Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 6

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 5 April	7 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jihad Helwi[edit]

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

Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. He didn't play for Lebanon, he just sat on the bench. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:35, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete playing one game is a sign you are not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not even that. He didn't even play: he was just an unused substitute. Nehme₁₄₉₉ (talk) 16:42, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete assuming he actually didn't play. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:51, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, No significant coverage to meet WP:GNG, Alex-h (talk) 11:43, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, fails WP:GNG. Antila333 (talk) 13:17, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Only involved (barely) in one game and no significant coverage. Woerich (talk) 06:37, 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 keep. Any discussion about converting the article into a stub can be done on the talk page, or an editor can just WP:BOLDly edit the article. (non-admin closure) Natg 19 (talk) 01:06, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gunpowder empires[edit]

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

On the surface the article may look neat: it has a longer introduction, two sections that define the subject and then follows with historical examples. However, a closer look reveals it is a big mishmash of WP:SYNTH and WP:OR.

The scholarly definition of a gunpowder empire is an empire that was built or maintained by the use of gunpowder weapons by the central state, usually headed by an autocratic ruler. As such the term is typically employed to describe the rise of the early modern, territorial, centralized state against both internal, factionalist enemies and foreign rivals that could not afford the same level of armament. The term "gunpowder empire" thus refers to a relation between use of weaponry and state power. Thus, the article should be concerned mainly if not exclusively with scholarly literature that focuses on this relation.

What the current article does, however, is citing a few such texts as a rough outline of the subject, but then it goes on to ignore what they say and fills the article space instead with unrelated literature on the development of weapons technology. This is synthesis. The subject of the article is not another history of gunpowder warfare, but about the impact these weapons had on state formation. In other words: The article should evolve primarily around military and political history, with a stress on administrative matters, but in its current form it is more a fleshed out timeline of the history of (weapons) technology.

In more detail, some of the bigger problems with the current version are:

The central role of Western Europe is largely ignored: The weapon technology, and the related organizational changes in warfare, that made gunpowder empires possible was developed and exported from Western Europe. Yet, no empire rose in Western Europe as the military and political rivalry was too intense for one power to gain the upper hand. The cited William H. McNeill 1993 devotes almost half of his space to this special path of Western Europe (pp. 103-117). In the section on Europe, however, this development is not even addressed, even though it provides the necessary comparative background for Asia. Instead, all that is offered is a brief outline of the history of the gunpowder formula in Europe that is irrelevant here.
The current article entirely omits those European gunpowder empires that did exist. McNeill, for one, treats Muscovy and the European overseas colonial empires such as Spain as the first gunpowder empires (pp. 121-125).
The current article overplays the importance of Muslim empires. It even goes so far to misrepresent in the lead and the info box the entire phenomenon as being synonymous with "Islamic Gunpowder Empires". This is WP:OR. In truth, McNeill covers them after the European ones and concludes that at least one of the three, the Safavid empire, "ought not, perhaps, to be counted as a gunpowder empire at all" (p. 131). As it is, the section on the Safavids does not contain a single reference to a work that is primarily concerned with gunpowder empires.
Same is true for Korea that is simply listed as one, although McNeill does not refer to it at all, but explicitly writes that the described empire formation process only occurred in the Far East in "China and Japan" (p. 103).

The sections on the other empires are, as been said, more accounts of the history of the spread of cannon and handguns than on the subject. Since the subject is notable but so thoroughly missed that the article is beyond repair, the article should be stubified and reworked. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 22:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 6. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stub and rework sounds good to me. The article is very poorly written. Khirurg (talk) 00:57, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stub per nom—I agree that it's a WP:OR mess. b uidhe 04:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is this at AfD? The nominator is not asking for the article to be deleted, but simply for content to be changed, which can be done by bold editing or talk page discussion without an admin pressing the "delete" button. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:STUBIFY is a normal outcome of deletion processes. See here for a deletion discussion where the result was stub and rework. Nowhere does WP policy say that this outcome cannot be suggested by the editor himself who brings up the AfD. Note that WP:ATD-E does not preclude this possibility. I believe this is the right venue here for stubify as the entire contents of the current version need to be deleted, while the lemma should be kept for reasons of notability. Such a strong edit cannot realistically be made by an individual editor by being WP:bold. This move needs wider consensus. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

which may be better discussed with editors interested/expert in this subject ie. those that create/edit these types of articles, and wikiprojects that cover these subjects, and the article talkpage, not at afd which primarily looks at the notability or otherwise of a subject (although aforementioned editors can be made aware by the posting of afds at various subject deletion lists). Coolabahapple (talk) 08:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and stubify, or vice-versa, as discussed above. Bearian (talk) 14:27, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

British Landlords Association[edit]

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

Non-notable organisation. Sources are all completely useless, with one blackhat SEO source, the organisation's website, and a cite to an irrelevant book (that predates the subject by seven years). BEFORE gives me nothing (String: "British Landlords Association"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: name-drops, Fails to meet WP:N - Tatupiplu'^talk
Delete Does meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG notability criteria; no depth-of-coverage in reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the fourth source, the one that A little blue Bori doesn't mention, contains the words "British landlords association" but is not about this British Landlords Association. That's two out of four sources that are completely off-topic and another two that are by the BLA itself. According to Companies House it's a one-employee organization, so the claim that it's the third largest organization of landlords in Britain appears doubtful. No source (not even their own website) confirms the membership figure, and since apparently every Joe, Dick and Harry can become a "member" for free, it's meaningless anyway. Huon (talk) 22:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Per above, article dose not satisfy WP:CORP. Alex-h (talk) 11:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per NCORP and as WP:SPAM. The account that created this claims to be a high school student, which is odd, but is certainly a spammer, based on its editing history. If they had written articles for their favorite band/actor/street, this would make sense and we could excuse such editing, in 2007. A baby born in that year or shortly before would be in high school now. Black Lives Matter activists do not write Facebook articles in support of Putin's policies, and British teenagers do not write stubs for landlords for free. In 2020, however, everybody is on notice that we are a charity, not not a free web host for spam for their parents or whomever else. Bearian (talk) 14:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Evidently nowadays the thing amongst mercenaries is to claim you're a high school student in an effort to avoid scrutiny of your writing. The "high school student" claim should be taken with a grain of salt, if not the whole mine. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 19:15, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Betzalel Ambar[edit]

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

Non-notable jewellery designer. Sources in the article are all name-drops or the subject's website, and Google News gives nothing better (Strings: "Bez Ambar" and "Betzalel Ambar"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails to meet WP:N Tatupiplu'^talk
Delete - notability claim of "inventing Princess cut" is not supported in any reliable sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete; the main claim to fame appears to be the DeBeers Award. Unfortunately the link doesn't point to an article on this supposed award, the source doesn't mention such an award, and I could find no indication whatever in independent reliable sources that Ambar won such an award. The rest is trivial passing mentions or non-independent sources. Huon (talk) 23:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: With respect to the sources added by Finishedfirst (talk · contribs), none of them are useful - two are patents, the last a blog. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 01:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: I've added several new sources including one from the GIA.edu, one of the most reputable diamond related sources in existence, and 2 patents. I'm not sure if the patents are useful, however, the statement is about the creation of these items and these are designs patent. —User:Finishedfirst 04:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patents generally are not usable as sources, especially not for notability. And the GIA blog is a passing mention, likewise useless for notability. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 06:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete the article is built on primary sources and original research. To be notable people have to have been the subject of secondary sources in reliable publications. Wikipedia is not a platform to publish your own original research, although many undergraduate students over the years have done so. Wikipedia is not a place to put up your first round of original research on anything.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:35, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hedgehog Security[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Sources are all name-drops or written by the subject, with one being a mystery novel for some strange reason. Google News turns up nothing better (String: "Hedgehog Security"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : Fails to meet WP:N - Tatupiplu'^talk

You tagged it for CSD even when the article just started. I think you really need to read the WP:NPP and WP:CSD. Altutmir (talk) 22:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rather interesting for a self-professed high school student to be familiar with either policy. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - the company has been widely cited in multiple independent reliable sources like Forbes, Computer Weekly, The Guardian and several other sources. Easily meets WP:ORGCRITE. Altutmir (talk) 22:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are name-drops and worthless as citations. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you please make a policy based argument? I don't get what you mean by name-drops. In the nomination you linked it with WP:QUESTIONABLE but none of these are questionable sources. The Forbes post is also written by their staff, not any guest contributor. Altutmir (talk) 22:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What I mean by name-drops is that they are passing mentions that only, at best, tell you the subject's name and a sound bite from one of its principals. Passing mentions are not acceptable as sources as literally any source that discusses the subject in some depth will include this information and more besides. —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{Onward to 2020} 22:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete straight up paid for spam with 0 reliable sources. Praxidicae (talk) 22:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Insufficient depth of coverage; being quoted in a few articles is not enough. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There's no in-depth, none trivial coverage of the company in the sources. Like one articles talks about them, but is about features of a software update. Which is totally trivial. The other articles mainly seem to be about other topics and just briefly discuss them. Also, doing a search doesn't turn up anything usable. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:50, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, the software update that Adamant1 mentions isn't actually about this company - it's just something that mentions the words "Hedgehog security" in the right order while referring to something else. Various other sources similarly have no connection whatsoever to the content they're cited for. The only reliable secondary source that actually confirms the statement it's cited for is the local newspaper cited for the sports sponsorship. And that's no more than a name-drop. Huon (talk) 23:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:15, 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:15, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael Aboya[edit]

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

straight up promotional and likely paid article with poor sourcing, fails ncreative and i can find nothing in the way of coverage. Also previously deleted. Praxidicae (talk) 21:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete : Looks Promotional Tatupiplu'^talk

"fails ncreative and i can find nothing in the way of coverage." Is your internet censored or something? "can find nothing in the way of coverage"? What is that supposed to mean? A simple google search didn't reveal anything in your browser?

