project stated to be out this year. Duke Elvis has a large fan base both online and offline in Nigeria and other parts of Africa, this can be seen on his social media accounts and on the internet. Duke Elvis has made a whole lot of contributions to the Nigerian movie industry and as such deserves a wiki page. The proof to all what I have said can be found within the page by using the Citations and links in the page. So I am not in support of the Deletion of this page. Thank you.[reply]

  • This page was only created out of observation that a notable and public figure in the Nigerian movie industry such as Duke Elvis did not have a wiki page. Duke Elvis is featured in quite a number of movies and a very popular TV series The Johnsons where he played one of the major comic roles as ABULU. He is also a movie producer working on his first production project stated to be out this year. Duke Elvis has a large fan base both online and offline in Nigeria and other parts of Africa, this can be seen on his social media accounts and on the internet. Duke Elvis has made a whole lot of contributions to the Nigerian movie industry and as such deserves a wiki page. The proof to all what I have said can be found within the page by using the Citations and links in the page. So I am not in support of the Deletion of this page. Rather this page can so be re-edited to standard if other editors are not satisfied with it. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by VictorHB (talk • contribs) 23:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
VictorHB, feel free to provide in this AFD any reliable source that discusses the subject of our discussion with in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources.Celestina007 (talk) 23:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@VictorHB: You claimed his role as Abulu is "major" but ended up admitting he isn't a major character and that he only "becomes one of the lead roles occasionally" when "actors playing the series lead role are not around". This particular note you left on Celestina007's talk page and the statements you've made here are contradictory to say the least. Generally speaking, main characters remain main characters for the duration of the show. Just because a main character is absent in a particular episode does not mean their position as a main character has been demoted. If you're going to claim he is a main character, you need to provide a reliable source stating this.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:28, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. He had a minor role in the TV series The Johnsons. None of the other films he appeared in are notable. A Google search of him doesn't show him being discussed in reliable secondary sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 00:02, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - a Google search of the subject doesn't show significant coverage of the subject, asides from "The Johnsons", none of his work as yet can be said to meet notability standards. He may be able to attain sufficient notability in the future. Philphleg (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. Antila333 (talk) 13:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete: The subject falls a little short of the requisite notability requirements, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Consensus is for deletion. North America1000 04:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdul Mujeeb[edit]

Abdul Mujeeb (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable YouTuber. I moved it to draft to allow the paid editor more time to edit but they moved it to mainspace again. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey, I'm getting paid to do this work, and I also researched a lot before. So, yes, I clearly saw He (Abdul Mujeeb) is notable enough to be on Wikipedia Encyclopedia. I put it back to live, because I reviewed that again and thought it's good to go right now. So, as for the deletion, think it would be different enough as He is still notable. I again search out for him on YouTube as Abdul Mujeeb and his all videos were on the screen. There in article I've mentioned that he is known for, as famous for, his channel name: "Mujeebi Saazish" and yes that's him. Second thing is that his Facebook followers too, as famous as Mujeebi Saazish, thou, he's itself Abdul Mujeeb, and got famous because of "Mujeebi Saazish". I would like to request you to take off the Nomination for Deletion decision and please review it again. It's still notable. I would also like to add some references from authenticated news stories too and some authenticated interviews too. Thank you so much for your reconsideration but that was all what I saw. Kindly have a look at it, would really be appreciated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 20:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are a couple issues here. Firstly, as the paid editor, you do not review the article. That's why the WP:AfC process was made. You cannot view the article in a neutral way due to your bias. It does not matter how you view the article, it matters how it complies (or doesn't) with the Wikipedia guidelines. As already explained to you, this article fails WP:GNG as he does not have multiple, significant coverage in independent sources. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Usama302. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree on it that I cannot view the article in a neutral way due to my bias, but was stuck at this, that I could clearly see enough notablity and yes, I've also viewed all of the Wikipedia guidelines and if it wasn't supposed to be put here, I would never. Though, please let me review it again, while as you're talking about some issues, I would also review them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usama302 Again, you cannot review it. I gave you a chance in draft space and you moved it to mainspace. Therefore, I will let the community decided if the article fits our guidelines or not. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NENT. I can't find any reliable secondary coverage of this person, and the article only references facebook, instragram, and twitter (plus useless "refs" such as linking to University of Karachi's homepage to support claim of Mujeeb's academic credentials and a "ref" to a map of Karachi Bar Association to support claim about his father's credentials). edit to add: I've looked at the two new references provided by the article creator below. Trendicpro is the personal project of "Hey My name is “Hafiz Mudassir” and i am a software engineer this site is made on interest base.I made it by own self and use it to share the viral and trending news about the world mostly news in the Pakistan and other Asia countries."...not reliable source. Timebulletin doesn't seem any more reliable; the types of articles on that site and the quality of the writing are dubious. Schazjmd (talk) 21:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd So what do you mean there? If an entrepreneur is taking his own website or news channel to the audience, that means, it isn't that reliable and having it on BBC World, is only a reliable source?
ElSAMEdits, if you genuinely want to learn, read Reliable sources. Schazjmd (talk) 00:05, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable internet personage per nom. Intended to nominate this myself earlier today but RL intervened. Eagleash (talk) 21:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is first source of his independent news coverage: https://trendicpro.com/conflict-between-junaid-akram-and-abdul-mujeeb/ This is the second source of his independent news coverage: https://www.timebulletin.com/khawar-malik-claimed-his-copyright-on-people-using-his-content-in-their-videos/ I've even mentioned that He is a social media celebrity and is already growing up enough. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 21:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right but this isn't multiple, significant coverage. It's a one time occurrence. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, they're two different events and yes, that was what made me to work for him, and more to go. Actually, me and my team member is still working on research. As, I've put on these two, there will be more indeed and you can visit those pages too to see when they were published. That is now what, multiple time occurrence and yes there's another incident, that "RVCJ Media" who have verified page on Instagram and Facebook used his (Abdul Mujeeb's) video and content on their own page as a media coverage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Usama302 (talk • contribs) 21:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. Well at a point he is right. The sources are authentic and the articles published on those two websites were okay to review. I also checked it by myself and it is good to go live in the community. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElSAMEdits (talk • contribs) 22:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC) - Struck as a sockpuppet --Jack Frost (talk) 08:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User has made no contributions outside of this AfD
ElSAMEdits, I'm not sure what you mean by "authentic". Wikipedia's requirement is that sources be reliable. In what way are those reliable sources? Schazjmd (talk) 23:06, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd, here reliable are the sources the article editor or the subject is using. He is notable person as I live in Pakistan and here, the subject is much known to a lot of us. Many social media celebrities have been with the subject and this is how real life works. Social media celebrities are always on their social medias and about the event/news coverage, they are also visible there too but much as like HE IS NOT A POLITICIAN or A PERSON ON TELEVISION SCREEN ALWAYS. He is an artist and in his world, he is doing good. He almost have about million of fans and a lot. That is what the editor wants to say in this debate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ElSAMEdits (talk • contribs)
ElSAMEdits, a source isn't reliable just because someone uses it. I realize you're enthusiastic about the article subject, but decisions on notability are determined by Wikipedia policies and guidelines. Just because something is published on the Internet doesn't make it a reliable source. Schazjmd (talk) 23:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Schazjmd Exactly something published on Internet doesn't make it a reliable source, but the subject is a Social Media celebrity and not a politician or a movie star, but is a social media worker and he almost have million fans and that is what I am talking about. He is indeed notable on YouTube, Facebook, Google Search and other places as well, if the news article above are not reliable as per few here are saying then trust me news article would never be there. NR3C is already working and having an eye on all the news websites.
Usama302 and ElSAMEdits Just so you know, sockpuppets will be disregarded when it comes time to find consensus. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:44, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
HickoryOughtShirt?4 Just so you know, I am not the one you're considering. Supporting someone doesn't mean he is that person himself. As well, okay let me say, all those who said Delete, are your accounts!
I'm just saying you made your account two mins before commenting on this AfD. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 23:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So as per your saying, that means I am Usama302 ? Not at all, please stop judging. I use Wikipedia a lot and I saw List of Pakistan-related Deletion and it was on the top. I just decided to contribute Wikipedia community. Here's how I made the account. :)
  • Delete per nom. Nothing here and sourced with a bunch of unreliable junk. Anything that is reliable is unrelated. or shows no depth of coverage. It should also be noted that even if notability is clearly demonstrated (which I don't see hapenning), then this article would still be subject to draftify as it was made by a paid editor who did not properly go through the AfC process. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Does not meet WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 10:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NENT. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I'm surprised this was sent to AFD instead of deleted as G3, since all the sources are garbage and it's basically a hoax. Praxidicae (talk) 11:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - After reading this AfD, I have taken the liberty of opening a Sockpuppet investigation regarding Usama302 and ElSAMEdits. They have each been notified on their talkpages. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:31, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I would have sent it to CSD, no claim of notability. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus keep (amended per a comment on my talk page). Sandstein 19:04, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Higher-Order Perl[edit]

Higher-Order Perl (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails the notability guidelines for books (WP:NBOOK), and has done so since at least October 2016. Google research of the book fails to turn up any compelling notability. While it may be a very good book, I don't see a reason for it to have a Wikipedia page. HMman (talk) 19:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:31, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

    Wikipedia:Notability (books)#Criteria says:

    A book is notable if it verifiably meets, through reliable sources, at least one of the following criteria:

    1. The book has been the subject of two or more non-trivial published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself. This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists, and reviews. This excludes media re-prints of press releases, flap copy, or other publications where the author, its publisher, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the book.
    Here are reviews:
    1. Schweitzer, Martin (2005-07-22). "Higher-order Perl : transforming programs with programs". ACM Computing Reviews. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    2. Rutz, Mark W. (2005-11-30). "Higher Order Perl: A Book Review". Linux Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    3. András, Bártházi (May 2005). "Higher-Order Perl". Weblabor (in Hungarian). ISSN 1785-9573. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    4. Voglmaier, Reinhard (2005-11-29). "Book Review: Higher-Order Perl". Dr. Dobb's Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    5. Straňák, Pavel (June 2007). "Higher-order Perl: Transforming programs with programs" (PDF). The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics. 87. Charles University: 92. ISSN 0032-6585. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Schweitzer, Martin (2005-07-22). "Higher-order Perl : transforming programs with programs". ACM Computing Reviews. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The reveiw notes:

      This book clearly shows that Perl can sit just as easily with functional languages as it can with scripting languages. Fortunately, the author does not just try to present Perl as a functional language, but uses the functional style to illustrate how it is used to solve standard Perl programs elegantly and efficiently.

