Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 April 30 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 delete. North America1000 02:10, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henrich Akomolafe[edit]

Henrich Akomolafe (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)

promotional and non-notable.Probable paid editor rsponsible for a number of similar articles. The references look impressive, but they do not hold up: they are promotional interviews where the person speaks whatever he pleases--and, as can be seen from the titles and confirmed by looking at the text, some of them duplicate. The various annual Forbes "30 under 30" and similar lists are promotional gimmicks, and do not lead to notability DGG ( talk ) 23:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — DGG, couldn’t have said it any better. The whole article is a promotional piece for a subject seeking a Wikipedia presence. Only one source appears to be reliable but they don’t discuss subject with significant coverage. Furthermore undisclosed paid editing might be a factor here as author of this article @Kojomo has two more of such articles on non notable “prominent” businessmen but both thankfully have been declined appropriately by the AFC process.Celestina007 (talk) 00:45, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - ordinarily I would try to argue the Guardian coverage is a good start, but it seems every single piece of independent coverage is tied solely to these rankings in Forbes, etc., not noting any particular notability beyond that. Perhaps a case of too soon, but either way delete. I also couldn't find other sources online to add to what is already on the page. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 22:46, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Celestina007 That two other articles I created got declined by the AFC process shouldnt mean I am a paid editor as I am not. It should be a case of not meeting the notability requirements which I have openly admitted to DGG but unfortunately I have not had it easy in getting advice and help on how to edit articles better. I know there are articles to read about the guidelines and process, which I have read and tried to adhere to. I enjoy the process of editing Wikipedia pages and I don't think not been successful in one should stop me from trying again.Kojomo (talk) 23:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The subject is the co-founder of a non-notable company. His only claim to notability is being listed on Forbes Africa's 30 under 30 list.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 13:08, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SNOW. I specifically disagree that Forbes "30/30" lists provide notability; they are useful as a source, however, once notability has been established. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete,I agree with DGG, the article is promotional. Alex-h (talk) 09:36, 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, even disregarding the dual keep comment made by Alan Islas, was keep. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:23, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Sanchez[edit]

Joseph Sanchez (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 non-notable. As with various other articles created by the original author, the few sources used are primary sources and the article, while detailed, fails to establish actual notability of the subject. It's almost entirely original research. B.Rossow · talk 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. B.Rossow · talk 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. B.Rossow · talk 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:42, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment there is a tiny bit of coverage out there, but most of it is not in-depth. A very deep search might turn up more. The main problem here is that, assuming those sources were found, his very weak notablity would at most sustain a very short article-- not the gigantic indulgent biography that we have here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment He is a well known artist, curator and Native American activist in the American Southwest. In collection of the Hood Museum [1]. Unfortunately most of the museums in the Southwest do not have searchable online collection. I will keep looking. Netherzone (talk) 12:56, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment COPYVIO from his bio page [2] is the bigger problem. I just flagged it. I found many passing references in a database search. He was a member of the Indian Group of Seven so I think he has notability, but it has to be a TNT bc of the COPYVIO. --Theredproject (talk) 19:59, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Amanda (aka DQ) 20:10, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It's pretty simple: Joe Sanchez is an important artist in both Canada and in the US. He was also a Curator, then Director of the Indian American Institute of Arts in Santa Fe and has since retired. He is one of only two living members of the "Indian Group of Seven". His works have been shown in many public institutions and shows worldwide. Racist colonialists have been trying to erase First Nations people for hundreds of years, so attempts to erase his page come as no surprise. The truth is, people (and especially First Nations people) want to know his story, and will want to know his story years from now. Why don't we do our research before considering deleting the page of an important cultural figure? If we don't like the quality of the writing, why don't we improve it? He is still alive, why don't we interview him or fact check with him before it's too late?

Some easily found reading for those interested:

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/saskatchewan/book-on-indian-group-of-seven-show-wins-3-awards-1.3050184

https://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/professional-native-indian-artists-inc

https://lakelandconnect.net/tag/indian-group-of-seven/

https://www.albertanativenews.com/group-of-seven-catalogue-offers-readers-beauty-knowledge-insight-and-more/

https://windspeaker.com/news/windspeaker-news/indian-group-of-seven-artists-will-help-launch-permanent-exhibition

https://iaia.edu/

https://orecartgbp.weebly.com/indian-group-of-seven.html

[User:Misterlobat|Misterlobat]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterlobat (talk • contribs) 01:00, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment

Please explain: what exactly is the problem with Primary Research? Last time I checked, primary sources were the best ones - no? [User:Misterlobat|Misterlobat]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Misterlobat (talk • contribs) 01:13, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Given that the Indian Group of Seven appears to be (I'm not an expert in this area) a notable group of Indigenous painters, and that all the other founding members also have articles to their names, I think that Joseph Sanchez would also merit his own, especially since there is independent coverage about him. Not trying be funny or anything, but it is the Indian Group of Seven, not six. However, I agree that the potential issues with original research and copyright infringement have to be fixed. Alan Islas (talk) 19:39, 28 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Indian Group of Seven due to the lack of extensive coverage on Sanchez specifically. His career does seem to warrant mention in the larger topic, though. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 23:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as suggested by the IP. Arguably, he passes WP:PROF as curator of a notable museum, to which I've visited. Bearian (talk) 17:12, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Let me start by saying that I am an expert in Canadian First Nations art - this is my major area of study and interest. A bit of background: The Indian Group of Seven are Canadian national icons, and important groundbreaking artists - all seven of them - in fact there was an eighth member by the name of Bill Reid who is a huge figure in Canadian art and very important as well, but never officially showed with the group so is excluded from the so called "Indian Group of Seven" lexicon. I would encourage those not schooled in this area to read "7: Professional Native Indian Artists Inc. Group of Seven: JANVIER RAY MORRISSEAU ODJIG SANCHEZ BEARDY COBINESS" (a show catalog/book that won several awards) and all will become clear (notice the 7 at the beginning of the title). It is not up to Wikipedia authors who are not experts in this field to decide which artists from the group are important, and which are not - as an expert in this area I will thus assert, they are all important. Period. Other experts in this area, should one choose to seek them out whilst performing some primary research, would agree. A bit of history on this article: For the edification of Bearian and other interested parties, I (Misterlobat) started the page in 2009, which was originally a pretty simple, basic, matter of fact entry where one was desperately lacking - after that I pretty much left it to others to work on (please see article history for reference). In or around November 2016, a few massive edits were made by a "josephmsanchez" who now appears to be a defunct user. For all I know it was Joseph Sanchez himself, and based on the amount of detail, it may well have been - who knows - or possibly someone following the huge shows around that time. If any of the text was "lifted" from a non-referenced source, it certainly was not by me. If the article is a "mess" as asserted by Bearian (which in fact it may very well be by Wikipedia standards), then, those who know best how to clean it up, probably should since I believe (as do others) it is an important article about an important cultural figure in Canadian, US, and First Nations art. Disclaimer: I am by no means an expert at Wikipedia editing, and am learning as I go, so of course open to scrutiny and correction by those more schooled in the art of Wikipedia edits. As an aside: I have to admit, I find it laughable that using primary sources in Wikipedia is frowned upon - but hey, that's just one person's opinion coming from a scientific background with over 70 original scientific journal publications to his name. If it's the Wikipedia way, then so be it - rules are rules and made for a reason, which we should all abide by, even ones we disagree with. Please feel free to clean this article up so that it meets or exceeds Wikipedia standards. I caution those who think it should be deleted or merged into a massive, unwieldy Indian Group of Seven page. Big mistake.Misterlobat (talk) 23:27, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I'm new to WP and to the deletion process, so I went to WP:BIO to look for the notability criteria for people. I don't know what is the minimum number of sources needed to justify "significant coverage". I found 8 secondary sources that I believe to be reliable and independent and that focus on Sanchez. Most of these have pictures of Sanchez and/or his art. I did not include the several sources that merely mention him as part of the Indian Group of Seven. See links below, of course I do not consider this quick online search to be exhaustive:

http://www.native-art-in-canada.com/joesanchez.html

https://www.lakelandtoday.ca/lac-la-biche-news/indigenous-artists-joseph-sanchez-and-alex-janvier-attend-lac-la-biche-museum-opening-1909492

https://www.albertanativenews.com/joseph-sanchez-reflects-on-the-indian-group-of-seven-in-advance-of-edmonton-exhibitions/

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/edmonton/indian-group-seven-joseph-sanchez-1.4603977

https://edmontonjournal.com/entertainment/local-arts/native-group-of-seven-show-engages-the-past-present-and-future/

https://ammsa.com/publications/alberta-sweetgrass/7-professional-native-indian-artists-inc-makes-final-tour-stop-edmon

https://ammsa.com/publications/alberta-sweetgrass/group-seven-recognized-breaking-ground

https://www.alternativesjournal.ca/people-and-profiles/focusing-first-nations-art (This last one is a journal with subscription wall, but I had access through a library portal)

Incidently, the Alberta Teacher's Association includes this WP article being discussed for deletion in a list of teaching resources about the Indigenous Group of seven: https://teachers-ab.libguides.com/c.php?g=710500&p=5083224

From the additional criteria Joseph Sanchez most likely meets WP:PROF due to his curatorial career, as Bearian indicated. Finally, I believe he also meets WP:Artist because of his exhibitions and being part of museum collections, as Netherzone pointed to.

This is that last criteria: "The person's work (or works) has: (a) become a significant monument, (b) been a substantial part of a significant exhibition, (c) won significant critical attention, or (d) been represented within the permanent collections of several notable galleries or museums."

Alan Islas (talk) 12:52, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - The subject of this article is notable. The sources are out there, and simply need to be added to the article. The copyvio sections can be removed - easily. There is no need to delete or WP:TNT this article. It can be fixed, the notability is there. I suggest that those who found the sources add them to the article pronto, and those who found the copyvios remove them. I would do the copyvio removal, but for some reason, I cannot access the tool I use, which is Earwig's copyvio detector. If there is another tool available, please ping me, or post it on my talk page, and I will take care of the copyvios. The subject of the article is an important, notable Native American artist and curator. Netherzone (talk) 22:34, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added some sources (and removed one, due to broken link), in particular about exhibitions. Mentioned permanent collection at museum in Portage Collage, and Sanchez' role as chief curator. Added external links section with a couple of links. Alan Islas (talk) 12:35, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alan Islas I added three of the citations you listed above and a bit more content to the article. Netherzone (talk) 17:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Revisions containing copyvio have now been suppressed by an admin. This is the last copyvio free version before the revdel.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:00, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I am seeing the notability now that the fluff and copyvio is gone.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:20, 5 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, as revised. BD2412 T 03:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sand Canyon, Los Angeles County, California[edit]

Sand Canyon, Los Angeles County, 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)

Deprodded. No evidence of this being a "major feature" that meets GNG; most coverage of "Sand Canyon" is related to a different location East of Santa Clarita. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 23:59, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The article says it is located east of Santa Clarita, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think I've found the source of confusion. The article describes a Sand Valley in the San Gabriel Mountains, 7 miles East of Santa Clarita GNIS GMaps, but the coordinates point to a different Sand Valley 20 miles North of Santa Clarita GNIS GMaps. I didn't look closely at the location to the East in my WP:BEFORE search, but it's clearly the intended topic and we should change the coordinates to match it. –dlthewave ☎ 01:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It was what Sand Fire (2016) was named after; presumably it swept through this canyon. Better explanation/illustration/mapping of its geography would be fine, but it helps the other article and is not the same kind of thing, so merger would not make sense. --Doncram (talk) 23:26, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is coverage included with the fire reporting and seems to be a relatively large feature, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:41, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nom Comment This nomination was originally for a different Sand Canyon near the Antelope Valley. I changed the coordinates to match the Sand Canyon described in the article, which is associated with the fire, but I'm not entirely convinced that this one meets GNG either. The fire coverage is just a single event and only tangentially related to the canyon itself; it's possible for a notable event to occur in a non-notable place. –dlthewave ☎ 02:20, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The here-stated multiple instances of the name (are you really sure this is two places, not just one canyon 20 miles long?) means that having an article providing clarity/disambiguation/maybe _two_ articles is all the more important for readers. There are lots of mentions in media where a reader could likely arrive in Wikipedia wanting to know more:
Those are just first few of many many hits. This is a needed article or pair of articles or whatever; i am not going further. --Doncram (talk) 08:56, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think you've made a strong argument for keeping the Sand Canyon that's in the San Gabriel Mountains, but there just doesn't seem to be any coverage for the other one. A "not to be confused with" template should suffice. A quick glance at a topo map makes it clear that this is not one long canyon, and in case there was any doubt the GNIS entries also lists a distinct "source" and "mouth" for each one. –dlthewave ☎ 03:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz talk 23:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dlthewave: Hi do you want to close this rather than having it drag on, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:22, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Doesn't bother anybody, interesting subject. I would keep it. TheImaCow (talk) 05:38, 4 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) 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen T. Chang[edit]