"straight up promotional and likely paid article with poor sourcing". Oh well... *facepalm

--Nkansahrexford (talk) 21:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having results on google does not mean something is notable. Coverage in independent reliable sources matter. Praxidicae (talk) 11:02, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article should be maintained subject has had significant coverage from the first time the article was first deleted till date. If the texts are promotional the promotional portions can be highlight so that it can be rewritten but to delete it outright is not in good faith.Owula kpakpo (talk) 21:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete I deleted this as promo before, still is to pursue his dreams of becoming a photographer... His style of photography and storytelling is considered to inspire, empower and get in touch with the emotions of his viewers (by whom?) Jimfbleak - talk to me? 05:31, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Jimfbleak, those parts have been edited out but I don't think it's right to refer to a deletion 2 years ago when circumstances have changed and more facts are now known about the subject. I don't think his notability is in doubt now.Owula kpakpo (talk) 06:09, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment It seems that the question is whether the recent awards satisfy NARTIST or GNG. Specifically, is winning the Agora Images Agora Awards enough. On the one hand, there were 130,000 entries, and coverage in Forbes. On the other hand, there isn't much independent coverage of the award itself. And the WP:PROMO problem is somewhat persistent, as the Bored Panda one is actually written by Agora. If deleted, this will likely be a case of WP:TOOSOON.--Theredproject (talk) 17:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete : As others have pointed out, you must have independent coverage for notability. Everyone in the world in 2020 can be found with a google search, it must have strong coverage to survive. - AH (talk) 12:41, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi - AH, have you cared to check the links in the article to see if they are not strong and independent coverage and mind you not everyone can have significant coverage on Google the first page of their search would let you know if they are notable or not.Owula kpakpo (talk) 06:37, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete on account of subject failing WP:NARTIST. There is a lot of promotional stuff in the text that would need to go if the subject were Wikinotable but he's not, yet. Is he regarded as an important figure or widely cited by peers or successors? No, he's not per sources or lack thereof. Is he known for originating a significant new concept, theory, or technique? No, he isn't. Has he created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work [that has been] the primary subject of an independent and notable work [such as a book, film, or television series? Nope. Wikipedia is not an all-inclusive collection of information.

A case of WP:TOOSOON, hopefully. -The Gnome (talk) 15:11, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gatis Lagzdiņš[edit]

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

Non-notable conspiracy theorist who makes silly YouTube videos. There is some minor newspaper coverage in unreliable tabloids about some of his controversial antics but nothing in detail so a biography can be established. WP:RS are lacking. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conspiracy theories-related deletion discussions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Latvia-related deletion discussions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Psychologist Guy (talk) 20:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I wish we could get rid of this article about a little-known troll but you can't dismiss the current references as published in "unreliable tabloids". Sky News and BBC are perfectly respectable and even Metro (British newspaper) is not that bad. If we are going to delete, I think the argument has to be made on WP:NOTNEWS grounds and the lack of depth in the coverage (although the Metro piece is more than a passing mention). Pichpich (talk) 21:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry you are right, I did not see it was BBC news, for some reason I thought it was the Daily Mail. My other concern is that I think this article is a WP:ONEEVENT issue. This guy basically trolled a vegan festival by eating raw pig head to invoke a reaction and obviously got his five minutes of fame but I do not see how a biography can be developed for this person beyond that incident. The reliable sourcing is lacking. Psychologist Guy (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete any resonable interpretation of GNG and oneevent rules leads to deleting this article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, WP:FRINGE, WP:SOAP, and WP:SIGCOV. We almost always delete YouTubers. Anyone with a iPhone and a personality can upload or download videos and call themselves a vlogger, but very few are notable. They are run of the mill. We are especially wary of people who try to use us, a charity, for their own agenda, whether a fringe theory or advocacy of an issue. Nobody would reasonably expect a person advocating such to interrupt a Girl Scout/Guides group's meeting to lecture them on their ideas; likewise, we are not a soapbox. The lack of significant, ongoing coverage about this person, as opposed to a single protest reported in a single news cycle, shows this person is not notable. She appears to be unwell. We are not a support group. Bearian (talk) 14:53, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rodney “Rod” A. Baltzer[edit]

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

non-notable executive - he has absolutely no coverage of him and all mentions are press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 18:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:ANYBIO. No significant coverage is found. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete per nom & Kinu. --Tagishsimon (talk) 01:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:47, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No organic media coverage, just press releases. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:27, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. Total lack of significant independent coverage from multiple reliable sources. Think about what this article is about - a manager of a waste company. Without anything more, that's run of the mill. It's possible to own or run such a company and use their wealth to be a philanthropist, and to be notable for that, but to be just a recycler and nothing else is not notable. Bearian (talk) 14:56, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lumiford[edit]

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

non notable company with no meaningful in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 17:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TNT. This page makes no sense. It claims to be from NY and India, but lacks any coverage in the United States, and lacks significant coverage in India. It might be spam? Ping me if you fix this. Bearian (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bearian This is pretty typical of paid for spam wrt "coverage". It's a result of blackhat SEO firms flooding sources like TOI, Deccan Chronicle with press releases/paying for publication of press releases as if they're legitimate news articles. The rest are mostly fake sites designed to look like real media outlets. Praxidicae (talk) 12:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article about a company, supported by a press release and several reviews covering their loudspeaker and headphones. Searches did not locate the coverage about the company itself required for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 07:55, 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 redirect to List of notable surviving veterans of World War II. Redirecting as WP:ATD, history left intact in case anything is useful for merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Surviving U.S. veterans of World War II[edit]

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

This article sounds more like a short statiscal overview of the number of living US veterans of World War II, not an encyclopedic entry. With the COVID-19 pandemic, the few remaining WW2 veterans associations that had been thinking about disbanding due to the frailness of the shrinking ranks of its members may disband prematurely. It's unclear whether users on Wikipedia will agree with that this article is unencyclopedic (akin to Democrats and some Republicans calling out Trump's use of Twitter on Presidents' Day as "unpresidented" behavior. 70.175.134.8 (talk) 21:38, 31 March 2020 (UTC)Vahe Demirjian[reply]

Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor. Above text is copied from article talk page. I have no opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall ^talk 17:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is another summary page of information that may be found elsewhere on Wikipedia. It's particularly interesting that the two men pictured on the page are not surviving.--Georgia Army Vet Contribs Talk 18:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to List of notable surviving veterans of World War II. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since List of notable surviving veterans of World War II makes this redundant. SemiHypercube 🎂 20:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list or article which has an expiration date. Or redirect to List of notable surviving veterans of World War II Lightburst (talk) 21:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. I've learned that it is notable and I am ashamed of making this AFD. In the future I will do a check before doing an AFD. (non-admin closure) Koridas (Speak) 23:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wort und Tat[edit]

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

No notability. Hasn't had any sources since 2009 and there aren't that much reliable sources that I could find. Koridas (Speak) 16:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per multiple RIS. Mccapra (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carol Newinn[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, only significant coverage is through "BN Magazine" and a few passing mentions in the Houston Chronicle. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Vietnam-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Passing mentions and some local coverage, but hardly enough on which to base a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 20:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete being a football cheerleader is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:31, 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. Dflaw's sources per their own admission are only passing mentions, and not sufficient for notability. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Rahim[edit]

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

It is too soon for an article on this actress. She has been mentioned in one newspaper article (currently cited) about one production in which she participated. But otherwise, information about her can only be found in the typical industry listings and unreliable social media promotions. The films and productions in which she has appeared suffer from their own notability issues. Not nearly enough coverage to meet the requirements at WP:NACTOR. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:32, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Here are another couple of articles which, though they only provide passing mentions, tell us what other productions the subject has taken part in: https://www.nst.com.my/news/2015/09/tale-love-bridges-boundaries and https://www.nst.com.my/lifestyle/groove/2017/09/280790/when-swordfish-meets-concubine. Dflaw4 (talk) 12:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I would be interested to know what others think in terms of the notability of the theatre productions the subject has been in. I'll refrain from voting until I've heard some opinions on that. Dflaw4 (talk) 03:19, 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) Rollidan (talk) 18:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vampire lifestyle[edit]

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

Fanboiism at its worst. Is there any reason to have this in something that calls itself an encyclopedia. Qwirkle (talk) 15:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 17:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The reason is that it's covered in multiple reliable sources, including journals, books and the Washington Post. Is there a problem with those sources? — Toughpigs (talk) 15:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That’s a reason to have coverage, not justification for an article. Qwirkle (talk) 18:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a very different argument from the one you used in the nomination. Are you suggesting a merge? If so, what page are you suggesting as a merge target? — Toughpigs (talk) 20:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not at all. One is the cause, the other the symptom. Yeah, a merge might work, or a re-write might help, but what’s there now? TNT. Qwirkle (talk) 21:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. on the basis of the sources, which give fully enough reliably sourced material for an article. . Unless there is some other reason for deletion, such as copyvio or promotionalism or BLP, meeting GNG is the basic justification for an article, unless there is insufficient material, to justify a separate article--in which-case we write a combination article with other very closely related topics."Fanbolism" would seem to translate as "I do't like it" which is not an acceptable reason for deletion. I sometimes think we're stuck on GNG to the exclusion of common sense importance, but the guidelines are otherwise. DGG ( talk ) 00:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