      The examples in the book indicate that the author has his feet firmly on the ground. Most of the examples are practical, and it is quite easy to see where they may be applied. There are a few examples that are more academic, but they usually serve to illustrate a particular principal or idea and don’t give a particularly dry feel to the book.

      ...

      One minor gripe is that the author sometimes gives more space than is necessary to pet topics (for example, memoization). Even though the book is almost 600 pages long, it reads like a shorter book. It discusses topics that are important for all programmers to know, and does it in a way that makes the material quite accessible. It is, quite simply, one of the best books on programming I have read for a long time.

    2. Rutz, Mark W. (2005-11-30). "Higher Order Perl: A Book Review". Linux Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The review notes:

      HOP is written for experienced Perl programmers. Dominus dives right in with advanced techniques in the first chapter. So, you need to be capable of following code that makes use of all the standard Perl tools and data structures in order to grasp the ideas he is attempting to convey. If you are starting your journey with Perl, save HOP for a future trip. But, if you've been on the road for a while, this is just the book to liven things up.

      This book is packed with valuable tips and techniques. Each topic is discussed in depth, with plenty of code examples and descriptions to keep the reader up to speed. That being said, be sure to carefully read and comprehend the examples. You will quickly become lost if you don't, because each section builds on previous topics. Dominus does his best to feed your brain slowly, but at some point it's up to you to follow along.

      ...

      Mark Jason Dominus has hit his mark with Higher Order Perl. It is a very informative book that is a must read for Perl programmers who want to take their skills to the next level. Be sure to check out the book's Web site for further information. The site provides full-text search, all the code examples, an up-to-date errata list, mailing lists and much more.

    3. András, Bártházi (May 2005). "Higher-Order Perl". Weblabor (in Hungarian). ISSN 1785-9573. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The review notes:

      A Higher-Order Perl (Magasszintű Perl) című könyv egy egyedülálló kiadvány, nem csak Perl programozóknak. Számos könyvet láttam már, melyek segítségével elsajátíthatjuk a Perl programozást, de egyikük sem tanít meg minket valóban Perlben programozni. Ez a könyv a kivétel. Rendkívül olvasmányos, érthető módon ismerhetünk meg olyan programozási fogásokat, tervezési mintákat, melyek jóval hatékonyabbá tehetik munkánkat. Filozófiát, új nézőpontot kapunk olyan megoldások tekintetében is, melyeket eddig is használtunk.

      ...

      Míg más könyvek a Perl szintaktikáját, a vezérlő szerkezeteket, s talán az alapvető programozási megoldásokat kínálják, ettől a könyvtől egészen mást kapunk. Előszavát a szerző a sokat hallott szólással indítja: sokszor hallani, hogy egy jó Fortran programozó bármely programozási nyelven tud Fortranban programozni - akár tud erről, akár nem. Ezt egészíti ki saját meglátásával: a legtöbb Perl programozó C programot ír Perlben - akár tud erről, akár nem. S ez így igaz.

      Hogy a könyv tartalmáról is szót ejtsünk: gyakorlatilag Perlre szabott algoritmusokkal és programozási technikákkal ismertet meg minket, melyeket bátran hívhatunk akár tervezési mintáknak is. Teszi mindezt számos gyakorlati példával, olvasmányosan. Az első fejezetben a rekurzió és a kampók (callbacks/hooks) technikáját ismerhetjük meg, vagyis azt, hogy mi a rekurzív eljárások filozófiája, s hogyan használhatjuk ezt rugalmas, újra felhasználható kódok írására. A második fejezet a kapcsoló táblákkal (dispatch tables) ismerteti meg az olvasót, majd sor kerül a gyorsítótárazásra és a "memorization" technikára is (ez utóbbi lényege, hogy egy eljárás automatikusan gyorsítótárazni tudja a futási eredményét, nagyságrendekkel felgyorsítva egy programot, ha az ugyanazon értékkel többször is meghívja azt.

      From the translation to English hereInternet Archive:

      The book titled Higher-Order Perl is a singular work, not just for Perl programmers. I've already seen many books which support us in gaining knowledge of Perl programming, but not a single one of them really teaches us programming in Perl. This book is the exception. Extraordinarily well readable, in an understandable way, we can learn about such programming tricks and design patterns, which add increased effectiveness to our work. We gain deeper insight and a new point of view with respect to such solutions as we have used them up to now, too.

      ...

      While other books provide Perl's syntax, the control structures and maybe the basic programming solutions, we get something completely different from this book. The author begins the preface with the frequently heard words: it may often be heard that a good FORTRAN programmer can write FORTRAN programs in any language, knowingly or not. To this he adds his own opinion, that most Perl programmers write C programs in Perl, knowingly or not. And this is true.

      To say a word about the contents of the book, too: It makes us acquainted with algorithms and programming techniques fixed on practical Perl which we might easily call programming patterns. It does all of this with numerous practical, well-explained examples. The first chapter introduces us to recursion and callback techniques, and also to the philosophy behind recursive procedures, and to how we can make flexible use of it, by writing reusable code. The second chapter instructs the reader about dispatch tables, and then it's the turn for caching and memoization techniques as well (the principle of the latter being that an automatic process can speed up obtaining the result of a subroutine, accelerating a program by an order of magnitude, if the subroutine is called repeatedly with the same values).

    4. Voglmaier, Reinhard (2005-11-29). "Book Review: Higher-Order Perl". Dr. Dobb's Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The review notes:

      The book provides not only practice but also a lot of programming theory that you'll appreciate when writing applications. In spite of the theoretical background that the author provides, I don't consider this to be an academic book.

      ...

      The book first explains recursive problem solving and the fundamentals of callbacks. Callbacks are also discussed in the second chapter on dispatch tables and recursion. The chapters build on each other so it is wise to read the chapters in order, rather than to jump back and forth.

      The third chapter explains caching in detail using the "memoization" written by the author. Many people think Perl does not know about iterators, but the fourth chapter shows the theory and some useful examples. The following chapter shows how to convert recursive functions into iterators. After a chapter about infinite streams, the author presents the concept of currying and higher-order functions.

    5. Straňák, Pavel (June 2007). "Higher-order Perl: Transforming programs with programs" (PDF). The Prague Bulletin of Mathematical Linguistics. 87. Charles University: 92. ISSN 0032-6585. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The brief review notes:

      This book explains many concepts of functional programming on common everyday tasks and shows even experienced programmers that there might be a better way to use Perl than what they are used to. For anyone who comes from C or who is not deeply acquainted with functional programming, this book can be quite important. The author himself says about the book's intent:</blockquote.

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:31, 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. Sandstein 08:21, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Ray Parker[edit]

Anthony Ray Parker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor. Deprodded with no explanation and with no additional sources added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I see a lot of database-type websites mentioning the actor but no significant coverage. Even this with the headline "These famous people were all born in Saginaw" has the actor in an afterthought-type list after the famous people. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually, I just found this from New Zealand Herald that provides significant coverage. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He's worked mostly in New Zealand. Would someone add him to the New Zealand deletion sorting list? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I'm seeing enough hits in Global Newsstream to indicate he is notable--just more known in New Zealand than elsewhere. Erik's find provides some significant coverage. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 19:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. gnu57 00:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has reliable sources coverage in New Zealand sources and also has some prominent film and television roles for WP:NACTOR, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I was the one who deprodded. My edit summary (in response to the PROD) was: "Not convinced of that; please send to AfD instead". That is an entirely acceptable action to take in response to a PROD and it might pay to have a read of WP:DEPROD, where it states: "Explain why you disagree with the proposed deletion, either in the edit summary or on the talk page." Going by the !votes thus far, it seems that I am not alone in thinking that this is at least a borderline case, and AfD is therefore the correct venue to get community input. @Cardiffbear88: Your snarky nomination statement is uncalled for and going forward, I suggest you moderate your language when interacting with, or talking about, other editors. Schwede66 03:31, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Schwede I apologise if that’s how you feel it came across, certainly not my intention. At the time of AfD there were certainly no new sources that I could find and my brief summary tried to reflect that. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 04:17, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The subject's significant roles in The Matrix and The Marine meet the WP:NACTOR threshold, and the significant coverage identified here, in conjunction with the sources currently provided in the article, satisfies WP:GNG, too.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Timothy Perkins[edit]

Timothy Perkins (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unsourced for almost eight years and has effectively not changed since its creation, except for the addition of another unsourced and derogatory statement, as well as maintenance tags. A quick WP:BEFORE brings up no coverage that could be deemed "significant" as per WP:SIGCOV. The original author appears to have a COI. IceWelder [✉] 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. IceWelder [✉] 18:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to suggest notability. Mccapra (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Curiocurio (talk) 00:00, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that this is coming up for deletion less than a decade after it was created is an encouraging sign. However I think this is mainly a result of me becoming jaded by the extreme long survival of actor and actress articles, Disc World articles and Silmarillion articles. That and that fact that at least 5 articles I created I was the one who nominated them for deletion several years later when I came to understand that notability criteria were tighter than I had originally supposed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not seeing coverage in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:25, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom. No sign of notability. Nika2020 (talk) 19:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danqun Fang[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Danqun Fang (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Messy promotional writing, which makes notability difficult to ascertain. All substantive edits were done by a single editor who has no other edits. Previously deleted in 2012, but only as copyright violation and not on the merits of notability. Unless shown to be notable, delete. --Nlu (talk) 18:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for now. I am not prepared to support this BLP until a reliable GS profile is available. Even then, BLP is full of bloat and should be cut down to 20% of present length. Xxanthippe (talk) 00:09, 26 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete does not pass notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:03, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 06:55, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Ms4263nyu (talk) 14:50, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:50, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edward C. Ford, Jr.[edit]

Edward C. Ford, Jr. (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Insufficient notability for this councillor. Claim to notability is "youngest African-American Republican in the United States to hold public office" and "youngest person ever elected to the (Middleton) Council". The latter is too local to signify, the former does not appear to have received any widespread coverage. Available sources in order are 1) local news coverage, 2) local news coverage that does not mention subject, 3) administrative list entry, 4) University publication. - Unless some substantial third-party coverage is unearthed at more than purely local level, he does not seem to qualify under WP:GNG or WP:NPOLITICIAN. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Subject of article is a politician but does not satisfy WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 18:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The youngest x to do y claims are getting ridiculous. All the more so because in much of the US municiapl offices are non-partisan so many of the people in their early 20s getting elected to public office are able to avoid publicizing their policial party. It is also unclear if it is claiming that Ford was the youngest African-American Republican office holder in 2017 (possible) or ever (a claim that would need actually citation, especially since prior to 1930 virtually every African-American who held office was a Republican).John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Middletown CT is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors — and people are not automatically more special than their colleagues just because they're younger or older (or fatter or thinner) than the rest of them, or just because they happen to be people of colour, or even because you staple several of those signifiers together so that you can manufacture an inorganic claim of national firstness that he didn't actually get any nationalized attention for. To make him notable enough for a Wikipedia article, what would need to be demonstrated is that he has an unusual depth, range and volume of reliable source coverage, marking him out as much more special than the norm for this level of significance — but three hits of local coverage and an article in the student newspaper of his own alma mater is not enough to do that. Bearcat (talk) 15:55, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject does not satisfy WP:NPOLITICIAN. Nika2020 (talk) 19:44, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

André Fernandes[edit]

André Fernandes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. Only passing mentions at most, in unreliable/self-published sources (music blogs, etc.). Not a member of a notable band or other project. No notable awards, recordings, airplay, etc. evident.

