Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 5

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 4 April	6 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Alexander Group, Inc.[edit]

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

This organization doesn't seem to be notable. The references in the article are either to amazon links selling the company's products, to the group's own website, and to sites redistributing press releases (prnewswire and businesswire are websites that distribute press releases). I'm having trouble finding sources that demonstrate passes of WP:CORPDEPTH or WP:GNG. Almost everything I'm finding is routine coverage like what WP:CORPDEPTH doesn't consider to be notability-building, press releases, or pages stating that the group sponsored an event. Hog Farm (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 23:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a company, uploaded to mainspace as the 11th edit by a new editor. The article sets out the firm's wares, supported by primary references. Searches are finding routine announcement coverage, which confirm this to be a company going about its business but fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am seeing no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:37, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic fails WP:NCORP/WP:GNG HighKing⁺⁺ 15:21, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by NickRewind[edit]

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

No references at all, just WP:CIRCULAR links to a 2015 version of the parent page. This should be merged with the List of programs broadcast by TeenNick page until it has been fleshed out. Articles like this are an embarrassment to the pedia. MightyArms (talk) 23:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. MightyArms (talk) 23:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete who redistributes a program is not really worth having an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unnecessary list about a station that has only been around for a few years and all of its programs are syndicated, so it doesn't have any of its own shows. Koridas (Speak) 16:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose - Other articles like Nick at Nite and Boomerang are primarily rerun channels and redistributes old programming. The merge with TeenNick wouldn't work either, TeenNick has aired similar shows under its own time for different years than NickRewind has, which is why the articles were separated in the first place, the article just needs actual references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1012:B166:990:127:EE33:1D70:369A (talk) 18:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's a rerun block; content was sneak-removed from List of programs broadcast by TeenNick without any discussion notice from TheTVGuy66 (talk · contribs). I don't think it should be restored to the TeenNick article though as this block by design will never have any original programming, a basic requirement of a channel 'List of' article; even more disqualifying since this isn't even its own channel. Nate • (chatter) 01:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Programming lists should be restricted to original programming only and to channels, not program blocks. NickRewind doesn't fit into either of these categories. Ajf773 (talk) 08:27, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A comment I'd like to add - it'd be one thing if the content of this article was actually accurate, but that isn't the case. It claimed Aaahh!!! Real Monsters first aired in 2015, when I know I saw an episode in January 2014 because I DVR'd it before my TV broke. Also, how come it took until November to air Rugrats, but they were airing Doug in July when they don't even own 100% of the rights to the character? MightyArms (talk) 17:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Nickelodeon owns the original 52 episodes of Doug, so they can do whatever they want with them, Rugrats premiered later in the year because the show was already airing on Nicktoons when the block originally launched — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.73.11.91 (talk) 18:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Merge. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of former rebroadcasters of CBAFT-DT[edit]

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

This AfD includes several lists of former relay transmitters of CBC Television and TVOntario stations. These networks decommissioned all analog transmitters on July 31, 2012. The remaining lists have little current value and may be at this point excessively detailed to be retained on the encyclopedia. In the case of TVOntario, the digital transmitters that remain are listed on the main article. Raymie (t • c) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 23:12, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to the respective main articles. These lists are valuable and encyclopedic, particularly considering the transmitters were properly licensed, not unlicensed low-power operations like some other rebroadcasters, which is often considered to indicate notability in itself. However, they should not have been spun out from the network pages in the first place. If any of the tables are too long (IMO this really only applies to the TVO one), they can be collapsed by default.

N.B. "little current value" is not a valid argument for deletion, per WP:NOTTEMPORARY. Modernponderer (talk) 13:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge per Modernponderer. There is some value in retaining historical information like this, but there's much less value in doing so as a separate list rather than a section within the station's main article. Obviously, if any of these prove completely unverifiable (the more pertinent problem in the case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of transmitters of CHAN-DT, but not as broadly applicable in these cases), then that unverifiable information should just be scuppered rather than merged — it's correct that we can make tables collapsible now (this wasn't always true in the past), so the value in retaining historical information like this for reference's sake doesn't mean we need to spin them off to separate lists anymore. Bearcat (talk) 20:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promoter Musa[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NMUSIC Kleuske (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 22:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable music promoter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Verified Ugandan music promoter on google so to delete this article from Wikipedia is gonna be a mistake — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.155.128 (talk) 13:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. I can't find a single reliable coverage of him. All of the references cited in the article are unreliable. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Don't delete this article of PROMOTER MUSA from Wikipedia because he has worked with many Ugandan biggest musicians like A Pass, Grace Nakimera and many more by publishing music lyrics online — Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.210.154.109 (talk) 21:47, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dakota Junction, Nebraska[edit]

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

This one at least admits it's a railroad junction, but still errs in claiming to be a community [1][2] Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing but a rail junction here. –dlthewave ☎ 00:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 23:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smith Landing, Wisconsin[edit]

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

Former river landing [3] perhaps where one Mr. Smith lived [4], no evidence it is or was a community or notable place. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GEOLAND#2 Lightburst (talk) 23:10, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect all to Compaq Presario. (non-admin closure) Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:55, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Compaq Presario 2200[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:GNG. –NorthwestPassage^talk 20:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related articles for the same reasons:

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

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

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

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

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

–NorthwestPassage^talk 20:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:35, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LOLZpersonok (talk) 03:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC) - I believe that my article "Compaq Presario 2200" should be deleted. At the time that I wrote it, I was not well-versed in research and as such the article is inaccurate. Claims made within are largely anecdotal or rumours. Information on the particular topic is sparse and hard to come by, and the article itself is not particularly important in terms of anything regarding the history of the Compaq brand or company; the article is also not very useful for someone looking for information on the topic.[reply]

Redirect All to Compaq Presario. Redirects are cheap. Note products of major computer manufacturers may be notable (eg. I expect there are several reviews of them). Pavlor (talk) 07:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - per Pavlor. Koridas (Speak) 18:03, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sherwood Forest, Wisconsin[edit]

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

Now apparently a subdivision in incorporated Green Lake, Wisconsin [5], no sigcov to pass GEOLAND2; formerly the name of a hotel [6] Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable subdivision. –dlthewave ☎ 02:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Idiots in the Machine[edit]

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

Same as Battle For Forever, except this one was created back in the day when Wikipedia was lax in its inclusion criteria, to put it mildly. Fails WP:NBOOK: no significant reviews, and no coverage of note. PK650 (talk) 20:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment See also Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Battle For Forever and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edward Savio. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't really see any sources on this topic.--TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 03:33, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spellman Crossing, Ohio[edit]

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

Former road intersection, not a notable community Reywas92^Talk 20:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 20:03, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It's just an intersection. –dlthewave ☎ 02:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vienna Junction, Montmorency County, Michigan[edit]

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

Former railroad junction at Lewiston, Michigan, not a notable community Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a road junction now, but still not notable. –dlthewave ☎ 02:10, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mouser Place, New Mexico[edit]

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

No community here! Another ranch with zero coverage. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable ranch. –dlthewave ☎ 02:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:07, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cox Beach, Alabama[edit]

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

A river beach area/fishing spot within Satsuma, Alabama, not a notable community Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of a notable community. –dlthewave ☎ 02:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fishing spots are not default notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

West Junction, Illinois[edit]

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

Not a community, it's the the railroad junction west of the city Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Redirect to Harlem Township, Stephenson County, Illinois: One of many, many autogenerated articled from USGS GNIS "populated place" entries, many of which were are in the GNIS because USGS topo maps often showed railroad stops the same as populated places. Article presents no evidence of ever having a concentrated population. --Closeapple (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No need to retain a redirect for a railway junction. –dlthewave ☎ 01:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable place with no reliable sourcing or significant coverage. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 07:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:36, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thumpertown Beach, Massachusetts[edit]

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

One of several generic beaches in the town of Eastham, not a village Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: No evidence this "village" actually exists as a distinct populated place (GNIS is not sufficient). Pi.1415926535 (talk) 18:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Looks like a delightful little spot, but not a village or distinct community. –dlthewave ☎ 01:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Pax:Vobiscum (talk) 08:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coffee Pot Landing, Minnesota[edit]

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

Not "an unincorporated community", it's a landing spot on the river with a a campsite [https://www.newspapers.com/image/190213497/?terms=coffee%2Bpot%2Blanding, denoted in the same typeface as "Gravel pit" Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 19:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, "denoted in the same typeface as "Gravel pit", "Aunty Boulder, Aunty Boulder, now they're picking on quarries!" "Hush now little rock, if there isn't adequate sourcing, its not notable", "Okaaayyy" rumble, rumble, as little rock rolls away.... Coolabahapple (talk) 00:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:NGEO or WP:GNG, appears to be a non-notable camp site, a gsearch brings up listings only and some sources such as this, that speculates on name origin/gives a description but are not useable. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable river landing miscategorized as a community. –dlthewave ☎ 01:45, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PacMania[edit]

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

Fails the notability criteria. The only refs are from two file sharing websites, and I could not find much else on sites like MobyGames in terms of reviews. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Notability not established. Sourced to only one website, which may or may not be reliable. Deleting this article would also remove confusion with the Namco game Pac-Mania, which is far more notable. JIP | Talk 21:31, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable game. TheAwesome Hwyh 23:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all, plus the article is overall quite promotional. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 04:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 05:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

.green[edit]

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

Does this article fit Wikipedia's notability guidelines (WP:SIGCOV)? There's only two real sources that aren't blog posts and are independent of the subject. Further, if .green has an article, then so should .red and .blue (which both have an order of magnitude more registrations). Maybe we should have some sort of merged article on some gTLDs instead? Oeoi (talk) 17:44, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to a list seems like the best outcome here, but I'm not seeing sigcov either. b uidhe 14:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Many sources are advertisements or passing mentions. Koridas (Speak) 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Robotboy characters[edit]

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

Non-notable list topic; unreferenced since 2009. (Robotboy#Characters also includes a list, but that's unsourced as well.) Glades12 (talk) 17:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 17:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTIINFO and the fact it's completely unsourced. The parent article making brief mentions of character is sufficient enough. Ajf773 (talk) 20:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, as this article fails WP:LISTN due to it being completely unsourced and WP:PLOT due to it being entirely in-universe information. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Should we add List of Robotboy episodes to this nomination?

Probably more suited to having its own AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 00:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I looked at that article, and I'll be honest with you, it looks like a second-grader wrote it. Delete. MightyArms (talk) 23:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I don't think that a series that lasted two seasons should have a standalone list of characters. I also agree with MightyArms' statement: It does indeed have an elementary-school tone throughout: Despite being Japanese version of a henchman, Constantine can speak Spanish. And despite being treated very poorly by Kamikazi, he always returns for one reason or another. Mostly because he feels he owes Kamikazi his life. We usually don't delete lists of episodes, though, because they are important encyclopedic information. Also due to other reasons mentioned here. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ifeanyi Agu[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG, WP:NPOL and WP:ANYBIO. He is the mayor of a local government area (LGA). These kinds of politicians are not inherently notable per NPOL. Apart from the first source, none of the article's remaining sources are about the subject. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 17:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Mayors are not "inherently" notable just because they exist, but this article is not referenced anywhere near well enough to get him over the "significant press coverage" bar that mayors actually have to pass: it's referenced almost entirely to glancing namechecks of his existence rather than coverage that's substantively about him. Bearcat (talk) 18:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage in independent reliable sources, the ones in the main Article are just name check and pass by mention, only reference one talked about him, and the source is primary, atleast he didn't pass WP:GNG. An@ss_koko^{(speak up)}^©T®
Delete not notable as a businessman or for anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:18, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 13:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 coronavirus pandemic in Saint Pierre and Miquelon[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG with more than 1 million confirmed cases in the world. Article could be merged into relevant topic under France PenulisHantu (talk) 17:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. See references such as <ref>Telegram, The. "Ferry service between Fortune, NL and St. Pierre-Miquelon halted amid coronavirus crisis | The Telegram". www.thetelegram.com. Retrieved 2020-04-05. and "Saint Pierre and Miquelon (France) - Traveler view | Travelers' Health | CDC". wwwnc.cdc.gov. Retrieved 2020-04-05. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 17:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:48, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The number of cases doesn't determine if a territory is notable enough for an article or not. Super Ψ Dro 19:54, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Notability is not an editorial choice, but a fact that needs to be established. Which it has. Apart from that there is also the argument that this is a breakout of a larger topic for size. Agathoclea (talk) 06:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:N is more than met; merging this to the overall French article would be confusing due to its distance from the French mainland, and there has been an impact here, however small it is; this isn't anything like a 'relationship between Burma and Haiti' article. Nate • (chatter) 01:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - If it is notable enough to have a separate entry into the cases by country/territory template then it is likely notable enough to have its own article. Atlas50 (talk) 03:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all of the above Spiderone 12:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Voices of Angels World Tour[edit]