Stephen T. Chang (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 notable. RobP (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. RobP (talk) 23:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seriously? I thought personal bios got treated differently than other topics. How is a book article relevant? And, if I am wrong about that, is the criteria now just what was done in the past for any article? Then let me suggest using THIS article I wrote as the criteria... It was deleted (twice), even with 34 citations, including The Atlantic, People and the NYT. And by the way, there is only a single reference (not the two listed above - where did THOSE come from?) used in this article, and it is the subject's own book. And it is used only to support a single paragraph. I have never seen a bio article more in need of an AFD than this one. RobP (talk) 21:05, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Henry Hazlitt bibliography[edit]

Henry Hazlitt bibliography (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)

We've covered this ground before: Wikipedia is not for bibliographies, and this one is just incredibly complete--and that is the positive spin. Listing every individual article the man ever published is of interest only to specialists, very few specialists. There may well be another project that this will fit in nicely, but we are not it. Drmies (talk) 23:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 23:21, 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 and redirect to Murder of Swami Lakshmanananda. Consensus to delete POVFORK; creating redirect since it's an obvious search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:26, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshmanananda Saraswati[edit]

Lakshmanananda Saraswati (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)

There is nothing notable about this man except for his murder. Falls under WP:1E. And there is even a dedicated article on the murder itself. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Kautilya3 (talk) 23:00, 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 redirect to Ishq Mein Marjawan. Redirecting w/o merge tag because the subject article is unsourced. Content undeleted in history should anyone want to attempt to source & merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tara Raichand[edit]

Tara Raichand (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 indication the fictional character is notable enough for its own article KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. KylieTastic (talk) 21:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Ishq Mein Marjawan - Sigh... For whatever reason, Indian TV show articles never have coherent character descriptions. I think I've seen one in all my years. Instead, people just obsess about how each character is related to another character. The result, is that most Indian TV cast/character lists are pure garbage, containing convoluted information presented between slashes and excessive parentheticals. Details that summarise who the character is and what their role is in the series would intuitively belong in the article. Though I applaud the article creator's efforts, a stand-alone article is not justified. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 23:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Ishq Mein Marjawan, the article is completely unsourced, and fails GNG and WP:PLOT, but I think that goes without saying. Honestly the article is written in such a poor manner that there is really nothing to merge to the main article, since that already suffers from a massively bloated and poorly written plot section that covers her more than sufficiently. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 12:37, 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) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mohammed Baqer al-Qazwini[edit]

Mohammed Baqer al-Qazwini (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 is an Islamic scholar from a notable family of scholars and leaders, but notability is not inherited. At the age of 35 he is certainly not a notable Shia cleric, and he has only been running his own seminary for a couple of years. None of the sources look reliable and sourcing a bio to a letter in the Guardian really is a sign of desperation. There is nothing here to suggest notability so WP:TOOSOON applies. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As per nom. Notability not stablished. wikipedia is not a social network site! Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:50, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Even though I created this page, I now agree. At this point in his life, he probably isn't notable enough for wikipedia. Ibn Daud (talk) 17:49, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Him being young has nothing to do with his notability. He is the most known Shia speaker in the United States and has established his own seminary. All English-speaking Shia know him! Hadiarchami 04:56, 1 May 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haidarchami (talk • contribs)
  • Comment whether he is known or not does not help, and starting his own seminary does not make him notable either. If you can find reliable independent sources about him, that’s what we need. Mccapra (talk) 09:15, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, too soon. We have almost always deleted articles about younger academics. This is nothing new, and a change in consensus is highly unlikely. Bearian (talk) 17:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete hujjahseminary is not a reliable source.--Vitalpantaryan (talk) 16:42, 6 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:08, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XYZ Maps[edit]

XYZ Maps (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Maps Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
Article has been edited since nomination. See original article version.

This article fails WP:NCORP. Angryskies (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Angryskies (talk) 20:46, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Unfortunately, unless some cartography trade industry news outlets are identified, there is insufficient suitable information available to support this article. I've added what I could find to date. --User:Ceyockey (talk to me) 11:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of significant coverage in independent sources in the article or in searches. One industry award for a dissolved company that had little apparent impact does not satisfy NCORP. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:05, 6 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) 02:27, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lakshya Digital[edit]

Lakshya Digital (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 video game company MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:32, 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) 02:29, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maine VegFest[edit]

Maine VegFest (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 small, local food festival without multiple independent, in-depth sources covering the subject itself. User:Namiba 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This festival has been in operation for 15 years and gets press coverage every year. This discussion needs to be added to list of Animal-related deletion discussions. BrikDuk (talk) 08:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You should read WP:EVENT. Length of routine coverage are not standards for inclusion.--User:Namiba 12:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The coverage of the event is significant coverage. Not passing mentions. The largest newspaper in Maine covers it every year. Coverage includes critical analysis of Maine VegFest. Example of critical analysis [1]. BrikDuk (talk) 17:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Vegan Kitchen: Some changes are afoot for this year's VegFest". Portland Press Herald. 2020-10-27.
It's an annual event being covered by the newspaper which is published in the same city as it occurs. Per WP:EVENT, this does not qualify as notable.--User:Namiba 17:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. User:Namiba 12:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Unfortuantly, have to agree with User:Namiba. As awesome as VegFest is, it's not notable for an encyclopedia entry. For reference, see WP:GEOSCOPE: "An event affecting a local area and reported only by the media within the immediate region may not necessarily be notable." The list of exceptions to this rule don't seem to apply here, as VegFest is only covered by domestic Maine sources, and has no regional impact that can be backed up with verifiable sources.ClaudeDavid (talk) 03:31, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 17:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @BrikDuk: If you have a chance, could you list, say, the three to five most compelling sources that would substantiate notability under WP:NEVENT? I'm seeing a lot of sources exist in the wild but every one that I've seen seems at least borderline ROUTINE, non-independent, etc. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 08:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 20:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This seems like a straight-forward application of WP:EVENT. Since all the coverage is local and/or routine, the notability guideline is not passed. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete' with regret, but we have deleted the articles of many such local festivals. Bearian (talk)
  • Comment. I'm pretty sure WP:EVENT doesn't apply to annual festivals. It's clear from the context that it's talking about things that happen once, like a wedding, a crime, or a sporting match. I don't know what the appropriate guideline is, but I don't think it's EVENT. pburka (talk) 22:39, 5 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. bibliomaniac15 22:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James E. Mumford[edit]

James E. Mumford (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 meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:28, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:05, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete. He seems to have been well known locally but the coverage we have is all local and the accomplishments we can source are minor. There is in-depth coverage of him at this source but it's not very independent (published by his employer) and only one source. Despite searching I didn't find anything better. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:30, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep. It doesn't seem like it should be deleted, seems that he has significant effect on field of music education, and he has notable students within the world of music. I have just spent some time now editing, and plan to keep editing this article, as there is much more significant information on him than was initially present in the article upon nomination for deletion. He also seems significant as a historical figure, given his upbringing, achievements, impact on others.--Gim0031 (talk) 09:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 20:14, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - even after passing his legacy remains strong at the university and through his past students many of whom have gained notoriety doing what he taught them to do. He had a large lasting longstanding impact on the university beyond his facaulty. What is not strong however are the number of references to him outside the state of Indiana. But I'm willing to give that a pass based solely on the incredible impact he had as an ambasadoor for the university, a trailblazer in the community, and the number of quality sources and likely journal entries made of him at Indiana University - one of the largest institutions in north america.Grmike (talk) 00:27, 30 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
  • delete per nom. he can have a memorial page on the website of Indiana University. But definitely, no scientific merits for pass WP:ACADEMIC Ms4263nyu (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm not seeing significant independent coverage of him that meets WP:GNG. Notability isn't inherited from having some notable students. Papaursa (talk) 02:30, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - whilst he is undoubtedly admired locally for his impact, and there is local coverage, this does not indicate notability for an international encyclopaedia. !keep voters have not presented coverage which indicates notability under WP:GNG. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:29, 7 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 redirect to Spotify#Industry initiatives. Spartaz Humbug! 21:06, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spotify Awards[edit]

Spotify Awards (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 for the notability of this new award . The one ref. given is a mere notice DGG ( talk ) 09:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 10:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - No significant coverage of the subject of the article besides the two sources being used. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 06:28, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:09, 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 due to no reliable sources to demonstrate notability. As a separate editorial action I'm going to redirect it to List of colleges affiliated to the University of Kerala as it's mentioned there; but that's not as a result of any particular consensus to do so at this discussion. ~ mazca talk 16:12, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NSS College Nilamel[edit]

NSS College Nilamel (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 to meet the notability guideline. Sources on the web are not reliable secondary sources Mopswade (talk) 08:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:17, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:08, 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) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel Montagu Youth Centre[edit]

Samuel Montagu Youth Centre (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 notable, there aren't any non-primary sources on this topic. Article is unencyclopedic and also unsourced as well. Mopswade (talk) 08:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:18, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - as a non notable local community facility and as per WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This appears to be completely unsourced and fails to demonstrate that the facility has any notability. Dunarc (talk) 20:18, 6 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. There is a narrow but policy-supported consensus that the sources provided do not suffice to support notability for this subject. No prejudice against restoring to draft if further improvements can be made to overcome these objections. BD2412 T 01:43, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kristel Kruustük[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Kristel Kruustük (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 person, Wikipedia is not LinkedIn, even the mentioned company is not on Wikipedia. The business person is only locally "known", the Stanford link is a generic set of interviews done in Estonia to record and archive local lives of locals (notable and non-notable people). One startup person among dozens of thousands. Article wrote by only one editor with an excessive promoting tone. Userland12 (talk) 15:57, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:52, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She is the youngest Estonian female millionaire and definitely notable enough for English Wikipedia. There is nothing do debate about. Anyone who claims something else has not looked into the topic. Ivo (talk) 16:41, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:07, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 05:34, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I cannot fully access the sources, as most of them are in Estonian. But I just wanted to note that the Forbes article linked above by Pelmeen10 is a "contributor article" which is more like a blog than a magazine article; it does not suffice for notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 07:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not only it fails WP:PROMOTION but also fails WP:GNG. "Millionaire" is not enough to describe notability. According to List_of_countries_by_the_number_of_millionaires there are 10'000 millionaires in the country of the subject. Let's be honest, the company is nothing special (there are much bigger and notable companies that are not on Wikipedia). A local wood factory in Siberia can easily earn 1 million USD and may even have interviews in local newspapers or mentions in international websites but it doesn't mean it's worth for inclusion so the argument of money is pointless. The evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity. On the outside sources, what we can see is PR organized by the subject's own company. Yes money can buy that, and you can pay to get articles written for you, but it doesn't make you notable. It's very visible by the promotional tone. For example the main source of the Wikipedia article is "Estonian World (press release) (blog)-Oct 27, 2016". No offense if but an article based on press releases and promotional interviews and guests posts, well that's PR and marketing, not encyclopedia content and therefore should be deleted if we don't want Wikipedia to become a PR garbage (especially when the notability is not established by repeated and independent sources). - Userland12 (talk) 12:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. PR and self-promotion are certainly valid concerns here, but I think this article just makes it over the GNG bar. I view the Forbes and VentureBeat sources more favorably than some of the other commentators above. The overall sourcing is not ideal, but I see it as just reliable and independent enough to meet our criteria.--Mojo Hand (talk) 14:41, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL. How can she be a millionaire when she's in debt for $7M? Bearian (talk) 17:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable person whose company doesn't even have a page. Kori (@) 00:04, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:07, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kadeco[edit]

Kadeco (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 meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 17:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 20:02, 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. Redirects at editorial discretion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 08:33, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TAPCO[edit]

TAPCO (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 meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG, and has been tagged as such for 12 years. Boleyn (talk) 17:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 20:02, 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 keep. There is consensus that sufficient sources have now been added to demonstrate notability. ~ mazca talk 13:37, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rustam Sohrab[edit]

Rustam Sohrab (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 is an non notable Hindi film that has not received any notable coverage. Article doesn't comply with WP:NOTE. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Dellwood546 (talk) 16:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 20:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article already has a reliable source (The Hindu newspaper) - an in-depth article on the lead actress Suraiya for this film. Found at least 4 more sources that can be used to improve this article, hopefully tomorrow. Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep - pending the finding of more than one good source Spiderone 12:24, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Added 2 more reliable sources and 2 more external links today. Ngrewal1 (talk) 21:15, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:NFILM.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 00:26, 7 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 14:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scavengers (video game)[edit]

Scavengers (video game) (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)

Upcoming game, yet unreleased. Fails notability MistyGraceWhite (talk) 19:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 20:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Neither the game nor its developer pass notability requirements. Barely any coverage on the internet beyond promotional videos/articles. Clear-cut case of WP:TOOSOON. Charmanderblue (talk) 16:18, 4 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) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bobby Craig (producer)[edit]