(Note: although not necessarily relevant to the discussion, the article's creator Udenied, a single-purpose account that has only ever edited this article (and related ones on Portuguese Wikipedia), claims to be the subject, André Fernandes, and says that he created it as self-promotion ten years ago despite not meeting notability requirements. He now sees this was an error and wishes it to be deleted. I noticed that he tried to do so through speedy deletion but none of the criteria fit, and it's not eligible for proposed deletion, so I listed it here.) IamNotU (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IamNotU (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IamNotU (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:18, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott McGinnis[edit]

Scott McGinnis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor. Deprodded with no reliable sources added. Currently the only links in the article are Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb, neither of which are reliable nor indicate notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a Star Trek fan wiki, or at least it is not supposed to be. This article has excessive Star Trek fancruft. It is not sourced to any reliable source that would show notability. Wikipedia is not meant to be a comprehensive directory of everyone who had a speaking part in notable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:45, 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 redirect to Spring Football League. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Dragons (American football)[edit]

Los Angeles Dragons (American football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of significant coverage from mutlitple independent, reliable sources to meet WP:GNG. InheritanceNotability is WP:NOTINHERITED from Spring Football League league. —Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. —Bagumba (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually, inheritance is inherited ... by definition. ;) Cbl62 (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Touché. Borrowed text from a similar (and successful) nomination. Go figure.—Bagumba (talk) 18:09, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to the league page, and the other team articles should probably be redirected as well if they're in similar states. SportingFlyer T·C 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • references for information provided...team was part of the league Keep — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mjmja5 (talk • contribs) 19:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There's been no sources added to the article since this AfD was opened. Currently, there is one citaion in the article, which is mostly about the league, not this specific team.—Bagumba (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 21:55, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:48, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neil Nayyar[edit]

Neil Nayyar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This young musician appears to be a case of WP:BLP1E. He has gained some news coverage for being the "youngest person to play the maximum number of musical instruments", but he does not have a notable music career beyond that—no albums, charted songs, or anything that would establish notability per WP:MUSICBIO. Even his world record is a dubious indicator of notability—it is currently only recognized by Assist World Records and World Records India, two apparently non-notable organizations. While Nayyar may go on to have a notable music career, it currently appears to be too soon for an article. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (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. This is a WP:BLP that cites no reliable (or other) sources even after 7 days of AfD, which makes deletion mandatory. In addition, rough consensus is that the person is not notable. Hullaballoo Wolfowitz if I see you again making severe personal attacks against others in AfDs I wil block you from editing; consider yourself warned. Sandstein 08:25, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gustavo Moretto[edit]

Gustavo Moretto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable BLP. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of substantial secondary sources. Deprodded with no sources added nor any explanation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment the original contributor has the same username as the subject. I added a COI tag but this has been removed without explanation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:15, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article subject fails all notability checks. --MewMeowth (talk) 18:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nominator, don't lie in your deletion rationale. You did not place a PROD tag on the article. You placed a BLPPROD tag on the article, even though it clearly included sources in the form of external links, which made it ineligible for BLPPROD. And I clearly stated that the reason for my removal was "obviously invalid BLPPROD", which accurately described your nomination to a T. Your "nor any explanation" slur was not a comment an honest, competent editor could have made. Similarly, your COI tag was ridiculous. The editor you complain of made one edit, thirteen years ago. Their text has been entirely removed and replaced. They are not a "major contributor" to the current article, and a single, discarded COI edit thirteen freaking years ago is no reason to flag an article for an "issue" that has already been resolved. Any reasonable editor would understand this. Your WP:BEFORE search practices are dreadfully inadequate, as demonstrated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Houston (actor) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jay Wade Edwards. Receiving a Guggenheim Fellowship is evidence of notability, and winning one in the pre-internet era may make online searching less productive, but does not diminish the significance; a longstanding academic position at CUNY is evidence of notability and stature in their primary field; a "distinguished alumnus" page at a university of Columbia's stature is evidence of notability. Just saying "no evidence" while closing your eyes to evidence in plain sight is not constructive editing. Keep absent any convincing analysis of evidence of notability and where that evidence may lead, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:52, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Firstly, you have still failed to provide any sources that help claim notability. Secondly, I always complete WP:BEFORE and WP:AFDSTATS shows that the community agree with around 75% of my AfD nominations - not a bad rate. You did not provide adequate explanation for your deprodding, nor added any sources which would indicate notability. If you can provide reliable secondary sources, then I will be the first to consider them and add them to the article as per WP:HEY. Please work with me and not against me, and assume good faith at all times. Insults and slurs will not help Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You mentioned the Guggenheim Fellowship, this has been the subject of a separate discussion which suggests it’s not a very good indicator of notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 14:35, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article lacks any reliable sources. It is time we stopped sourcing articles from non-reliable sources. Muscian articles are not as bad for this as are actor and actress articles, but we should not accept it in either. We really need a "no reliable sources" prod that can only be removed if one source that is not a database we have not said is unreliable is added.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'm not privvy to the events that lead to nomination, but I'm here to comment on the notability merits of this individual. There appear to be a considerable number of mentions, particularly in Argentinian media. These mentions, however, are not significant, i.e. wholly about this individual, but rather his involvement in several projects. There are some print sources available as well. If these, put together, could amount to a decent WP:MUSIC claim, I may be convinced. I just need a more thorough presentation of sources. As of now I am on the fence. You have to admit we are dealing with a niche cosmos in Argentinian Jazz. PK650 (talk) 04:00, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was discussion procedurally closed. The nominator withdrew it, though after arguments to delete had already been made - but after further discussion, a deletion review determined that a second AfD was not productive to continue. ~ mazca talk 13:16, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation[edit]

Joe Biden sexual assault allegation (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

POVFORK avoiding consensus on which material is DUE at Joe Biden. Ongoing discussions on how to treat the material at [29], appears to be created to circumvent consensus. Includes various minor publications and opinion pieces which almost certainly would not gain consensus in the main article. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator After looking closely at the last discussion and current one, I realize that this nomination isn't going anywhere at this time. I strongly disagree with the creation of a new article to include content and sources that would not pass muster at Joe Biden, but perhaps this can be remedied by closer attention to this page. I think a merger discussion might be appropriate in a month or so depending on how things go. Wikieditor19920 (talk) 19:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete this is a POVFORK violating NOTNEWS as an allegation that has been in the news but has not demonstrated lasting notability. It is UNDUE to give it its own article. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:16, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This does not require its own article, especially with how sparse the page itself is. The information can easily be placed onto Joe Biden's article. Auror Andrachome (talk) 17:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This incident is absolutely worthy of its own article.MagicatthemovieS (talk) 17:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)MagicatthemovieS[reply]
  • Keep nominating the same article for the same reasons as a previous AFD (closed a few days ago as no consensus) is disruptive. These allegations easily pass GNG and are continuing to receive notable coverage. We can reassess after a few months, not days. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Suggest this be closed and a DRV opened for the first close from 5 days ago, if the filer would like to continue. We won’t be seeing any different arguments after such short time has passed. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Clear WP:POVFORK. There is a substantial (and growing) section on the Joe Biden article, which is where it belongs. KidAd (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep. If there was no consensus for deletion five days ago, why would there be consensus now? What is the point of opening up a second AfD less than a week after the first closes, providing the same rationales that failed to generate consensus the first time? Einsof (talk) 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article really is a hot mess. Editors repeatedly add poorly sourced BLP content while at the same time obstinately trying to deprecate NY Times because it changed one misleading sentence in its thoroughly-documented investigative reporting on the matter. It's also a coatrack for side comments and cameo appearances by politicians who decline to comment on it and I agree, it is a FORK to legitimize content that is scraped from the internet and relevant neither to Biden nor even to the specific allegation of assault. SPECIFICO talk 17:49, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this a joke? - This article was already just nominated for deletion and the discussion didn't support deleting the article. Why is our time being wasted like this? CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep 5 days ago a deletion discussion was closed. Per WP:DPAFD, After a deletion debate concludes and there is no consensus or the consensus is in favor of keeping the page, users should allow a reasonable amount of time to pass before nominating the same page for deletion again, to give editors the time to improve the page. Renominations shortly after the earlier debate are generally closed quickly. It can be disruptive to repeatedly nominate a page in the hope of getting a different outcome.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 17:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep / joke, and a hearty trouting to the nominator. Seriously - this was just closed and kept less than a week ago. JungerMan Chips Ahoy! (talk) 18:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The previous AfD was started two weeks ago. A lot has changed since then. Most importantly, as a result of many editors' efforts to make the article better, it's actually gotten much worse. There's nothing valid to work with past a two sentence summary of the matter, and that is included in the Joe Biden biography. In that location it has a lot of important context about Biden's behavior around some women. SPECIFICO talk 18:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Give it a break. The last AfD closed just 5 days ago with no consensus for delete. No change since. Still covers WP:GNG. BabbaQ (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per wp:GNG. Albeit a merger might be suggested if its content might fit well elsewhere, even perhaps nearly en toto . . . such as, perhaps, to 2017–18 United States political sexual scandals (after updating its "'18").--Hodgdon's secret garden (talk) 19:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/Merge There’s a paragraph devoted to an anonymous call 27 years ago to Larry King Live with a "potential" reference, that Tara claims was made by her mother. If an encyclopedia has to resort to this, we have a problem. A spinoff article of this type requires sustained coverage by RS. I subscribe to two RS print papers and have the news on much of the day and have barely heard of this. If charges are filed, or high-quality sources give the allegation serious attention, review this. If there is anything worth saving, merge it. If consensus is keep, WP:TNT it. WP:POVFORK WP:NOTNEWS
  • Keep This is a credible sexual assault allegation against a major party nominee for president. Donald Trump's own sexual misconduct allegations and Bill Clinton's sexual misconduct allegations have their own pages. Maybe this page should be renamed "misconduct" for consistency? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krikkitsuitesix (talk • contribs) 19:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep for the reasons I stated at the last deletion discussion. Frankly, it seems to be a bit of an abuse of process to re-nominate it for deletion less than a week after the previous discussion was closed.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Awele Aina[edit]