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

Non-notable, undersourced concert tour fails both WP:GNG and WP:CONCERT TOUR that has been tagged as needing additional references for three years. There are four sources: two announce the tour and might not be reliable sources and the other two are from fan forums. I originally prodded the article in February and it was removed by an IP editor saying there were a few sources, which was the point of the prod that there were not enough articles, and no further sources have been added since then. Aspects (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as basically a list of dates and songs without secondary reliable sources coverage. If good sources can be found please ping me, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strathcona Pipes and Drums[edit]

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 16:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

City of Seattle Pipe Band[edit]

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

Non-notable pipe band. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ostrichyearning3 (talk) 16:25, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:05, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable band.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rachel Jessica Huxtable[edit]

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

Non notable actor, appears to have done a succession of extremely minor roles. No evidence of secondary sources to back up any claims. Has been unsourced (other than IMDB) for over 10 years. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 15:10, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant roles except perhaps eight episodes on Aussie soap Neighbours but that's not enough to pass WP:NACTOR imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I cannot find anything to demonstrate notability. At the very best TOOSOON. Aoziwe (talk) 12:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I also think it is WP:TOOSOON. I wasn't able to find any sources that would help make out the subject's notability as an actress. Her roles have been mostly minor, too. Dflaw4 (talk) 01:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:05, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celina Grace[edit]

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

Subject of article doesn't meet criteria for WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Only sources found are the usual retail book selling websites. Isaidnoway (talk) 14:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nomination. Mainly self published, appears to now have publisher, but no sources beyond lists and retailers. Possibly just too soon. --Escape Orbit ^(Talk) 14:45, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable novelist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, does not meet WP:AUTHOR, WorldCat library holdings are in single figures only ie. here, here, here, here, here, reflecting not well known, 1st 10 pages of gsearch of "Celina Grace book reviews" brings up the usual bookseller/personal blog sites only. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:04, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dan Gerberry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, not enough significant coverage. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Spent one week on the Detroit Lions' active roster in 2009 but did not play in a game, and then spent the next three years on their practice squad. Offensive linemen at lower-level college football teams (Ball State in this instance) rarely receive enough coverage to pass GNG. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As stated, fails WP:GNG, and objectively fails WP:NGRIDIRON having never played a professional game. Hitpoint0213 (talk) 10:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emeka Onyenekwu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, no significant coverage found. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, having never played professionally. Non-notable college football career at Group of Five Louisiana-Lafeyette. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 14:20, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 14:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 09:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet the inclusion criteria for gridiron football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hitpoint0213 (talk • contribs) 18:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. There is some significant coverage, e.g., this. Also, coverage of his December 2012 selection as an All-Sun Belt Conference player. Cbl62 (talk) 16:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete don't find the local coverage of a local footballer to be significant enough on notability grounds, fails WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 20:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is no WP:GNG bar on local coverage being used to establish notability. That is not the issue here. The issue is that the topic appears to fail GNG for the lack of significant coverage in multiple, reliable, and independent sources. Other than the one article reference above, I'm just not finding any. Cbl62 (talk) 08:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being an All-Sun Belt player is not enough to pass WP:NGRIDIRON. Fails WP:GNG as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 14:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NGRIDIRON, and WP:NCOLLATH. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:40, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Green Elephant Vegetarian Bistro[edit]

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

Small restaurant without substantial coverage except from routine restaurant reviews. TM 14:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. TM 14:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. TM 14:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maine-related deletion discussions. TM 14:01, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Normal restaurant with normal amount of coverage (i.e., below GNG level). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 16:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whether a restaurant review counts as significant coverage for notability purposes is governed by the WP:PRODUCTREV policy, which requires that the author describes their experiences in some depth, provides broader context, and draws comparisons with other products; that the reviews must be published outside of purely local or highly specialized interest publications; and that the review is not sponsored and the source is reputable. These criteria are met by the following sources: Boston Globe 2012(satisfying WP:AUD's requirement for at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source), Maine Sunday Telegram 2016, Portland Press Herald 2020, and arguably Taste of the Seacoast 2017. FourViolas (talk) 16:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This restaurant is Maine's most notable vegetarian restaurant. The coverage is not routine restaurant coverage. See [7]. The restaurant is mentioned in the 2014 book The Vegetarian Flavor Bible. BrikDuk (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sources provided by FourViolas and BrikDuk demonstrate that the restaurant passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. An additional source is Maine Magazine 2011. The article provides substantial background about the restaurant:
Sriprasert’s mother, who owned a restaurant in Thailand, taught him how to cook from a very early age. Each morning, he would wake up and be put to task peeling garlic, chopping onions, making curry paste, and executing other tedious preparations. His mother never used written recipes, and by cooking alongside her he began to develop his own personal style. These experiences gave him the knowledge and skills that allow him to transition seamlessly between the many different types of cuisine featured at Green Elephant. Char Guay Teow, a dish of wide noodles prepared with egg, red-chili paste, tofu, and soy ham, is the first of our entrees to arrive. I find the textural interplay of the soft, chewy noodles and crunchy greens quite pleasing. My companion’s Spicy Vegetable Medley Stir-fry with peanuts, soy meat, and spicy red-curry paste is also an elegantly executed dish. Although we are completely full of veggies at this point, dessert is inevitable, and we finish up with fried bananas and coconut ice cream. Ain’t nothin’ wrong with that!
Cunard (talk) 08:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I came here following the original author's request at Wikipedia:WikiProject Animal rights to consider a series of vegan related articles they created. I say keep here because this restaurant has had media coverage in cities beyond its own location. This is not a requirement for keeping, but I think that this broad coverage does demonstrate special interest beyond a typical restaurant. Blue Rasberry (talk) 12:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are enough reliable sources on the article like The Boston Globe or Press Herald. The only one I would dispute is VegNews.com it's not a independent reliable source. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per rationale presented above. Woerich (talk) 17:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fabrejay[edit]

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

non-notable dj, sourced entirely to fake news blackhat seo sites and press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 13:34, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. As the nominator has pointed out, those references aren't as legitimate as they first appear: the London Post, for example, appears to be attempting to appear legitimate by using the title of a publication which ceased trading in 1771. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - it's consensus that club DJs are run of the mill, and short of significant coverage, they are not automatically notable because of where they work or for whom they work. There's no evidence in the article that this one is an exception, but ping me if you become aware of good sources. Bearian (talk) 18:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the coverage needed to establish notability is in the article nor can I find anything meaningful in a Google search. Alansohn (talk) 01:44, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 creator is likely to be a sockpuppet of the banned spammer Highstakes00. MER-C 15:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Smart (YouTuber)[edit]

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

apparently non-notable youtuber sourced to blackhat SEO fake news sites and otherwise non-rs. Can find little else in a search. Also worth noting the creator hijacked the article. Praxidicae (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete clearly non-notable. I couldn't find any good sources that could be used in an article. No prejudice to re-creation if any new sources pop up after deletion, but for now my opinion is pretty clear. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage. A quick search for YouTubers by followers shows that to even be in the Top 100 would require 25 million: this vlogger has 1.7 million. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment to be fair, there's plenty of clearly notable YouTubers and channels not on that list (Linus Sebastian, Crash Course, Michael Stevens, and many others). TheAwesome Hwyh 16:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There just isn't enough actual media coverage to establish WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - vloggers are run of the mill, and anybody with a YouTube account can be one. This one seems to be very ordinary, and short of significant coverage about him. Bearian (talk) 18:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do not Delete - number of YouTube followers should be looked at in context of the topic he speaks about i.e. Self Improvement. His channel has more followers than Rich Dad Channel (Robert Kiyosaki), London Real, Teal Swan, etc. which are all notable in this area. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezeekeh (talk • contribs) 01:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrance McMahon[edit]

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

non-notable speaker, sourced entirely to blackhat SEO fake news sites. Praxidicae (talk) 13:07, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:16, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I see no value in the article. — billinghurst sDrewth 14:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Yahoo News , Californiaherald , londondailypost , london-post Uk all are reliable source of Information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 14:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong, not a single one of those is a reliable source and in fact, most should be blacklisted. The yahoo piece is just a press release. Praxidicae (talk) 15:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Those references are all highly suspect: for example, the "real" Daily Post hasn't existed for nearly 250 years. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article on a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable writer, found coverage on web. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Twerk000 (talk • contribs) 11:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You wanna provide those sources or just keep throwing out nonsense !votes? Praxidicae (talk) 12:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All references are either press releases or from pay-for-coverage sites. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:42, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - authors are not automatically notable, and most are run of the mill like this person. The amount of PR and unreliable sources makes me suspicious; there's zero good evidence of writing an actual bestseller. Since he's not notable as a writer, he needs to have significant coverage in reliable sources, which this page lacks. We are seeing a lot of crap from London Post and California Herald, neither of which are reliable and which I suspect are pay-for-lists. We are not a listing of writers nor a speakers bureau. Bearian (talk) 19:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TVA Architects[edit]

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

Promotional article created by the company. The references support that the company built the various buildings listed but this company doesn't appear to satisfy the requirements under WP:NORG Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 12:04, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I couldn't find any significant coverage of this company. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 16:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Even assuming they are notable for having designed an arena, this is not an article; it's an extremely poorly written ad. The person who was paid to write this needs to be re-assigned to some other career, perhaps involving numbers. I could have excused this mess in 2007, but in 2020, everybody knows we are a charity, not a free web host or public relations haven. If you can fix this horror, please ping me. Bearian (talk) 19:07, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B4bonah[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of his music has been discussed in reliable sources. All of the references cited in the article are either primary sources or promotional links. As a matter of fact, refs 13 through 28 are promotional links to the subject's music and cannot be used to establish notability. The article was previously deleted via an AFD discussion but was re-created by another user. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ben · Salvidrim! ✉ 11:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per NOM. It is not the goal of Wikipedia to advertise for an artist. The primary sourcing, sourcing that does not advance notability, and a lack of reliable sources make this a promotional article. Otr500 (talk) 02:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Filled with unreliable and primary sources. Koridas (Speak) 16:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician who does not meet our inclusion criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:31, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:07, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rarri True[edit]

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

WP:notability Reviewed as a part of new article review/curation. No coverage suitable for wp:GNG and nothing indicating passage under a SNG. Of 17 references, many were to repetition of the same paragraph, probably generated by artist or their publicity person. Plus many dead links or sales pages for their work. One album review on a blog, plus 3 mentioning short fame due to some incident involving a Kardashian North8000 (talk) 18:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:10, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 21:51, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2019-10 ✍️ create

Delete. The subject fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The sources cited in the article press releases and promotional links to the subject's music. None of the subject's albums or EPs charted or was discussed in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 01:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't meet GNG. His (slim) notability is based almost entirely on his relationship with a Kardashashian girlfriend. JSFarman (talk) 13:34, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per JSFarman - doesn't meet GNG --DannyS712 (talk) 14:06, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas Penick[edit]

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

(as placed at the article's talk page) Review under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process

Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I just reviewed the article. In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. Three of the four reference were check-able and were just listings type coverage. The fourth was not check-able be me, a book which was about an organization/ group that he was a part of, the L.A. Rebellion. I also found nothing that establishes him under the special notability guideline which would allow temporary bypassing of the sourcing/coverage requirements. Regarding his career in his profession, it appears that he directed a film in college as a class project, and then worked in staff positions in several other films and endeavors. I have marked the article for review under Wikipedia's Articles for Deletions process so that the community may decide. Perhaps this his coverage should instead be a paragraph in the L.A. Rebellion Regarding the history of the article, it was previously deleted. North8000 (talk) 16:38, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting the discussion
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 02:03, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Film editing and directing one minor short doesn't satisfy WP:CREATIVE. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:39, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Tough case, seemed to be involved in a lot of important black cinema of the '70s and '80s. Worked with Charles Burnett, perhaps the most notable black filmmaker before Spike. The sources may be out there. Two of the four sources in the article were good, but it could be a case of many short mentions adding up to notability. It will be tough to find articles about independent black filmmakers from 40-50 years ago. Here's a short thing through JSTOR: [8]. Will try to find a "real" obit--I think the lack of one says more about The LA Times and Variety, for example, than it does him. I think he definitely warrants a paragraph in L.A. Rebellion, at minimum. Thanks. Caro7200 (talk) 13:18, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, this is the title of the article in Black Camera: "The Touch of the "First" Black Cinematographer in North America: James E. Hinton, Ganja & Hess , and the NEA Films at the Harvard Film Archive." Caro7200 (talk) 21:00, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. as suggested just above, though remove the last paragraph as non-encyclopedic trivia. DGG ( talk ) 18:02, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:42, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Source analysis uncontested. czar 22:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bugcrowd[edit]

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

Very few independent and reliable sources where the company is the primary subject of the publication. For example, the 'New York Times' article is actually about another company but mentions Bugcrowd in passing as a competitor. Other sources are republished press released. I do not believe SIGCOV has been demonstrated. Mkdw ^talk 19:04, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would like to note that this article was previously deleted as part of a massive undisclosed paid editing ring: ANI. Mkdw ^talk 19:07, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Harper, Allen; Regalado, Daniel; Linn, Ryan; Sims, Stephen; Spasojevic, Branko; Martinez, Linda; Baucom, Michael; Eagle, Chris; Harris, Shon (2018). Gray Hat Hacking: The Ethical Hacker's Handbook, Fifth Edition (5 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-1-26-010842-2. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
Zakrzewski, Cat (2016-04-20). "Bugcrowd Nets $15M for Bug Bounties With Hackers". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
Goodin, Dan (2020-03-21). "Here's the Netflix account compromise Bugcrowd doesn't want you to know about [Updated]". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
Ring, Tim (February 2014). "Why bug hunters are coming in from the wild". Computer Fraud & Security. 2014 (2). Elsevier: 16. doi:10.1016/s1361-3723(14)70463-4. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
Colley, Andrew (2018-06-27). "Bugcrowd chief says Australia must embrace risk to keep top cyber firms at home". The Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
Hogan, Tom; Broadbent, Carol (2017). Sheety, Roger (ed.). The Ultimate Start-Up Guide: Marketing Lessons, War Stories, and Hard-Won Advice from Leading Venture Capitalists and Angel Investors. Wayne, New Jersey: Career Press. ISBN 978-1-63265-928-6. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
Whittaker, Zack (2019-05-31). "Security startup Bugcrowd on crowdsourcing bug bounties: 'Cybersecurity is a people problem'". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-08-09. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
Hackett, Robert (2017-08-28). "Exclusive: Top Hackers-For-Hire Startup Names New CEO". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28 – via Yahoo! Finance.
Higgins, Kelly Jackson (2019-10-22). "Bugcrowd Enters the IT Asset Discovery Business". Dark Reading. Informa. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
Hoffman, Alex. "Moral Hazards in Cyber Vulnerability Markets". Computer. 52 (12). IEEE Computer Society: 85. doi:10.1109/MC.2019.2936635. Retrieved 2020-03-28.