Bobby Craig (producer) (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 notable for anything. Sources are clearly sponsored sources, although only the AA source is marked as such [6]. The sources don't mention anything noteworthy that he has done, only that he is "successful". – Thjarkur (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete like the article in question, the sources are paid for spam. Praxidicae (talk) 10:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I took a look at the sources. However, all of them are either passing mentions and advertisements. Kori (@) 04:59, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG, WP:NOTWEBHOST, and WP:MILL. It is unclear what he had produced from the state of the current page. The only real source on the page seems to indicate he's some kind of marketing or sales person. If you can fix it, please do and then ping me. Nothing he has done so far is notable. The current information is using a charity as a web-host for some new work product. Producers of all kinds (music, computer software, films, etc.) and sales persons (marketing, sales, advertising, etc.) are considered run of the mill, unless there is very clear words and evidence otherwise, such as awards like an OBE or equivalent. Sorry. Again, get back to me if you can show otherwise. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 15:39, 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 keep. The article may need to be renamed to more accurately convey the limitations of its coverage. BD2412 T 03:52, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of comets bearing names[edit]

List of comets bearing names (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)

Unfortunately this fails WP:LISTN: there isn't much coverage of named comets as a group separate from non-named ones. buidhe 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Too bad. I find it interesting to view the comets that actually bear names of people. Avram25 (talk) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. buidhe 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We have a list of numbered comets and so it is sensible to have a list of those with names too. Sources such as The Greatest Comets in History and the Atlas of Great Comets seem fine for this purpose. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Perfect valid list article. Blue links to most of the things on the list, so it aids in navigation, listing things that should logically be grouped together. Dream Focus 00:29, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. appropriate navigational article. , complementary to similar lists. DGG ( talk ) 10:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above discussion - useful navigation tool, clearly notable list, and does not do away with a category. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are some fundamental misunderstandings that have led to the keep votes. Lets remove them. The argument that we have a list of numbered comets so why not this? cannot be made here because all comets are numbered comets. There are no comets without numbers. For example take Halley's Comet, it is featured on the list with names, but if we read the lede there it says the designation is 1P/Halley. So this is the first misunderstanding that there are some named comets and some numbered comets. I invite editors to go through Naming of comets for further clarification. The second argument is that it aids in navigation. This is not true, rather it creates misunderstandings and readers get the impression that there are two kinds of naming traditions for comets, while there is essentially one. From this viewpoint the list can fall under WP:HOAX if viewed with enough criticism. The third is a semantic thing. The title of the list is List of comets bearing names. So what are other comets? Bearing no names? Even if there is a number attached to a comet (an that is not the case here, these are not asteroids), is that number not its name? Should there be a list called list of nameless comets? A list of comets bearing names should include all comets ever found but I digress. I invite User:Bearian,User:DGG, user:Andrew Davidson and other to reconsider. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:08, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not so. The list of numbered comets only lists periodic comets that have been seen more than once. See naming of comets for details of the various schemes. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Good point, P/1999 J6 for example is not a nameless comet. But I don't know how to call that kind of name: cryptic name? code name? Or how to call the name Halley's Comet - literal name? I just wanted a list of comets that have some non-cryptic names, I really can't find the right word for that, maybe someone with better English can help? Maybe "List of proper names of comets"? - Avram25 (talk) 19:39, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The full list of comets (with the exceptions of the ones mentioned by AD) have standard numbers. Numbers are one form of nomenclature. Non-standard names are another complementary form of nomenclature. I would not have thought readerswould confuse the two, but from the comments above, it seems that they do. That shouldn't affect keepingthe article--how totitle thearticle can bea separate discussion. DGG ( talk ) 19:52, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaushlendra Jha[edit]

Kaushlendra Jha (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)

Clearly fails GNG. It was a sure CSD but Phil Bridger contested. All the eight sources have bare mention of the subject as reporter or eyewitness of incidents. Given context doesn't prove notability. — GargAvinash talk 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. — GargAvinash talk 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. — GargAvinash talk 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:57, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 19:01, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:08, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FlightReacts[edit]

FlightReacts (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)

Youtuber with no claim to fame whatsoever MistyGraceWhite (talk) 18:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:43, 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. Sandstein 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caribbean Bird Vendor[edit]

Caribbean Bird Vendor (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)

I can hardly find any results online aside from besides its own Wikipedia page, thus I do not think it meets the notability requirements (see WP:N); Please let me know if I did something wrong as this is my first time doing this Why? I Ask 17:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cover image would mean little in terms of notability. Publishers of limited run and limited readership journals like the Emerging Infectious Diseases (journal) are thrilled to get whatever art they can for a cover, because very few academic journals have a budget for art.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:37, 4 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 18:29, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitkub[edit]

Bitkub (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)

Something is suspicious about this one. Articles from the one seemingly legit source look entirely like press releases. Hyperbolick (talk) 17:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Leaning delete - and crypto blogs in there too. But mainly press releases and churnalism - is this the best that can be found even in local coverage? - David Gerard (talk) 14:41, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Given the considerable levels of commercial advocacy, if this one is deleted it should probably be salted - David Gerard (talk) 15:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Original draft was created by paid editor Serghiy Hrabarook, then cleaned up and published by TviziJJskos (a new editor with a few other contributions). Multiple draft versions had also previously been created and deleted. There's lots of news coverage in Thai, though as usual, the independence of the coverage is debatable. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This is considered a company so must meet WP:NCORP by way of WP:ORGCRIT. While there are a lot of references, they are mainly trade publications, press releases, or unreliable sources. The sources that are reliable are more of less brief mentions or promotional which do not cover the company in-depth. Outside of that, it appears to me like another bitcoin related spam article. --CNMall41 (talk) 06:35, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - paid-for spam in a topic under general sanctions for extensive spamming. MER-C 14:43, 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 18:28, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Suisse[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Bitcoin Suisse (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 appears to be mainly WP:PROMO and does not seem to meet WP:GNG, because it doesn't look like there are multiple references that are independent, significant, reliable and secondary at the same time. It seems to be a lot of WP:REFBOMBING. Article can be kept if notability can be proved, but at this point I'm not convinced.

I did some research into various users contributing to the article discovered quite a few WP:SPA accounts:

I think this is against the policies and guidelines of Wikipedia.

Streepjescode (talk) 17:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:51, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 18:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Note that most references are press releases, churnalism or non-reliable. There's a few reliable sources (e.g. [7], [8], [9]), but far from WP:ORGDEPTH from what I found so far. --MarioGom (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@MarioGom: If that's your conclusion, then please vote. Streepjescode (talk) 06:28, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Streepjescode, sure, I was waiting to have some more time for a deeper search. MarioGom (talk) 07:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: there is some WP:ROUTINE coverage at Finews.ch ([10], [11], [12], [13], [14], [15]), which could apparently meet WP:RS except for the Advertorials section. It is borderline regarding WP:GNG. I see this company quickly gaining notability if it really manages to get the banking license approved in Switzerland, but at the moment it does not seem to cut it. --MarioGom (talk) 07:42, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete refbombed low-quality cryptocurrency promotional content - David Gerard (talk) 08:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Thank you to MarioGom for wading through the muck to highlight the RS, and I agree with the determination that these are not substantial, therefore subject fails WP:GNG. Pegnawl (talk) 15:51, 5 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. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation, as well as per some commentary that does not take a specific stance one way or another regarding notability or lack thereof, and per open-ended statements that do not really say much in terms of the subject's encyclopedic worthiness relative to Wikipedia's notability guidelines. North America1000 02:25, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caridad Asensio[edit]

Caridad Asensio (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)

Local hero, emphasis on local. The only national level reference is about her son, not herself. DGG ( talk ) 03:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As the creator of the article, I made sure there was in-depth coverage of her from independent newspapers. The Sun-Sentinel, which has many pieces on her, is the main daily newspaper of Fort Lauderdale, Florida. I realize the Florida Women's Hall of Fame probably isn't considered a "well-known and significant award or honor" but how does she not pass GNG? HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 03:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If she is not known outside her own city, she is not notable for the purposes of an encyclopedia DGG ( talk ) 05:43, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cuba-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 06:44, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, she has clearly received coverage from outside of her home city of Fort Lauderdale, such as here: [16] from Palm Beach County, and this: [17] from Fort Walton Beach, on the other side of the State, and this: [18] from Jacksonville. Coverage does not have to be national to establish notability, it just has to be from something other than one local newspaper which published a lot of articles on the same person. Clearly, the sources within the article demonstrate that, and cause this person to pass WP:GNG easily. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:14, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. If the fact that the Caridad Center at Boynton Beach that she co-founded is "Florida's largest free clinic", is verified, then she has a decent claim to notability. I'm not convinced on the GNG argument as it stands with the present sources. Best, PK650 (talk) 22:50, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 15:03, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the nominator has said "Local hero", she wasn't local hero. she was recognized across cuba — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2019KB (talk • contribs) 08:19, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:12, 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. When other editors are not buying into your argument then the argument is resolved against you. Spartaz Humbug! 21:12, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myles Jeffrey[edit]

Myles Jeffrey (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 actor, no evidence of substantial secondary sources online besides an out of date website from the 2000s, Pahiy (talk) 00:01, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:08, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 00:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are not the multiple reliable secondary sources to show notability. A bunch of minor parts do not add up to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:23, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Keep: There doesn't seem to be much recent coverage of the subject, but going back to the late-'90s/early-2000s, there are lots of newspaper hits which show potential WP:SIGCOV. I'm applying for a source to be clipped and will provide it soon. As for WP:NACTOR, the subject has had some decent roles which, I believe, pass the necessary threshold, and he also has some awards and nominations, which may support WP:ANYBIO. Dflaw4 (talk) 10:29, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 14:58, 21 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No opinion about whether he's notable or not, but right now, to our readers, this is a WP:BLP without reliable sources, and deletion is therefore required. Sandstein 10:40, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Slapping a bare URL into the "external links" section is not only shoddy editing (that's not what external links are for, and links should be properly formatted), but it is also not the same thing as properly referencing a BLP article. Readers must be able to verify the important and/or controversial facts about a person through inline references (footnotes) accompanying the respective statements in the article. Until you are able to do that, you should stay far away from any BLP articles, or you may in fact face sanctions (WP:BLPDS). Sandstein 16:02, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sandstein, if the article is kept, I will add the references properly. I only did it like this to placate your concerns vis-à-vis unreliably-sourced BLPs, and so that you can strike you vote given that it doesn't address the question of notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:57, 8 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment receiving the award is not being coveraed at GNG levels so that is not enough to show notability, and one source is never enough to pass GNG and that is all we have at best adding to GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:22, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • John Pack Lambert, WP:ANYBIO doesn't require there to be significant coverage attaching to the award. But I have provided sources to verify that he won those awards above. Dflaw4 (talk) 14:14, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I’m not convinced that the additional sources above indicate notability, it seems too minor to me. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:06, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closing administrator: The question of whether the subject's awards pass WP:ANYBIO has not yet been resolved. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:30, 8 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 18:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India[edit]

Misinformation related to the 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India (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)