Awele Aina (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The subject of this article WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO and WP:ENT. She is the artistic director of a non-notable cosmetic brand called Elise Claire Cosmetics. She has worked with a few notable artists and brands but notability cannot be inherited. A Google search of the subject doesn't show her being discussed in reliable secondary sources.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:51, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - most of the references that exist on the subject are interviews granted and are not subjective enough. Philphleg (talk) 10:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:47, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rez Kempton[edit]

Rez Kempton (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable actor, minor roles, only very minor hyper local "coverage" Praxidicae (talk) 16:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:01, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. My original PROD was deprodded with only minor sources added. I don’t believe these add to notability. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions guideline for actor notability. Also the sourcing is no where near enough to pass GNG. I am glad to see we are finally making some headway against the over abundance of articles only source to IMDb, however since so many of these articles have languished in this state for over a decade it is very slow headway being made. All the more so since in the past some editors have cut out non-IMDb sources bareboning articles to just IMDb, as if IMDb was a reliable source (but probably because the procedural difficulty, combined with the harassment of those who do it of nominating an article for deletion is so high that it is much easier to edit than to propose for deletion. The inbalance in difficulty between creating and removing an article needs to be addressed).John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The subject has had main roles in the films, I Can't Think Straight and Amar Akbar & Tony, and the plays, Combustion, Inaam and Khandan, which I think are enough to meet WP:NACTOR. With regard to WP:GNG, there isn't a huge amount of coverage, but the sources are reliable:
→https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/movies/amar-akbar-and-tony-netflix.html – The New York Times review of Amar Akbar & Tony: at least a paragraph is dedicated to the subject, and his role in Combustion is also mentioned
→https://www.theguardian.com/stage/2014/may/28/khandan-family-review-gurpreet-kaur-bhatti – The Guardian review of Khandan: brief praise
→https://tribune.com.pk/story/167966/inaam-hopes-for-rewards-at-film-festival/ – The Express Tribune review of Inaam: brief praise
He also gets several mentions in other reliable sources, which can, at the very least, verify his roles. I don't think deletion is necessary here, though I do acknowledge that the case for WP:GNG isn't as strong as I'd like it to be. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:31, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:46, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esoterica (black metal band)[edit]

Esoterica (black metal band) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't seem to pass WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. All of the references are either to the record label's website (essentially a primary source) or to metal-archives.com, which WP:MUSICRS lists as a user-generated source. Doesn't seem to be notable. Hog Farm (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 15:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment' - I see that this band (Esoterica) alone does not meet notability criteria as they are quite esoteric. However, the singer/guitarist of the band (Alex Poole) is also a member of other black metal bands (Chaos Moon and Krieg). Krieg is probably the most noteworthy of the related groups. I'm seeing our options as merging Esoterica with the already existing Krieg page. Or perhaps creating an Alex Poole page to unit all of the projects he is involved in. Perhaps, there is a third option I'm not thinking of right now. I'm open to suggestions.

-BigMac — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bigmacthealmanac (talk • contribs) 21:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete - I'm gonna explain every source:
Each source, and reasons why they aren't reliable.

First source and fifth source: Doesn't even mention the band at all.

Second and third source: Exact same website, which have the exact same content. Although this website is reliable, you don't need to have the same source twice

Fourth source: Blogspot is absolutely not a reliable source. See WP:UGC

Sixth and seventh source: the same sources as the second and fourth source.

eighth source: Primary source, which absolutely proves the subject is not notable.

There isn't much more to say. So I vote delete. Kori (@) 23:30, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Tone 15:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Dalton (actor)[edit]

Mark Dalton (actor) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources can be found to substantiate nor prove article’s subject is notable hence fails WP:GNG. Even if his problems with justice had some coverage on papers it is not enough to me to define him notable. Sourcing is incomplete and some unreliable website have been used. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:02, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Delete - as per nom with nothing to add. No substantial coverage found by me either. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 04:29, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 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. Tone 15:56, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bo Winegard[edit]

Bo Winegard (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Looks like WP:BLP1E at best, with all current sourcing referring primarily to Winegard's firing and the school's unwillingness to re-hire. The sources that do cover the one event don't appear to pass WP:BASIC (for a longer discussion, see: RSN discussion). In short, here are the three secondary sources-- Areo Magazine, The Washington Times, and The Crimson White-- and thoughts on why each fails WP:BASIC. Areo is written by an individual who says he is writing the piece in part "because Winegard and I have collaborated on a couple of papers," suggesting non-independence. Further, the publisher has been described by some wikiusers as a sort of left-leaning Quillette, with itself is considered unreliable for facts and typically WP:UNDUE. The Washington Times piece relies almost entirely on Winegard's blog and social media, suggesting it fails depth of coverage and independence. The Crimson White is a university newspaper, and so likely non-RS at the higher standards required for notability. Jlevi (talk) 15:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:04, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:26, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:BLP1E. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:52, 26 April 2020 (UTC).[reply]
  • Delete Not notable and the only thing that characterize him a bit is a controvert speech, which is not enough. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:24, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The firing is also in Inside Higher Ed [30], which I think is a RS. (I agree per nom that the sources currently in the article are not reliable.) His GS citations are non-trivial, although I'd vote delete per WP:TOOSOON in the absence of the firing coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not every person who receives coverage for controversy on their firing becomes notable. In this case even if we had an article, it should be named something like "removal of Bo Winegard controversy" because he is clearly not notable for anything else and is clearly not a notable academic. However, Wikipedia is not news, and the cutrrent controversy does not rise above news level.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination and the above "delete" !votes. I don't think there's a case for WP:PROF, either (unimpressive citation profile, even when bulked up by Google Scholar's including non-peer-reviewed material). XOR'easter (talk) 18:16, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The Inside Higher Ed piece on its own isn't enough for WP:SIGCOV, and the other sources are not reliable. I looked through the citations for his top-cited pubs in GS, and didn't see cause for concern — if he manages to continue his academic career, he might eventually make WP:NPROF. But we rarely keep assistant professors, and I don't see enough support for doing so here. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:ACADEMIC fails.Ms4263nyu (talk) 07:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The coverage by Inside Higher Ed (which is the news section of Chronicle for Higher Education) the major US source for news in higher education is sufficient. If the major national newspaper in the world covers the story, nothing more is needed. We could call it Removal of BW, as suggested above. If deleted, please userify to me, because I am quite sure that coverage will increase--I expect this to become one of the relatively rare cases the AAUP will endorse,
More generally, ifwe do not have anarticle, then the available information will come from some publications that cannot be counted on to be objective. DGG ( talk ) 17:21, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete one in depth RS piece is not enough for notability either for the event or the person. Not every controversy deserves a WP article. If Winegard's research ever becomes notable the page can be recreated. buidhe 01:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 11:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Élisabeth Wiener[edit]

Élisabeth Wiener (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non notable actor, poorly sourced since 2009. Deprodded but no sources added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Even though the list of works is pretty long, I haven't found any reliable mentions. Everything I have found is taken from French Wikipedia. For now she fails WP:GNG. If a French speaking editor can help finding reliable sources - if there are any - that would save the article.Less Unless (talk) 13:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Élisabeth Wiener

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:23, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, sorry, but has any WP:BEFORE carried out? suggest that prior to nomination, books on french theatre/cinema should have been consulted (no i dont have access to any:))? agree that wiener has appeared in multiple productions, not all the roles may have been significant, and not all the productions wikinotable, but wiener had a key role in La Prisonnière, and a 1978 theatre production of Antony and Cleopatra (although not having a wiki article this list of multiple reviews shows it is notable), as WP:NACTOR asks for "significant roles in multiple notable films, television shows, stage performances, or other productions.", confirmation of some of the others being wikirelevant would be nice. ps. gettyimages has some pics of her that might lead editors somewhere wikible (or possibly down the rabbithole of despair:) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:33, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Actually Coolabahapple under WP:BLP biographies of living people must have every statement confirmed by a reliable source, or they must be deleted. So not having reliable sources, and no reliable sources being available, is a very legitimate reason for deletion. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:08, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Nom and Less Unless. We should not attempt to "throw a monkey wrench" into a valid discussion. WP:BEFORE only requires a "minimum search" and not exhaustive research. When notability fails to be established by sourcing (tagged since 2009), especially when there is only a dictionary entry of a pseudo biography, and an embedded filmography list supported by an improper "External link" (IMDb) and inline referenced by the same link, there is ample evidence to question notability. To defend an article that somewhere in the universe there "might be" sources, misses a part of WP:NEXIST that states, However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. At a point it is better to offer proof, especially when this is requested (see above). The source provided above (shorter link) is a book about the play The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra. The link drops the names Roger Planchon and Elisabeth Wiener, and a further search ("The Masks of Anthony and Cleopatra with Roger Planchon and Elisabeth Wiener") returned "It looks like there aren't any great matches for your search". IMDb was no help, and this does not satisfy advancing notability. Otr500 (talk) 09:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actress. The article lacks the multiple reliable 3rd party secondary sources with indepth coverage of the subject needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:26, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is a source if someone wants to use it. Several more are linked here. -- Ssilvers (talk) 05:36, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep: The sources that have been alluded to above show at least some notability. Input from a French-speaker would be helpful here. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:05, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to Drow. (non-admin closure) Kori (@) 17:32, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lolth[edit]