Sources with quotes

Harper, Allen; Regalado, Daniel; Linn, Ryan; Sims, Stephen; Spasojevic, Branko; Martinez, Linda; Baucom, Michael; Eagle, Chris; Harris, Shon (2018). Gray Hat Hacking: The Ethical Hacker's Handbook, Fifth Edition (5 ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill Education. ISBN 978-1-26-010842-2. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The book has a section titled "Bugcrowd in Depth". The book notes:
Bugcrowd is one of the leading crowd-source platforms for vulnerability intake and management. It allows for several types of bug bounty programs, including private and public programs. Private programs are not published to the public, but the Bugcrowd team maintains a cadre of top researchers who have proven themselves on the platform, and they can invite a number of those researchers into a program based on the criteria provided. In order to participate in private programs, the researchers must undergo an identity-verification process through a third party. Conversely, researchers may freely submit to public programs. As long as they abide with the terms of the platform and the program, they will maintain an active status on the platform and may continue to participate in the bounty program. If, however, a researcher violates the terms of the platform or any part of the bounty program, they will be banned from the site and forfeit any potential income. This dynamic tends to keep honest researchers honest. Of course, as they say, “hackers gonna hack,” but at least the rules are clearly defined, so there should be no surprises on either side.
CAUTION You have been warned: play nicely or lose your privilege to participate on Bugcrowd or other sites!
Bugcrowd also allows for two types of compensation for researchers: monetary and Kudos. Funded programs are established and then funded with a pool to be allocated by the owner for submissions, based on configurable criteria. Kudos programs are not funded and instead offer bragging rights to researchers, as they accumulate Kudos and are ranked against other researchers on the platform. Also, Bugcrowd uses the ranking system to invite a select set of researchers into private bounty programs.
The Bugcrowd web interface has two parts: one for the program owners and the other for the researchers.
Zakrzewski, Cat (2016-04-20). "Bugcrowd Nets $15M for Bug Bounties With Hackers". The Wall Street Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The article notes:
Bug bounty programs first became popular after their success at technology companies such as Google Inc. and Facebook Inc. But Bugcrowd wants to help smaller businesses or companies that aren’t in the technology sector crowdsource researchers to test their applications. Companies that use Bugcrowd may pay a bounty.
The San Francisco-based company raised $15 million in Series B funding led by the Australian firm Blackbird Ventures and had participation from Salesforce Ventures. Existing investors Costanoa Venture Capital, Industry Ventures, Paladin Capital Group and Rally Ventures also participated in the round.
...
As Bugcrowd looks to expand with its new funding, it faces competition from HackerOne, which raised $25 million in a Series B last year. HackerOne touts clients such as Uber Technologies Inc., Twitter Inc. , Adobie Inc. and General Motors Company on its website. When the Pentagon launched its first bug bounty program earlier this year, it opted to use HackerOne’s platform.
The article includes quotes from Bugcrowd Chief Executive Casey Ellis.
Goodin, Dan (2020-03-21). "Here's the Netflix account compromise Bugcrowd doesn't want you to know about [Updated]". Ars Technica. Archived from the original on 2020-03-24. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The article notes:
He said he reported the threat through Bugcrowd, the vulnerability reporting service that Netflix uses to receive disclosures from hackers and pay them a reward in exchange. On March 11, Bugcrowd sent Kakumani a reply that said the weakness he reported was out of scope with the bounty program. Bugcrowd went on to tell the researcher that its terms of service barred him from publicly disclosing or discussing the weakness.
Ring, Tim (February 2014). "Why bug hunters are coming in from the wild". Computer Fraud & Security. 2014 (2). Elsevier: 16. doi:10.1016/s1361-3723(14)70463-4. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The article notes:
Another success story is Bugcrowd. Launched in 2012, it too acts as a go-between between vendors and researchers, as well as offering an end-to-end bug bounty programme management service for vendors. Bugcrowd invites vendors to declare which websites or apps that want hackers to test. It then gets over 4,000 external, vetted (or ‘curated’) researchers to search for security flaws – thereby ‘crowdsourcing’ the bug hunting – and pays them in both cash and ‘kudos’ via a points-based system.
Bugcrowd manages the bounty programmes on behalf of the vendor, reviewing and validating and bugs found and handing out the rewards. It also offers vendors the choice of going out to the whole crowd of researchers or just the best ones – those with the most ‘kudos’.
Colley, Andrew (2018-06-27). "Bugcrowd chief says Australia must embrace risk to keep top cyber firms at home". The Australian Financial Review. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The article notes:
Bugcrowd's platform allows organisations to crowd source cyber security skills from thousands of cyber security experts, from professional to enthusiasts and everything in between.
Its main offering is a public bug bounty program that organisations can use to offer sums of money for people who find and report security holes in their services and software, which increase with the severity of the issues they uncover.
...
It's difficult to get full visibility on demand for Bugcrowd's services. About 84,000 researchers have signed up for its bug bounty program to address a market of 90 organisations, including Netflix, Mastercard, Netgear, LastPass, Tesla and Australia's favourite tech unicorn, Atlassian.
However, the rest of its business is carried out under non-disclosure agreements with individual organisations and involves using hand-picked researchers that have been subjected to a more stringent trust methodology.
Nevertheless, in March, Bugcrowd raised $33 million in C-series funding from a consortium of investors, including Blackbird Ventures, First State Super and Salesforce Ventures. It has been valued at $US115 million ($155 million).
The article includes quotes from Bugcrowd Chief Executive Casey Ellis.
Hogan, Tom; Broadbent, Carol (2017). Sheety, Roger (ed.). The Ultimate Start-Up Guide: Marketing Lessons, War Stories, and Hard-Won Advice from Leading Venture Capitalists and Angel Investors. Wayne, New Jersey: Career Press. ISBN 978-1-63265-928-6. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The book notes:
Past client Bugcrowd, the enterprise crowdsourced security pioneer, is a handy case study for how one start-up used Twitter aggressively to build its business. Bugcrowd has two main audiences that it focuses on to grow its business. The first audience is made up of independent security testers, the so-called “black hats” and “white hats” that Bugcrowd recruits to use its software platform to test corporate products via “bug bounty” programs. The second audience is corporations paying Bugcrowd to test their products through their community of security testers. Bugcrowd uses its Twitter channel to recruit and cultivate a tester community with news of bug bounty programs, product enhancements, new partners, rewards, recognition, meetups, and so on. For Bugcrowd, Twitter is a true community builder. As of this writing, their global tester community exceeds 25,000.
Whittaker, Zack (2019-05-31). "Security startup Bugcrowd on crowdsourcing bug bounties: 'Cybersecurity is a people problem'". TechCrunch. Archived from the original on 2019-08-09. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The article notes:
For a cybersecurity company, Bugcrowd relies much more on people than it does on technology.
...
Founded in 2011, Bugcrowd is one of the largest bug bounty and vulnerability disclosure companies on the internet today. The company relies on bug finders, hackers, and security researchers to find and privately report security flaws that could damage systems or putting user data at risk.
Bugcrowd acts as an intermediary by passing the bug to the companies to get fixed — potentially helping them to dodge a future security headache like a leak or a breach — in return for payout to the finder.
The greater the vulnerability, the higher the payout.
Hackett, Robert (2017-08-28). "Exclusive: Top Hackers-For-Hire Startup Names New CEO". Fortune. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28 – via Yahoo! Finance.
The article notes:
Bugcrowd, one of the world’s top bug bounty startups, is set to name a new chief executive on Monday.
...
Bugcrowd connects hackers to companies so that the former can get paid for reporting and helping fix vulnerabilities in the latter’s products. (For more insight into bug hunting, read this feature story in the July issue of Fortune magazine.) Bugcrowd works with customers such as, Pinterest, and Fiat Chrysler of America to bolster their security programs.
...
Bugcrowd is one of two main bug bounty startups that create software to facilitate a market between security researchers and clients. Its rival--the to its Burger King, or to its --is HackerOne, which incidentally also brought on a non-founder CEO to scale its business two years ago. (You can watch a clip of M?rtin Mickos, HackerOne’s CEO, at this year’s Fortune’s Brainstorm Tech conference here.)
...
To date, Bugcrowd has 60,000 security researchers enrolled on its platform. The company’s headcount tripled to 110 from around 35 a year ago.
The article includes quotes from Bugcrowd Chief Executive Casey Ellis.
Higgins, Kelly Jackson (2019-10-22). "Bugcrowd Enters the IT Asset Discovery Business". Dark Reading. Informa. Archived from the original on 2020-03-28. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The article notes:
Bugcrowd, which launched in 2012 as a crowdsourcing model for finding vulnerabilities in software, offers bug bounty, vulnerability disclosure programs, and penetration testing. The company relies on vetted independent security researchers to discover security weaknesses.
...
Bugcrowd's new asset discovery service stops short of exploiting any vulnerable devices it discovers, he says. It's more about profiling the assets and providing context on how risky it is and what would happen if it were attacked.
The article includes quotes from people affiliated with Bugcrowd.
Hoffman, Alex. "Moral Hazards in Cyber Vulnerability Markets". Computer. 52 (12). IEEE Computer Society: 85. doi:10.1109/MC.2019.2936635. Retrieved 2020-03-28.
The article notes:
BugCrowd.com was also founded in 2012, but it trails HackerOne in investment dollars at US$48.7 million.¹⁶ BugCrowd has a slightly different model, whereby it internally employs verification engineers to manually check every bug submitted through its platform to ensure a certain standard of defects being submitted.¹² It also boasts an impressive customer list headlined by Tesla, Cisco, Netgear, Atlassian, and Okta.

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

Cunard (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A McGraw-Hill Education book noted, "Bugcrowd is one of the leading crowd-source platforms for vulnerability intake and management."
A Career Press book noted called Bugcrowd "the enterprise crowdsourced security pioneer".
TechCrunch said, "Bugcrowd is one of the largest bug bounty and vulnerability disclosure companies on the internet today".
Fortune said, "Bugcrowd is one of two main bug bounty startups that create software to facilitate a market between security researchers and clients."
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The creator, Ark25 (talk · contribs), wrote here:
No, I was never engaged into any form of paid editing. I was just reading a few days ago an article on Ars Technica about a bug posted on Bugcrowd so I thought maybe this web platform is important enough to deserve an article on Wikipedia. I just happened to create an article deleted before. And I can't remember re-creating any other deleted article than William Goad which doesn't have a history of UPE. — Ark25 (talk) 15:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Cunard (talk) 07:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per the sources identified above that show significant coverage in reliable sources to enable a pass of WP:GNG in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. No prejudice against relevant redirection. czar 22:11, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahid Heidarian Arena[edit]

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

Unremarkable arena. Has no visible verifiable references from reliable secondary sources. Recreated after successful PROD. — Jeff G. ツ 02:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:46, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean by visible? Have you done a WP:BEFORE ? Atlantic306 (talk) 02:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Atlantic306: I can't read Persian. — Jeff G. ツ 12:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete 2000 seat gymnasium mislabeled as an arena. This 2000 seat gym which would likely be the size of any U.S. High School basketball gymnasium. Does not meet GNG. Lightburst (talk) 14:53, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as not independently notable, it can be covered at [[9]] who use it as a home base, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, i don't think its really relevant that "This 2000 seat gym which would likely be the size of any U.S. High School basketball gymnasium.", what may be relevant is: are the home grounds of professional sports teams deemed wikinotable? if not, a "redirect" could be made to Chemidor Tehran BC with the article be broken out only when adequate sources are found, what is also disconcerting is the nominator's admission that they can't read farsi where, presumably, the majority of sources may be found. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

X Ray: The Inner Image[edit]

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

Reason North8000 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As posted at the article talk page. Review under Wikipedia's new article curation / review process.