Violates WP:COPYVIO since it was creating by parts of other articles without crediting to the original article. It is a WP:POVFORK of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India#Misinformation and discrimination, Misinformation_related_to_the_2019–20 coronavirus pandemic#Country-specific (India) and others. Wikpedia is not a news channel and it is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Right now India is the only country which has this type of article, and it seems clear that this kind of POVFORK, if preserved, is likely going to encourage more POVFORKs. Tessaracter (talk) 17:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom CrazyBoy826 (talk) 22:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We already know that not everyone had the correct information about the coronavirus. A separate country based article is unnecessary. Wareon (talk) 04:40, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia isn't for feeding one-off coverages of trivial occurrences. Azuredivay (talk) 07:10, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per all the above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 13:47, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above, probable candidate for speedy delete Spiderone 16:13, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article is way too specific and unnecessary. Kori (@) 17:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep No valid arguments for deletion. There are two types of arguments for deletion. One type is that which says that the content of the article is fine, but it should exist on other venues. Like the Nom, who says that it is POV fork. What exactly is POV in the title? There is nothing but straight fact. If you think that some of the content is POV then AFD is not cleanup, if it is so much of a POV that it requires complete WP:TNT, I want to read some quotes that you deem irrecoverable. As for the fork part, editors are allowed to create content forks per WP:CFORK. Have you looked at the size of 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India? It is above 9 thousand words and is almost WP:TOOBIG. Same with Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic which comes in at a whopping 15 thousand words. I think it is much better to have sepreate articles instead of sending a reader plodding through a hodgpodge of text in one huge article. Then there are the arguments who say that this content should not exist anywhere on wikipedia at all as per WP:NOTNEWS, WP:IINFO or perhaps WP:TRIVIAL. Long term coverage in reliable sources, tens of thousands of google hits on each subheading and the existence of Misinformation related to the 2019–20 coronavirus pandemic proves that this does not come under any of those deletion rationales. The information in this article in niether trivial nor random. Every single incident is related to the topic. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 20:38, 3 May 2020 (UTC) (edited to make it more concise) MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Now this is what I would as a typical WP:ILIKEIT !vote. Collection of trivial and random information to flesh out an unnecessary article is exactly why it needs deletion. You can write a blog if you feel strongly. Azuredivay (talk) 00:52, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Azuredivay You take any single sub-heading and you fill find more than 10 thousand google hits so calling this trivial is way off mark. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Shrikanthv you are making two claims that are opposite to each other. WP:SPECULATION and WP:NOTNEWS, which ones is would you like as the true rationale for deletion? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 08:45, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep : Per User:MistyGraceWhite. Most of the content that is now claimed as being FORK was created by me for the original articles. Some content I created for Janata Curfew article were salvaged into 2020 coronavirus pandemic in India when the article was deleted. I reused the same content for creating this India specific article. If mentioning about the fork on the talk page solves the problem, I can easily do that. I don't understand how this becomes POVFORK : none of the respondents above who talked about POV have not mentioned what exactly is the POV they are talking about. I don't think that acknowledging that misinformation exists in the context of COVID-19 counts as POV. India being a large country with huge diversity, there could naturally be more misinformation circulating there than any other country, and such huge volume of misinformation merits the creation of a separate article. --Netha (talk) 14:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)— Note: Netha Hussain (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion,[19] and is a creator of this article. The diff provided does not show a canvass, it is according to WP:APPNOTE . User:Netha Hussain has already said that they are the creator of the article in their vote, including that is the note is, POINTY. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Srijanx22 WP:COPYVIO is not applicable here, either you have not read the policy or have not understood it, read it again, and again, and then again if possible. WP:SYNTH is about making connections where there are none, this page cannot be called as such as the information on the page is accurate and all of the links are about misinformation. You have misunderstood that policy as well. WP:ADVOCACY? How does that figure in this? The page is not about anything where anyone can have an opinion, it is a listicle type of page honestly. Misinfomration occured, here are the incidents. There is nothing on the page which could have contrasting opinions, it is not like abortion rights or stuff like that. I think you should read the policy pages you quoted once again. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 15:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop with your personal attacks on users. This article is POVFORK created without attributing wikipedia pages where it copied content from. That violates WP:COPYVIO. You should already realize by now that this AfD is not worth WP:BADGERING every incoming participant. Wareon (talk) 16:06, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User talk:Wareon What is POV in the fork? The origianl pages are too large anyway. You can give your answer if you can. POV is a certain definable term, so you can point out what is POV in the page. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Important content already exists on the pages linked by the nom. Creating a separate article based on that text is POVFORKING. Wareon (talk) 16:40, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Wareon Those pages are too large and rules say that they should be forked. I think you are under the impression that pages can never be forked and anything new is a POVFORK. Being a new editor that is understandable. WP:CFORK gives the rules for forking and when forking should always be done. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:43, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For that you need consensus. Deceptively creating a new article without attributing the original pages is not how you CFORK. Wareon (talk) 16:48, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:Wareon Deceptively? What does that mean? AFD is not cleanup, if the concern is that the page does not link to original pages you can do that with two edits and change your vote to keep. How about that? MistyGraceWhite (talk) 16:59, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How else would you define a POVFORK done without notifying anyone? Content exists where it should. WP:NOPAGE was written for a reason. Wareon (talk) 17:03, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@ HAHAHAHAHAHAH. You think that people should notify others before creating a page? I have told you a number of times that the content where it presently exists is making a page too large. So it was split, and there are no opinions or points of view on this page, so there is no POV involved. Good reason for deletion right there, the creator did not tell anyone and just went ahead and created a page. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 17:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete:2600:1004:B01E:280B:DD23:6623:E67B:B523 (talk) 16:20, 6 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 18:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ziaul Hoque Polash[edit]

Ziaul Hoque Polash (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 created by globally locked or blocked user for shockpuppetry/undisclosed paid editing, the topic is not notable enough. Most of the sources are talking about the tv serial or other things with trivial mention of the subject, Some of those sources even fail WP:RS. Topic fails every criteria under WP:ANYBIO, WP:NACTOR and it just too soon. ~ Nahid Talk 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid Talk 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Nahid Talk 16:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not notable person under wikipedia gidelines. I cannot find significant coverage of him. Article creator has already globally locked by editing.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:55, 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 keep. Sandstein 18:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myka Meier[edit]

Myka Meier (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)

Clearly fails notability, most of the sources are either primary, videos, the remaining are not reliable. None of her books are best sellers, there is nothing where anyone can find what she is notable. All links are placed are placed so well that we are looking at reliable article but it is not. NO RS what so ever. Most of the articles created by this user are following the same trend. Manujaineshwar (talk) 15:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 16:42, 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. Sandstein 18:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Urgent Care Medicine[edit]

Journal of Urgent Care Medicine (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 fails WP:NJOURNALS and seemingly WP:GNG as well, but there could be a valid merge target at Urgent Care Association. If that target isn't suitable, delete. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 15:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Appears to fail WP:NJOURNALS and WP:GNG. Urgent Care Association does not appear to meet WP:ORG, lacks significant coverage from reliable secondary sources. XVDC (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:25, 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. Sandstein 18:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdullah Al-Obaid[edit]

Abdullah Al-Obaid (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:NFOOTY. Only recorded appearance was in the King's Cup with Al-Nojoom, but the club was not in a WP:FPL at the time. PROD was removed by an IP without giving a reason. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 15:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 17:29, 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 redirect to William Wei. Sandstein 18:21, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds Of My Life[edit]

Sounds Of My Life (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 article is about an album that was released today. When I first reviewed it, it was largely copyvio from the marketing material, and sourced only to a press release and iTunes; I draftified it and suggested to the author that they wait until the album clearly meets NALBUM and better sourcing exists, but they have republished in mainspace, with only YouTube videos from the album label as additional sources. I can't find any indication that it passes NALBUM; I also note with slight concern that its author has never once made an edit to any article that was not concerned with this artist. GirthSummit (blether) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 15:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 15:23, 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. Sandstein 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Moshava (Pennsylvania)[edit]

Camp Moshava (Pennsylvania) (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)

There is coverage that mentions the camp and things its alumni have done, but there's no evidence it's a notable camp. Only thing of possible depth would be WP:UNDUE as it was purely related to a tax issue. StarM 15:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:10, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. StarM 15:10, 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 keep. There appears to be a general consensus that at least criterion 7 of WP:MUSICBIO is satisfied, with arguments also being made for several others. If sourcing is poor certain content may not be correct to include per WP:V, but there is a consensus that the relevant notability guideline is satisfied to justify an article's existence. ~ mazca talk 13:34, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fancy Gadam[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Fancy Gadam (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 does not meet any criterion of WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of his music has been discussed in reliable sources. With the exception of the Vodafone Ghana Music Awards, all of the remaining awards he won or was nominated for are not notable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 14:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. As you can see in the article he has filled stadiums in Ghana, nationwide media have written about him. What source in Ghana would you name as being reliable in your eyes, please, regarding the music business? --Gereon K. (talk) 15:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gereon K.: Filling up stadiums is not a valid keep criteria; please provide a reliable source for this claim. Which criterion of WP:MUSICBIO does he meet? You can start by listing which sources you found "reliable"? The only valid reliable source I see in the article is Ringier's Pulse Ghana.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608: 20,000 attended his album launching: [25]. You were the one that claimed that non of his music has been discussed in reliable sources. So I am asking you again. Which reliable Ghana sources did you check to make such a claim resp. what Ghana sources do you consider as being reliable? --Gereon K. (talk) 16:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, 20,000 people attending his show is not not grounds for keep. Please tell me which criterion of WP:MUSICBIO he meets. The subject's only claim to notability is his multiple wins at the VGMA. I did a Google search and did not see him being discussed in independent reliable secondary sources. I already told you I believe Ringier's Pulse Ghana is reliable.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 16:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of these charts are reliable charts; they are all single vendor charts. For your info, South Africa is the only African country (that I know of) with an official music chart. One of his videos getting a million views is not a valid keep criteria, especially when YouTube views can be bought. Can you please tell me which criterion of WP:MUSICBIO he meets? You have failed to show how he meets our notability requirements. To reiterate, his only claim to notability is his multiple VGMA wins. I don't think this is enough; none of the subject's music has been critically reviewed.  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This article needs improvement not deletion. this artist is notable and is one the biggest artists in Ghana right now. I also see so many trusted sources about him on the internet. Like his interviews with Voice of America and BBC focus on Africa.Shahadusadik (talk) 09:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Shahadusadik: You bring nothing new to this discussion. Interview sources can be used in the article but cannot be used to establish notabiilty because they are not considered independent. Can you please tell me which criterion of WP:MUSICBIO the subject meets?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 12:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Versace1608: I think the subject has met criterion of WP:MUSICBIO based on the following reliable and independent sources:
  • Criteria 2: Ghana music chart #1 in 2020, #1 2019 and #9 in 2017. 4 of his song (icluding those he was featured in) made to top 20 list of the Ghana music chart [29]. This is the biggest music chart in Ghana.
  • Criteria 4: Dream tour [30] and here [31]
  • Criteria 7: 2017 Top 10 Northern Ghana’s Artistes. Geographically, Ghana is divided into 2; Northern and southern Ghana. This subject has topped the artist chart since 2017. He was recognized as the face of Zongo community in 2017 up to date.
  • Criteria 8: The subject has won 3 major international awards; Best Afrobeat Entertainer (2019) and Most Promising Entertainer(2020) at International Reggae & World Music Awards (IRAWMA), Best Male Act (2019) Ghana entertainment Awards (USA) and Best Male Act (2019) at Ghana-Naija Showbiz Awards (Nigeria). He was also Nominated for Best African Group (2018) at All Africa Music Awards (AFRIMMA)
  • Criteria 12: Being selected by the Government of Ghana and the ministry of communications to perform at a virtual concert on a national TV and radio stations to entertain Ghanaians during Covid-19 lockdown met this Criterion.Shahadusadik (talk) 23:52, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The subject of this article as mentioned earlier filled a 20,000 capacity stadium in Tamale, a city in Ghana. From this information it seems to me the subject wields a considerable amount of influence in the city of Tamale and therefore meets criterion number 7 of WP:MUSICBIO which states that: (The musician or ensemble meets the notability criteria/guidelines if he/she/they) "has/have become one of the most prominent of the local scene of a city." Also, VGMA is the pinnacle of music awards in Ghana and I believe recognition and awards from such a brand should be enough to make a subject from Ghana notable. Kinvidia (talk) 13:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kinvidia: He doesn't meet criterion 7 and your interpretation of said criterion is wrong. How exactly does performing to 20,000 people equate to being the "the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city"? What notable style of music is Fancy known for? He isn't the pioneer of any kind of fusion genre. The city of Tamale doesn't have any specific type of music scene, so how excatly is Fancy Gadam a prominent member of a local scene that does not exist? Can you backed any of these claims with reliable sources?  Versace1608  Wanna Talk? 15:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If I may quote you "The city of Tamale doesn't have any specific type of music scene". Now you are an expert on Tamale as well it seems. Several independent reliable sources have been mentioned here. You have your personal interpretation of what is reliable and what is not. For a country that does not publish official charts different chart sources have to be taken into consideration. I was giving several of them. --Gereon K. (talk) 16:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He's mentioned in books like Hip Hop around the World: An Encyclopedia, there are some scholarly articles and theses that he is discussed in, etc. -Yupik (talk) 20:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Fancy Gadam is a notable subject and musician from Ghana especially the Northern part of Ghana Tamale to be precise. The subject has significant coverage in both Ghanaian and foreign media like Graphic.com.gh and voanews.com. Fancy Gadam has had sold out shows in Tamale and Accra. This is an article about the music scene in Tamale [32].Owula kpakpo (talk) 00:55, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Critieria 7 of WP:MUSICBIO the subject is a prominent example of the music scene in Tamale and the Northern Region (Ghana) and as per Criteria 8 has also won a major national music award. WP:MUSICBIO states a subject has to meet one of the criteria - I count four so far. There was already a keep decision back in 2017 - why has the article been nominated again? MassiveEartha (talk) 07:38, 4 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. North America1000 06:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kari o Komal[edit]

Kari o Komal (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 that warrants a separate article for every single work of the author. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author Mopswade (talk) 09:10, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:29, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a book by Nobel Prize for Literature winner Rabindranath Tagore doesn't pass WP:NBOOK criterion 5 then I don't know what would. And there is evidence of notability right there in the references in the article. This needs expansion, not deletion. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, has the nominator read the wikiarticle on Rabindranath Tagore? point no. 5 definitely applies here. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:32, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete book notability point 5 probably should be scapped. The article says nothing, we learn nothing more than we would from the list of Tagore's work, there is no reason for the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason is the same as for any other stub about a notable topic: so that someone can find it and add content. That's the whole idea of a wiki. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies criteria 5 of NBOOK. The author, Rabindranath Tagore won the Nobel Prize for Literature. James500 (talk) 14:54, 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) 14:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand per NBOOK #5. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It’s a fairly easily expandable stub. Even without going into Bengali sources there is a pretty extensive discussion of the work in English-language literary criticism, so I think this is a clear pass. Mccapra (talk) 15:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBOOK 5.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK, notable author's work.--Cedix (talk) 19:11, 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 redirect to Ananda Marga#Meditation, Lalita Marmika dance and Kirtan. Sandstein 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baba Nam Kevalam[edit]