“Fanbolism" would seem to translate as "I do't like it". Again, not at all. The article is written by, for and about...enthusiasts, shall we say. It needs outside eyeballs...which, judging by its history, have never been quite enough to drag into being an acceptable shape, during the few times that got involved, usually around a call for deletion. Yes, blind adherence to guidelines can create problems, sometimes, so.... Qwirkle (talk) 00:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for the reasons outlined above. Mgasparin (talk) 06:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:GNG, article shows this having sources (note: i am not a "fan", boli or otherwise:)). Coolabahapple (talk) 07:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep,Per above, Article is supported by reliable sources.Alex-h (talk) 12:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I do not like it either, and it creeps me out, but it's notable as shown by the sourcing. Bearian (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Wow. I would honestly rather that this not exist, and I have some feelings about seeing it still here existing nearly 20 years down the line. But it's for sure a thing that has received a little study and a little reportage, even if mostly in a "this exists" sense. It needs to be pruned considerably, and there's a lot of utter nonsense in the further reading, and I'm not sure the ontology of folks' individual interpretations of this subculture is as well supported in secondary sources as the whole. And more than this, the article would be better if it concentrated on it the way the interested academics do - as an instance of a revived mythos, not the credulous descriptions that wholly unsuitable sources like Lupa's book are used to evidence. This article has been and ever will be a magnet for people 'cough' to write their first and second hand experiences and I am surprised it hasn't scored a semi-protect. FalconK (talk) 07:17, 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco Hernando Contreras[edit]

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

Notability is not established - reference is in relation to death WP:BLP1E, and WP:NOTMEMORIAL Melcous (talk) 14:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the eswiki article is long and references many reliable news articles (for example [1], [2], [3]). Most of the content in the eswiki article was written years before his death and relates to his shady business dealings. b uidhe 14:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Paco el Pocero is a very notable constructor in Spain. Note that his death cause is the least notable about him. He passed WP:GNG way before this. Just some samples of reliable sources and WP:SUSTAINED coverage:

El País: dozens of articles spanning from 2006 to 2018 ([4]), without counting the one about his death in 2020 ([5]).
El Mundo': 2006 ([6], quite in-depth)
ABC: 2006 ([7]) and probably much more if you dive into their digitized archives.
Cadena SER: [8]
Full book: El Pocero de Seseña (2007)
Book passages: El fango: Cuarenta años de corrupción en España (2015)

--MarioGom (talk) 22:01, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Keep given the obvious length and breath of the Spanish-language news sources, as well as his involvement in major projects in Spain and Equatorial Guinea. The Spanish-language wiki page Francisco Hernando Contreras is very thorough. The English-language Wikipedia bio should be expanded, not deleted, using the information and sources already provided in the Spanish wiki bio.Scanlan (talk) 01:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article may be poor, but that is not the purpose of AfD. Another case of WP:BEFORE; the nominator could easily have discovered the article on our Spanish sister site. Edwardx (talk) 09:39, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - this subject was responsible for Spain's biggest housing bubble in modern times, and was notable as a major developer ("constructor") well before his (karmic) death. (If this is a memorial, I hate to think what my user page will look like when I'm going to the wiki in the sky.) Lack of any work before nominating this article is plainly obvious to objective eyeballs. If you need help translating Spanish Wikipedia sources, get some help - we're here for you. Bearian (talk) 15:16, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sérgio Trindade[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG or other notability criteria; references are to death - WP:BLP1E; and WP:NOTMEMORIAL Melcous (talk) 14:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure BLP1E applies because he has also received coverage for his membership in the IPCC and did an interview [9] However, I was unable to find significant coverage before his death. b uidhe 22:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very weak keep. His career at the UN and as an IPCC member seems to be borderline notable. Houston Chronicle China Daily. Pburka (talk) 23:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Trindade happened to be a member of the IPCC panel, but notability is not inherited. The only reason for recent coverage is his death due to the coronavirus pandemic. Fails GNG and WP:SIGCOV on his own. — JFG ^talk 09:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete, seems to only have made it because of the ongoing pandemic. >>BEANS X2^t 15:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Notability not established by the article. Titanium Dragon (talk) 23:28, 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. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 19:02, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arlene Stringer-Cuevas[edit]

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

Local councillor and candidate does not appear to meet WP:NPOL; notable family members but notability is not inherited Melcous (talk) 14:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Members of the New York City Council are consider notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 14:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article does need some improvement, like a bit more substance about her actual work on council, but New York City is literally at the very top of the list of global cities where we do accept city councillors as notable, on the grounds that serving in cities that large and important inherently makes them significantly more notable than most other city councillors. Bearcat (talk) 18:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - New York City Council member in her own right. In agreement with the points already made by users RFD and Bearcat above.Scanlan (talk) 01:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as she is a city councillor in New York City, which is explicitly counted. If it were some small town in Ohio obviously that would not cut it, but that is not the case here.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep: she was a New York City Councillor, which grants her notability. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 02:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. She served as a New York city councillor. It is enough to grant her notability. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 09:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep meets GNG. b uidhe 18:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as elected politician. — JFG ^talk 09:51, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:POLOUTCOMES. She was a legislator for a Global city, and well-known civil servant in the same city. This is about as strong a consensus over many AfDs as I am aware. If we change consensus, it has to be extremely clear and would require the discussion of dozens of Wikipedians. We have kept legislators articles even if they never attended a meeting or serve only a few months; see Reggie Bagala for a recent, relevant example. WP:NOTINHERITED doesn't apply since she has independent notability. FWIW, I have met her son and supported his campaigns. Bearian (talk) 15:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) Störm (talk) 13:45, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romi Cohn[edit]

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

WP:BLP1E - sources are all in context of death, which while sad, does not meet notability criteria Melcous (talk) 14:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. You definitely should have done more research first Melcous... And yes, I could have built the page out more before taking live. More coverage:

His controversial career as a mohel: Many articles of him on this, particularly in 2012 and 2015: NYT 2012[10] 2015 [11], AP 2015, NPR 2012 etc
His experience in the Holocaust has been reported on numerous times prior to his death: 2019 [12], 2020 address to Congress [13] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Loksmythe (talk • contribs)

Keep per above; there's enough coverage for WP:N. Coverage is not just for one incident in his life. b uidhe 14:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Slovakia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:26, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The scope and breadth of sources in the article about his life meet and exceed the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:58, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:BEFORE. Not BLP1E when you are talking about a colorful figure like Cohn who was a WWII partisan, Holocaust survivor, controversial mohel, rabbi and real estate businessman, and sadly, coronavirus victim. That is a lot of activity rolled up into one person. While the virus seemed to be the spur for article creation, that is really no worse than any other impetus one might have to start writing an article about a notable subject. StonyBrook (talk) 06:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per User:StonyBrook. He is notable and the article only needs more sources. Yoninah (talk) 13:27, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alanna Dergan[edit]

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

fails WP:NACTOR, unnamed/minor roles or one off appearances, 0 coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 14:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: As per the nomination. The only source I could find was this Italian one, which I presume is about the subject and not someone else by the same name. It touches on her modelling career, says that she has a large social media following, but doesn't mention any acting roles. If someone can show that she meets WP:NMODEL, I will consider updating my vote. Dflaw4 (talk) 07:40, 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 23:17, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment[edit]

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

Handbook of COVID-19 Prevention and Treatment. Nomination for AfD: non-notable handbook. 94.178.234.44