Thanks for your work on this article. As a part of Wikipedia's new article review / curation process I just reviewed the article.

In my opinion, this topic, to the extent visible in the article does not meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines which is a requirement for existence of a separate article on topic. This guideline is described at WP:Notability and in the specialized guidelines linked at the beginning of that page which provide somewhat of an alternate. The core element of wp:notability is that there are some independent published sources which covered the topic of the article in depth. Of the 6 references given, 3 are to the press release for the trailer, verbatim, one is discussing the press release for the trailer, one is to the trailer itself, and one is to posters for the movie.

I have nominated the article for deletion so that the community may decide. North8000 (talk) 18:27, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:32, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as since its release it has received full, independent reviews in national newspapers such as Times of India here and Deccan Herald [10] here, and MidDay here, therefore passing WP:NFILM criteria 1 which indicates a pass of WP:GNG, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:58, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:33, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Tnuva. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 23:22, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shoko B'Sakit[edit]

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

"Shoko" is the Israeli word for chocolate milk. There is no need for an article about a specific Tnuva product when Tnuva manufactures many types of "shoko", such as "Shoko Shock" and flavored shoko products. Cobbling together every source that mentions this product is not the way to go about writing a product page. The Hebrew page name is also confusing for the English Wikipedia. I suggest redirecting this to Chocolate milk. Yoninah (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Yoninah (talk) 17:47, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Some sources don't even mention this specific product; others are passing mentions, or unnotable blogs. --Nat Gertler (talk) 18:05, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this product meets the notability standards for an article, with citations including Ha'aretz, The Forward, and other news outlets as well as a number of travel websites, etc. I have more content that will be added to the article that will include various controversies, etc. Yallayallaletsgo (talk) 22:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of the cites are blogs, trivial mentions, and non-reliable sources. One seems to be a bus schedule. Yoninah (talk) 23:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Chocolate milk: citation overkill doesn't alter the fact that none of the references can be considered to add up to Significant Coverage, and as Yoninah points out, their reliability is questionable. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Tnuva, the producer of the chocolate milk product, in lieu of deletion. I think a merge to chocolate milk would be undue weight since that article currently does not mention individual chocolate milk products.
These are the only two sources I can find about Shoko:
1. Dovrat-Meseritz, Adi (2018-04-23). "Less Milk, More Water, Same Price for Relished Israeli Chocolate Drink Shoko". Haaretz. Archived from the original on 2020-04-07. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
2. "Tnuva Reportedly Using Less Milk And More Water In Popular 'Shoko' Chocolate Milk". Yeshiva World News. 2018-04-24. Archived from the original on 2020-04-07. Retrieved 2020-04-07.
This is not sufficient to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tnuva; doesn't seem to be worth a separate article; the claim about its "unique" packaging in bags is odd, as it's common to buy milk in bags in Israel. Number 5 7 18:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Tnuva per Cunard's rationale. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:58, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZZ Top equipment[edit]

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

An article about the musical equipment used by the band ZZ Top. No indication of why this equipment is notable enough for an article and the article mostly comprises original research. Popcornfud (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Popcornfud (talk) 19:19, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Probably written in mistaken good faith but there is no encyclopaedic topic here, just fancruft. Generally, even very major rock bands do not have "equipment" articles of this type. I did a quick search and this was the only one I found on the first few pages of the search. This strongly suggests that a specific claim for this particular band's equipment choices being especially notable is required. There is none at all. Also, some of the "references" go to pages belonging to companies that do not seem to mention the band, or its members, at all and just try to sell you stuff instead. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - In agreement with the nominator and previous voters. Some of the info is reliably sourced, so selected tidbits from this article could be merged to the individual articles for each of the three band members, though that would still approach fancruft territory. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 03:19, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a repeat nomination and it's no better than the previous one, which resulted in a Keep. On that previous occasion, I was so impressed by the potential of the topic that I started a list of guitars and that worked out fine. Anyway, let's break it down. The nomination asserts, without any evidence, that there's "no indication of why this equipment is notable enough for an article". The article actually has plenty of sources and, per WP:N, that's how we determine notability. And there's plenty more out there. For example, one distinctive schtick is their spinning guitars. Here's an article in Guitar World which focusses on this: The Story Behind ZZ Top's Spinning Fur Guitars. That's notability.

Other nay-sayers above claim that we don't have similar articles for other bands such as the Beatles. Those claims are false too – here's a selection:

You can see from this that our coverage is not uniform, being structured in different ways, but that's not a reason to delete. What's generally true is that such supergroups tend to have many articles covering numerous aspects – discographies, details of albums, tours, hits, membership &c. ZZ Top is no exception and they have a substantial navigation template to keep track of their many articles and I'll append this. Given such extensive coverage and notability, the issue here is improvement/merger/splitting not deletion per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE.

Andrew🐉(talk) 15:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The concern is specifically that there's not enough notable coverage for an article. Any notable non-WP:FANCRUFT information about equipment would definitely be good content for the main ZZ Top article, as in, for example, the Jimi Hendrix article. Popcornfud (talk) 15:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FANCRUFT is not a policy; it's just an opionated and insulting essay contrary to actual policies such as WP:CIVIL and WP:NPOV. It is therefore worthless as a reason to delete. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fancruft is an essay expanding on WP:IINFO which IS policy. Ajf773 (talk) 22:15, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FANCRUFT says explicitly that "This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines...". And who are the fans supposed to be in this case? The people who like ZZ Top's music will be most interested in our articles about their music -- their albums, for example. So we delete those too? The fans who like to see them live will be interested in their tours so we delete those articles too? Just where does this fan-purging stop? Why would you keep anything about ZZ Top? Do we only keep topics for people who have no interest in them? What's the point of that? And if Wikipedia is just for boring technical stuff then this article qualifies. Only technical musicians will be interested in the amps, filters and instruments used by ZZ Top. If you're not interested in the technology then maybe it's because you're the fanboy, not the serious student? How do we tell? Andrew🐉(talk) 23:32, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See WP:INTERESTING. Any subject or topic may be of interest to someone, somewhere [...] However, personal interest or apathy is not a valid reason to keep or delete an article.

Wikipedia is not for lists of data of interest only to niche audiences (see WP:IINFO), but nor is it "for boring technical stuff" - see WP:TECHNICAL. It's for a general readership.

As a matter of fact I am extremely interested in music technology and that's why I spend so much time on Wikipedia writing about it. But I also know what's good encyclopaedic content and what isn't - and this ain't. Popcornfud (talk) 23:47, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lets look at that list of articles that might serve as valid precedents, or which might just be examples of WP:OTHERCRAP, to see if they help us to decide:

List of the Beatles' instruments - This is a legitimate topic. The Beatles used unusual instruments in a way that was very highly innovative and which changed the sound and the scope of popular music in a way that almost all other bands, e.g. ZZ Top, simply didn't. This has been covered extensively by reliable sources. It is a notable topic. The article doesn't cover that topic very well because it gets distracted by the minutiae of guitar and amp models. It could do with a rewrite but the subject is legit.
The Who's musical equipment - This looks fairly legit to me. It covers innovations and developments in rock instruments led by The Who. It is not just a list of kit.
Rush equipment - This is completely worthless. Just a list with no encylopaedic value. It is similar to this article and is, if anything, actually worse because it doesn't even try to cobble its list together into prose. If I had found this one when I did my initial search I would have added it to the scope of this AfD. Sadly it is too late now.
Deacy Amp - This is an article about a specific amplifier. It is in no way comparable to the other articles we are discussing here.

So what does this tell us? That articles about musical innovations, including innovations in instrumentation, are potentially legitimate topics provided significant innovations exist and have been covered as such by RS sources. What it doesn't tell us is that every major band's choices of standard instruments are notable topics. ZZ Top were not the first band to use standard guitars and amps. They were probably not even the first band to get their beards tangled up in their guitar strings. --DanielRigal (talk) 19:51, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - We do have articles about equipment of bands and I was wrong. It does have reliable sources too. Koridas (Speak?) 15:53, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Koridas: What does "I was wrong" mean? You don't appear to have ever edited either the article or talk page, or this AFD besides the above. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 00:11, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hijiri88, I originally voted delete until I saw Andrew's argument and then I changed my mind. Koridas (Speak?) 01:26, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep it serves our readers to have a well written article about the equipment used by a popular band. The article has reliable sources. And to merge it with ZZ Top would make the article cumbersome. Lightburst (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Arguably this is fancruft, and there are very few articles relating to other musical artists' equipment. Many of the sources in the article make no reference to the band, and are simply related to the product itself, thus making this article very much a haven of original research. Ajf773 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 20:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect/merge or delete At present the ZZ Top article is roughly half the size of my incomplete article Medieval Japanese literature in terms of bytes and roughly one third its size in terms of word count once we exclude the titles of its multiple separate sources. Are the present fork article's defenders saying that the medieval Japanese literature article is in fact not too short but rather much too long, and that rather than expanding it I should split it off? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 04:48, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reading through https://www.guitarworld.com/gear/story-behind-zz-tops-spinning-fur-guitars I see that musical instruments do get significant coverage. So having an article for them makes sense. Dream Focus 03:01, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That article talks solely about Billy Gibbons' guitars. None of the equipment of the other members gets a mention. Ajf773 (talk) 07:42, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are sources in the article for other equipment. Dream Focus 12:00, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Try actually looking at the sources in a bit more detail. All the sources on Frank Beard's equipment is just catalogue information and makes no reference to the drummer. Ajf773 (talk) 21:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep FANCRUFT is no more than a subjective IDONTLIKEIT and as another Andrew D said, "an opionated and insulting essay contrary to actual policies". I don't care about this stuff to this detail, but I know that my muso friends do. ZZ Top (who I'm also no great fan of) are a substantial and long-existing band. There's enough sourcing to write this, there's enough interest in the topic to justify it, there's enough secondary attention paid to justify WP:N. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Guitar World article, "The Story Behind ZZ Top's Spinning Fur Guitars" makes it clear that the band's equipment is notable. I agree with others that "fancruft" is an IDONTLIKEIT opinion. What matters are the sources, which address the topic directly and in detail. I added the GW article as a reference on the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You mean this article? [11]. It doesn't mention the entire bands equipment, it only covers Billy Gibbons'. Perhaps it can be linked to his BLP instead. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As I added the further quote, those spinning guitars are still of interest 30 years after they used them in the Legs video. Let me emphasize "they" as the memorable effect involves both Gibbons and Hill with matching equipment. That alone makes this band's equipment notable. Additionally, virtually every major band (50 million records, this is a major band) has discussions of their equipment. For larger, more complex articles, it is broken off into a separate article like this. When merges occur, large swaths of content are lost in trying to make it fit into a large article, whether in the initial move or later over time by various editors. If this is merged back it will turn into a constant watch to make sure content isn't lost. Of course, that's what deletion advocates always want, to thoughtlessly excise content that has been carefully contributed to wikipedia. I've been fighting them for now 13 years. I'm old and cynical by this point. As I say on my user page; find a better use of your time. Trackinfo (talk) 09:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no conspiracy here. If there is something notable about their instruments then it can be said in the main article and there is absolutely no reason to expect that it will be removed if validly referenced. The vast majority of what is in this article is not that at all. If the spinning guitar thing really is notable, and I'm assuming that it is, then it certainly has a valid place in the main article.

You claim that "virtually every major band (50 million records, this is a major band) has discussions of their equipment." This is not true to anything like the extent that we see it covered here. Do we see list articles about all the equipment used by Led Zeppelin, The Rolling Stones, Queen? No, this is covered in the articles about the bands, to the extent that it is notable.