Lolth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable D&D character that fails WP:GNG. Almost no mentions in reliable sources and nothing significant enough to merit its own article, though it could potentially be redirected to Drow. Wikia-level fancruft. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. ZXCVBNM (TALK) 07:20, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge to Drow per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 21:25, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Drow. The article is sourced almost entirely to primary sources, and the League of Legends sources do not even mention the subject, meaning that this character fails WP:GNG. The article contains nothing that should be merged. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:05, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Drow, per Devonian Wombat. She is actually pretty amply covered in that article, and I'm not seeing much that would require a WP:SPLIT. As, even in fiction, her importance is pretty much tied directly to her people, and pretty much all sources discuss them together, it makes more sense to cover them together as well. Rorshacma (talk) 02:48, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Drow. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 10:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above. Josh Milburn (talk) 19:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or merge. In addition to the ones present in the article I have found four more secondary sources. They all have their short-comings, but some do not readily fit into the drow article, so its hard to decide for me which would be the better course. The sources are:
    • Magic, Monsters, and Make-Believe Heroes - the section here is very short and close to the primary material.
    • Dungeons and Dragons and Philosophy - this is mostly the influence of Lolth on drow society, so could easily be beneficial also in a merge.
    • Lilith und Lolth - very interesting German comparison between the fictional and the real-world goddess/mythological figure; it's a blog entry, but by a respectable academic on the platform of a respectable academic publisher.
    • There and Back Again - Tolkien, Gamers, and the Remediation of Exclusion through Fantasy Media - academic paper, the section on Lolth is short but adds a new dimension by analysing the social or psycholocial background of the figure, possible mysogynic, and so on. Daranios (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Excellent finds. It's a shame that Stang's paper "Spider-Women, Hybridity, and Female Monstrosity in Role-Playing Games" hasn't been published (yet) - that's what "There and Back Again" is citing. I think there's enough here to support an independent article - it's just a question of whether it makes more sense to cover drow and Lolth separately. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:02, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 10:42, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 01:49, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TechNews.LK[edit]

TechNews.LK (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:WEB. No notable sources, most of the listed sources are WP:UGC. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. when you need to include Facebook, youtube and twitter in only 7 sources you present than the subject is not notable. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:24, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. it should also be pointed out that the 'awards' they won are just blackhat seo sites Sulfurboy (talk) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, Non notable website, non notable awards, appalling sources. Theroadislong (talk) 11:29, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and others - there is nothing notable here and it looks suspiciously like COI/paid work. creffett (talk) 13:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per nom and others. Nothing to show topic is worthy of an entry. Eagleash (talk) 15:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:WEB and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 16:16, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:36, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ewe Know[edit]

Ewe Know (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable series. Google search turned up no reliable secondary sources. Dronebogus (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 09:10, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 09:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete judging by its sourcing it is not notable. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:30, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agreed with the nominator's assessment. All sources for the television series are either user-generated or self-published sources, such as from linkedin and IMDB. Same applies for the Production company, Wet Cement Productions. Fails WP:GNG. --Dps04 (talk) 10:34, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:37, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of The X Factor finalists (American season 1)[edit]

List of The X Factor finalists (American season 1) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per WP:LISTPEOPLE - The list of finalists is already available on the show's article. Most names do not satisfy the WP:BLP requirements thus do not have inherited notability. There is no need for such low level profiling on a separate list. This follows on from the New Zealand and Polish X Factor finalists' lists which have already been deleted. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:33, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because [insert reason here]:

List of The X Factor finalists (American season 2) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of The X Factor finalists (American season 3) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
  • Delete I totally agree with you --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:22, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Totally support. Less Unless (talk) 13:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and previous consensus. --Gonnym (talk) 09:46, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Just a list of people with no reliable sourcing, instead filled with primary sources. The main articles for any of these people are much more reliably sourced. Kori (@) 22:40, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NLIST and reads like a trivia. desmay (talk) 00:50, 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. Sandstein 15:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cameron Marshall[edit]

Cameron Marshall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

this bio doesn't meet any notability guideline. From this bio, it seems, that the highest part of his career was when he once did a movie with a woman and this is clearly not enough to be considered notable to me. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:59, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:00, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:48, 25 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
  • Keep - Per WP:ANYBIO a subject may be notable if they have won an important award of which subject of article seems to have won one of such & also being nominated for a couple of such. Celestina007 (talk) 14:53, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Celestina007: The deprecation of PORNBIO means that adult industry awards no longer count towards notability; pornographic actors need to pass WP:GNG or WP:ENT. Cheers, gnu57 16:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Genericusername57, that’s why I didn’t mention WP:PORNBIO anywhere here but based my argument on subject winning a notable award. That’s why I said per WP:ANYBIO & not WP:PORNBIO. Feel free to point out where you think I referenced WP:PORNBIO in any which way in my rationale provided above. Cheers.Celestina007 (talk) 17:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: When PORNBIO was in force, it was used to specify which adult industry awards counted as "well-known and significant" for the purpose of ANYBIO. Now that PORNBIO is gone, adult industry awards are generally not considered "well-known and significant". (There are tons of different promotional porn awards and nominations given out every year, often to people who are complete no-names/have no RS coverage whatsoever.) Over the past year or so, many "won a porn award but the sources are garbage" articles have been deleted at AfD: please see the list maintained by WikiProject Pornography. Cheers, gnu57 19:14, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Genericusername57, I’m not sure what you want me to say or do seeing as the GayVN Awards seems to be quite notable for hosting gay related award shows & subject of our article seems to have bagged one & WP:ANYBIO which although isn’t an SNG does say if anyone, emphasis on the “anyone” has received a notable award they might be considered notable. I also understand that ANYBIO states that having such award doesn’t translate to auto notability. But in my opinion subject of our discussion “has a good case” here. It is our duty as colleagues to argue via policies (which is why I appreciate this dialogue between you and I) & finally reach a consensus but my rationale for now is in favor of our subject of discussion.Celestina007 (talk) 19:31, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007: Hi, when I read on ANYBIO a "notable prize" I translate it into a gold medal at the olympic games, a nobel Prize or a Pulizer Prize. The subject here can only count on that single prize to state its notability. Gayvn award is a pretty important prize in the porn industry but not so much important to make it self a person notable. If we had other things to sustain notability then it would be different but this is not the case.AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Celestina007: Notable prizes need independent reliable sources that attest to their significance. These are lacking for porn industry awards as well as most mainstream commercial industry awards. Porn awards cannot support ANYBIO for the exact same reason they could not sustain PORNBIO. Winning a porn industry award is not a good predictor of RS interest, current or eventual. In this case, neither of the award wins would have passed the "well-known and significant" test in the later interpretations of PORNBIO. • Gene93k (talk) 13:30, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Of the current references, #1 (Metro Weekly) is an interview of someone else which includes a passing mention of Mr. Marshall. #2 (AVN) is an obvious press release full of over-the-top quotes from various people praising him. #3 (AVN) is an announcement of his "straight-for-pay" pornographic film. #4 (Fleshbot, NSFW) is an unreliable porn blog. #5 and #8 (JustUsBoys, NSFW) is a profile on a porn site. #6 (Jason's News Desk, NSFW) is an advertisement on a porn blog. #7 (PrideSource) is an interview in question-answer format. #9 (J.C. Adams/Gay Porn Times) is a film review on a porn blog with only one sentence about Mr. Marshall. #10 is an award roster. I looked for new sources and found only a Metro Weekly article promoting his appearance at a nightclub[31], a Queerty gossip entry about a youtube video of him singing[32], and a mention in an Cromosoma X (Spanish-language LGBT site) listicle [33]. Cheers, gnu57 00:18, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:01, 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. Sandstein 07:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Tsai Brooks[edit]

Anthony Tsai Brooks (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject is a local councilor thus fails WP:NPOL. With only coverage of this death of COVID-19 (which thousand have die of COVDIV-19) and not other significant coverage in major newspaper thus fails GNG. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cassiopeia(talk) 05:40, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:NPOL. Celestina007 (talk) 14:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak weep per WP:SIGCOV. While totally run of the mill as a politician, his and his husband's death have gotten significant coverage. I think it's too soon to delete. Bearian (talk) 00:38, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete No evidence of WP:GNG coverage, sources are all obit-based. WP:RECENTISM, WP:NEWS, WP:MEMORIAL. OhNoitsJamie Talk 05:04, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete he was on the city council of a very small place. The human interest coverage of two connected people dying from Covid-19 does not change the fact that they are non-notable people. Would we have an article on a city council member in a place the size and regional importance of live oak and his wife who was a famous local hair dresser who both died from Spanish flu and got written up in the local paper. Absolutely not, there is no reason at all to have this article either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Brooks is a local politician. Fails WP:GNG and WP:POLITICIAN. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 22:03, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Live Oak where he was on the city council has 13,000 people. This makes it maybe the 4th argest place in Bexar County. San Antonio, which takes in much of the area of Bexar County, has 1.5 million people. There are another 200,000 people in Bexar County. The next largest place in the ounty has 41,000 people, but is not all in the county. Thus Live Oak is not in any way a regionally important place. If this had been a city council member in Warren, Michigan which at 135,000 people is the third largest city in Michigan and a significant city in the Detroit Metro Area, I would still advocate deleting the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:56, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Live Oak TX is not a global city for the purposes of securing the "inherent" notability of its city councillors — so the notability test he would have to pass is not just the existence of one or two hits of death coverage, but the existence of a very large depth and volume and range of reliable sourcing about his political career which established him as significantly more notable than most other city councillors. He is not automatically special just because he was gay, or because he and his husband died within two days of each other, or even just because he got two pieces of human interest coverage last week about the fact that he and his husband died within two days of each other: either you write and source a genuinely substantive article about his political significance, or he's not notable at all. Bearcat (talk) 15:44, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Does not meet WP:NPOL, and the lack of reliably-sourced coverage outside of the obituaries suggests that WP:GNG is not met. --Kinu t/c 06:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 06:58, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sticks Nix Hick Pix[edit]