Nomination on behalf of IP. -- (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC) Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 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) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no significant independent coverage. b uidhe 14:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can anyone tell me why the IP user keeps his anonymity while s/he is allowed to mess around with wikipedia with another user (Tyw7) as intermediary? Is this accepted practice? A link to a wiki document tell where this practice is affirmed would be useful. Magnovvig (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magnovvig:, yeah, check WP:AFDHOW, which says If you are unregistered, you should...note the justification for deletion on the article's talk page, then post a message at Wikipedia talk:Articles for deletion requesting that someone else complete the process. Tyw7 was merely performing the last stage as instructed. Sorry about that. ——SN 54129 15:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you @Serial Number 54129:. IP user seems childlike. I contradicted him on one of his edits, then he nominated for deletion. Sheesh. Magnovvig (talk) 15:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Userfy/Draftify per WP:ATD. It may not pass our notability guidelines as it stands, but time might tell: something that is claimed to summarize...applicable methods for treating COVID-19 patients – especially critically ill patients – while serving as a point of reference for other countries battling the pandemic is only likely to become more, rather than less, notable by our standards. ——SN 54129 15:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: No evidence of notability, and no evidence that this particular book will inevitably become notable just because it has a topic that other publications could also have as their topic. --Closeapple (talk) 21:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misses the point, fyi: the difference is rather that between a Haynes Manual for the Ford Fiesta and the original blueprints. ——SN 54129 13:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Other than the current popularity of the main subject, there is no other reason why anyone think of this book. I don't see any notability and it has been mainly promoted by propaganda outlets like CGTN. Mohanabhil (talk) 13:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Draftify: I have seen links to it from multiple non-Chinese medical societies, but those do not constitute significant coverage. They are not reviews. It does not pass WP:BOOKCRIT or WP:WEBCRIT. --MarioGom (talk) 16:00, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional independent reliable source from Spanish newspaper La Razón ([14]). I think it is still not enough to prove notability though. --MarioGom (talk) 09:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could not find significant coverage from independent sources. The random mentions are not from generally reputable sources. Natureium (talk) 16:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The article has been substantially amended since the discussion started, with the addition of significant and notable references. As a result, the above discussion is obsolete and a new discussion should be initiated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magnovvig (talk • contribs) 2020-04-09 06:46 (UTC)
Keep: With the addition of five references, the article now has seven independent sources of noteworthiness. This is more than enough significant independent coverage to satisfy any impartial arbiter. Magnovvig (talk) 06:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I am skeptical of the reliability of the new sources. The German and Spanish articles don't have bylines and I wasn't able to find any information on who runs the site. We have to be extra careful to use only reliable sources because of the WP:MEDRS implications. Indeed, none of the independent sources is medrs compliant, which is a serious issue. b uidhe 08:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Now the article contains improper synthesis opinions of Wikipedia editors about whether someone ("he" — can't tell if it's about a reporter or a letter writer or a Italian politician) was ignorant of a particular Wikipedia article and some other news story. And I still only see 2 or 3 sources that are even plausibly WP:SIGCOV in the references, after days of digging by multiple Wikipedians. That sounds like WP:TOOSOON. --Closeapple (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closeapple, removed the sentence --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 10:13, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject glaringly lacks independent notability. It's one more attempt to upload a bunch of peripheral, typically non-notable items under the notablity wings of the main subject. This is why one has to search high and low for sources. There are many guidew, handbooks, and so on, about the current, world-wide health crisis and they have their place in the respective articles. A stand-alone article serves no purpose. -The Gnome (talk) 15:22, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MERJ Exchange Limited[edit]

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

This Wikipedia page has been created by the company itself previously known as Trop-X Limited G11: Unambiguous advertising or promotion ; the author of this Wikipedia page is Mbtropx from this company, same for major contributor Trop-xuser. Matches also A1 and A3 for lack of context and content and it is not the "Seychelles Securities Exchange" as previously stated in the title. From the Operations section and onwards, MERJ Exchange Limited is basically promoting its products and services. The only potential accurate source is from a single author from Bloomberg Africa, Antony Sguazzin, that does not seem having verified all the given information. A lot of external links do not follow Wikipedia's policies or guidelines. Most of the sources are not at all reliable. They quoted irrelevant sources like Investment Frontier. And all over this article, we see the promotional tone. An example is: "MERJ is the world's first truly global, direct access end to end regulated market built for digital and non digital securities". }} HLFH (talk) 13:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - A promotional, unsourced, and non-notable article. Koridas (Speak) 16:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment of AfD author - Following standard English text formatting and capitalization practices, Wikipedia should not accept the trademark & company with nonstandard promotional formatting, and with "MERJ [...]", it is badly written 39 times on this article. I am also adding that Merj has listed two security tokens: MVST-S and it has not at all been traded as seen on the Ethereum blockchain explorer Etherscan. Regarding the other security token MERJ-S, it is not traded at all as it has stayed at 2.42$ since at least August 2019. I do believe Merj is buying its notability and enforcing it by having created this Wikipedia page on its own instead of letting Wikipedia contributors create this page for this company once it will be notable. It is also not the "national securities exchange" or "national stock exchange" of the Seychelles because the Seychelles has fully liberalised its financial services under the Seychelles FSA: any company once compliant and authorised by the FSA can be a securities exchange in the Seychelles. HLFH (talk) 14:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NCORP, WP:MILL, and WP:SIGCOV. This is one of the smallest stock exchanges in the world, period. Bearian (talk) 15:28, 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 keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:47, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arpine[edit]

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

Reason

No indication of notability... Little or no content. Basically a dictionary entry on a given / first name. North8000 (talk) 13:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reviewed as a part of new article curation / review process.North8000 (talk) 14:34, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Armenia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, is just a set-index article on a given name. Most of the articles in Category:Given names are similarly short, e.g. Affif and Aigul. – Thjarkur (talk) 14:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But the guideline for set-index article specifically says that it is a group with something in common besides the name.North8000 (talk) 14:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is extremely similar to most of those in subcategories of Category:Given names. In order to delete articles of this type, we would need a much broader consensus than in this discussion. b uidhe 15:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. It's just a routine given name list, no less acceptable than a zillion others. It is not a set index, so those criteria do not apply. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:30, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a standard given-name article. PamD 08:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/question @PamD: @Buidhe: @Clarityfiend: On the face of it, presence of an article on this topic seems to violate both wp:not (not a dictionary) and wp:notability. With the wp:setindex argument being set aside the two keep arguments seem to be:

it is common accepted practice to have individual articles on first/given names despite possibly not meeting wp:not and wp:notability.
It is a list article, albeit not identified as such. In this case a lists of people with the same first/name (which seems a pretty un-wikipedian broad criteria). Or, in this case, all on the list are people with Wikipedia articles.

Could somebody clarify/comment on this? Are you saying that accepted practice is, in the case of a first/given name a looser interpretation of wp:not (not a dictionary) and wp:notability than following them literally? Thanks. North8000 (talk) 13:55, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally find many of these empty given-name articles to be unnecessary, as few users will look for people just by their given name (and if they are, they show up in the search box anyway). It has been my understanding that names are automatically noteworthy like WP:NGEO, but as you say, that's not really a part of any guidelines except maybe WP:SETINDEX and it is very close to being WP:NOTDIRECTORY. – Thjarkur (talk) 20:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Thjarkur (talk). --SalmanZ (talk) 19:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Although the rules are vague when it comes to name articles I've found name articles to be very useful for navigating Wikipedia, and i have referenced the name.(MoonlightTulsi) (talk) 19:23, 12 April 2020 (GMT)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TaxHawk[edit]

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

Clearly fails WP:GNG and lack reliable sources to verify the content. Couldn't obtain much information about this in Google search index. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:27, 6 April 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) 00:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:33, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautik International Film Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and the article has been written not complying with WP:NPOV. Most of the sources cited in the article are unclear and are supported only by primary sources. Abishe (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Abishe (talk) 13:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Please remove from the fraternitis and sororites deletion sorting list, this has nothing to do with the topic.Naraht (talk) 13:30, 6 April 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) 00:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:48, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vedchha railway station[edit]

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

Reason

Reviewed as a part of new article review/ curation process. No indication of wp:notability. No suitable coverage in references. As the two sentence article says, it is a small railway station. North8000 (talk) 13:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GAZ and the outcome of many other nominations of railway station articles. This station is not only verified to exist, but it is open to traffic. Mjroots (talk) 15:43, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But WP:GAZ seems to say the opposite. (I.E. nothing to bypass WP:GNG) The closest clause for inclusion seems to say that buildings need both: "may be notable as a result of their historic, social, economic, or architectural importance" and have "significant coverage by reliable, third-party sources" to establish such. North8000 (talk) 17:41, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per Mjroots. It is a mainline rail station and all mainline stations are kept as its impossible for extensive historical reports, surveys and analysis to exist, whether government or private and are inherent part of communities and in this case, as sources confirm, played a part in the growth of this population center. A similar mainline rail station in the UK or US wouldn't even be considered for deletion. Is this a case of systemic bias? Oakshade (talk) 05:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, it is not systemic bias, it is a matter of following the guidelines. And I would do the same for the same situation anywhere in the world. Mentioning "systemic bias" against someone who is following the relevant guidelines is out of line. If y'all want to decide something different based on some unwritten accepted practices, fine with me. North8000 (talk) 12:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. We generally keep all articles on railway stations. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I cited some more sources in the article yesterday. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per all above, especially Necrothesp. Railway stations are important landmarks of any city. So it is obvious that such articles should be kept. --Cedix (talk) 18:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this doesn't meet the general notability guideline. Per WP:GAZ, Geographical features must be notable on their own merits. --DannyS712 (talk) 18:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So what about the sources that I added yesterday, which were just those that I could find in English in a few minutes? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see the station mentioned in the Sociological Bulletin sources (but I can only see the first page of each); other than the offline source, which I couldn't check, the only source I see that helps to establish notability is https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/surat/Thousands-stranded-at-South-Gujarat-railway-stations/articleshow/53053769.cms, and the station is only mentioned as part of a list of stations. I just don't see significant coverage DannyS712 (talk) 18:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The station is not mentioned in the abstracts, which is why the references were to the articles, not the abstracts. Your lack of access to the articles does not invalidate them. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DannyS712: We have long had a consensus that all railway stations are notable. See WP:RAILOUTCOMES. In sixteen years of editing I actually have never seen a station article deleted at AfD. -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason for that consensus is that it is next to impossible for a railway station to exist without reliable sources being written about it, but they are often not online or not in the Roman alphabet, so it can be difficult to find them in the timeframe of an AfD discussion. The reason I added some sources in English that I could find quickly, and did something similar with Lilaste Station (AfD), was to demonstrate that there are sources even for very small railway stations in non-Anglophone places. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - @Cedix, DannyS712, and North8000: if you or anyone else wants copies of the two articles in the Sociological Bulletin that Phil Bridger cited, you can send me an email via Special:EmailUser/MrClog and I'll send you copies of both. --MrClog (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I requested and you sent them. The were not searchable but I did a scan type read on both of them. I could have missed a brief mention of the the station but did not see any coverage of it. North8000 (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