I understand that some fans like to collate much more detailed information about every detail of what a band does. Some might want to catalogue every brand and model of musical instrument they ever used, others might want to detail every outfit they wore in public. There are places on the internet for that sort of detailed fan coverage but I don't believe that an encyclopaedia is one of those places. --DanielRigal (talk) 17:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 20:45, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sherman Corner, Minnesota[edit]

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

This one appears to be a road junction with a few buildings, no sign of a distinct community. Newspapers.com returned a few results mentioning people who lived near here, but no significant coverage. –dlthewave ☎ 14:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. –dlthewave ☎ 14:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GEOLAND#2. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep According to the Minnesota Department of Transportation, Sherman Corner is a distinct community with a population of 20. It's a road junction, sure, but that doesn't mean it isn't also a small community with a recorded population. TheCatalyst31 ^{Reaction•Creation} 01:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:NGEO, maps and tables are specifically excluded from establishing notability. I'm not sure that simply having a recorded population is sufficient. –dlthewave ☎ 16:23, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per TheCatalyst31 comment-thank you-RFD (talk) 10:53, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as a distinct community with an actual population. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:20, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Catalyst, ~~passes geo notability guidelines. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:59, 5 April 2020 (UTC)~~ Passes geo notability guidelines by both being legally recognized (by the DOT) and having a recorded population. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 23:40, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, not really relevant to this but is Sherman Station the same as Sherman, Minnesota (this book on Minnesota ghost towns lists it)? no WP article or do we need a redirect? oh, btw this is a keep as meeting WP:NGEO for reasons given above. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:11, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unclear where these 20 people even live: GMaps only has a single home within the circle marked on the DOT map! A few scattered residences near a named intersection is not "distinct" nor makes a notable community unless there is WP:SIGCOV of it. A transportation map is not "legal recognition", unclear how that bears the weight of law. Reywas92^Talk 01:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Armenian Evangelical Peter and Elizabeth Torosian School[edit]

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

This article should be deleted because it does not meet any of Wikipedia's criteria for notability. --2604:2000:E010:1100:41F:9F06:5896:638 (talk) 20:06, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:45, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:48, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - articles don't have to meet notability, the subject of the article does. John from Idegon (talk) 12:13, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The topic of this article does not meet WP notability standards. As a result, the article should be deleted. - Nominator. 2604:2000:E010:1100:1069:7A36:7E6:7A70 (talk) 16:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. --Doncram (talk) 05:13, 30 March 2020 (UTC) (re-stating original "Keep" !vote as I notice wp:AFDSTATS misinterpreted my position, trying to get it to work now. --Doncram)[reply]

Or maybe this should be "Speedy Keep", on simple standard grounds that there is no editor with a Wikipedia name and reputation nominating this. I object, as I have before, to persons like User:Tyw7 facilitating this. It hurts Wikipedia because this wastes other editors' time. And, also, the nomination as stated was invalid. I don't think I or anyone else should be forced to try to educate a non-registered editor. --Doncram (talk) 22:11, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And "Keep" also because of sources available, see below. It would be also be okay by me for this to be kept but moved and expanded to cover other related schools, per below. --Doncram (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The school doesn't have third-party sources. As per WP:GNG, articles should have third-party sources. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 23:08, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Tyw7, thanks I guess for taking a position, almost as if you would make the nomination yourself, and be responsible for that. But, to be clear, did you perform wp:BEFORE and seriously look for sources (and explain how you looked), or is your comment merely observing something about the the current state of the article. Which as you know does NOT suffice as a reason for deletion. Would you yourself have nominated this article for deletion? --Doncram (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did a WP:BEFORE. There is no hits on Google or Google News. Most of the Google entries are first-party sources or Wiki clones.

https://www.revolvy.com/page/Armenian-Evangelical-Peter-and-Elizabeth-Torosian-School Wiki Clone
https://evangelicalschools.org/portfolio/armenian-evangelical-peter-elizabeth-torosian-school/ first party source
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Armenian-Evangelical-Peter-and-Elizabeth-Torosian-Junior-School/494599023980807 Facebook, first party
http://imyerevan.com/en/navigator/view/7723 not first party but not significant coverage
https://enacademic.com/dic.nsf/enwiki/2199309 Wiki clone

Need I say more? I may have nominated the article if I had come across it. Schools isn't an area I tend to visit, much less one in Lebanon. There is no notability guideline for schools so I am relying on the general guidelines --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:53, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For further searching purposes: The school seems to be called by a few different names, including "Հայ Աւետարանական Փիթր և Էլիզապէթ Թորոսեան Վարժարան" in Armenian, "Armenian Evangelical P. & E. Torosian School", and possibly "Armenian Evangelical Torosian School". The ending of the name also sometimes seems to change between "Intermediate", "Middle", or "Junior" School (sometimes even "college" because of a translation error). There might be additional Armenian sources out there, but since I don't speak Armenian, I'm not sure to what extent.

Either way, here are the sources I think I found about the school (not all are significant, but there are a lot, so I thought it'd be helpful to share):

Article About Their Lebanese Cultural Day (in Armenian)
Google Books hits for Հայ Աւետարանական Թորոսեան Վարժարան (Armenian Evangelical Torosian School) The first 4 hits seem to mention the school, but hard to tell to what extent with Snippet view and Google translate
Obituary about Elizabeth Torosian (founder) - Mention
Passing mentions in Armenian: [12][13][14]
Mention in list: Page 92
Don't Seem Independent:

Educational Council of the UAECNE (Union of the Armenian Evangelical Churches in the Near East): Bio
Armenian Evangelical Church News Blog (Chanitz): Bio & [15][16][17]
Association of Evangelical Schools in Lebanon: Profile
Armenian Missionary Association of America: [18][19]

Many mentions seem to be listed with other Lebanon Armenian Evangelical schools, so if this is deleted, I think making an article about all of these schools together might be worthwhile. - Whisperjanes (talk) 20:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, Whisperjanes! Well, it would be mean and punitive and otherwise an unnecessarily negative use of Wikipedia tools and procedures (the kind of stuff that drives away well-meaning contributors), if this article were to be deleted only for its coverage to be recreated as a list of Lebanon Armenian Evangelical schools, which indeed does seem obviously notable. It would be fine by me for this to be "Kept" but moved and expanded. That is a decent wp:ATD alternative to deletion, which we are obligated to look for, and since it is a good available option then there is no way this should be deleted outright. However, it appears that sufficient sourcing exists, so simply "Keep" is also okay. --Doncram (talk) 02:23, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete As per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES, individual schools are not inherently notable. Notability for this school is not supported by independent sources. Edit 29/3: Striking out own vote. Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:05, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- First, use of "SCHOOLOUTCOMES" as an arguement at AfD was specifically deprecated at the RfC others have referenced in arguments above. It doesn't say what they are arguing, but it clearly says you can't use SCHOOLOUTCOMES as an arguement. Second, that essay isn't any sort of notability guideline; rather, as its name implies, it's a summary of historic results. Third, it's very hard to figure how you can get an arguement to delete this from it. It has historically been cited as either a reason to keep or to redirect. John from Idegon (talk) 00:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Doncram's arguements, also I would like to know more information about the nominator, such as if he or she has a username on WP. In other words, what assurance do I have this is not some sort of tit-for-tat sort of thing? A username and an established account with a history would potentially also help me determine the likelihood this is based on inter-ethnic feuding.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Epiphyllumlover, how about the lack of sources on the web?
There are only 1 or 2 independent third-party sources. Certainly does not pass WP:GNG. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 00:09, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep -- The usual outcome for schools below secondary (High School) level is to merge or redirect to a wider article. My guess is that the highest level of this school would be classified elsewhere as a middle school, which we would not normally keep, but I do not see any very obvious merge target. Armenian here refers to an ethnicity, one of a number of such found dispersed within the area of the former Ottoman Empire. This is thus not about expatriates from the present Armenia (once Russian Armenia). If there is an article on the Armenian community of Lebanon, we might redirect to a list of schools in that. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:11, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: in the bigger scheme of things: By analogy to what is done for middle school articles in the U.S., this article about an Armenian school in Lebanon should definitely not be deleted; at most it should be merged/redirected to the corresponding "school district" article, leaving a redirect behind. In general school district articles are rock-solid notable, being governmental-type taxing entities and being central to community fabric, sites of events, etc. The general topic here area is the system of Armenian schools, of the world-wide Armenian community resulting from diaspora, which must play an important role in preserving language/tradition/communities, etc., and is loosely like a big school district. This reminds me of a past AFD about a Basque school in Idaho which, though small and at kindergarten and maybe first grade levels alone, was itself probably the sole example of Basque language schooling outside of the Basque country. So the AFD was in effect about the world-wide Basque diaspora schooling system, and the issue is important, and coverage about such exists of course, and the AFD was closed "Keep" of course. The Armenian school system, broadly, has coverage, and has funding sources including the generosity of wealthy Armenians in the U.S. (as for this school, and who may or may not be individually notable).

There is list-article List of Armenian schools which lists such schools organized by primary vs. middle vs. high vs. college levels, and by country within level, which links to this school. And there is Template:Armenian schools outside of Armenia which is organized by country, which also links to this school. Would it advance Wikipedia to merge this article (and perhaps others similar articles) into tables in the List of Armenian schools article? Hmm, if there were an editor or group of editors who did want to develop more central treatment, and who decided that mergers were appropriate in their process of development, then sure, I would say go ahead, and that would be done as a matter of bold editing and/or formal merger proposals and/or perhaps an RFC. But I don't think we have any editors here wanting to positively develop in this topic area. I am perhaps over-committed, myself, in following up on list-articles covering churches in England (stemming from several AFDs about churches in just Leicester), and I myself can't take on a big project here. So I think it's best to leave it as it is. Just note that merging as part of a positive development campaign is an idea, sure. Provide a link to this discuss from its Talk page, and let this be. --Doncram (talk) 21:36, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So merge/redirected is overwhelmingly likely to be the outcome for a US middle school. But you're not suggesting a merge target or a redirect target. You're saying this stands on its own. I just don't see that. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:36, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Young (musician)[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. He is an up-and-coming artist who is only known for his lawsuit against Tiwa Savage. The references cited in the article are not independent of the subject. Per WP:SINGLEEVENT, the subject does not deserve a separate article. His lawsuit against Savage isn't even notable for a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:22, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Is WP:ONEEVENT and definitely doesn't pass WP:MUSICBIO. About the sources mentioned, Vanguard is just a press release while references from Guardian is a blog. Lunar Clock (talk) 11:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Don't delete): i think if those Newspaper can published on a person, dou you as a writer have reference for that and I believe you know that right. If you can see as many article of Nigerians here in WP are referenced with those Newspapers you're just trying to categorized Mahn. (Lunar Clock) one thing I understand is that, anything doing as self wanted way is rubbish. So don't delete that page (Versace) you can put some (improvement tags) and I believe it will improved with time. Much regards (F5pillar 07:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@F5pillar: The newspaper sources cited in the article are not independent of the subject. In order for one to have a separate article, that person needs to be discussed in reliable sources independent of them. Danny Young is not a known figure in the Nigerian music industry. None of his music releases have been discussed in reliable sources. His lawsuit against Savage is the only thing he's known for. You really need to read WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO to get a thorough understanding of Wikipedia's notability criteria. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 19:29, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have already known that of WP GNG and WP MUSICBIO since using (IP address) that of 2010, so nothing to tell me about those WPS Stuffs. What I'm trying to highlight here is this (*improvement tags, such as Notability, BLP sources, Catimprive, Grammar style) that's all. I don't know to confused you here but many of the WP Administrator are not hash and self wanted people. I know you are the page reviewer (Versace). Much respect (F5pillar 20:59, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:29, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage of Young aside from the lawsuit. None of the references demonstrate notability, and are mostly interviews which therefore fail WP:NMUSICBIO ("except for ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves"). ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable as either a songwriter or musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:20, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apex and Bionic (AB)[edit]

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

The music duo fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources cited in the article are independent of the subject. The duo's music has not been discussed in reliable sources. The page creator has created articles for non-notable figure in the past and this one isn't any different. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:42, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Subject(s) of article do not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG individually or as a pair. Celestina007 (talk) 11:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. While there has been no discussion since the relist I seem a clear delete consensus among existing discussion with more than adequate participation. There has been substantial discussion of the sources that those favoring keep suggest show notability which those suggesting delete find unreliable or in some other way against our content policies. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ed Winters[edit]