Sticks Nix Hick Pix (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable meme that lacks significant coverage in reliable sources. Most of the article as it stands is WP:OR. buidhe 02:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. buidhe 02:35, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:36, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Alright; it was a crappy article. I fixed it, and it's much better. The original research nonsense and some of the unacceptable refs have been cut out, and some OK refs added. It's not a great article; it's not a big article; but its OK.
It's not a big article because there's not a lot to say about it: here's a headline, here's what it means, and here's demonstrations of how its now part of American literate culture. It's enough to meet the WP:GNG I believe. It's an OK article.
And it's really famous, really notable. As you can see in the article, it's something that comes up in both middlebrow and lowbrow contexts, enough that allowing people to look it up when they do come across it worthwhile... if you look at the page view stats, you'll see that 30 people a day are accessing the article. And there were a couple spikes, 426 readers on February 19 and 357 on March 31, probably in response to the phrase being mentioned somewhere in the media. It gets mentioned in the media; some hundreds of people want to come here to look it up and find out more about it; that's our job - to help people do that. Let's. Herostratus (talk) 07:34, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, thanks to Herostratus' improvements. Well done. — Toughpigs (talk) 07:43, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment No one has located any independent RS with independent coverage, so WP:GNG is not met:
    • 1: Not significant coverage.
    • 2–3 are Variety and not WP:INDEPENDENT
    • 4 does not mention the subject
    • 5 is not a reliable source
    • 6 is a passing mention
    • 7–12 may be references to this, but there's no RS saying so and either way they're WP:PRIMARY.
There is still OR: "References to the famous headline have appeared in various contexts" "As well, references and variations have appeared in various media over the following decades." need sources and spot checks of following references don't state that their headlines are derived from this one. buidhe 07:50, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These sources specifically say that "STICKS NIX HICK PIX" is "frequently-cited", "one of Variety's most quoted headlines," and "the epitome of this style of headline," and that it has "passed into American social history". I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these sources has significant coverage so they don't show notability. buidhe 18:54, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well but there's sufficient coverage to support a fairly lengthy article... several paragraphs, and all reffed. It's true that there isn't any one single source that has a long exposition on the entity (that would be unlikely to exist), but taken all together, you have sufficient coverage. For instance: Garner's Modern English Usage, which apparently is an important work, describes the entity as "the epitome" of a certain type of headline writing. Garner only has that once sentence, but its a useful sentence. And there are other sources that add a sentence or two. Yankee Doodle Dandy, a famous movie, translates the entity -- that's internal analysis of the entity. Henderson's book describes it as being a part of American "social history" -- that's placing the entity in a social/historical context. And so forth. And we know that there's enough there to make a decent (if not great) article -- because there is one. Herostratus (talk) 21:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A significant part of the article as it stands is primary sourced, which doesn't count for GNG. Also, WP:GNG says explicitly that "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". Where are the WP:THREE secondary sources which have significant coverage of the subject? buidhe 21:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I mean, you make a reasonable point. So do I (I think), so it's just a matter of us disagreeing. It's kind of a matter of how you interpret certain passages in the rules... there's only so far you can go with that. (FWIW I've never heard of WP:THREE before, always took "multiple" to mean "two or more"; anyway, I'll go with WP:ONE.)
Here's a way to think of it that usually works for me: as I said, about 30 people a day access the article. They are looking for information that will help them better understand what "Sticks Nix Hick Pix" means, when and how it's used, where it came from, and like that. Why give them nothing? Why not give them the something that we already have? Obscure as the subject might be, apparently people want to know about it, it's not ephemeral (headline was written 85 years ago), nor egregiously trivial, nor does it have false or misleading information. Give the people what they want, I say. Herostratus (talk) 01:58, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seems like readers would be equally served by a merger or redirect to another article. buidhe 00:09, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pratt Place, California[edit]

Pratt Place, California (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The next tranche of California "Places" which do not appear to be communities. As with the previous set, they are all single buildings, mostly gone now, in the forests of northern California; they all get relatively few hits and none suggesting that they weren't single ranches or other homesteads. The articles consist of nothing but GNIS data. Mangoe (talk) 01:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]


The other nominations for this group are as follows:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:17, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete/redirect all per nom and prior discussions. Reywas92Talk 20:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete per nom. If a redirect is being considered, we need to make sure that these don't end up in a list of "unincorporated communities" which they're most certainly not. County articles don't commonly list non-notable abandoned homesteads. –dlthewave ☎ 14:23, 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 per evidence of significant coverage provided by Cunard. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:55, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afu Thomas[edit]

Afu Thomas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

non notable internet guy MistyGraceWhite (talk) 02:03, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
Wikipedia:Notability (people) also states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
You have at least three articles which follow this standard from at least three different publications (Deutsche Welle, Xinhua, and Buzzfeed News) from three different countries (Germany, China, and the United States).
Vloggers in foreign countries are not as common, and part of why he's well-noted in China is that he's a foreigner.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:WhisperToMe a couple of articles are not enough for an article on wikipedia. Significant coverage is needed. WP:NOTNEWS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:13, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MistyGraceWhite: Misty, WP:NOTNEWS is a frequently misunderstood guideline. Let's quote it:
  • "Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. However, not all verifiable events are suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia." - This is focused on ensuring not every minute detail event is included.
  • "Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. While news coverage can be useful source material for encyclopedic topics, most newsworthy events do not qualify for inclusion[...]" - This portion is focused on ensuring not every single event is included.
  • "Even when an event is notable, individuals involved in it may not be. Unless news coverage of an individual goes beyond the context of a single event,[...]" - In this case the coverage of the first two articles is about the guy's entire life and career, not him in the context of a single event.
Also a "couple of articles" is exactly what's needed under the notability guidelines as per the quotes below.
WhisperToMe (talk) 16:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:WhisperToMe Nowhere will you see that two PR articles make an unknwon guy pass GNG. This guy is not notable, does not pass GNG. I am astounded that an experinced editor like yourself does not get the point of GNG. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:56, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misty, I would suggest reading Grandpa Kitchen and take careful note of the sourcing. This article was submitted for Wikipedia:Asian Month and was accepted. WhisperToMe (talk) 08:54, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with MistyGraceWhite a few article do not prove notability and looking at the article they are not in dept articles that cover a significant portion of his life/work.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:38, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @AlejandroLeloirRey: Hi, Alejandro! Please bear in mind what the notability guidelines say:
      • WP:GNG states: ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material."
      • Afu Thomas is the main topic in all three of these articles.
      • WP:GNG also states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I have multiple sources in this article, which means at least two.
    • WhisperToMe (talk) 16:23, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:WhisperToMe have you read the articles yourself? This is not an article. It is a collection of his videos. You cannot get more PR and unreliable than this. This is a mockery of an article which is only 4 lines long. And this PR piece has the subjects name as co producer, check at the very bottom. These are not Reliable sources, they are just PR pieces. They ought to be removed from an article as sources, let alone be the grounds for inclusion of a person. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:08, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misty, I read them, or else I wouldn't be citing them.
  • 1. It is incorrect that Buzzfeed News "is not an article" - Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources states: "There is consensus that BuzzFeed News is generally reliable. BuzzFeed News now operates separately from BuzzFeed, and most news content originally hosted on BuzzFeed was moved to the BuzzFeed News website in 2018." - While it cautions articles after 2019 due to staff layoffs, the cited article by Beimeng Fu is from 2016. secondly while a large part of the article is pictures, Beimeng Fu has written narratives about him and his work in between the pictures.
2. The Deutsche Welle article has an attached video that is three minutes long; this includes an English voiceover. The main point of the article is the video, and the caption is just a summary.
3. Ah, I didn't see that detail in the bottom ("Joint Production: Afu Thomas") which does mean that article is not independent of the subject, but we still have Buzzfeed News and the DW video which are.
4. Keep in mind there are also sources in German and Chinese. Here is one from Die Welt, a German newspaper.
WhisperToMe (talk) 18:21, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ User:WhisperToMe, so we are now left with two sources. Just read the buzzfeed article. It is a PR fiasco with nothing but screen captures from his youtube and the writing in between is nothing but captions. DW is more of the same. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MistyGraceWhite, please re-read the above: there are three independent sources again as there is a written article from Die Welt of Germany and there is a possibility of more from German and Chinese sources. And now there's also this: Deutsche Welle has a lengthy Chinese language article which is an interview of Afu Thomas done by a secondary source.
RE: the DW video, do you have the volume turned on when you listen to the video? There is a speaker who is making commentary while the pictures go on.
Also I do not believe there is a "PR fiasco" criterion in the notability guidelines we have. I would suggest reviewing the article Grandpa Kitchen, which I wrote for Wikipedia:Asian Month. Similar types of citations, and this article was approved to be a part of Asian Month.
WhisperToMe (talk) 19:10, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Fu, Beimeng (2016-04-07). "This German Man Is China's Newest Internet Celebrity, Believe It Or Not". BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    2. Rottmann, Kerstin (2019-05-06). "„Afu, der glückliche Deutsche" – Er weiß, was Chinesen zum Lachen bringt" ["Afu, the happy German" - He knows what makes Chinese laugh]. Die Welt (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-05-05. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    3. 丁海平, ed. (2017-11-19). ""洋创客"德国阿福创业故事：想做中德文化的桥梁" ["Foreign Maker" German Afu entrepreneurial story: want to be a bridge between Chinese and German culture]. 中国侨网 (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    4. Hicks, Dave (2017-09-11). "How China's Famous Foreigners Double as Diplomats". Sixth Tone. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    5. Xie, Wenting (2015-05-24). "The domestic wrangles of expat men and their Chinese fathers-in-law". Global Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    6. Xu, Shanshan (2016-09-01). "No cash? No problem". Ecns.cn. China News Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.
    7. Li, Han (2018-06-28). "Nut Cases: How Foreign Viral Video Stars Are Defying Stereotypes". Sixth Tone. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    8. Wurzel, Steffen (2019-04-08). "Chinesen lieben den Influencer aus Gummersbach" [Chinese love the influencer from Gummersbach] (in Chinese). Deutschlandfunk Kultur. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    9. Deuber, Lea (2016-05-26). "Wie ein Deutscher das Internet in China begeistert" [How a German enthuses the Internet in China]. Bento (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    10. "Big in Shanghai – German Internet Star Thomas Derksen". Deutsche Welle. 2017-05-29. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Fu, Beimeng (2016-04-07). "This German Man Is China's Newest Internet Celebrity, Believe It Or Not". BuzzFeed News. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The article notes:

      Meet Thomas, a man living in Shanghai from a little town near Cologne, Germany.