Baba Nam Kevalam (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)

Content is already covered in Prabhat Ranjan Sarkar, if necessary, additional information can be added there. Mopswade (talk) 09:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:05, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:06, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:02, 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 keep. North America1000 06:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

O Amar Desher Mati[edit]

O Amar Desher Mati (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 that warrants a separate article for every single work of the author. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author. Mopswade (talk) 09:00, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This discussion is about this topic, not "every single work of the author". I added evidence of notability two weeks ago in this edit. Is the nominator aware that Rabindranath Tagore is a Nobel Prize winner and probably the foremost poet that there has ever been in South Asia, the equivalent of, for example, William Shakespeare? Of course the article can be expanded, but if all of Tagore's works are squeezed into his article there will not be room for such expansion within Wikipedia's size guidelines. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:07, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Barely found any news about the song, but I found a few books which have sections talking about the song: [33], [34] and [35]. The said sources make the article good enough to pass WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 05:20, 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) 14:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep it’s discussed in reliable independent sources at 1, 2 and 3, as well as many other English language sources, before we even look in Bengali. Mccapra (talk) 15:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NSONG, notable author's work. Cedix (talk) 19:13, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per all of the above Spiderone 12:17, 5 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. Sandstein 18:19, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prakritir Pratisodh[edit]

Prakritir Pratisodh (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. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author. Mopswade (talk) 08:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The article does not even claim notability. It merely says that the play exists. -- Ssilvers (talk) 18:24, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Ssilvers: I'm not sure what "claiming notability" would look like exactly—few of our article say "x is notable because..."—but I think the quotation from Tagore that I've added to the lede, on the significance of the play within his oeuvre, might address this concern. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I've added more below to explain. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Point #5 of WP:BK is clearly met: Tagore is a Nobel laureate and arguably the most significant figure in Indian literature. That criterion doesn't require that we have articles for every book he ever wrote, but those, such as this, where a measure of sourcing can be found should certainly be kept. The sources currently in the article, all of which are high-quality academic books, may well also be sufficient to satisfy WP:GNG and point #1 of WP:BK. It strikes me as likely that sources in Indian languages, which I'm not able to find as I only speak English, will also exist. Given Tagore's prolific career, it isn't reasonable, as the nominator seems to suggest, to discuss each of his works in his article. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 20:35, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete point 5 needs to be scapped if it justifies keeping an article that tells us nothing as this one does.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:12, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Johnpacklambert: I've expanded the article somewhat, though it's still a stub (someone with access to the full Bhattacharya chapter could expand it further, I think). You're of course entitled to still feel it's non-notable, but it no longer "tells us nothing". – Arms & Hearts (talk) 21:40, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't even tell us if the play was ever produced, if so, what theatre(s) it was produced in, when, and how long the production(s) ran. If it was not produced, or produced only a few times for relatively short runs, then it should simply be mentioned in the playwright's article concerning his development as an artist. As for Rabindranath Tagore, he was not, like Shakespeare for example, so important that he is a required subject of study for most students who read English Wikipedia, or even Confucius who, y'know, everyone has heard of. -- Ssilvers (talk) 01:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I beg to differ with your assessment of Rabindranath Tagore. He was every bit as important to Bengali, and wider South Asian, literature as William Shakespeare was to English literature or Confucius to Chinese. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:57, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:02, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and Arms & Hearts' excellent additions. The play has been discussed in academic literature, including an entire book chapter. As Phil Bridger says, comparing non-Western authors to Shakespeare is likely to be a sign of bias, because there aren't a lot of Bengali authors who "y'know, everyone [in the West] has heard of." — Toughpigs (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There may well be works by Tagore that lack notability because they’ve never been discussed in critical literature in English, Bengali or Hindi, it they must be pretty few and far between. We may well not need an article on every single thing he ever wrote, but these will be edge cases rather than the norm. A simple BEFORE search shows an abundance of discussion of this work in RIS. Mccapra (talk) 15:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:NBOOK (nos. 1 & 5), and WP:GNG, multiple independent sources are available (just gsearch, gbooks) that cover this play, article now contains some that reflects this. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:03, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NBOOK, notable author's work. Cedix (talk) 19:13, 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 keep. Sandstein 18:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabi-Kahini[edit]

Kabi-Kahini (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. There is no meaningful content in this article that cannot be covered in the article of the corresponding author. Mopswade (talk) 08:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:33, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If a book by Nobel Prize for Literature winner Rabindranath Tagore doesn't pass WP:NBOOK criterion 5 then I don't know what would. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article tells us nothing other than that the work exists. No reason to have it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:10, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The reason is the same as for any other stub about a notable topic: so that someone can find it and add content. That's the whole idea of a wiki. Or maybe you think that life would be much easier for editors if we just deleted everything except articles about Mormons? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:19, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. Satisfies criteria 5 of NBOOK. The author, Rabindranath Tagore won the Nobel Prize for Literature. James500 (talk) 14:50, 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) 14:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand, as with the several other Tagore articles mass-nominated for deletion. Per WP:ARTN, notability is the subject of a topic, not an article. A stub article is perfectly acceptable for notable topics; Johnpacklambert appears to be arguing that all stubs should be deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:56, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Could the nominator and delete supporters please explain which of these multiple sources isn’t reliable and independent? Mccapra (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NBOOK, notable author's work. Cedix (talk) 19:15, 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 keep. Sandstein 18:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandhya Sangeet[edit]

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

There is no meaningful content in this article that isn't covered in the article of the corresponding author. There is no coverage on this apart from what can be found on blogs and bookstores etc. Mopswade (talk) 08:54, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:34, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Notable book, non-English sources should also be considered. The book has been a subject of several studies also. Regards. --Titodutta (talk) 14:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NEXIST, which says that if reliable sources exist, then the article should be kept. WP:ARTN says that notablity is a property of the subject, not the article, even if the article is a stub. I encourage the folks above to add the sources to the article, even if it's just in a "Further reading" section, so that editors who want to improve the article can use them as sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is a tremendous amount of critical discussion about this work, as with the other current Tagore nominations, so I have to wonder what kind of BEFORE search the nominator did. Mccapra (talk) 15:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NBOOK 5.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 12:26, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:NBOOK, notable author's work.Cedix (talk) 19:16, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Additional comment: I have already voted above. Here I am adding a reference that shows it was an acclaimed book. --Titodutta (talk) 16:21, 4 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. The WP:OR arguments are compelling. Christian theology is a difficult and often controversial subject that needs high-quality, scholarly secondary sources, not citations directly to the Bible and what look like WP:SPS religious websites of uncertain provenance. Sandstein 18:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chronological list of Old Testament Saints[edit]

Chronological list of Old Testament Saints (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)

Duplication of the list at List of Old Covenant saints in the Roman Martyrology, with the only addition being unsourced speculation about their lives. Even if proper sourcing were to be provided for each of these figures, the birth/death dates for virtually all of these figures are unknown or contested, making the value of a chronological list dubious. I was originally in favor of just restoring the redirect, but given that the target is not a chronological list and my argument against such lists I'm simply in favor of deletion at this time. signed, Rosguill talk 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. signed, Rosguill talk 01:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article as it currently stands is about 'old testament saints' not about 'old covenant saints in the roman martyrology'. The former includes all people in the Old Testament regarded as saints, including those in the Catholic church, the Orthodox church, the Armenian church, the Coptic church, etc. The latter includes those people who are recognized officially within the roman martyrology issued by the diocese of Rome and not including all saints honoured within the Catholic church. They are essentially not the same thing and a redirect is unjustified. This article forms a part of the series of articles 'chronological list of saints...' for which there is one in every century after Christ and there is this one prior to Christ. If you go and look at those articles, you will also find that virtually none of the entries have direct sources on them and there are also some examples of people on those lists too that have approximate or unknown dates, approximate or unknown places.
Could you provide some example of what you think is 'unsourced speculation'? The places of birth and death are recorded in the bible itself for many of them, for others they come from tradition that goes back thousands of years. The ages are based on scholarly estimates widely available for when certain figures, if they existed, are thought to have been placed.
The purpose of providing a chronological list is that it gives a reference for people which is useful. They cannot be given exact dates, because exact dates do not exist and the existence of many of these people to begin with is also contested. I don't see any reason, however, why it would be that providing people with no information at all and deleting it entirely is serving a better purpose within an encyclopedia than providing them with approximate figures. Reesorville (talk) 01:16, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America1000 01:47, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Reesorville's explanation how it isn't a duplicate of List of Old Covenant saints in the Roman Martyrology.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 02:50, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify - It's a different topic from the attempted redirect point, as there's no single list of saints in Christianity, different denominations have different lists, qualifications for sainthood, etc. However, it's incomplete at the moment, far from complete, and needs citations for verification. In response to the point that an exact chronology cannot be presented, a rough one can be made. The various Old Testament (and apocrypha in the case of the Maccabean era figures) give a general outline of chronology, and if need be, it can be divided into eras, which would be acceptable for figures whose years of birth and death are not known. It's a good topic, but the current article isn't ready for the mainspace yet. Hog Farm (talk) 03:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Reesorville: - Would you be fine with a move to the draftspace so this can be finished up before entering the main articlespace? Hog Farm (talk) 03:53, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:OR. A "chronological list" based only of wild guesses as to dates is a joke. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:58, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think maybe some explanation here is required for where the times come from. The bible itself has a chronology in it which is referenced to particular reigns of kings or particular events that occurred. Some of these things are known to history outside of the bible and scholars have fairly good proximations of when they think they occurred. For example, the Chaldeans conquering Jerusalem is widely believed among scholars to have likely occurred in the early 6th century BC. This event is recorded in the bible and the prophet Jeremiah is presented as being an adult of many years by the time this happens. Therefore, writing that he was born in the 7th century and that he died in the 6th century is not a mere 'wild guess' by any stretch. Scholars will cast doubts on how accurate the narrative is to actual history, but it would be out of place in this article to write out the entire debate on the issue.
Similarly, the reigns of kings of Judah and Israel are recorded in exact years going backwards from the Babylonian captivity up to the time of King Saul. Using those dates as recorded in the narrative, you come up with possible times for the births and deaths of all the figures mentioned during that period. Similarly, this is also true of the judges prior to the kings. The number of years that the Israelites are in Egypt prior to Moses is also given as well, as are the ages of the Patriarchs. Historians have doubts about how accurate this text is to actual history, as they also have doubts about whether these people even existed to begin with. However, as it stands this list is simply just providing a reference for what is typically accepted as the dates, given the above criteria and I don't think it is useful in the article itself to try to present that debate, since it is simply a list.
If there is something that needs citation, then I think this would be easy to provide, but so far there is no one here who is actually giving a specific example of what that would be. Again I also point out that virtually none of the entries for the other lists in this series (Chronological list of Saints...) provide citations for their entries either. If this was a change that required weeks to complete, then perhaps making it into a draft has a case for it, but given that I think it would perhaps take just a matter of hours (or even minutes) to pull out these references, I don't think this would make sense. In fact Reesorville (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also should point out again, that this article is just one section of a series of lists and this deletion page is identifying one section of the list for deletion - if including different denominations cannot be included, then the entire series should be deleted: Chronological list of saints and blessedsReesorville (talk) 14:49, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have now provided a list of citations for most entries on the list. If further is needed, please write a specific request on the talk page. Reesorville (talk) 14:55, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reesorville, if the citations were to RS providing exegesis of the texts in question I for one would be satisfied. I don't think that citing the Bible directly is sufficient, as that goes against our OR policy. signed, Rosguill talk 18:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is it OR if the text itself is specifying the person lives in such and such time period or during such and such event, and we simply just tie that to a century using our chronology based on facts that are widely known? I believe I can cite other sources if needed, but one should know that they are doing the same connection as in those notes I included at the bottom of the page. But again how is this grounds for deletion? You could have simply just put this as a discussion in the talk page? Reesorville (talk) 18:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Honestly I was mostly just trying to meet you halfway with my previous comment. I maintain my reservations about whether this list is appropriate for inclusion in Wikipedia, but at least if it was supported by reliable sources then it would be more encyclopedic. Part of my concern is that it's not clear that there actually is a consensus among reliable sources as to when various Biblical figures may have lived––if sources do not agree on the chronology, then we don't have any business making a list of it, since making sense of the conflicting dates would be nigh impossible in table form. One possible solution would be to narrow the scope of the article to a specific religious tradition: rather than pretending to represent information about Christianity writ large (or even actual history, as the current framing does not make this explicit), it could specifically document one religious tradition's understanding of the chronology, furnished with appropriate sources documenting that tradition's understanding of the figures listed.
As for citing the Bible directly, my understanding of the issue is expressed at WP:RSPSCRIPTURE: it is original research to cite the Bible or any other religious scripture directly as they are primary sources, and particularly difficult and controversial primary sources to boot. signed, Rosguill talk 18:48, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no consensus from a scholarly perspective that most of these people existed at all. However, from the perspective of faith traditions that follow the bible, there is a wide consensus of rough time periods that the biblical narrative was placing them in. There is no disagreement that the book of Daniel is putting the prophet Daniel during the reign of King Nebuchadnezzar; there are many people who doubt that Daniel was even a real person or that that story occurred, and many who think that the book was written in a later period... but there is no disagreement that the narrative itself is suggesting that Daniel lived in Nebuchadnezzar's time period. I think the same paradigm is true of the majority of the other figures on the list. Given that this is a list within the wider scope of Chronological List of Saints and Blesseds which is recording a list of people who have been recognized as saints, I don't think there is a need to consider the issues of actual historicity of these figures, but rather just to put down the information as the biblical narrative would hold it. For some figures, the timelines are more contested and you can find differing opinions on things like when Jonah supposedly lived, since there are scant details in the narrative to reference; for this you may have a case that the list is problematic for them, however, I am sure that there is a way to find a solution to this other than deleting the entire article. Reesorville (talk) 19:04, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also I will point out if you would look the individual articles on Wikipedia for these particular individuals, a lot of them actually include these dates within their text for positing when these figures supposedly lived. Reesorville (talk) 19:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) The articles in the series Chronological list of saints and blesseds include individuals recognized as saints in different denominations, hence why would we need to limit the scope of this article to a single denomination? Those pages are also not restricted to a single denomination and they also include figures that are questioned historically 2) The denominations that recognize these figures to be saints have disagreements about many things, but there are no serious disagreements about most of the basic facts on this simple list as it is presented. The denominations the recognize these figures to be saints include Catholicism, Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodoxy, Anglicans, Lutherans and a few others - none of them are contesting things like Isaiah was supposedly living at the time of Hezekiah or that Moses was supposedly born in Egypt 3) there are historical questions about the existence of many of these persons, but that is outside the scope of this article or of this series of articles. If necessary, a simple note could be added to the top that says something like 'the actual historicity of these figures is contested by scholars, but the following is a list of old testament figures considered to be saints and details concerning them' 4) The fact that most of the dates and locations are not contested regarding the characters as presented in the bible (as opposed to the actual historical persons) is not only proven by the bible itself and by outside sources, but Wikipedia's own pages on these biblical figures use these same dates and locations for their supposed existence. 5) Deleting this page would basically amount to deleting one part of a series arbitrarily, and without explanation as to why this page should not exist but all the other pages for later centuries should. As I already wrote above, those pages are also not restricted to a single denomination and they also include figures that are questioned historically. Why is it that this series should not be allowed to include a page for saints of this particular period? Reesorville (talk) 15:22, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 14:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments - I removed a tag, because it is now sourced. I don't think it's necessary, but I can see how students might be looking for this article. Count me as not voting. Bearian (talk) 20:51, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have no doubt that the article author is making an entirely good-faith attempt at an article but there is no way to save this on WP:OR grounds. The only possible source for such a "chronology" is faith-based interpretations of religious text. The Bible is indisputably a primary source for its own claims. All analyses and interpretive or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary or tertiary source, and must not be an original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This really isn't an issue: there is no claim written in the text that can't be found in secondary sources. The point I made was that those sources are doing nothing different than just using the details mentioned in the bible for placing them. Furthermore, I point out again that the dates and times on the article are already found throughout Wikipedia on the pages for these particular figures - they are not contested. Reesorville (talk) 11:15, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have just added secondary sources for most of the entries on the list. If more is needed, I believe it can be done. Reesorville (talk) 11:54, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reesorville:, I don't think you meant to do so but you just pointed out that the "secondary sources" really aren't. If they "...are doing nothing different than just using the details mentioned in the bible..." then they are not actually secondary sources. I.e., they are not performing independent ...analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources... and aren't adding anything as sources. As to the presence of these items in other articles, please see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS; just because they haven't been challenged elsewhere doesn't mean that they are appropriate in a compiled article. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:43, 6 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 delete. The article was speedy deleted by Jimfbleak under A7, and G11. —usernamekiran (talk) 20:33, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nosh Technologies[edit]