North8000: strange, for me they are searchable. When searching "Vedchha", I get a result at the bottom of p. 4 of Industrial Evolution of Navsari and two results on p. 77 of The Growth of Townships in South Gujarat: Maroli Bazar. MrClog (talk) 17:48, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(after edit conflict) They verify the content that I put into the article. Other people can find other sources and add their content to the article. That is how a wiki works. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:52, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, The sourcing discussions here are not about verifying content (WP:V) , they are about meeting the coverage requirements in wp:notability and the SNG. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 18:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The whole point of notability guidelines, and the reason they were created, is to ensure that we can write an article that conforms to the basic content policies of WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR. Such an article can clearly be written about this station, because it already has been written, so there's no need for wikilawyering about the specifics of any guideline. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:25, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil, with the AFD, I am trying to do my job properly which includes applying the notability guidelines as written, not "wikilawyering", so please don't start such unwarranted insults. I have no preference as to whether or not this article is kept. BTW, the purpose of wp:notability is to be one of the two main sets of criteria to determine whether or not it should have a separate article in Wikipedia. ANY writing, including things that shouldn't be articles can be made to comply with WP:V, WP:NPOV and WP:NOR, so compliance with those does not address or answer the wp:notability question. North8000 (talk) 19:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Perhaps we should discuss this one a bit more thoroughly and let it set a precedent or give guidance. It does not have the type of coverage to satisfy WP:GNG. As detailed above, the SNG is actually a little tougher then GNG and this doers not meet it. The common outcomes page (which isn't a policy or guideline) says "Existing heavy rail stations on a main system (i.e. not a heritage railway) are generally kept at AfD. Other stations are usually kept or merged and redirected to an article about the line or system they are on." It also links to a notability essay on this topic. The essay just weighs in on the the more obvious extremes (briefly, yes if there is significant coverage, no if it's on a light rails line) and gives no guidance on the situations in between. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 17:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Neutral Reinforcing that I am neutral on this. Doesn't meet the notability guidelines, as detailed above. Unclear where it falls under those kept in common practice but most likely does. (I was unaware of this common practice which is contrary to guidelines when I AFD'd this) Appears to be a small station on a heavy rail line. Editor has added references to where it now has 7 references. North8000 (talk) 10:10, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 04:49, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Makoni[edit]

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

Fails GNG IW. (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. IW. (talk) 21:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as I can find coverage of him at 1, 2, 3 and 4. Mccapra (talk) 07:54, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No Reliable Sources Found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Litbeby (talk • contribs) 09:26, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above that show that he passes WP:BASIC and therefore deserves to be included, and have the article improved and expanded, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:47, 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 04:58, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Passes WP:GNG with, among others, doi:10.1080/10131752.2014.909002, doi:10.1080/18186874.2017.1392724 and doi:10.1080/02533952.2018.1489650. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 03:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Suzanne Eggins[edit]

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

No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or academic. None of the references even comes close to being suitable coverage. There is also some concern that the creator is obviously wiki-experienced (and managed to construct a full article with no secondary sourcing) but has only a 2 day editing history under that username. Most of the article is an unsourced presentation of her work. The only sourcing is to her works themselves, and essentially external links that do not relate to her. North8000 (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KeepDelete unfortunately. Certainly as it stands the article easily fails BLP and IRS. It would appear that the publication An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics is probably notable, being reviewed positively, in several IRS professional publications, and being sold by everyone, and held in major libraries, and as far as I can tell very widely cited, but notability is not inherited, so the book by itself is not sufficient. It is odd that such a "first effort" article is so well "wikified" yet is so inappropraitely sourced? It seems the subject does have some standing in the linguistics community, but I cannot find any IRS about the subject to support notability. If someone can find some IRS about the subject I would be happy to change my !vote. Aoziwe (talk) 14:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Higly expert editor creates a whole Wikified article despite no having suitable sources, near-completed on the first day of editing under this user name. "Odd" for normal editing, but quite the norm for paid editing. North8000 (talk) 19:19, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to keep - now multiple works with high levels of citation, and solid references to the subject's work generally, as per further references below. Aoziwe (talk) 09:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NPROF. An Introduction to Systemic Functional Linguistics seems to be a well regarded and widely used textbook which would satisfy criterion 4 of NPROF. The article isn't great, so it may be worth WP:TNTing, but I lean towards notable. — Wug·a·po·des 18:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If her main claim to fame is writing the book, the article should be moved to the book title and rewritten to focus on the book. b uidhe 22:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In addition to discussion of her book and review of her work in scholarly lit reviews, I find discussion of Eggins qua scholar in e.g. Martin 1999, Martin 2014, Treimane 2011. Definitely seems to satisfy NPROF 1 and 4. (By the way, as regards possible paid editing or sock-puppetry, it seems equally likely that e.g. students in linguistics courses not registered with WikiMedia could have been coached as part of course work etc. to produce work up to Wikipedia standards. I have also heard of various "Wiki-thons" wherein experienced Wikipedians train interested novices.) Cnilep (talk) 03:31, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are abundant indicators of notability. Her Introduction to systemic functional linguistics has been cited 5431 times, and is held by 370 WorldCat libraries. Analysing casual conversation has been cited 2552 times, and is held by 300 WorldCat libraries. Reviews of them in scholarly journals include: [15][16][17][18][19][20][21][22]. Citation counts of her journal articles are similarly impressive for linguistics. Plainly meets criterion #1 of WP:PROF. Deficiencies in the current sourcing can be fixed by editing. --Worldbruce (talk) 04:10, 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 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 03:26, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zafar Iqbal Khawaja[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 12:54, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:35, 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 18:51, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shahzad Malik[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the bio fulfils WP:ANYBIO – the subject has received an important national award (Sitara-e-Imtiaz), ergo is inherently notable. kashmīrī ^TALK 23:30, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The award is third highest honor so they can't pass without coverage. Störm (talk) 13:36, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a few sources. Feel free to search for Urdu sources if you want a proof of more covereage. kashmīrī ^TALK 15:34, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The unresolved question here is whether Sitara-e-Imtiaz is an award sufficiently important to confer notability on everyone of its recipients. I think it can be argued both ways. — kashmīrī ^TALK 18:46, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment As only one Wikipedia editor, if I try to diminish or overvalue the award, then it's simply one person's assertion or opinion. Isn't it? Let 'Pakistani people at large' and the Pakistani government decide what its value really is. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:37, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry but Wikipedia is not in Pakistan. It is up to the WP project to decide on categories of people that are eligible for a WP article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 01:49, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kashmiri - Of course, that is obviously true and we all know it. Everything I write here on Wikipedia is owned by Wikipedia community, not me. We all are supposed to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines. WP Project policy says clearly that we should use phrases based on facts and try to keep a neutral point of view even when nominating an article for deletion. Is that policy being followed? When WP Project people decide that such and such awards are no longer recognized just like reliable and unreliable sources for references on articles. I would have to abide by that and even stop mentioning those awards here on Wikipedia. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Now much-improved article after Kashmiri fixed it and added 3 newspaper references. Ngrewal1 (talk) 18:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep, notable subject, having received one of the highest civil awards of Pakistan, Sitara-i-Imtiaz. -Aaqib Anjum Aafī (^talk)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 21:32, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akberali Moawalla[edit]

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

Per not inherited, fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 12:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:10, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman who has done nothing of note. The French inveigation of him is not enough to make him notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 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 per WP:SNOW. Nomination withdrawn, no !votes to delete. (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 14:59, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susana Mourato[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review / curation process.

IMO fails both GNG and academic notability guidelines. Article is just resume material and lengthy presentation her work, the latter unsourced except to her work itself. Found zero GNG suitable coverage in the references.North8000 (talk) 12:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 16:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - very comfortably passes WP:PROF based on her high h-index and citation count. Check her Google Scholar profile. TJMSmith (talk) 16:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only reference to I see to H-index in the SNG is a caution to avoid relying on it, and the context was reviewing for passage under criteria #1. I'm not arguing for deletion. Possibly you know of some common / accepted practice that is different than the letter of the SNG. (?) North8000 (talk) 18:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The common practice is to have some idea of citation practices by field and adjust for that, but to a rough approximation academics with maybe three publications that each have 100 or more citations are notable enough; more would be needed in high-citation fields, less might be enough in low-citation fields. A more accurate guide (but one we rarely follow) would be to look at the most significant publications in the subject's specific research area and try to weigh how highly cited the subject's papers are among them and how prominent the area is. Or, to a more rough approximation the typical level one would expect from a full professor at a good university is probably enough. The short answer is to not rely on the h-index without having some idea what it means, but that's very far from not using it at all. In Mourato's case, we have three publications with over 1000 citations each (more than 10x what a borderline-passing case might look like), or 25 with more than 100 (again, maybe 10x). We have evidence in my answer below for how that ranks in economics as a whole. Or you could search Google Scholar for "environmental valuation", notice that her paper doesn't show up because of a typo in the title, compare it anyway and see that it's #1. Do the same with "economic valuation" and get the same result. Conclude that she seems to be one of the top experts in the world on a significant topic in economics. It's a problem that these guidelines are tough for new-page patrollers to follow, but that doesn't mean that we should throw them out and replace them with nothing. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@David Eppstein: Thanks! North8000 (talk) 13:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easy pass of WP:PROF#C1. Listed among top 5% of economists on RePeC. UK full professorship, which (although not quite enough by itself for WP:PROF#C5 usually counts for more than the corresponding rank in the US. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Several highly cited papers looks like a pass of WP:NPROF C1. I agree that the discussion of her work relies too much on primary sources, but it doesn't strike me as obnoxiously promotional. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep / withdrawn Per other "keep" arguments above. North8000 (talk) 13:19, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:31, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bashir A. Tahir[edit]