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

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

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

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

I was the closing admin when this was deleted in 2018. It has been reposted and expanded. An editor asked me to help them with sending it to AfD again as they were having problems with it being a repeat nomination. Their reasons for deletion can be found on the article's talk page here. I am neutral. Black Kite (talk) 20:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:08, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:09, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nearly all of the sources on the article are not reliable including promotional YouTube videos. I have done a commentary for some of them on the talk-page. There are self-published sources on the article owned by Ed Winters, most of the rest would fail WP:RS. vegnews.com, vegansociety.com, www.plantbasednews.org, landofhopeandglory.org, theofficialanimalrightsmarch.org etc are not reliable sources. If you strip out all of the unreliable stuff the only sources that are left are two tabloid newspapers and an article by USA Today criticizing Winter's comments on the coronavirus. The article reads as promotion and should be deleted. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:16, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: As per Psychologist. I see WP:RS a main problem here too. None of the sources mentioned here can be considered verifiable. I doubt they are just PRs. Lunar Clock (talk) 11:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The lack of good sources seems to be a wp:SURMOUNTABLE problem, and a cursory search shows that much better sources are available, including coverage by The Daily Telegraph and The Vegan Society. Ed has not only given two TED talks but appeared on This Morning, The Big Questions, BBC Sport, Victoria Live and Sky News. I also note that no fewer than 249 other articles link to this page. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Sorry I don't want to comment about editors here but please note the above IP 81.103.37.86 has been check-user blocked, this was very likely an IP being used by a sock-puppet as checkuser Bbb23 has recently blocked a lot of accounts. Psychologist Guy (talk) 04:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(OP comment) This is a shared IP address, just because a banned user may have happened to edit from it does not mean I was at all responsible for the recent block. Please stop casting aspersions as you have already done enough of that in the last 24 hours. 2A01:4C8:C60:36D3:DC37:ECAC:F47B:2E6E (talk) 18:16, 30 March 2020 (UTC) Also that you doubled down on your unproven assumption that this comment was "very likely" from a sock puppet after I had denied it shows that you are not assuming good faith and are trying to illegitimately swing the discussion in your favor. 2A01:4C8:C60:36D3:F8E2:7426:FB54:D921 (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The original IP you were using was a static virgin media IP and it was blocked because of sock-puppetry per a check-user block. Now you are using multiple mobile IPS. This is not appropriate behavior. Psychologist Guy (talk) 10:58, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As opposed to you hounding what is now a multiplicity of editors over this issue, which is perfectly appropriate. The blocked IP is in use by several people in the same apartment block. I am having to edit from a mobile to circumvent a block I had nothing to do with. 2A01:4C8:C60:36D3:F8E2:7426:FB54:D921 (talk) 22:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The blocked IP is in use by several people in the same apartment block", yeh right. lol. You are a banned sock-puppet. Stop wasting our time. You are evading block and your recent mobile IP should be blocked as well. Psychologist Guy (talk) 22:55, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are unwilling to admit that you might have made a mistake and so your discourse has devolved into nonsensicality. If you stand firm in your conviction that I'm a "banned sock-puppet" and my "mobile IP should be blocked as well", kindly explain the situation to an administrator so that that might happen. Although I'd recommend that you watch your step as your comportment in this whole debacle has been far from exemplary. Also please explain this. 2A01:4C8:C60:36D3:F8E2:7426:FB54:D921 (talk) 00:05, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This user was socking on the blocked IP 81.103.37.86, he has also been blocked on Mobile IPs for disruption. I have striked his vote. Psychologist Guy (talk) 17:40, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Vegan Society is not a reliable source and there are no references for his TED talk apart from the videos themselves on YouTube which is promotional. The other TV talks you mention are a few clips on YouTube which are not reliable sources we can cite on the article. By the way 249 articles do not really link to this page per se. I added his name to the animal rights template, that is why that is happening. If his name is removed from the template he appears on no other articles. This guy is really not notable. As it stands almost every reference on the article is unreliable. Update I removed his name from that template and he appears on no other articles on Wikipedia. Funny that. Do you still think this guy is notable? Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- We wouldn't need to cite clips of his media appearances that have been posted on YouTube, as the BBC and other relevant organisations usually keep fairly thorough archives on that sort of thing. See here, for example. He clearly has a considerable social media presence as his instagram posts were enough to attract attention from PolitiFact and USAToday, even in the form of controversy. The article also mentions how Surge, an organisation he has co-founded and co-directs, convinced London Fashion Week to ditch fur, and this is reliably sourced to The Guardian, Vogue and BBC News. Given the size and prestige of this event it is certainly an achievement that counts for notability. 81.103.37.86 (talk) 13:17, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Some of that is original research and fake sourcing. Have a look here, [20]. Vogue and BBC News do not mention Ed Winters or his group Surge at all. We cannot cite references that do not mention Winters by name. Those references were removed per WP:OR. I was the first user to add the USAToday reference to this article and I agree it's a good source. It's one of the only reliable sources on the article but it is not enough to establish notability. If we delete 90% or more of the badly sourced material and content, all that would be left is about three sources and the article would be a tiny stub. I don't think there is enough here to establish a proper article. Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Another user is now adding plantbasednews.org as a source to the article. This source is not reliable. It fails WP:RS Psychologist Guy (talk) 13:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete In-universe sources cannot be used to establish Notability, without them, not enough remains. -Roxy, the PROD. . wooF 15:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The Vegan Society source is an article in The Vegan, the society's magazine, which has run for decades. As far as I can see, and despite assertions to the contrary, it's a reliable source. It's as reliable as any other magazine; we'd be OK with profiles of famous anglers in established angling magazines or cooks in cookery magazines - same with vegan activists in vegan magazines. He's been profiled in plenty of other vegan magazines, too, like Vegan Food and Living. The interviews on TV are also usable as sources, and definitely help to establish notability. There are plenty of mentions in national (and even international) newspapers, too; I noticed i, The Telegraph, and Metro. These are not that helpful to establish notability, but they're certainly citable. Secondary sources about Land of Hope and Glory, Surge, or Unity Diner also contribute to notability (e.g., this or this). All considered, I think there's enough here to justify an article. Josh Milburn (talk) 16:00, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Off-topic

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

Comment "The Vegan Society source is an article in The Vegan, the society's magazine, which has run for decades. As far as I can see, and despite assertions to the contrary, it's a reliable source". Please note J. Milburn is not just a member of the Vegan Society he sits on their Research Advisory Committee. Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:14, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegan magazines are biased and not reliable sources for vegans, how can we have a neutral article on a vegan activist if we are using vegan sources? Vegan Food and Living is not a reliable source. Metro.co.uk is a British tabloid newspaper known for gossip and sensationalist stories. I don't know if it is considered a reliable source, users seem to have objected to that source on other biographies. The Surge website is owned by Ed Winters and outside of the vegan community there is hardly any mention of it. Landofhopeandglory.org/ is a website owned by Ed Winters. Unitydiner.co.uk is a website owned by Ed Winters. These primary sources do not establish notability. Which reliable secondary sources discuss these websites? There is a serious lack of this. As for this source it does not mention Ed Winters by name. I am not sure why that would contribute to his notability. I am not seeing enough reliable secondary sources for this guy that actually mention him by name and discuss him in detail but I have said enough on all of this. Other users can decide. Psychologist Guy (talk) 16:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that something is partisan does not stop it being a reliable source. I dispute your claim that The Vegan and Vegan Food & Living are unreliable (and let's add Vegan Life to the list) - again, they're easily comparable to the kinds of hobby and lifestyle magazines you'd find in a newsagents. Do you think Christian magazines aren't reliable sources for Christians? Science magazines aren't reliable sources for scientists? Angling magazines aren't reliable sources for anglers? Conservative magazines aren't reliable sources for conservatives? We can also cite magazines that are partisan the other way, of course. Here and here are (paywalled) articles in Farmers Guardian, and here is a mention in Farmers Weekly. There aren't many vegan activists that get discussed in these kinds of publications. And I did not suggest that the websites for Land of Hope and Glory or Unity Diner established the notability of Winters. I was simply suggesting that sources about these things could help justify an article about him. I think that was fairly clear - so please do not misrepresent what I am saying. (I'm not really interested in bickering about Metro - I repeat that this was an example. I also mentioned The Telegraph and i. I didn't mention Forbes, Euronews...) Josh Milburn (talk) 17:38, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are ignoring WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE. Reliable secondary sources need to be independent of the subject when it comes to fringe topics. I have never read a Christian magazine but I doubt they are cited on Wikipedia on scholarly theological topics. Yes I often cite science magazines they are reliable. There is a difference between science magazines and a vegan one. We should not be citing promotional vegan websites to establish notability for vegan activists, they are biased and not independent sources. It's possible to create articles on Wikipedia for notable vegans but the sources are lacking for Ed Winters. I have written articles for vegans at Wikipedia and they are all sourced to academic, neutral or scholarly sources, i.e. Russell Thacher Trall. When I created Trall's article did I cite unreliable vegan websites? No I didn't because that would be biased and against policy. I cited reliable academic sources neutral of the subject not written by vegans. You obviously do not understand the neutral point of view policy. Do you really believe Vegan Food & Living, Vegan Life or Farmer's Weekly are reliable sources to be using on an article about a vegan activist? If so, we will just have to agree to disagree. Psychologist Guy (talk) 18:10, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am ignoring neither guideline. I am not proposing that we present the article in anything other than the neutral point of view, and I am not suggesting that we give prominence to any particular fringe theory. I am not sure those guideline pages say what you think they do, whether or not you think I "obviously" don't understand them. As for the rest: You are carving up the world into "reliable" and "unreliable" sources, and "independent" and "not independent" sources, on a whim (or, to make a leap, based upon your views/preferences). What you are saying has no obvious basis in policy. I am going to disengage now. I am doing my best to assume that you're acting in good faith, but you're drifting very close to saying that nothing written by a vegan could be a reliable source in an article on a vegan (...that would be biased and against policy. I cited reliable academic sources neutral of the subject not written by vegans.) Not only is that ridiculous, but, frankly, it's offensive. As such, I have no interest in continuing this conversation. Josh Milburn (talk) 18:21, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are ignoring guidelines because you are a biased vegan. You are not being honest with people here who you are. You are a vegan activist associated with Winters. You are an active member of the Vegan Society as a link confirms posted on your user-page. You also know Ed Winters in real life "It follows the cancellation of the British Academy's 'Vegan .vs. Vegan' debate, featuring activist Ed Winters and academic Dr. Josh Milburn." [21]. Here you claim to be on the "Research Advisory Committee of the Vegan Society." This is not outing because you have linked to your website on your user-page and are open about your identity but you were not open about who you are on this afd or your connection to Winters. Per WP:COI and your personal connection to Winters and the Vegan Society your vote should be discounted. Did Winters tell you to come here? See WP:MEAT Psychologist Guy (talk) 19:05, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Welcome to the topsy-turvy world of Wikipedia, where people signing their posts with their real name are accused by people using monikers of "not being honest with people about who [they] are". The way you are talking to me is disgusting, and has no place on a project like this. Your accusations are wide of the mark. Many of the claims you make about me are false. Josh Milburn (talk) 21:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Research Advisory Committee for the Vegan Society can be found here. You will see that Josh Milburn is listed. Nor did he declare the event with Ed Winters that he had planned vegan vs vegan on 19 Ma warch, 2020 so he knows Winters. We can all discuss this at the correct avenue. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep--I do not personally agree with this activist, but the article is well sourced. As for "Do you think Christian magazines aren't reliable sources for Christians"--I see this all the time, and sadly there are people who latch onto this and use it repeatedly with their supporters. Maybe some day you will be in a position to return the favor next time you see this sort of bad behavior elsewhere.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 22:29, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PlantBasedNews.org is the first source, VeganLife Magazine the second, Vegan News the third, Vegan Food & Living the fourth and the 5th source is a link to Winter's own YouTube channel, etc. Is that well sourced? Psychologist Guy (talk) 23:42, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete (as a "biased vegan" myself). My problem with the vegan sources is not that they express a certain ideology—after all, angling, haute-cuisine, or Christian publications express their own ideologies as well. The problem is that their coverage is fawning, uniformly praising his accomplishments and describing them in WP:PUFFy ways ("renowned", "prominent", "extremely popular"). As a result, it's hard to extract material that could conform to the strict standards of WP:BLPSTYLE, or that doesn't sound likely to be exaggerated somehow (what exactly does "visited 1/3 of universities in the UK" mean?).

Cutting this material, reliable sources establish that he's a "vegan influencer" who started an activist group (which organized a well-attended march), a diner, and a food truck, and that he has appeared on TV several times to promote his views. That's not strictly too little to make an article out of, but it's probably not much more than someone Googling him would already know. I would prefer to wait a while and see if he attracts more substantial coverage from sources with a more critical editorial team. FourViolas (talk) 01:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have to say, BLP's need top line sources, this is not what I am seeing.Slatersteven (talk) 18:23, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He wasn't notable the last time this was deleted, and he still isn't notable now. Catgirllover4ever (talk) 18:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I initially thought of nominating this article for deletion, but now after attempting to improve the article, I was able to add quite a few reliable sources such as The Guardian and other newspapers. (In the process, I also inadvertently added a few unreliable sources, but I quickly removed some of them, thanks to Psychologist Guy who pointed it out.) Still there are a couple of unreliable sources, which I'm trying to find reliable sources for. If unsuccessful, they can be removed, too, without compromising on the main content of the article. I now feel this article can be very well improved and hence recommend to keep this article. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 07:12, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can find no mention of Winters here [[22]], am I missing it?Slatersteven (talk) 09:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read from the sentence beginning "There have been claims on social media, sometimes posted by vegans, that if we ate less meat there would have been no Covid-19. Interestingly, some of these have been blocked by mainstream news organisations as 'partly false'." The "partly false" mentioned here is the response given to Ed Winters's statement that COVID-19 started because we eat animals (see the link given in the article itself in "blocked by mainstream news organisations": [23]). Winter's name is mentioned in the USA Today article. And the Guardian article is the rebuttal to that one and hence immediately states "The claims are also partly true" in the following sentence. If you read both the USA Today's and Guardian's articles ([24] and [25]), you will come to know the continuity. Thanks. Rasnaboy (talk) 10:31, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes Slatersteven is correct that Guardian piece does not mention Ed Winters by name but Rasnaboy is also correct, there is a kind of continuity because the article does link to the USA Today. But because the source is not specifically about Winters and does not mention him by name, I believed it was WP:OR and I removed it. It has since been re-added. Some other references that have been recently added to the article do not mention Ed Winters by name. These two are just an examples DW News, BBC News, there are several others. I raised this on the talk page because it is a violation of WP:OR. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:17, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