Nosh Technologies (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:NCORP. Was CSD'd but the template was removed. -- Rsrikanth05 (talk) 12:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:47, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under criteria A7 & G11 - the page creator should not have removed the speedy tags and them removing the tags does not invalidate the speedy deletion request. creffett (talk) 14:09, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 03:15, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete As per nom. Notability not met. - The9Man (Talk) 10:12, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete As per nominator. Creator has tried to remove CSD templates many times. Definitely a paid user.Jai49 (talk) 08:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete Added back in the SD template since it was removed by the creator of the article. Also probable socking is happening.VVikingTalkEdits 12:53, 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) --Puddleglum2.0(How's my driving?) 19:30, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasanali Morvarid[edit]

Hasanali Morvarid (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)

Does not satisfy notability guidelines for academics. MS 会話 12:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I don’t think he’s really an academic, he’s a theologian and spiritual leader who taught in a seminary. For me the question is how senior he was. We regard all Christian bishops in major denominations as notable and I think he was equivalent to that, as he was Grand Ayatollah Khamenei’s appointee in Mashhad. I think this makes him approximately like a Catholic Cardinal, but someone better versed in the hierarchy of Shia Islam may say otherwise. Mccapra (talk) 15:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Notability not stablished. Sources cant pass WP:RS. Spada II ♪♫ (talk) 06:54, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. I beg to differ, a simple Google search shows a good amount of reliable sources. This seems notable. Sourceofgrace (talk) 16:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - clearly fails WP:PROF as an academic. Even if you assume away that he is not an academic, but rather a teacher and cleric, he fails WP:GNG and my own standards. There's no book or news clip that calls him a notable teacher. He's not a mufti, ayatollah, nor mullah; nor did he mentor such a person. There is no evidence he had the equivalent position as a bishop or chief rabbi. If you can find such evidence, put it in the article, and ping me. Bearian (talk) 20:57, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose. Ok, I admit I am an amateur Wikipedia editor, however, do I have to copy-paste from the references? Because I fail to understand how a senior editor like Bearian can claim Morvarid is not a "teacher", "ayatollah", or "mullah", and ignore the references placed in the article. Please see [1] [2] [3]. Sourceofgrace (talk) 01:11, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Paya, Ali (2018-02-02). Islam, Modernity and a New Millennium: Themes from a Critical Rationalist Reading of Islam. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-351-61559-4.
  2. ^ "Leader Expresses Condolences over Demise of Ayatollah Morvarid". Khamenei.ir. 2004-10-06. Retrieved 2020-04-15.
  3. ^ Mosaddeq, Alireza (2015-12-27). "Ḥassan ʻAlī Morwārīd". Ijtihad Network. Retrieved 2020-04-15.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Fullam[edit]

Jimmy Fullam (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 12:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, the League of Ireland Premier Division is not a fully professional league per WP:FPL, and therefore he does not pass NFOOTY. The one source in the article does not even mention his name, and as such he does not pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails "Players who have played, and managers who have managed in a competitive game between two teams from fully-professional leagues, will generally be regarded as notable." of WP:FPL. references are nonexistent.Grmike (talk) 13:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:42, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:43, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 16:51, 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 18:09, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marble Place, California[edit]

Marble 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)

Another round of California "Places", all of the isolated buildings in forests on the topo maps with little to no trace on aerials and nothing significant on searches except possibly passing references as, well, places, typically as if they were homesteads. The articles are all the most basic sort of GNIS dump and make no claims to notability. Mangoe (talk) 11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The others in this group:

  • Delete Marble Place per nom. The red link in the template at the bottom can stay. Need more reference and source before grouping it in with officially incorporated communities. As for the others, nominate each at a time.Grmike (talk) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 13:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all, do not keep links. No evidence these are or were notable communities, per previous AFDs. Reywas92Talk 20:22, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The M's are all properties, and Old Red Rock Place came up only once in a search and may not be a property but I'm not sure what it is. Further proof GNIS isn't reliable. SportingFlyer T·C 15:27, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - More ranches mislabeled as populated places. Since these are/were obviously just ranches, they shouldn't be kept in the "unincorporated communities" template. –dlthewave ☎ 03:12, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment With regards to the keeping of redlinks in the template, either these are real unincorporated communities, and should be kept regardless of the current state of the article (as AFD is not cleanup and they would pass GEOLAND in that case), or they're not, in which case they should be deleted and removed from the template. Deleting them but keeping the redlinks in the template makes no sense. I'd need to do more research to determine which it is. Smartyllama (talk) 14:04, 6 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) 22:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hillerød Ungdomscenter[edit]

Hillerød Ungdomscenter (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 sources for 10 years. Anders Kaas Petersen (talk) 11:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Created by obvious COI single-edit account to promote the school sourced entirely to the school's own media. Per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, does not demonstrate independent coverage that satisfies NORG or GNG in the article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 the GNG-based arguments; a lot of the keep arguments are not based on policy or guideline (there has never been a project-wide consensus that Wikimedia-related articles are exempt from the normal notability guidelines) but the GNG based keeps stand. Further discussion on moving or redirecting can occur elsewhere, but there is clearly no consensus for deletion. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:22, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikimedian of the Year[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wikimedian of the Year (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)

Awards have to meet WP:GNG. I don't see how it does. The award is occasionally mentioned in biographies of people who got it, and in news mentioning them, but I can't find any independent source discussing the award, it's significance, or such. The best source out there is [107], and when our best source is a niche online-only newsletter, well... At best, I can suggest a merge with Wikimania. (Btw, if someone asks "why don't just suggest a merge", well, this was 'kept' in an AfD few years ago so I think it is the best venue to discuss the future of this article). PS. Also relevant is the older Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Wikipedian of the year. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 11:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep - wikimania has no room for it. It's siginificant news that's coming from wikipedia. in this case wikipedia is the primary source.Grmike (talk) 14:11, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
  • Keep per all the reasons in the snow keep of the 2018 deletion attempt. Randy Kryn (talk) 14:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep ---Another Believer (Talk) 14:36, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Instant keep Wikimedia movement constantly needs promotion (for the sake of Wikipedia) and Wikimedian of the Year is a good means of that promotion, and Wikipedia article about Wikimedian of the Year is a good means for the needed promotion with all of the necessary conditions provided including international mass media coverage for many years. --ssr (talk) 15:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: We are clearly biased on this subject, and I am comfortable with that. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:GNG is just a guideline which explicitly expects that there will be "occasional exceptions". This is an appropriate exception because we can verify the facts of the matter ourselves. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:52, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per last time. Thanks. Mike Peel (talk) 18:24, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I'd like to remind the closing admin that WP:NOTAVOTE and I am appalled that not a single argument above is policy based (WP:KEEPPER, WP:ITSUSEFUL, etc.). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:20, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You think the people here need to be reminded about rules? How about WP:5P? Wikipedia is not about "rules", Wikipedia is about doing our common goal which you try to interrupt by breaking existing WP:CONS and making WP:GAME. --ssr (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Clearly you need a reminder about WP:NPA/WP:AGF. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:58, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Clearly no "good faith" here. Good faith is keep the article and praise it. What are you trying to accomplish? Prevent falsehood? Keep readers off lies? What is your 2nd try for? What is your purpose in terms of "good faith"? --ssr (talk) 09:00, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Wikimania, only one source here can contribute to notability, the rest are either passing mentions, primary sources and syndicated content from Wikipedia itself, none of which contribute to GNG. Keep votes are nothing more than flagrant disregard for encyclopedic standards. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:40, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "Encyclopedic standards" are for Nupedia, Citizendium and Google Knol. Wikipedia is about telling people what they want to know about, not what "scientists approve what people want to know". --ssr (talk) 09:23, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • And I suppose you are the supreme arbiter of what people want to see since you seem to consider your opinions superior to the established consensus that decides notability. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:14, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep meets WP:GNG from the multiple sources/coverage used in the article. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:16, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Week keep. With the current policies, it's notable. Ideally, Wikipedia should not have articles about itself and other Wikimedia projects in the main namespace. This includes articles about J. Wales, L. Sanger, WMF, F. Nibart-Devouard, S. Gardner, K. Maher, Wikinews, Q42, Wikimania, Essjay controversy, and many other things. But it's not in the current notability policies, so this article is eligible to be kept. (Possible conflict of interest: I stood on the stage in Haifa, helping Mr. Wales change the slides while he was announcing his first Wikipedian of the Year award.) --Amir E. Aharoni (talk) 14:22, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Move to Wikipedia namespace as the other Wikipedia Awards are listed in. dibbydib (T ･ C) 05:05, 4 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) 07:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zachary Alexander Brown[edit]