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

Promotional, fails WP:GNG, WP:ANYBIO. The award received by him is third-highest honor which is not enough. Störm (talk) 11:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets BIO. NEXIST; AfD not clean up. Notable financier, high-level political connections, active in Pakistan and the Gulf, appearances in the press since the 1990s. Part of the BCCI scandal, imprisoned for three years.[23] [24] [25] [26] An ASSERTION that the honour is not notable, only 34 awarded in 2019 (in a country of 200+ million).--Goldsztajn (talk) 20:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets WP:N.-Kthxbay (talk) 20:39, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:09, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jilani Humayun[edit]

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

Coverage is related to single event. Weak, fails WP:CRIMINAL. Störm (talk) 11:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting notability guidelines for criminals.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Biography of one event with no apparent RS interest with any biographical depth. The article's one independent source, the Associated Press, bases its coverage on what the article's other source, the U.S. Department of Justice, says. Only other coverage found consists of brief book mentions about the arms trade, including brief list entry noting that the subject pleaded guilty. • Gene93k (talk) 16:52, 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) 13:10, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mian Habib Ullah[edit]

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

Promotional, fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 11:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Absolutely promotional. The name of the subject is repeated 15 times in the short article so possibly some subversive or subliminal messaging?

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Federal Party of Manipur[edit]

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

The article is very short and unreferenced. It has remained substantively unchanged since its creation in 2005. I propose that this article does not meet the criteria under WP:N. I have performed a search for references but have only found vague acknowledgements of its existence. One source suggests the party ceased to exist circa 2006. QuadColour (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. QuadColour (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. QuadColour (talk) 11:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep ~~Redirect to Gangmumei Kamei~~. The founder had won elections [27] so we have at least one victorious candidate who also happens to be the party chief. If there are no other winning candidates then it would be better to redirect this to the founder. If there are several other winning candidates then this can be kept, but right now I dont know for sure. QuadColour, do you have an answer to this question ? --Cedix (talk) 13:42, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any sources confirming any members of the party other than Kamei. I am happy to support redirecting to the Gangmumei Kamei page. QuadColour (talk) 14:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the reply QuadColour. Glad that both of us agree on the redirect. --Cedix (talk) 18:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QuadColour, I have changed to keep due to the findings presented by Goldsztajn. In light of the new information, I suggest you to withdraw, so that this AfD can be speedily closed. --Cedix (talk) 18:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:54, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:NORG - 2 seats in 1995 Legislative Assembly election, 4.91% of the vote; 6 seats in 2000 LA election, 9.44% of the vote; 13 seats in 2002 LA election, 18.14% of the vote; merged into the Manipur People's Party before the 2007 LA election. Perhaps a little more BEFORE could have been done here. Regards, --Goldsztajn (talk) 17:19, 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 delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haji Ghani Haji Usman[edit]

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

Fails WP:V, WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 11:22, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Here is a review of all the citations:

1. This one reads like an advertisement and is not a reliable source.

2. This one is a blogspot post, which is user-generated content, which is against the rules.

3. This one doesn't even mention Mr. Usman in any way.

So anyway, yeah. The article has no reliable sources at all, which means it is not suitable for Wikipedia. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 07:15, 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 no consensus. While by strict count of the participants this is a keep, the arguments advanced by those !voters are largely not based in policy or guidelines. However, there is not enough participation here for there to be a delete consensus either. That is how we end up with no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:19, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghulam Ahmad (forester)[edit]

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

No coverage found. Non-notable bio. Fails WP:ANYBIO. Störm (talk) 08:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Delete an overly promotional article. Considering how much the Library of COngress holds, you know that when an article mentions the subject has a work they wrote there it is a red flag for promotionalism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 23:42, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep how is this promotional, as the person is dead. I am not sure what library of congress has to do with the discussion. I would like to know what you mean by promotional. If you are referring the to material that is written than you should argue to delete that rather than the whole article. Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.182.60.246 (talk) 16:46, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I agree with the above person's argument for 'Keep' of the article. If a dead Pakistani person's work at the Library of Congress is promotional, I am sure he did not get up from his grave to go and overpower and force the Library of Congress staff to keep carrying his book and written material in their library. I am convinced whoever the persons are that have been editing this above subject article, could not have forced the Library of Congress. Don't I have the same right to be highly cynical and have a 'Deletionist Frame of Mind' as anyone else on Wikipedia? Ngrewal1 (talk) 20:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article

KeepI agree with the above person's argument for 'Keep' of the article. If a dead Pakistani person's work at the Library of Congress is promotional, I am sure he did not get up from his grave to go and overpower and force the Library of Congress staff to keep carrying his book and written material in their library. I am convinced whoever the persons are that have been editing this above subject article, could not have forced the Library of Congress. Don't I have the same right to be highly cynical and have a 'Deletionist Frame of Mind' as anyone else on Wikipedia?Tailoredink (talk) 23:19, 21 March 2020 (UTC) — Tailoredink (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Comment, a book being held by the LoC conveys absolutely nothing to the author/subject of the book in terms of wikinotability. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment That's just fine. I am not saying that he should be notable due to that book Coolabahapple. Absolutely not! I will try in the morning to see if I can find some more reliable sources to improve the article. Unfortunately some of the prevailing cynicism on this discussion forum gets the best of me - only sometimes, otherwise I try my best to keep a somewhat positive attitude making my comments here. Ngrewal1 (talk) 01:25, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tried and looked for reliable sources in the morning but none showed up for me. Maybe someone else would have better luck, if they want to try? Urdu book references, since this was an older person? I am moving on to the next thing. Ngrewal1 (talk) 16:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe it is in the interest to keep this article. Rather than to delete the article we should endeavor to make it better. I agree with the above analysis on the arguments to keep. I will try to locate writings from Kashmir and Pakistan. I have the same rights as anyone else to vote to keep. I agree with Nregrewall and his analysis. I have reviewed a few articles and a agree with most of the research and as such we should always try to be better. This is my two bits Moditwenty (talk)
Keep the article — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moditwenty (talk • contribs) 18:50, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The article and its style of writing is promotional. Listing a holding of a work in a huge and comprehensive database in now way shows the creator of that work is notable. What is needed is reviews not holdings listings. The promotion in an article does not have to be the work of the subject of the article for it to be overly much so, that is why we have the not memorial rule among others.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP The article is poorly written and the layout is incorrect. But the subject is notable Lightburst (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 01:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have a hard time finding RS references of coverage to support WP:N from languages (EN, ZH) that I speak. If anyone could provide RS evidence I could be convinced. xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 01:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I see several Keep !votes from possible SPAs however the subject seems notable to me. RS coverage may exist in Urdu language sources. KartikeyaS (talk) 07:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
can someone explain why a dead person would need a promotional piece. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moditwenty (talk • contribs) 02:22, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

for a start, see WP:MEMORIAL. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus currently.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Störm (talk) 11:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep. Making it better for starters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1010:B11D:DB9E:DD:3089:1441:AB70 (talk) 01:34, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 03:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arthur Napiontek[edit]

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

Fails to meet GNG requirements, the most I could find was passing mentions. Greyjoy^talk 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy^talk 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Greyjoy^talk 10:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to meeting GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete: WP:GNG isn't made out, as far as I can tell, and the subject's acting roles do not yet meet WP:NACTOR. He is young and his profile may rise, but the article was created a little prematurely, in my opinion. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article was created 8 years ago, so that would be a lot prematurely if he has not yet made notability. Anyway he is 33, so not all that young.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:27, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I really don't understand you, John Pack Lambert. Almost every time I try to engage with you in these AFDs, you ignore me—and yet now, when I'm not attempting to engage with you, you do engage with me. Dflaw4 (talk) 06:26, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. I am unable to find any substantive coverage in reliable sources about him and/or his work. --Kinu ^t/_c 13:55, 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) 13:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Barbato[edit]

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

Article is ostensibly about the YouTube channel created by this person, as none of the actual BLP-related content is actually sourced. The sources include a couple of local newspaper articles about him visiting a school, one article about the channel, and another in which it is listed among several others. No substantive coverage of the subject of the article himself is found. Kinu ^t/_c 10:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article is also being edited by User:PaulBarbato in an apparently autobiographical manner. --Kinu ^t/_c 10:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kinu, Either the account is Paul himself, or it is just a fan who wanted to write the article so badly. Koridas (Speak) 00:30, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough coverage on the host himself. Non-YT sources are local coverage about the channel with merely passing mentions about him, not meeting WP:GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely filled with primary sources. 4 of the sources are from the subjects own YouTube channel. The 5th and 6th source do mention him, but are passing mentions as it only talks about the GeograBee and not Paul himself. The 7th and 8th source only has one paragraph about him, so it is a passing mention. Koridas (Speak) 00:29, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:16, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stanislav Shekshnia[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Queried delete: see User talk:Anthony Appleyard#Stanislav Shekshnia. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandrov98: See here. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: What do you think? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stanislav_Shekshnia --Alexandrov98 (talk) 13:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Alexandrov98: It seems rather advertisory or like a CV (curriculum vitae). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 14:55, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Anthony Appleyard: How about new version? Many thanks! --Alexandrov98 (talk) 16:14, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as either a businessman or an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:25, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I know nothing about Stanislav Shekshnia except by reading this article. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 16:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC and WP:GNG. Edwardx (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, looks like a successful businessman, but too little coverage by independent sources to justify passing WP:GNG or WP:BIO; nothing to show passing WP:PROF either. A large portion of the article contains personal info not sourced to any sources, presenting a WP:BLP problem. The entire article looks a bit like a WP:G11 case. Nsk92 (talk) 13:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Publish The academic meets the following condictions: 2. The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level. 5. The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. 6. The person has held a highest-level elected or appointed administrative post at a major academic institution or major academic society. 7. The person has had a substantial impact outside academia in their academic capacity. --Alexandrov98 (talk) 12:30, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:30, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ASMR Darling[edit]