      Chinese people call him "Afu," a common Chinese nickname meaning "fortune." Afu has become famous for posting hilarious videos mocking everyday family and social life as a husband married to a Shanghai woman.

      In the video "What is it like to marry a Shanghai woman," he impersonates his mother-in-law, a typical middle-aged Shanghai woman in her apron, dominating the kitchen area of the apartment.

      ...

      Afu is so China-savvy that he uploads his videos onto all the popular Chinese social media, even the less mainstream but dope among youth video-streaming site Bilibili. (It's kind of, sort of like Snapchat.) And comments are pouring in.

      ...

      Afu, who is from Marienheide, Germany, and attended China's Fudan University, makes the videos because he wants to "talk about the most funny, delicious, and beautiful stuff from Germany," as well as from China.

    2. Rottmann, Kerstin (2019-05-06). "„Afu, der glückliche Deutsche" – Er weiß, was Chinesen zum Lachen bringt" ["Afu, the happy German" - He knows what makes Chinese laugh]. Die Welt (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2021-05-05. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    3. 丁海平, ed. (2017-11-19). ""洋创客"德国阿福创业故事：想做中德文化的桥梁" ["Foreign Maker" German Afu entrepreneurial story: want to be a bridge between Chinese and German culture]. 中国侨网 (in Chinese). China News Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The article notes:

      这是Thomas Derksen 今年发布在中国社交媒体的短视频《我只不过想在上海买套房》片段。他来自德国北威州小镇马林海德，中文名叫阿福，目前在中国致力于自媒体短视频创业。在《我只不过想在上海买套房》中，阿福语速飞快，频繁变换表情和手势，吐槽上海的房价。但在视频最后，他不再搞怪，而是对着镜头说，“房子不应该是我们唯一的追求，更不应该为了它就忘了生活真正的意义。大家说对不对？”

      “对对对，大家干了这碗鸡汤！”在中国视频网站“哔哩哔哩”，有网民在留言区发表如此评论。目前，这一视频在“哔哩哔哩”被点击27.2万次，收获近1000条弹幕评论。而在阿福的微信公众号“阿福Thomas”，该视频文章的阅读量也已超过10万次。

      ...

      阿福与中国的故事起源于2005年。那一年，还在念高中的他跟随一位拿到汉学博士学位的老师学习中文。“当时对我来说，中国是一个很神秘的国家。”2007年在那位老师的组织下，阿福第一次到中国游玩。为了那次旅行，他特意兼职打工以赚取旅途所需费用。

      From Google Translate:

      This is a clip of Thomas Derksen's short video "I Just Want to Buy a Suite in Shanghai" released on Chinese social media this year. He is from Malinheide, a small town in North Rhine-Westphalia, Germany, and his Chinese name is Afu. He is currently working on self-media short video entrepreneurship in China. In "I Just Want to Buy a Suite in Shanghai", Afu spoke quickly, frequently changing expressions and gestures, and complained about Shanghai's housing prices. But at the end of the video, he no longer made a fuss, but said to the camera, "The house should not be our only pursuit, nor should we forget the true meaning of life for it. Is everyone right?"

      "Yes, yes, everyone made this bowl of chicken soup!" On the Chinese video site "BELIBELI", some netizens commented in the message area. At present, this video has been viewed 272,000 times in "Bilibili", and has received nearly 1,000 barrage comments. In Afu's WeChat public account "Afu Thomas", the video article has been read more than 100,000 times.

      ...

      The story of Afu and China originated in 2005. That year, while still in high school, he followed a teacher with a PhD in Sinology to learn Chinese. "For me at that time, China was a very mysterious country." In 2007, under the teacher's organization, Afu visited China for the first time. For that trip, he deliberately worked part-time to earn the cost of the trip.

    4. Hicks, Dave (2017-09-11). "How China's Famous Foreigners Double as Diplomats". Sixth Tone. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The article notes:

      This July, as world leaders prepared to descend on Hamburg, Germany for the 2017 G-20 Summit, a German man named Thomas Derksen sat in his Shanghai apartment and penned a letter home.

      His purpose was specific: He thought Germany could learn from China and become a largely cashless society, and he wanted Chancellor Angela Merkel to know it. So Derksen — popularly known as Afu Thomas to the 5 million fans of his videos across Chinese social media — wrote his letter, shared it online, and watched it go viral. In the following days, stories about his letter appeared in both Chinese and German media.

      Derksen’s celebrity status — drawn largely from his talent for creating humorous social media videos in virtually flawless Chinese — allowed him to capitalize on an international diplomatic event as a chance to build cross-cultural understanding. Through the German media, Derksen helped his countrymen understand one aspect of life in China. And in the same stroke, he gave his Chinese fans an example of what civic engagement looks like in his home country.

    5. Xie, Wenting (2015-05-24). "The domestic wrangles of expat men and their Chinese fathers-in-law". Global Times. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The article notes:

      German-born Thomas Derksen, 28, can still recall his extreme trepidation the first time he met his Chinese father-in-law.

      ...

      Since their first meeting more than two years ago, Derksen has lived with his wife's family on-and-off while doing an exchange at Fudan University as part of his bachelor's degree in East Asian studies at the Ruhr University Bochum in Germany.

      ...

      Zhu Fuqiang, Derksen's father-in-law, said it takes time for a father-in-law to get the measure of a son-in-law. He admitted that initially, he was unhappy with the idea of his daughter marrying someone from another culture, but had come to see Derksen's good qualities.

    6. Xu, Shanshan (2016-09-01). "No cash? No problem". Ecns.cn. China News Service. Archived from the original on 2020-04-26. Retrieved 2020-04-26.

      The article notes:

      Thomas Derksen, a social media star known for posting fun videos that satirizes everyday life in Shanghai, was recently given a challenge of spending a day in Hangzhou, the capital of Zhejiang province, without any cash or credit cards on hand.

      The German expatriate, who lives in Shanghai, admitted that it was something he could not imagine doing back home in Europe, but he breezed through the challenge using only his smartphone, which was installed with Alipay, the third-party payment app.

      Derksen, who has been affectionately nicknamed A Fu by netizens, started his cashless day at Hangzhou East Railway Station, where he managed to rent an umbrella and a portable battery for his phone simply by scanning a QR code and completing the transaction with Alipay.

    7. Li, Han (2018-06-28). "Nut Cases: How Foreign Viral Video Stars Are Defying Stereotypes". Sixth Tone. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

      The article notes:

      In Shanghai, a German man named Thomas — who goes by the Chinese handle Ah Fu, meaning good fortune — has gained millions of followers on both Weibo and WeChat by producing videos documenting his daily life and relationship with his Chinese in-laws. A former student at Shanghai’s Fudan University, his funniest and most compelling segments tend to reflect on the linguistic and cultural differences between China and Germany.

    8. Wurzel, Steffen (2019-04-08). "Chinesen lieben den Influencer aus Gummersbach" [Chinese love the influencer from Gummersbach] (in Chinese). Deutschlandfunk Kultur. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

      The article notes:

      Video-Geschichten übers Essen machten ihn in China berühmt. Der 30-jährige Thomas Gerksen alias „Afu“ kommt im Reich der Mitte auf ein paar Millionen Follower. Der einflussreiche Mittler zwischen deutscher und chinesischer Kultur lebt mit seiner Frau in Shanghai.

      Seine Video-Clips haben Thomas Derksen in China berühmt gemacht. Nicht unter dessen deutschem Namen allerdings, sondern unter „Afu“, das ist der chinesische Spitzname des 30-Jährigen.

      Die rund zehnminütigen Video-Geschichten von Afu handeln von seinem Leben in Shanghai, vom Zusammenleben mit seiner chinesischen Frau, seinen Schwiegereltern und ganz viel geht’s ums Essen.

      ...

      Egal, ob Afu im Norden Chinas unterwegs ist und scharfe Fischuppe probiert oder ob er in seiner Heimatstadt Gummersbach östlich von Köln in einem stinknormalen deutschen Supermarkt einkaufen geht: Er und seine Frau machen daraus launige Videos – und seine Fans in China lieben diesen Einblick ins deutsche Leben, in die Denkweise der Deutschen. Bei Facebook und Youtube hat Afu rund 400.000 Follower. Auf chinesischen Video-Seiten sind es nochmal fast 20 Mal so viele.

      From Google Translate:

      Video stories about food made him famous in China. The 30-year-old Thomas Gerksen alias "Afu" has a few million followers in the Middle Kingdom. The influential mediator between German and Chinese culture lives with his wife in Shanghai.

      His video clips have made  Thomas Derksen famous in China. Not under his German name, however, but under "Afu", that is the Chinese nickname of the 30-year-old.

      Afu's ten-minute video stories are about his life in Shanghai, living together with his Chinese wife, his in-laws and a lot about food.

      ...

      Regardless of whether Afu is in the north of China and tries spicy fish soup or whether he goes shopping in his hometown Gummersbach east of Cologne in a normal German supermarket: He and his wife make fun videos out of it - and his fans in China love this insight into German Life, in the mindset of the Germans. Afu has around 400,000 followers on Facebook and YouTube. There are almost 20 times as many on Chinese video sites.

    9. Deuber, Lea (2016-05-26). "Wie ein Deutscher das Internet in China begeistert" [How a German enthuses the Internet in China]. Bento (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

      The article notes:

      Wer Derksen in Shanghai treffen will, muss erst ein wenig suchen. Zwischen einem ausländischen Sportgeschäft und einer großen Bank hindurch, ein kleines Gässchen entlang, durch Hinterhöfe und an Männern vorbei, die auf dem Fußboden hocken, spucken und rauchen. Dort sitzt Derksen mit seiner Frau Zhu Liping in einem Café. Derksen gefällt der Ort mitten in Shanghai. Es ist das alte China, das sich hier hinter den modernen Hochhäusern versteckt. Seine Frau stammt aus Shanghai und ist "absolut der Kopf hinter der ganzen Sache" gibt Derksen ohne Zögern zu. "Sie ist die Texterin, Regisseurin und Kamerafrau." Und: "Die Lustige von uns beiden."