Zachary Alexander Brown (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 reason for an extra page when all the content of this article is covered in Zac Brown Band Mopswade (talk) 08:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 12:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep He is a notable person. There is significant coverage of him as a person. The content from the early years section of the bands article should be merged into this article. (I have copied it over, but left it there also until this AFD is closed.) At worst, this title should redirect to the article on the band, it should not be deleted. ~ GB fan 12:23, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 10:17, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - is the lead singer of a notable band and has himself a significant social media following which fulfills one of the main criteria for notability. He is the main piece of the bandGrmike (talk) 14:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
  • Keep There's no policy-based rationale for deletion proposed here. The band's article is about the band. The person's article is about the person. If they are both notable (and so far no-one has suggested otherwise) then they should both have articles. Meters (talk) 21:33, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep- there is plenty of coverage about him as a person, but just a band member. Bearian (talk) 20:59, 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) 07:37, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Faber[edit]

Matthew Faber (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:ACTOR with a small filmography of minor or one-time roles, and the lack of article content reflects such since its creation. sixtynine • whaddya want? • 05:56, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:12, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:13, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I think the subject passes WP:NACTOR, with either main or supporting roles in a number of notable films, like Palindromes (film). The subject is currently getting media attention due to his unfortunate premature death, but I would expect there to be more sources out there too. I'll try to find more. As it is, I don't think deletion is necessary. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - WP:NACTOR passed quite easily. there's a reason his recent passing got so much attention. he's notable.Grmike (talk) 14:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
  • Keep Meets NACTOR. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 16:00, 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. Bordering on keep. Contrary to my own (now struck) first impression, this seems to be a topic discussed in reliable sources, which would give the "keep" arguments more weight, but most opinions on both sides remain rather superficial and do not discuss the sources that have been found or that are currently in the article. Sandstein 10:36, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom[edit]

List of fictional Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom (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 reasons stated at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unnamed fictional presidents of the United States Prisencolin (talk) 05:42, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:14, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 08:15, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • WP:TNT is an essay, not a policy or guideline. The relevant guidleine is WP:NOTDUPE which explains that "arguing that a category duplicates a list (or vice versa) at a deletion discussion is not a valid reason for deletion". Andrew🐉(talk) 09:09, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The fact that some sources listed their top favorite fictional PMs does not justify a list of all fictional PMs, named and unnamed, major characters and passing references, in notable works and not. The endless slate of works of fiction takes inspiration from all sorts of people, places, and objects and it is not our places to attempt to catalogue all of these unrelated examples. The Independent also has a Top Ten fictional tourist destinations, fictional bands, fictional universities, fictional pubs, favourite foods of fictional characters, fictional buildings, fictional villains and more (all by the same person who "contributes a weekly top 10 of curiosities") and this is not the basis for expansive unencyclopedic lists. Reywas92Talk 18:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:NOTESAL, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been." So it is false to claim that we cannot include applicable examples beyond such groupings or sets. If deemed helpful by consensus, we can limit them in some way with specific inclusion criteria for the given topic. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:51, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since the list topic satisfies WP:NOTESAL. I have no issue with paring down this list to sourceable instances, but I oppose the lazy-essay WP:TNT because the page history can be preserved and linked to so listings can be reinserted with sources. Below are a few more group/set sources:
Thanks, Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 18:59, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Reliable sources have been found covering this. Dream Focus 20:21, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Effectively random list of random stuff. Most of the characters mentioned have zero impact, reception or analysis. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:25, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It is not "random" when reliable sources group such characters together. Furthermore, requiring "impact, reception or analysis" sounds like requiring each character to have standalone notability, and that is not a requirement for all lists. Here, it is common to have lists of characters from a given series who are not notable on their own. It is appropriate enough for the work that contains the character to be notable itself (and the works in the above sources are notable). Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 21:04, 27 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Random list. There doesn't seem to be any reliable source that I could find that groups them in the way the list article does. Maybe "Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in Doctor Who" or "Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in Torchwood", but so all encompassing. If the subject is worthy a of a list article, it should be broken down into such categories and then maybe have a "list of lists of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom in fictional worlds" or something, but this is to much. It's just not coherent and it isn't covered in reliable sources the way it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is not a "random list" if there are reliable sources grouping such fictional characters together. Furthermore, complaining about how the article looks, as "too much" and "the way it is" supposedly not sourceable does not matter per WP:NEXIST because sources grouping such characters exist outside Wikipedia. The article can thus be cleaned up with using these existing sources. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, things are things when they are things. Obviously. I don't really get what your point is. As I said, there isn't any source that groups them this way. So, WP:NEXIST isn't relevant. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - the list is thorough, relevent. it's an all encompassing list that can't 'be included' anywhere else as the reasoning for that is vague. List of fictional presidents of the united states exists.Grmike (talk) 13:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
  • Keep There are plenty of reliable sources available to establish notability for this subject and allow for future improvements. I also agree with Andrew Davidson that the comparison made by the nominator is the wrong one... — Hunter Kahn 13:40, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Andrew's comment that the rationale for deletion given in the nomination is a false comparison. — Toughpigs (talk) 15:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Although I have had issues with this list which I have previously raised on its talk page, this is a notable subject and potentially a useful article that people are likely to search for. Moreover I agree with the point raised that the nominator's comparison does not really hold for this article. Dunarc (talk) 23:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The existence and nature of fictional depictions of holders of substantial offices is a worthwhile topic for encyclopedic coverage, and is accomplished in such a list. BD2412 T 04:17, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No evidence that the list topic is discussed in reliable sources as required by WP:LISTN. Sandstein 11:36, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read the comments above? A couple of us listed reliable sources grouping such characters that satisfy WP:LISTN. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 11:44, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You're right, I've struck my opinion. Sandstein 12:58, 6 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. Sandstein 11:34, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has Hlai grammar[edit]

Has Hlai grammar (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)

Violates WP:NOTADVICE. Does not sound or read encyclopedic, feels like WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Aasim 04:27, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per WP:NOTADVICE and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Possibly a copyright violation as well, but I cannot access the sources to confirm that. This article is an unsalvageable mess that seemingly only exists for the purpose of breaking as many of Wikipedia's guidelines on articles as possible. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:11, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:21, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: Just in case it winds up mattering, there's also Wikipedia:The Basic Grammar Rules of the Standardized Has Hlai Language, Lauxhuet dialect, which was moved from the user's sandbox first and contains the actual revision history. The mainspace one was copy/pasted from here it appears. I've currently listed this at WP:RMTR to have the proper version in place, but it shouldn't really matter as far as the AfD is concerned. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:36, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify (the original) unless sufficiently repaired during this AFD: From the article history of the original, it's probably not a copyvio, or at least not an unredeemable one. It's obviously not in a state to remain in mainspace, but there's an article that does belong in mainspace which uses the information currently in the article, probably titled Lauhut dialect and which should be linked from Hlai languages and Template:Kra–Dai languages. See links from Template:English_dialects_by_continent for examples of what the article could be. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 14:25, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft or userfy. This has the wrong title, the wrong layout, and a good deal of non-encyclopedic content. But along with that is a good deal of very useful information that can and should be modified into an encyclopedia entry. Also, merge this history with that of Wikipedia:The Basic Grammar Rules of the Standardized Has Hlai Language, Lauxhuet dialect (if such a thing is possible). Cnilep (talk) 02:04, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, very obviously keep. The grammar of a language is a perfectly valid encyclopedic topic (we've already got over a hundred of these). This article is a descriptive (not prescriptive) grammar, so NOTADVICE cited above is irrelevant. As far as I can see, it has all the things you'd expect to see in a grammar article, and none of those you wouldn't. I've had a look at a few sections, and they were well sourced and sensibly written. Yes, a light touch of copyediting might be necessary here and there, and the article could certainly be improved by a trim down of some of the examples (if they're so many they might overwhelm the reader), a shortening of the section headings, and the addition of a summary at the beginning of each section. Oh yes, and it should be renamed to Has Hlai grammar or something similar. But that's all work that can easily be done in mainspace. – Uanfala (talk) 12:11, 23 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup. This article is indeed a complete trainwreck in terms of both content and formatting (some serious cutting down is needed), but the current sourcing is enough to establish notability, and deletion is not cleanup. (Uanfala refutes the "INDISCRIMINATE" and "NOTADVICE" claims better than I could.) There may be issues with copyright, but until someone actually checks the sources for them, that is irrelevant. This should also not be draftified because that would only serve to hide the content from potential cleaners. Glades12 (talk) 14:46, 25 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sulfurboy (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The topic is notable. The article needs a lot of tidying and trimming. I’ve no way of knowing if there’s a copyvio-if there is that would obviously change things. Can a Chinese speaker advise? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mccapra (talk • contribs) 06:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This article is notable but may need re-arrangement.This is an encyclopaedic article,not a language learner website.Thanks.User:Saadulhassan2 —Preceding undated comment added 12:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify. Languages are presumed notable but this needs some trimming and vetting via reliable sources first. I won't oppose a plain keep, but it makes me wary. If we can help, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 20:44, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and cleanup per Uanfala and Glades12. The topic is notable, and the cleanup/trimming can and should happen in mainspace. –Austronesier (talk) 11:26, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep NOTADVICE has no relevance to a descriptive grammar article and the reference to INDISCRIMINATE is just plain baffling. The only point of contention in the nomination that has any merit is the tone but the "not" that is much more appropriate to this discussion is WP:NOTCLEANUP. There is therefore no actionable argument for deletion and it should be kept and improved. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:40, 6 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 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suchak Data Systems[edit]

Suchak Data Systems (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 created by COI SPA in 2008. Article immediately PRODed but survived. Sources are local press and the only possible claim to notability is an award by the US Treasury Dept. Otherwise the subject is a run of the mill local business. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - not widely used even within the automation industry. key references are outdated. no pages link to it. the infobox url is spam. not even sure if the company still exists. notability cannot be established.Grmike (talk) 15:21, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
  • Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 09:47, 6 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 03:52, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cale Oval[edit]

Cale Oval (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)

Contested PROD - unremarkable sports field that does not meet WP:NGEO. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Passengerpigeon (talk) 05:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:49, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm on the "use A7 sparingly" bandwagon, but this is close to an A7. SportingFlyer T·C 13:34, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This is about the most unnotable place I have seen an article on, and that is saying something.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Absolutely non-notable. --Kinu t/c 01:03, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I'm sorry, but it couldn't be more not-notable. TheImaCow (talk) 17:37, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above --DannyS712 (talk) 18:06, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:16, 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 11:33, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of software companies in Bangladesh[edit]

List of software companies in Bangladesh (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 indication of notability per WP:CORP for any of these, apart from REVE Systems for which there's an article. Indiscriminate list of companies, with no criteria for inclusion definition per WP:LISTCRITERIA, and no definition of what makes them "top": market capitalisation, revenue, other? Companies and IT industry are already covered by List of companies of Bangladesh and Information technology in Bangladesh. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 05:20, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Only one entry with an article doesn't make an encyclopedic list. Ajf773 (talk) 08:03, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough of a subject for a list article. There should be more then one blue link as the voter above me says. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment - red links normally precede blue links. the list could make it easier for users to identify new subjectsGrmike (talk) 13:31, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
I did google search. Just found some passing mention, none of them would pass WP:GNG/WP:CORP, not enough for stand alone article. Also, we shouldn't create a list with only one blue link. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 21:39, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well the article is based on a specific industry, Companies and IT industry are not covered by List of companies of Bangladesh and Information technology in Bangladesh here only mention the most renowned names, there is an example already exists, similar page of List of software companies in India. The REVE Systems is not exactly the software company you can tell them an IT company because their main work is Telecommunication Software which is more specific than General software companies so there is no indiscrimination done with them. It is hard to provide revenue reference because it is confidential yet but I research by their employee size and partnership with international companies, all companies are software exporters that's why they are on the list. Here are the top 50 only among 800 companies and the market size of more than 1+B, so definitely all pages will be created soon. You can visit the official website for the list Bangladesh Association of Software and Information Services. The article is more update you can check it. Ataul55 (talk) 06:39, 05 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding 15-20 non notable company for a Stand-alone list don't make that list notable. Stand-alone list should have more that one blue link. Wikipedia is not a directory. If you look closely List of software companies in India, you will see all company entry has an article. Surely India has more than those 15-20 IT companies but the list doesn't include any non notable company. Looks like youre spaming for bdtask.com special:diff/955053085, special:diff/955053569, special:diff/955053057. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am working on it very soon the pages will be created. I am associated with a software company and doing some citations for it, not the meaning of spam I will give you a valid reason. Yes, I know that Wikipedia is not a directory. Among 800+ and a total, more than 1000+ companies exist from only 50+ companies not mean it is a directory it clearly means that top companies. List of companies of Bangladesh page already holds 143 companies list. Until complete the project please hold on, then judge as neutral I will appreciate you. --Ataul55 (talk) 1:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Mysticair667537 (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tony Montana (filmmaker)[edit]