wp:v and wp:synth spring to mind.Slatersteven (talk) 11:20, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are two other sources Rasnaboy added to the article which do not mention Winters Dw.com, Metro. This is rather concerning. An admin needs to have a look at what is going on here, and I suggest all references are checked and the ones that do not mention Winters to be removed. Psychologist Guy (talk) 11:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't understand why these links are to be removed. They all are related to Winter's activism (either in his name or Surge's name). They either mention Winters or Surge (the name by which Winters does activism)(the METRO article) or simply mention the issue (like the accusation by vegan activists that COVID started because we ate animals) (the Guardian article). The DW ("Die-ins and fake blood") article is only a continuation of the other DW article which mentions Surge (instead of Winters) ([26]). When we say Gandhi started Indian National Congress (INC) and INC fought for Indian Independence, we can't say we can't link Gandhi with Indian Independence because the article only mentions the name of INC and not the name of Gandhi. Rasnaboy (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, we can. See wp:v, the source has to say what we want it to say.Slatersteven (talk) 11:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely understand wp:v and wp:synth. But it cannot be robotic but should be inferred with human discretion. Winters organizes the campaign under the name "Surge" and the news article says "The action is part of the Animal Rights March founded by the UK-based organization Surge" (the DW article) and the other DW article is just the continuation of this news (on the same date and the same reporter). Some of these articles (the Guardian) says Surge conducted the march, campaign, etc., or that "The event is organised by vegan activist collective Surge" (the METRO article), all of which refer to none other than Winters. If Winters gets arrested in the event, the article would say "Surge organizer was arrested" without even mentioning him as Winters. When a president orders airstrike against terrorists, the newspaper may read anything like "Obama orders airstrike", "America conducts airstrike", "Washington DC responded to the terrorists by conducting an operation", "America retaliated", etc., or even sometimes passively like "Terrorists receive response from their victims". These are not synthesizing but only various ways of saying the same thing. Even if Mr. Obama's name or America's name is not mentioned in any of these news, he is very much the person responsible for these and the article on him will always have links to these articles. Rasnaboy (talk) 12:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To use your INC example of an example of why we cannot do what you want [[27]] cannot be used to say "Gandhi extends full support and cooperation to govt", because it is not about him. Also I suggest you read wp:n, notability is not inherited.Slatersteven (talk) 12:52, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Will go through it again. Thanks. :) My example is only to elucidate the point. What I'm reiterating is that all these newspaper sources cited point to the same issue(s) that Winters is involved in. Even when Winters organizes the protest, some sources say "Winters did" and some other say "Surge did" (and still others say "the activist and his team did") and they all point to the same. Rasnaboy (talk) 14:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have said all I will have to say on the issue of verifiability, we are just going round in circles.Slatersteven (talk) 14:22, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please can we report socks to wp:spi.Slatersteven (talk) 07:45, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the level of reliable source coverage to pass actual notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:28, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 12:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:21, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Goldman (sportswriter)[edit]

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

I can’t find any evidence of independent secondary sources for this person, all of the sources in the article just link to the subject’s own work. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Baseball-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable sports writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Actually only one of the three sources is to his work, the other two are about his work, which is what you should expect for a notable sportswriter. Smartyllama (talk) 19:28, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Both passing mentions, not sure these indicate notability Cardiffbear88 (talk) 21:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 March 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:10, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:12, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, One source is his work, so that doesn't help, and of the two remaining sources, one is a passing mention. The other one is somewhat borderline, but even so, that is only one source that might contribute to notability. As a result this article fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:16, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fifth-wave feminism in Ibero-America[edit]

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

The article consist primarily of original research. It relies heavily on primary sources, it reaches its own conclusions about them. It is also surprising to read things like The feminist movement has entered into a fifth-wave, arriving like a "tsunami". when this is a very early theoretical development. Half of the article seems to be POV fork of related articles. MarioGom (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. MarioGom (talk) 21:35, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:27, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:28, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:29, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:30, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – original research and advocacy. There are a handful of groups cited in that article that are called "Fifth Wave" or which have used it as some sort of a slogan, but there is no discussion about what the term entails, no analysis, just passing mentions. Most sources are opinion pieces or marginally related articles which happen to mention something named "Fifth Wave" in passing, but nothing which ties these together as a coherent movement. This article draws far too many conclusions not mentioned in the sources attached, a handful of sources are about "fifth wave of globalization" and not feminism at all, but that does not stop this article from using them to build a narrative. – Thjarkur (talk) 22:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:22, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Full of original research, synthesis, flimsy sources, and bad writing, e.g. the "tsunami" mentions. 2600:1014:B101:D38:2540:8231:3538:9340 (talk) 02:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per User:Þjarkur and the IP user above. WP:OR, WP:POVFORK. --Darwinek (talk) 23:09, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

M. O. Smith[edit]

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

He coached three (or four, even the one source about this doesn't agree on the number[28]) games where his college, from Nebraska, played against other colleges from Nebraska only. So this is not even at some national level, but state level only. A total lack of reliable sources about him[29], which is to be expected considering the short and local career he had. But this means that he fails WP:BIO and WP:NSPORTS. Fram (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nebraska-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 11:08, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep we typically keep articles (even stub articles) on college football head coaches. Failing to see why the sources in the article are not "reliable" as the nominator asserts. It's not shocking that there are not many sources (and some confusion among them for the record) on the internet for a college football coach from 1903.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "No reliable sources" was written too much in shorthand. No reliable indepth sources is what I mean: the one is a database listing, the other is a college publication from his alma mater, not the kind of publication we normally accept as reliable or indicating notability (as it isn't independent either). What we typically do is of little interest, every article has to make its own case (and probably many other similar articles should be deleted as well). The typical claim for every article on a non-contemporary subject explaining the lack of sources is not really convincing either: I very often write articles about long dead people, and if they have any lasting notability, then there are sources about them online (and probably more offline as well). In this case, we don't have even one article about the person. Probably some routine coverage about him exists in local newspapers from the period, but that as well wouldn't be considered sufficient to establish for anyone living now, so why would it be different for people living in 1905? Fram (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Completely non-notable coach from a tiny school with no extensive coverage. Fails WP:GNG, WP:NCOLLATH. Ostealthy (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per Paul McDonald. There are some sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:15, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Why we would keep articles on all college football head coaches, even for teams which never get any coverage is not explained. The idea is beyond ludicrous and one of the reasons Wikipedia is flooded with unnedded sub-stubs. There is absolutely no reason to have articles as a default on any college football head coaches. Yes, I suspect we could find adequate sourcing on most, but as an alumni of Wayne State University I would argue that their college football head coaches are not notable, and I think that applies to a lot of college football head coaches in the NAIA and NCAA Division II and Division III.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:10, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Before you throw around terms such as 'ludicrous', you should acquaint yourself with the fact that neither the NCAA nor the NAIA existed in 1903, the year in which Smith was the coach of a college football program. Also, I think you'll find that we don't have an article for every college football coach at every level. Please avoid this strawman in the future. LEPRICAVARK (talk) 22:57, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And you should stop trying to take 21st-century levels of college football coverage and use it to force us to accept articles from the late 19th-century with passing blurbs in local papers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:55, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The hallmark of Wikipedia is verifiability. Unless you can find good, reliable indepdent sources on a subject we must delete it. Period. End of subject. No amount of handwaving that something is too old to find sources on the internet will change that. Otherwise we end up with hoaxes on 19th-century pirates.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- response verifiability has been exceeded.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:13, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is still a case of hyper local coverage that I do not think rises to the level of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Local coverage is adequate for information being verified, it's just that the source needs to be trustworthy. That standard is met.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:11, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Enough sources available to pass GNG, which makes any SNG irrelevant. Smartyllama (talk) 19:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 21:49, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:19, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Paul McDonald and Smartyllama. Woerich (talk) 17:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Paulmcdonald and Smartyllama. Ejgreen77 (talk) 18:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Farrukh Shahbaz Warraich[edit]

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

A promotional article, clear failure of WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 10:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:17, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 12:18, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable journalist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

.

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

The result was delete. Any given AfD isn't going to be able to resolve questions about what our SNGs mean (and believe me I've wanted them to at times). As such I can only evaluate the consensus of this discussion which is that there are not sources demonstrating notability in English or Japanese. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yoko Osaka[edit]

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

I originally PRODed the article with reason: "The subject fails WP:NARTIST and WP:GNG." It was dePRODed by BenjaminSmithChef, saying: "person is notable for playing a role in co-creating many significant, well-known works". However, under NARTIST #3, this only counts if "such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." In addition, none of the current sources meet GNG, nor could I find any that do. MrClog (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. MrClog (talk) 09:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:30, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I removed five sources that were either wiki-style or did not mention the subject. What is left is almost nothing, and an English search does not find more. A Japanese search might, but English is all I have in my toolset.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 15:09, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If she did create the sounds for Crystalis, Eight Man, and Guerrilla War then she passes NARTIST(3). I opposed closing this as delete unless someone with Japanese fluency can do a proper evaluation of those sources. If a WP:RS establishes she did create the sound for these games, then the article is a !keep.--Theredproject (talk) 18:04, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Theredproject: no, the sounds would not meet NARTIST #3. Note that it says: "In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews." There have been no books, films or television series that discussed the sounds of these games, as far as I know. Also, I did search for sources using her Japanese name, but had 0 hits on Google News and no SIGCOV on the regular Google search. While I'm not a fluent Japanese speaker, I do have tools to translate articles I find online in English (and that way I have been able to find foreign language sources before). --MrClog (talk) 19:08, 9 April 2020 (UTC); edited 19:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- MrClog it seems we have different understandings of the grammar of that second sentence in the NARTIST(3). I understand that to mean that the co-created work must also meet notability standards (e.g. is the "primary subject" of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews") which these works have, no? While one of those games only has 3 references, the other two have 14 and 18. It seems like you are interpreting this as meaning that the co-creator's role in the co-creation must itself be the "primary subject" of "multiple independent periodical articles or reviews" -- is that correct? I understand there is a secondary question of having enough WP:RS to verify her, which I still think needs to be conducted by someone who can read Japanese. But right now I want to try to 100% good faith get to the bottom of this question re: NARTIST(3). DGG, Megalibrarygirl adn Rosiestep I'm wondering if one of you can offer some guidance here on this question?--Theredproject (talk) 01:38, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @Theredproject: I indeed interpreted "suck work" refers to her sounds for the games, not the games themselves. --MrClog (talk) 08:44, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  
  @Theredproject: I see where you're coming from with your interpretation of NARTIST(3), but I also see where the others are coming from where they point out that there is a lack of sources. The problem with the sources is the biggest issue, IMO. It's frustrating to work on some of these video game articles because while people are credited informally for their work sometimes for their work on games, there's few RS attributing their contributions. It might be worth contacting someone in WikiProject:Video Games, though the Japanese search by Jovanmilic97 seems to show that she's not properly credited in Japanese, either. :( Megalibrarygirl (talk) 16:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Megalibrarygirl: Yup, I concur re the WP:BASIC questions that Jovanmilic97 has put forward. I agree that if better sources can't be found, then it doesn't pass. What I want to resolve (almost separate from the issue of the article itself) is the differing interpretation of NARTIST(3): does "such work" refer to the co-created work itself, or the co-creator's role in the co-created work? I have been active at AfD for a number of years, and have only seen NARTIST(3) interpreted where "such work" is the the co-created work. This would mean, essentially, that the co-created work would need to be notable (and you would need WP:RS that VERIFY the co-creator's role, which we don't have here.) TX. --Theredproject (talk) 20:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Even when searching in Japanese (and it is telling that there is no jp wiki article of her), there is little to none to be found in terms of any coverage. It's an impressive list of works in the article, but if it's all unverified, I can't give it a WP:NARTIST pass. Hence we have a a WP:BASIC failure, since there is no significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:38, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mauritian of White South African origin[edit]

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

This article is based on a single source, which is about South Africans migrating to Mauritius. It says nothing about whether they are white or not, or about Mauritians of South African origin. Subject fails WP:GNG. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:15, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Gbawden (talk) 06:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Love Bug. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Love Bug (song)[edit]

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

Article does not pass GNG, has no sources, and reads entirely like an advertisement. It has been that way since 2006. Koridas (Speak?) 16:20, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:31, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to M-Flo: Barely found anything about the song. Love Bug is a generic name, other artists have songs under that name. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 11:14, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:00, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Love Bug: multiple songs with this or very similar name. b uidhe 22:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MAFIAAFire Redirector[edit]