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

There is no significant notability of this YouTuber, especially given we don't know her full name. Songwaters (talk) 00:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:03, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep She passes WP:GNG just based on the sources in the current version of the article. It does not matter whether an individual's real name is known or whether they are known solely by a pseudonym, that has never been a criteria and would be counterproductive since many entertainers and authors spend most or all of their careers semi-anonymous. Besides this, none of the sources I saw explicitly stated that "Taylor Darling" was a stagename. It certainly sounds like one but we can't make statements on Wikipedia based on assumptions. IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, it turns out that re: the naming issue that the NY Times article does mention that she only uses her first name "Taylor" out of privacy concerns. Regardless, using a pseudonym does not make her non-notable, what matters is that there is significant coverage (there is) and that this coverage indicates that she is notable as a YouTuber (it does).IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:42, 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 14:25, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the NY Times article is a reliable source, and she is a significant ASMR Youtuber. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 10:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment after this discussion started a lot of new editors have started editing this article, including one who claims to be ASMR Darling. TheAwesomeHwyh 16:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't think they're sockpuppets though, and I couldn't find any signs of online canvassing. TheAwesome Hwyh 16:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep notable YouTuber. TheAwesome Hwyh 17:10, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shreya Dev Dube[edit]

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

A non-notable cinematographer. Fails WP:GNG Akhiljaxxn (talk) 06:39, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:24, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Just thought I should disclose that the users TamilMirchi, KartikeyaS343, Cedix and myself have recently received Talk page messages from Akhiljaxxn (the nominator of this AfD) with a link to this discussion and 2 others. To avoid any question of WP:CANVASSING, I will not be participating here. Cheers, 1292simon (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is no sinificant coverage or notable work to have a standalone article. - The9Man ^(Talk) 10:58, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:34, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johnny Possums Good Time Hootin Band[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. It is possible I am underestimating the significance of the awards they have been nominated for. Boleyn (talk) 07:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:12, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:13, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Being nominated for a prestigious award, let alone nearly winning, is certainly something that can make one's group somewhat famous, but that status isn't the same thing as having general notability in terms of our editing guidelines. Deletion seems to be the right call to me. The coverage just doesn't appear to be out there to build a good page. (If we do keep this article, then we should change it to "Johnny Possum" to be consistent with their YouTube presence and elsewhere). CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 16:51, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doyle McCormack[edit]

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

Based on the references provided here and what I've come across from a quick search, the subject does not appear to meet WP:ANYBIO or WP:GNG the name comes up repeatedly but the extent he is talked about is trivial. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:37, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The references are about the Oregon Rail Heritage Foundation and not the subject of the article himself. While he is quoted in his role with that organization, that is not enough to justify a WP:BLP. --Kinu ^t/_c 23:01, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the preservationist organization he works with may be notable but he clearly is not.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:54, 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 23:30, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pakistan Post (magazine)[edit]

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

Nothing in coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Störm (talk) 13:59, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:01, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Callanecc (talk • contribs • logs) 09:58, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - there is no coverage that I can find of the topic. Fails WP:ARTN among most guidelines. Pilot333 (talk) 03:23, 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) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

InstaSafe[edit]

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

No coverage from notable news organizations, furthermore it is written in a promotional way.

Furthermore, the username of the creator of this page is 'Prateek Samantaray' when I entered into Google the search term "Prateek Samantaray InstaSafe" results came up showing that this individual is actually part of the marketing team of this company. Here is the screenshot I took in case they delete/edit the evidence available online. You can view the screenshot here (https://ibb.co/FbDjywV) James Richards (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. A search for sources finds press releases and other sources that do not support notability. The article creator seems to have been inserting links about this company in multiple articles prior to the creation of this one, so this appears to be part of a not-so-subtle marketing job. --Kinu ^t/_c 09:26, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - promotion, unfit for an article ☆ Bri (talk) 01:46, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article setting out a company's wares, their funding announcements, their participation in a start-up incubator and a fastest-growing listing, which fall under "trivial coverage" at WP:CORPDEPTH. I am seeing no evidence of attained notability. AllyD (talk) 07:38, 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. If only it didn't take an AFD to get more than travel guides, my before search was all travel guides and passing industry news like "Hotel Business". USNWR rankings are not notability... (non-admin closure) Reywas92^Talk 18:05, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Parker New York[edit]

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

No assertion of notability for generic upscale hotel. All sources are routine WP:TRAVELGUIDE entries, the same reviews for accomodation they have for hundreds of other hotels in New York. Reywas92^Talk 08:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Reywas92^Talk 08:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per GNG (note: article creator). Did you even try Googling before nominating? In addition to the travel-related Fodor's and Frommer's listings, there's a detailed review by The Daily Telegraph, New York Times sources for Le Parker Meridian here, and other rankings by notable publications such as U.S. World News & Report. There's enough content in these publications to give an overview of the building's description, history (including a recent $420 million purchase with a planned $100 million renovation), and reception section. There's also info to add about the hotel's restaurants and other retailers. I vote to keep and will try to incorporate some of the other sources I've found into the article as well. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG (not all of these refs are travel guide entries anymore). Another Believer found more sources that do describe this topic's notability. I must note that he approached me on my talk page. epicgenius (talk) 15:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I reached out to Epicgenius to ask about possible details about the building (as opposed to the business), being familiar with his work on NYC buildings. Thanks! ---Another Believer _(Talk) 17:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it meets WP:GNG. Nom needs to read WP:BEFORE. MarnetteD|Talk 15:55, 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. Also taking into account the precedent set by the other AFDs mentioned. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Pinoy Big Brother: Season 1 housemates[edit]

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

As per Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (British series 19) housemates and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother Canada houseguests (season 1) and more recently Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Big Brother (Australian TV series) season 1 housemates and all other series which were recently deleted I'm nominating all the lists of housemates in all editions of the Filipino series. Firstly pretty much every contestant is non notable, even with the level of sourcing, is still an undue level of biographical profiling and fails WP:LISTPEOPLE. Secondly, the amalgamated list, without all of the profiling, can be found under List of Pinoy Big Brother housemates and links to the very few notable names can be accessed from there. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are all similar:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 08:49, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all as per my previous comments in the above mentioned AfDs. I agree with the nom, these lists are full with overly detailed information about people which are just not notable. If they are notable, then they have an article and these sections duplicate the information, if they aren't notable, then there is no reason to even have this information. Anything that needs to be added, is either already in the season article or in the overall housemates list page. Now only US (and 1 Brazil) articles left. --Gonnym (talk) 10:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll be nominating these next when I have a bit more time. Ajf773 (talk) 20:20, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to their perspective pages: Per nomination. It's best to move some of the contents there. There's really no need to create a separate page for a list of contestants, though a lot of them have their own pages. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 04:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While redirect is a plausible outcome, the outcome of the other lists of contestants AfD, resulted in delete. We should be consistent with these as well. Ajf773 (talk) 08:20, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadya Mizan[edit]

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

No coverage in reputable news sources & written like a CV. James Richards (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I could only find one good source in a search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:18, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete didn't find anything in Bengali also. WP:TOO SOON. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 19:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Include I have found several articles coming from reliable newspapers like this , this and this . We should consider that many sources in BD are only on printed newspapers. I believe the article meets the criteria . --Doratig (talk) 09:18, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article doesn't meets the criteria. Most of sources are primary, wordpress or event news (& passing mention). For example, all of 26 sources from urontoart.org are wp:primary, Sadya Mizan is the founder of URONTO. Wordpress, facebook & youtube are user generated source. Sources like this one are event news. Other news from e.g daily-sun, Prothomalo only mentioned her name (passing mention). Other source like this one doesn't even mention her name. The subject didn't received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject (fails WP:ARTIST, WP:GNG). --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 18:24, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merging~~ At this point I would propose merging article Sadya Mizan into a new article about URONTO. How does that sound ?--Doratig (talk) 20:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stirking double !vote. You can only !vote once in an AfD.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:15, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you can't merge with URONTO. URONTO have to pass WP:GNG, WP:ORG as well. --আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 15:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete [[WP:TOO SOON], ]No coverage in reputable news sources.--SalmanZ (talk) 19:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Nom.--SalmanZ (talk) 20:45, 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) 08:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dokta Brain[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NMUSIC. Found some passing mention, but no more than that. Kleuske (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Kleuske (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough reliable sources to pass GNG let alone our more restrictive notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:50, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The sources look like advertisements and are passing mentions, which are not allowed on to be cited per this rule. Of course, it should also be deleted for no significant coverage or reliable sources. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 16:24, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The subject of this article fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. None of the sources cited in the article are about the subject; he is only mentioned in the first source. A Google search of him doesn't show significant coverage. His win at the 2019 HiPipo Music Awards isn't enough to justify a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:19, 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) 13:14, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hwamyeong LOTTE CASTLE KAISER[edit]