Tony Montana (filmmaker) (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 that fails WP:GNG. References 1, 3, and 10 are from IMDB. References 5, 8, 9, and 11 are from his Facebook page. References 2, 4, and 7 are YouTube videos and Reference 12 is an article by New York Media that's about him allegedly being victimized by Kevin Spacey. Article was created by the subject himself under the name Tonymontana1975. Mysticair667537 (talk) 04:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:53, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:54, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:FILMMAKER in my opinion. Apparently, he has "accused Kevin Spacey of sexual assault" and this news has been covered more or less (e.g. on abc). That being said, I think there has not been such significant coverage around him. On a side note, User:Tonymontana1975 didn't create this article (although they have made several edits). Ahmadtalk 08:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - while citations are iffy, he does seem notable as an individual in entertainment. Should find new citations for some, but see no reason why should be deleted outright. He seems quite notable, just citations may not be great at the moment.--Gim0031 (talk) 10:05, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - just like Gim0031 said, he appears to be a notable entertainment figure, and there are several other reputable citation sources that may be used in the article, rather than some of the ones that are currently in use. Philphleg (talk) 10:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep - notable for good (film-making) and bad (kevin spacey connection) reasons. no doubt plenty of independent sources exsit not the least of which is a few from renowned moviegoer roger ebert.Grmike (talk) 14:38, 29 April 2020 (UTC)grmike[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:16, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rahul Jogi[edit]

Rahul Jogi (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, no notable references and results on Google Search Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 04:30, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG since the press-coverage is too brief and trivial, and in the less-reliable media outlets; oft appears to be republication of press releases eg [108], [109]. And even taking all the claims on the subject's website to be true, they fail WP:NPOL since Jogi has held no elected position and appears to be a mid-level functionary of All India Congress Committee. Abecedare (talk) 17:23, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL. I actually draftified this article about a week ago because of notability and COI issues. Interestingly it looks like a new account was able to pick up where the last editor left off after the last one refused to answer COI requests. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable for the purposes of WP:NPOL, the article is written very much like an advertisement (and a badly written one at that, "Former National Secretory" he said), and the sources are not strongly enough about him to get him over WP:GNG. Bearcat (talk) 21:52, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Clearly fails WP:NPOL. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 23:48, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:59, 4 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 12:07, 5 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) 05:12, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Charlotte Lawrence[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Charlotte Lawrence (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 model and musician; the closest thing to a hit she has is #15 on a digital-only Australian chart. Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Orange Mike | Talk 04:23, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 07:55, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Just by searching the artist's name, she has been featured on reputable sources such as Vanity Fair, MTV News, Elle, i-D, Billboard, Clash, and People. Despite her article not including several of these sources, she is notable enough to warrant her own article as per WP:BIO. While her songs have not charted on any notable charts, WP:SINGER states that the artist may be notable if they meet at least one of the following criteria, satisfying criteria 1 and 10. Looking at WP:SUBNOT, several sources have independently covered her work, including V Magazine, Billboard, Music Talkers, and Idolator. Deleting the article solely because of poor chart performance only negates the purpose of WP:N, which has been extensively covered in detail. The sources I have included here can supposedly be added in the article so that it clearly establishes notability from both WP:SINGER and WP:N. — Angryjoe1111 (talk) 09:00, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In a fair world this would be a delete, as this is little more than the offspring of two TV industry players who, through those connections, has parlayed it into a minor modeling career and even lesser recording efforts. There is no accomplishment that merits encyclopedic importance. And yet, the requisite press and attention that comes with this territory has been dutifully conferred, especially spiking with COVID-19 coverage and her unfortunate connection. Per wikipedia criteria, the RS coverage is there, per the keep vote above, and also prior AfD nominations that resulted in "keep." The article could certainly benefit from being expanded, although there is not much "meat" in the coverage. ShelbyMarion (talk) 12:45, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per previous consensus after the article was nominated for deletion in 2018. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 19:44, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as has multiple substantial reliable sources coverage such as Billboard, Vice, Clash, Elle, Vanity Fair, People and others. Also charting on a digital national chart is significant now that most music is bought digitally, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 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. Fenix down (talk) 06:25, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of association football matches played at Tehelné pole[edit]

List of association football matches played at Tehelné pole (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)
List of association football matches played at Stadium Australia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
List of association football matches played at Allianz Parque (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Fails WP:NOTSTATS and WP:LISTN. Enough with the WP:CRUFT. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 02:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:04, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:06, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:15, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 03:16, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:32, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree. There's no reason for this article to exist. It's not sourced and covers a topic that's not really encyclopedic. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 04:01, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Stadium Australia one might be notable since it's not traditionally used as a football arena. The other ones are clearly WP:NOTSTATS and poorly sourced to boot. SportingFlyer T·C 04:12, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all as listcruft. GiantSnowman 16:58, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have been working on the article entire day and intend to add more data within next few days. I hope it does not harm anyone to have such an article here and for many fans, perhaps even commentators, it might serve as an very useful overview with added statistical value. Especially in the future. Penepi 23:35, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all. We are not a directory of every single match played at a particular venue. Ajf773 (talk) 02:02, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who 'we'? Does the article hurt you? Do you need to think about it every day and cannot sleep because of it? But okay, I do understand there needs to be some rules. But at least the Tehelné pole article is not a directory of every single match. It also contains statistical data, and as I stated above I will add more of them. I am sure some users will definitely find the article useful. Penepi 11:53, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • "We" stands for the Wikipedia community. As much as I appreciate your WP:GOODFAITH contributions, the list is still pure WP:FANCRUFT and WP:NOTSTATS only designed to amplify unimportant information. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:26, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Unimportant information" is a merely subjective opinion, in the first place. Then also why don't you delete, for instance, "2019–20 ŠK Slovan Bratislava season" article, or basically all articles related to specific season of a sports club? Those, too, are important "only to a small population of enthusiastic fans of the subject in question". I believe the article does not offend anyone, and besides spending quite some time on it, it will have an added value in the future when looking at historic statistics, which cannot be found anywhere else now. Penepi 19:23, 5 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Seasons for football clubs like Slovan Bratislava are notable because they pass WP:NSEASONS. This list is different because it can't really be considered notable and is purely just WP:LISTCRUFT. Every match in the list is already compiled in more notable articles like the season articles, for example. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 03:55, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete all - listcruft and not stats Spiderone 00:13, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If (well, when) these get deleted, if the closer could please move the Stadium Australia table to my userspace, I'd really appreciate it. Thanks! SportingFlyer T·C 20:01, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why you think the Stadium Australia list could be considered notable. Many multi-purpose or traditional non-football stadiums hold matches from time to time, so I don't see what makes Stadium Australia so special in particular. Especially considering in Australia, many stadiums that hold Aussie rules, cricket, and rugby matches also hold association football matches and the sport is fairly popular in Australia. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 21:29, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Stadium Australia only holds soccer matches occasionally, and when it does, the soccer matches it holds tend to be major, such as the Olympic Games finals, the Asian Cup finals, or major World Cup qualification matches such as the inter-continental playoffs. It's especially noteworthy considering the large number of smaller rectangular stadiums in the Sydney area also capable of hosting football matches, one of which was functionally soccer-specific until its recent demolition. I don't understand why you would consider this cruft, but cruft is typically a different word for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. It needs a single source (a secondary list of games) and a bit of prose to pass WP:NLIST. I've only done a simple source search but can look through some of my Aussie soccer sources soon. SportingFlyer T·C 22:21, 2 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Stadium Australia is the 2nd largest stadium in the country and the largest in Sydney; double that of the 2nd largest in the city: the Sydney Cricket Ground. Of course it would be used for large events like the Olympics or major Australia national team matches. Also, how can you equate CRUFT to IDONTLIKEIT? IDONTLIKEIT is for baseless arguments. CRUFT is used to stop the encyclopedia from having non-notable circlejerk articles that are of arbitrary importance, and are at best, only deserve a small section in a much grander topic. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 01:46, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Cruft is in the eye of the beholder, similar to IDONTLIKEIT. I can't really argue for or against CRUFT in the same way I can't argue against IDONTLIKEIT, as they're not objective. The objective argument I can make: The articles you nominated here violate WP:NOT. Of those three, one, the Stadium Australia article, can be salvaged with a bit of research. You yourself admit the matches there would be of general importance, and I've just gone ahead and converted the list of important soccer matches staged at the stadium from list format into prose at the Stadium Australia article - it would likely be a valid fork, and the table would be appropriate within that fork. The other two cannot be salvaged, as they are stadiums which host football matches first and foremost, and listing every football match there would get us into a database/directory area. SportingFlyer T·C 03:54, 3 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • The matches are of general importance because they are notable sporting events and they are already listed on club season articles, national teams results lists and international competition articles, not because they were played at a specific stadium. Just because a football match is played at a multipurpose or non-football stadium, doesn't make the match any more important. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:48, 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. There is in fact no projectwide consensus about notability of pageant winners. Sandstein 10:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lindita Idrizi[edit]

Lindita Idrizi (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)

Whilst the winner of a national beauty pageant (non-notable competition - see WP:1EVENT), did not place in the international pageant. Has no other significant achievements. Fails WP:GNG / WP:ANYBIO Dan arndt (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albania-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 05:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Titleholders of major national titles are notable per WikiProject Beauty Pageants. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 05:41, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment, where does it state that winners of Beauty Pageants are automatically notable? Dan arndt (talk) 05:54, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Contrary to the above claim, in previous discussions attempts to create a list of competitions whose national level winners are default notable have been specifically rejected. We need sourcing on the individual, and it is lacking in this case.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:22, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:21, 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 03:45, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A. J. Howard[edit]

A. J. Howard (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:NGRIDIRON, and all sources cited are routine transaction reports, failing WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:33, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 01:33, 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. Sandstein 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DYNAMIXEL[edit]

DYNAMIXEL (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 notable, written like a promotion and a product catalogue, lots of IP edits JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 01:29, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Strong delete: Overuse of external links, plus the phrase The RoboPlus software is available free to the public for use with the DXLs, and can be found on the ROBOTIS Download Page sounds like it's coming straight from a TV ad. Could be potentially notable, but given the lackluster formatting and highly promotional tone, it's safe to say this one's an ad. dibbydib (T ･ C) 06:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article seems to be notable, and we just need to clean it up to match article standards. CrazyBoy826 (talk) 00:24, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While there might be some coverage in some niche WP:RS, I'm not finding it. Even if it is potentially notable, this article needs to go per WP:TNT. --Kinu t/c 00:55, 30 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:05, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:06, 1 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 00:06, 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 merge to L'Algérino. Clear consensus not to retain as standalone. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 22:00, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Va Bene (L'Algérino song)[edit]

Va Bene (L'Algérino song) (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 zillion YouTube views, and apparently not a single respectable source in sight to base an article on. It's not the easiest thing to search for, but I'm not coming up with anything. And no, Diamond certification alone doesn't do it - we still need the substantial independent coverage... --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The song is a Top 30 hit in Belgium and France. It's certified "Diamond" in France. The YouTube link shuld be placed somewhere instead of considering it as a reference. I even found a few sources about the song: [110], [111], [112] and [113]. These sources are reliable enough for the article to pass WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, your "vote" may stand a little lonesome. Source #2 might be up to something, if one could get around the paywall, but the rest are pretty worthless. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, buidhe 00:20, 22 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sam-2727 (talk) 01:26, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect - This song should probably be discussed in context over at 'L'Algérino', the artist's page, since while being well-known it still hasn't attracted much in the way of reliable source coverage. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 01:37, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/Redirect Not really sure what difference the song charting makes to notability, but it would still probably be better talked about in the artist's article instead of having it's own. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:44, 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. Sandstein 11:32, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bryce Cleveland[edit]

Bryce Cleveland (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)

Of the sources used in this article. Only the first reference is actually reliable. Sources 2, 4, 5, 6 are press releases or paid per their disclaimers. Sources 2 & 7 are fake news sites often used by Black hat SEO editors GPL93 (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 01:18, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete delete delete. This is chock full of paid for spammy nonsense and has 0 reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 14:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:32, 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. Sandstein 11:31, 6 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of North Dakota Letterwinners Hall of Fame[edit]

University of North Dakota Letterwinners Hall of Fame (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 notable, WP:NOTWEBHOST, lack of citations JamesHSmith6789 (talk) 00:41, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Dakota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 01:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To be clear, I am not proposing a merge. The list of honorees is not encyclopedic and a description of the hall of fame already exists in the section I linked to. We should preserve the title and categories of this page; nothing more. pburka (talk) 18:19, 29 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete its a non-noteworthy bare list with no additional text or references. I also opposes combining it with the North Dakota Fighting Hawks, as it would be again a non-noteworthy wall of text, or redirecting it, as it would only keep this blank list without improving.
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:28, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_April_29&oldid=955624727"