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

Related to a single event. Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. Störm (talk) 07:52, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:57, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:58, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I'm pretty sure WP:NOTNEWS has nothing to do with this article, as it's not an event or anything. The article just needs some different sources. Also, just because it is related to a single event doesn't mean that it's not allowed. Koridas (Speak) 03:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – it's low quality and low profile, but these cannot be reasons for deletion. It barely meets the requirement of notability, but still. delete – see below – K4rolB (talk) 12:55, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is a textbook case of WP:NOTNEWS (or non-BLP WP:ONEEVENT, if you will). The only mentions found in reliable sources are in the context of the removal request and its rejection. Frankly I am rather bewildered at the "keep" !votes above, and would like to ask User:Koridas and User:K4rolB to please clarify how this could possibly pass WP:GNG without so much as a single source that actually discusses the software itself. Modernponderer (talk) 15:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- When I first made my decision I looked through google search results and I got the impression that notability can be established, based on some articles I skimmed through. AFAIK, WP:GNG doesn't require any source to be mainly about the subject. Apart from that, I decided to actually dig through the search results (yeah, I know, I should have done it in the first place) to find something that actually proves it's notable, but I could not find anything. The end result is, I was wrong, I changed my opinion, it is WP:NOTNEWS. – K4rolB (talk) 14:31, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. czar 22:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Femke Huijzer[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and has been written as WP:PROMO. The content has been cited by primary sources and lack reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 07:45, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current sources have been cleaned up. None are primary sources and promo seems to be mostly gone (or can be edited out if not). That just leaves WP:GNG. It looks like the original page creator added this article in Vogue after the AfD nomination. I would say an article in Vogue is fairly significant, especially since she is the main subject. But I'm not sure if that's enough. - Whisperjanes (talk) 08:35, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 16:43, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY. The article in Vogue is instructive. Bearian (talk) 19:53, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep a model with an article in Vogue seems fairly notable to me. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:23, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:51, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The current article and its sources pass WP:GNG thanks to the work that has been done.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:48, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus to delete. – Joe (talk) 16:11, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Neville, 11th Baron Braybrooke[edit]

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

This guy WP:INHERITED a title when his third cousin died three years ago. Having a rich extended family is not grounds for automatic notability, and this lacks significant coverage to warrant an article on him. Reywas92^Talk 07:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 07:46, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep he is not notable for having "a rich extended family", nowhere in the article does it even mention wealth. He is a holder of a peerage in his own right, which makes him notable. -- Willthacheerleader18 (talk) 13:56, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^{[citation needed]} Reywas92^Talk 19:08, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A title, especially one of the lower ones, does not confer automatic notability. Being mentioned in passing as a relative of a person who is a relative of the subject of an article really stretches the concept of "source" to the breaking point. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. We keep all peers. Until recently they were all notable anyway per WP:POLITICIAN as members of a national legislature. For consistency's sake, it makes no sense not to have articles on those few who have not sat in the Lords. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"We keep all peers." Citation please?!?! Literally saying notability is WP:INHERITED here and WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, his inheritance of something that used to automatically be in politics (and thereby perhaps receive actual WP:SIGCOV) is not sufficient; Lots of those in List of hereditary peers removed under the House of Lords Act 1999 don't have articles, nor do most of their non-member successors so consistency is not a concern. Please cite a policy, guideline, or established precedent. Reywas92^Talk 19:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consensus at a number of previous AfDs for peers who have never sat in the House of Lords. Not every consensus is recorded. Just because not all peers have articles yet does not mean they will not have ever. As you know, Wikipedia is a work in progress. The following are all the AfDs I can find of peers who never sat in the House of Lords. All have been kept unless otherwise stated:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Geoffrey Somerset, 6th Baron Raglan

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mark Vernon Powys, 8th Baron Lilford (deleted)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rupert Edward Ludlow Bathurst, 4th Viscount Bledisloe (deleted)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry Smith, 5th Viscount Hambleden

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Peter Curzon, 4th Viscount Scarsdale

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keith Arbuthnott, 17th Viscount of Arbuthnott

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Adrian Buckmaster, 4th Viscount Buckmaster

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Christopher Charles Lyttelton, 12th Viscount Cobham

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Rhodri Philipps, 4th Viscount St Davids

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Thomas Coke, Viscount Coke

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alastair Gordon, Earl of Aboyne

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Anthony Ashley-Cooper, 11th Earl of Shaftesbury

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Robert Shirley, 14th Earl Ferrers

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Simon Abney-Hastings, 15th Earl of Loudoun

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/William Herbert, 18th Earl of Pembroke

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Michael Abney-Hastings, 14th Earl of Loudoun

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Paul Capell, 11th Earl of Essex

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Conroy Ryder, 8th Earl of Harrowby

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/James Charteris, 13th Earl of Wemyss

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Myles Ponsonby, 12th Earl of Bessborough

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/David Ward, 5th Earl of Dudley

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/George Herbert, 8th Earl of Carnarvon

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Charles Stanhope, 12th Earl of Harrington

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Edmund Pery, 7th Earl of Limerick

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Ashley-Cooper, 12th Earl of Shaftesbury.

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick John Bernard Jellicoe, 3rd Earl Jellicoe (deleted)

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Hugh Lowther, 8th Earl of Lonsdale

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Russell, 6th Earl Russell

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Allen Bathurst, 9th Earl Bathurst

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Nicholas Cunliffe-Lister, 3rd Earl of Swinton

Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Henry FitzRoy, 12th Duke of Grafton.

Looks like a pretty good illustration of consensus to me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:22, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For one thing, every single one of these that was kept was in March 2014, with most of the same people commenting in all of them. That is not the most robust, enduring consensus. Some comments are even that earls are highly ranked, higher than barons. Quite a few of these do in fact have coverage and it's unclear why they were nominated, I'd even keep them. And we do have comprehensive coverage of all baronies at List of baronies in the Peerage of England. Every barony has an article, and the incumbents can be merged and covered there, like at Baron Braybrooke, without articles for people who have not demonstrated notability. Reywas92^Talk 16:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's clear you won't accept any argument except your own, so let's wait for other comments. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you don't give a damn about WP:SIGCOV. Wikipedia:Notability (people) does not say anything about this. Reywas92^Talk 18:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I really give a damn about is common sense and consistency, not non-existent rules that some feel must be enforced without regard to the previous. As my sixteen years of editing will testify. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Times (and standards) change. I've begun looking through that list of yours, and Charles McLaren, 4th Baron Aberconway, is the first of them to revisit the Afd chopping block. I already see several viscounts of equally meager accomplishments, but that's for another day. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It sounds like you are suggesting merging, not deletion. Opera hat (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Baron Braybrooke. Opera hat (talk) 13:17, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Keep. He appears in UK Who's Who, which meets WP:ANYBIO criteria number three. While I am aware of dependent coverage in WP:ORGIND, UK Who's Who is "The oldest and best-known is the annual publication Who's Who, a reference work on contemporary prominent people in Britain published annually since 1849" (per the current WP Who's Who article). That leads me to believe it is not the scamming vanity projects most Who's Who are today. --Kbabej (talk) 18:47, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No, the British Who's Who is most certainly not a vanity publication. People are invited to be in it and are not charged for the privilege. They do not apply or pay to be in it as with many similarly named publications. It is considered to be a standard reference work for British biography. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:58, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Necrothesp, that is what I was assuming. --Kbabej (talk) 23:01, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to the barony article: clear cut fail of WP:GNG and WP:BIO. Non-independent coverage does not count. b uidhe 22:45, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:00, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Philippine public figures who underwent COVID-19 testing[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Isn't this even worse than a "list of Filipinos with COVID-19"? Did we not delete the master list? And we're going to list people who tested negative, too? And we're listing non-notable people, people with no articles? Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Elizium23 (talk) 06:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aren't you a little quick on the draw with the nomination for deletion? This just finished discussion and the consensus was keep and reframe just yesterday. And no, the people listed are notable figures, they just don't have articles yet. Please refer to the previous discussion I just linked. -Object404 (talk) 06:47, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Speedy keep -Object404 (talk) 14:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep, We don't need plain listing of every politician (and their relatives) who got tested. However, there was consensus from the first nomination to rename and change the scope of the article to focus on the issue itself about the prioritization of politicians and their relatives.Hariboneagle927 (talk) 06:50, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The previous AfD discussion barely closed 24 hours ago. -seav (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment @Elizium23: You were not here during the first discussion. Seriously, you should have read that first in the talk page before nominating it for the second time.—Allenjambalaya (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:43, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy move to 2020 Philippine coronavirus testing controversy. The article is innately WP:INDISCRIMINATE in its current form. I cant believe it survived the first discussion as a "list of officials who underwent testing" can not simply be a valid topic in WP as the other lists before it have been removed too. And without reading its content, THERE REALLY IS SOMETHING WRONG with the title. Drop this AfD and initiate the consensus to reframe the article, or better yet as i suggested, a WP:TNT to the valid controversy article. Title is not worth keeping, seriously.--RioHondo (talk) 09:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: It was agreed in the previous AfD that the article is kept. Hence, it's pointless to nominate it again for deletion since there's an ongoing discussion that the article should be renamed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdrawn by nominator, due to rename and re-scope which will hopefully eliminate the need for a list of names therein. Elizium23 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy-delete (G11). (non-admin closure) AllyD (talk) 06:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faiz Imran[edit]

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

WP:SELFPROMOTE, sourced through Churnalism Frederickberman (talk) 04:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oluwatomiwa Akinola[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. The references cited in the article are all primary sources; none of them are independent of the subject. The company she established is not notable. The article is pretty much a promotional piece. The page creator has a history of creating non-notable biographies. 18 of the 29 articles he has created has been deleted. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 20:34, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 03:53, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — subject of article does not qualify as per WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO, & WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not a platform to “launch or re-launch yourself to the world”Celestina007 (talk) 11:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:35, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William J. Mulrow[edit]

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

There is just no substantial RS coverage. So we cannot write a Wikipedia article about the subject. The article was obviously written by someone affiliated with the subject. Pretty much the only RS coverage of this individual is related to his unsuccesful candidacy for New York State Comptroller, which he got the kind of mundane coverage for that would not indicate notability (because all the candidates for those kinds of offices would get RS coverage when RS just list candidates). The article has had a "reads like a resume" tag since July 2019, but there is no way to fix that besides just deleting everything in the article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 03:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete neither sourcing nor roles rise to the level of actually being notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:33, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brittany Ashton Holmes[edit]

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

Fails GNG and WP:NACTOR. IW. (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 08:58, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 10:27, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDb is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:47, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject was primarily a child actor, with a starring role in the famous The Little Rascals (1994 film) and a main role in Inhumanoid (which is less notable). There is also some discussion of her in online sources, particularly with regard to her role in The Little Rascals:

→https://www.eonline.com/ap/news/1062350/the-little-rascals-turns-25-where-are-the-child-stars-now#photo-1022367 – E! Online

→https://variety.com/1994/film/reviews/the-little-rascals-1200438268/ – Variety

→https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/style/longterm/movies/videos/thelittlerascalspghowe_a0b07d.htm – Washington Post

I would expect there to be further coverage of the subject in articles on The Little Rascals that I have not been able to access, like Los Angeles Times reviews. I think there may be enough, overall, to just meet the notability standards. Dflaw4 (talk) 09:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I really wish people would actually add the sources they find to articles instead of just bringing them up at AFD. An article on a living person that is only sourced to iMDB violates our policies since BLP guidelines say that everything must be reliably sourced and IMDb is not reliable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:40, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're welcome to add them, John Pack Lambert. I will do so, if the article remains. Are you still voting to "delete"? Dflaw4 (talk) 04:45, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 19:33, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:32, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. NACTOR is not satisfied by one solid credit for The Little Rascals and not much else. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. czar 22:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Living with the Enemy (film)[edit]

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

Article about a television film, not reliably sourced as having any notability claim that would pass WP:NFILM. As always, films are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have IMDb entries -- to be notable enough for Wikipedia, a film has to have demonstrable significance, such as noteworthy awards and/or published reviews from notable film critics. But the only footnotes here, before I stripped them as improperly formatted primary sources, were to IMDb and another IMDb-like directory, not to any evidence of reliable source coverage about the film, and even on a search for reliable sources to salvage it with, I can only find one review in a GNG-worthy publication, which is not enough. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 01:39, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 22:23, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 Pilatus PC 12 crash[edit]

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

General Aviation crash without anyone notable are rarely notable and WP:NOTNEWS applies. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Dakota-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 01:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tragic but non-notable without other reasons for notability, not apparent in the article.--Petebutt (talk) 01:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I'm leaning towards keeping the article at the moment, with coverage from sites such as the BBC 1 and NY Post 2, as well as coverage spanning the month of December 2019 (not just one day), I'll venture to say that this event passes WP:GNG and does not qualify for the definition set forth by WP:NOTNEWS. Inter&anthro (talk) 02:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete GA crashes with no deaths of notable persons and no effect on aviation as a whole should not be considered notable. While I appreciate that multiple news organizations picked up the story, WP:CONTINUEDCOVERAGE also needs to be taken into account. Carguychris (talk) 14:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fatal General Aviation accidents are fairly common and would have to be of particular note to gain a stand-alone article, I dont see anything that makes this pass the bar. MilborneOne (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - doesn't seem to have involved any Wikinotable people. Mjroots (talk) 15:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: as per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:RUNOFTHEMILL. Every year there are thousands of light aircraft accidents like this one. Nothing distinguishes this from the myriad of other ones that we have no articles about: no wiki-notable people involved, no lasting effects, no airworthiness directives, no changes to regulations, no changes to ATC procedures. - Ahunt (talk) 16:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not enough notability to have a stand alone article. - Samf4u (talk) 20:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Ahunt reasoning.--Marc Lacoste (talk) 05:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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