      Während der Schulzeit war Derksen das erste Mal mit einer Arbeitsgemeinschaft seines Gymnasiums in China. Nach dem Abi machte er wie seine zwei Geschwister erst eine Banklehre, das wurde ihm nach drei Jahren aber zu langweilig. Derksen ging an die Uni und studierte Wirtschaft und Politik Ostasiens. Bei einem Sprachkurs in Shanghai lernte er 2012 seine Frau kennen. "Dann bin ich noch einmal für ein Jahr zum Studium zurückgekommen."

      Ganz so wie in seinen Videos ist es bei ihm dann nicht gewesen: Im Gegensatz zu vielen chinesischen Männern musste er weder Auto, Geld noch Wohnung in die Ehe mitbringen. "Hätte ich auch nicht gehabt als armer Student", sagt Derksen und lacht. Anders als in den meisten Familien, wo das Vermögen des zukünftigen Ehemanns noch entscheidend für die Heiratserlaubnis der Eltern ist, hatte er Glück mit seinem Schwiegervater: "Er sagte nur: Hauptsache, dass ihr euch mögt."

      From Google Translate:

      He still has to get used to people turning on the street after him. Otherwise Thomas Derksen seems pretty relaxed. For having become a Chinese internet star in the past few weeks.

      The 27-year-old from Marienheide has been living in Shanghai for almost half a year and with his videos about his life in the Chinese city, he now has hundreds of thousands of followers on platforms like Weibo and Meipai. His most successful video has been seen more than ten million times so far.

      Derksen's recipe for success: he is just himself. And his fans love it. Of course, it's a little over the top if he makes fun of Chinese women with a pink bow in their hair who don't want to carry their handbags. And with the played cute helplessness drive their friends crazy. Or mothers who are constantly trying to marry their daughters.

    10. "Big in Shanghai – German Internet Star Thomas Derksen". Deutsche Welle. 2017-05-29. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

      The article notes:

      Every week, Thomas Derksen uploads new sketches to blogging services like Weibo, Meipai and QQ. The German comedian sends up Chinese stereotypes, speaking the local dialect fluently. Tens of millions of users click on his videos. What began as a lark for an exchange student has turned into a good living. Just one year after starting out in Shanghai, Derksen has two employees helping out, plus his wife.

      A three-minute video accompanies the article.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Afu Thomas to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 00:24, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Sulfurboy (talk) 02:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Gulasi[edit]

David Gulasi (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

run of the mill Vlogger MistyGraceWhite (talk) 01:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 02:20, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MistyGraceWhite: In which way is he run of the mill? Under which standard?
WP:GNG states: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list."
Wikipedia:Notability (people) also states: "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject."
You have at least two articles which follow this standard from at least two different publications (Shanghai Daily a.k.a. Shine and The Australian) from two different countries.
Vloggers in foreign countries are not as common, and part of why he's well-noted in China is that he's a foreigner.
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:18, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:WhisperToMe a couple of articles are not enough for an article on wikipedia. Significant coverage is needed. WP:NOTNEWS. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:12, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misty, Wikipedia:Significant coverage "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." - These articles do that. WhisperToMe (talk) 16:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WhisperToMe has adequately explained the notability and the sourcing is fine in the context. This is not the first uninsightful nomination by this not-long-established editor. Ingratis (talk) 12:45, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ingratis soaccording to you, 2 articles are enough for him to pass GNG? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 14:42, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It all depends on context and here I think so, for now: bear in mind the possibility of others coming to light later, as per WP:NEXIST. I notice in another of your nominations you implied that 70 references were not enough... Ingratis (talk) 15:27, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Ingratis please discuss each AFd on its relevant page. I asked if your opinion was that 2 articles are enough, you have made it clear that you think so. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:58, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other AfD goes to indicate that you apparently have a flawed grasp of GNG, which is what's also at issue here, so it's relevant. Also, other editors are not limited to answering your direct questions! Ingratis (talk) 23:07, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Misty, WP:GNG states: "There is no fixed number of sources required since sources vary in quality and depth of coverage, but multiple sources are generally expected." I presume that means at least two. Also the South China Morning Post has a source discussing Gulasi in particular, and it covers the subject in detail even though he's not the only foreigner covered: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." WhisperToMe (talk) 16:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Callick, Rowan (2017-09-02). "How 'bit of a clown' became a Chinese megastar". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27 – via Gale.
    2. "Australian teacher finds unexpected online fame in China". China.com. Xinhua News Agency. 2016-06-12. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    3. "David Gulasi". Shanghai Daily. 2016-03-13. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    4. "【我们的故事】萌叔大卫老师：来自澳洲却满嘴内蒙方言的搞笑网红" [[Our Stories] Uncle David: A funny internet celebrity from Australia who is full of Mongolian dialect] (in Chinese). Special Broadcasting Service. 2020-01-02. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    5. Hamilton, Clive (2019-07-27). "High-Stakes Politics of Gold". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27 – via Gale.
    6. Liu, Coco (2017-08-21). "How expats are cashing in on China's internet celebrity boom". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-30. Retrieved 2020-04-27.
    Sources with quotes
    1. Callick, Rowan (2017-09-02). "How 'bit of a clown' became a Chinese megastar". The Australian. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27 – via Gale.

      The article notes:

      David Gulasi grew up in a Turkish family in western Sydney, came to China for adventure, and found it in spades.

      He also found fame, becoming by far the best-known Australian in the country, with eight million online followers. And fortune, with advertising space on his video posts selling for $75,000 a hit. And love, marrying Mongolian-Chinese woman Sammy. They have a daughter, Aria, 4, who Gulasi wants educated in Australia.

      He has become one of China's most successful opinion leaders, whose faces and voices are crucial in marketing campaigns.

      His main online platform, Sina Weibo, presents him alongside its homegrown Chinese blogging stars in theatres across China, where they are routinely mobbed.

      This week he has been meeting some of his scores of thousands of fans in Melbourne and Sydney - all Chinese, mostly in their 20s - where he is regularly stopped on the street by followers.

      Now aged 34, he dabbled in comedy, graduated in computer studies from the University of Sydney, worked in sales, and then eight years ago answered an ad to teach English in China.

    2. "Australian teacher finds unexpected online fame in China". China.com. Xinhua News Agency. 2016-06-12. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

      The article notes:

      When David Gulasi decided to leave Sydney for a teaching position in China more than five years ago, he never imagined that he would become an online celebrity.

      More than 730,000 followers track his Weibo account and his videos have accrued thousands upon thousands of likes.

      Gulasi, 33, accepted a teaching role in Hohhot in North China's Inner Mongolia autonomous region in 2010, and hasn't looked back since. "I was supposed to be here for only three months," Gulasi said.

      He is now the managing director of the New World Language School in the region, and while he is popular with his own students, his viral videos on social media platform Weibo, have attracted attention from across the nation.

    3. "David Gulasi". Shanghai Daily. 2016-03-13. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

      The article notes:

      ON Weibo, one of the biggest Chinese social media sites, the video of a man correcting people’s English recently resulted in more than 71,100 reblogs, 27,400 comments and 29,880 “likes.”

      The uploader of the video was David Gulasi, an Australian native and president of the New World Language Training School in Hohhot, capital of the Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region.

      In the video that catapulted Gulasi to the attention of Chinese netizens, he explained how Chinese students frequently misuse the word “play,” invoking it when they really mean “to hang out” with someone.

      ...

      The video also opened new doors for him. BTV, a local Beijing television network, asked him to co-host an English-language show with another expat, starting this month.

      Gulasi said he left a career in Mediterranean cuisine seven years ago and came to China seeking new adventure.

    4. "【我们的故事】萌叔大卫老师：来自澳洲却满嘴内蒙方言的搞笑网红" [[Our Stories] Uncle David: A funny internet celebrity from Australia who is full of Mongolian dialect] (in Chinese). Special Broadcasting Service. 2020-01-02. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

      The article notes:

      他名叫大卫·古拉斯（David Gulasi），网名“萌叔大卫老师”。他在中国居住已有近10年，在内蒙古呼和浩特市开办一所英语培训学校。

      他说，最初他去中国只是趁着假期打工度假，做一年外教顺便吃喝玩乐，没想过留在中国。  

      甚至他来到呼和浩特都纯属缘分。原本中介公司安排大卫到东北，可到了之后大卫却发现招他当外教的学校在内蒙。

      From Google Translate:

      His name is David Gulasi, and his online name is "Meng Uncle David Teacher". He has lived in China for nearly 10 years and opened an English training school in Hohhot, Inner Mongolia.

      He said that at first he went to China just to take advantage of the holiday to work and vacation, to be a foreign teacher for a year, and to eat, drink and have fun, never thought of staying in China.

      Even his arrival in Hohhot was pure fate. The intermediary company originally arranged for David to go to the northeast, but when he arrived, David found that the school that recruited him as a foreign teacher was in Inner Mongolia.

    5. Hamilton, Clive (2019-07-27). "High-Stakes Politics of Gold". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2020-04-27. Retrieved 2020-04-27 – via Gale.

      The article notes:

      This time the attacks have been led by an Australian in China. School principal David Gulasi, who has 1.7 million Chinese followers, has called Horton an "idiot", telling his followers to "kick his arse".

      Now Gulasi's followers are sending out images showing a trussed up, kneeling Horton about to be beheaded by a sword-wielding terrorist.

    6. Liu, Coco (2017-08-21). "How expats are cashing in on China's internet celebrity boom". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2017-08-30. Retrieved 2020-04-27.

      The article notes:

      Take David Gulasi, the founder of an English education centre in Inner Mongolia, as a case in point. His profession might not seem an obvious platform to fame and fortune, but he has already managed to accumulate 5 million followers on social media platform Weibo – China’s answer to Facebook and Twitter – by sharing the funny moments he has experienced in his day job.

      The Australian former standup comedian, 34, shot to fame by accident when he posted a comical video about a misunderstanding he had with two male students, who had invited him to their house “to play together”.

      ...

      With his international background, videos spoken in English, and an alternative world view, Gulasi’s profile has attracted Chinese millennials, a group many firms are eager to serve. Gulasi now sells advertising space on his Weibo page for as much as US$60,000, and is so popular he can afford to reject sponsored content that he does not agree with.

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

    Cunard (talk) 04:32, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_April_25&oldid=1099670327"