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

It does not meet notability requirements & very promotional. James Richards (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 08:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I started Wikipedia few weeks ago and I happen to learn more about notability just today. I understand the problems with notability of this article, and agree on the deletion. But can you tell me what are the factors of being 'very promotional'? Just so I wouldn't make the same mistake further on. I re-checked the article but I still couldn't catch which part is problematic. GyongminM (talk) 09:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Information about companies and products must be written in an objective and unbiased style, free of puffery. All article topics must be verifiable with independent, third-party sources, so articles about very small garage bands or local companies are typically unacceptable. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion) --James Richards (talk) 09:57, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesrichards12345 and GyongminM: For the record, while I also agree with deletion due to notability issue, I want to note I do not see the article as suffering from any promotional language (WP:WTA). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability (places). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 12:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment In regards to the 'promotional content', my apologize, I added as I had the impression that this article was created by the developer of the property complex. My mistake/lack of knowledge I apologize.--James Richards (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per Mr. Richards, Mr. Piotrus, and the fact that there are no reliable sources for this article. Koridas (Speak) 03:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability. --SalmanZ (talk) 14:12, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Very thoughtful reasoning in the above comments. Woerich (talk) 06:40, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails Wikipedia:Notability -- Seems to be an advertisement also - AH (talk) 12:38, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 13:15, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruchir Punjabi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Already deleted twice. Does not meet WP:ANYBIO. Only reference that is substantive and a reliable source is the SMH interview. All others are passing references or one-line quotes, university/alumni notes, press releases, and other material that does not support a biographical article. Kinu ^t/_c 08:17, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:ANYBIO. Gritmem (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot find sufficient to support anywhere near GNG. I was going to suggest a redirect and minor merge to Australia India Youth Dialogue based on this, and that Australia India Youth Dialogue is lent on by a number of bios, but it does not exist. Aoziwe (talk) 13:06, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete still is a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT given that the article is repeatedly re-created. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:38, 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. Fenix down (talk) 08:00, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amos Shapiro-Thompson[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. DePRODed by creator. --BlameRuiner (talk) 08:12, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable soccer player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 17:24, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:53, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, GiantSnowman. SportingFlyer T·C 06:51, 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jessie Joe Jacobs[edit]

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

Fails WP:NPOL, most of the news has been garnered during her nomination. Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable and not at the state level or city level, however if she wins a page can be created for her. For not it is WP:TOOSOON. Joanrivers (talk) 05:49, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:41, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Being an as yet non-winning candidate in a future mayoral election is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself (and the fact that the coronapocalyse has already postponed the election by a full year doesn't help, either) — but this article is not demonstrating a credible reason why she would have cleared the notability bar independently of running for mayor, as it's too strongly dependent on a mix of primary sources and the type of purely local coverage that absolutely anybody who's active in local politics anywhere can always show. To be encyclopedically notable for any of this, she would have to show nationalizing coverage demonstrating that her notability expanded well beyond just Tees Valley alone. Obviously no prejudice against recreation next year if she wins, but nothing here is already enough today. Bearcat (talk) 17:43, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. She is a candidate in a future mayoral election. Not enough good sources, mostly local coverage. If she wins, she can have an article. LefcentrerightTalk (plz ping) 18:27, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note The original nominator of this AFD has been blocked as a possibly compromised account. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As the original author of this page before I duly considered whether or not Jacons met WP:NPOL before creation, as well as considering if she met the WP:GNG and concluded that she did so on both grounds. In the first instance, it is widely considered that the 2020 Tees Valley Mayoral Election will be a bellweather on the likelihood of the Conservative Party retaining its unprecedented gains behind the red wall in the 2019 snap General Election, giving the camapign and therefore the candidates a wider significance^[1]^[2]. Secondly, Bearcat states that she does not have recognition independently of the mayoral campaign, yet disregards that she has been shortlisted for a number of national awards, long before standing for political office, including being nominated for and winning national recongition from the Bank of Scotland as Social Entrepreneur of the Year in 2009^[3]. Finally, as Yunshui points out the original nominator of this AFD has been blocked as a possible compromised account, whose sole purpose seems to have been to nominate pages for deletion. Peterneal (talk) 23:06, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/uk-news/conservatives-must-deliver-north-or-be-ousted-five-years-says-metro-mayor-ben-houchen-1743848
^ https://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/what-should-we-expect-year-s-mayoral-elections
^ https://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/local-news/way-out-wins-entrepreneur-award-3716518

Firstly, every single award that exists is not an automatic notability pass: the award itself has to be notable enough to pass WP:GNG before it's notable enough to make its winners or nominees notable for winning or being nominated for it. The list of awards that make people notable because award does not include (a) any award that can be sourced only to the awarding organization's self-published website or press releases about itself, because actual reliable source media coverage about the award is nonexistent, or (b) any award that can be sourced only to a single piece of "local person wins award" coverage in the person's local media, because consistent annual nationalized coverage about the award is not demonstrable. If you can't get the award over GNG as an award, then it isn't a notability-clinching award.

Secondly, it is not our mission, our job or even our responsibility to maintain campaign brochures for non-winning candidates, so nowhere in Wikipedia's notability standards for politicians are as yet unelected candidates exempted from having to pass NPOL just because somebody says the election has bellwether implications for wider political trends. Even if that statement is true, maintaining an article about the non-winning candidate does not actually serve the purpose of communicating or contextualizing that at all: it just amounts to a campaign brochure for an unelected candidate. If you want to establish that a non-winning candidate is important enough to be exempted from NPOL because of the "specialness" of her candidacy, what you actually have to do is imagine that she loses the election next year, then dies the next day so she never has another opportunity to accomplish anything more notable than running for mayor and losing, and then show a convincing reason why people will still need the article to exist in 2030 anyway. Our job is not to maintain an article about everybody who happens to be present in the current news cycle, it's to figure out what information people will still need decades from now — as a rule, people will need articles about holders of notable political offices, not candidates for them. Bearcat (talk) 13:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:07, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a promotional campaign brochure which fails WP:NPOL. GSS ^💬 18:21, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per the well stated reasoning of user:Bearcat. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. Otr500 (talk) 02:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. There's no consensus about notability there. But as there is at least one valid redirect/merge target before any renomination consider using an alternative process to AfD. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:17, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fumble (album)[edit]

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

There's only one citation in the article that is trivial and nothing really comes up in Google about it except that it had a reissue. Which isn't notable. The album didn't seem to chart or anything. So it doesn't meet WP:Notability (music). Wikipedia isn't a directory or place to store track listings.--Adamant1 11:35, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:38, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 11:41, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Added five refs. Band is notable as well, not only for Grohl, but for being a significant part of the DC music scene. Caro7200 (talk) 13:36, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, the refs you added don't establish notable because they are trivial coverage in none reliable sources. Also, while the might have been a significant part of the DC music scene (which is questionable), it has zero to do with the notability of the album. Per WP:Notability (music) "An album requires its own notability, and that notability is not inherited and requires independent evidence. That an album is an officially released recording by a notable musician or ensemble is not by itself reason for a standalone article." --Adamant1 (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable? I respectfully disagree: Trouser Press, Washington Post, Exclaim, AllMusic, and books published by reliable publishers. Caro7200 (talk) 12:58, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reliablity of the Washington Post as a source doesnt matter when the ref you provided from them isnt even about the album and only mentions it once in passing. It doesnt matter who writes an article or what news outlet its from if the article isnt about the subject of the AfD, obviously. As is the case with your references, Washington Post or whatever. I would call a source that's not about the subject of the AfD not reliable (as in not reliable to establish notability) in the general sense though. Adamant1 (talk) 14:06, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The album fails WP:NALBUM and has not been discussed in reliable sources. It did not chart on any country's official music chart and was not critically reviewed. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 12:52, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per Wikipedia:WikiProject Albums/Sources, Trouser Press, AllMusic, and Exclaim are reliable sources. Caro7200 (talk) 12:57, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is reliable as a source of basic information. In this case its not reliable for establishing notability though because its coverage of the album is extremely trivial and not in-depth. Generally, the quality of the content matters more then what the source is. So it doesnt matter what the source is if the subject is just mentioned in passing. Which is the case here. Adamant1 (talk) 13:09, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Caro7200: They may be reliable sources but they cannot be used to establish notability because they only mentioned the album in passing (as noted by Adamant1). Exclaim usually does album reviews; I'm surprised one of their contributors did not critically review this one. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 13:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll always advocate for reliably sourced stubs and short articles. There are six good refs, whether they discuss the album in passing or more in-depth. It's by a punk band that started in DC in the 1980s, one of the most notable times in the city's music history. It came out on Dischord, one of the most notable independent labels. It features the most notable rock drummer of the past 30 years. Would we dismiss articles on Ringo's pre-Beatles work? ;) Caro7200 (talk) 13:22, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added a Spin ref--also notable as perhaps Grohl's first recorded vocal on an album? Caro7200 (talk) 22:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The spin ref doesn't meet the whole "in-depth coverage" thing since it only mentions the album in four word paragraph and the rest of the article has nothing to do with it. You really need to read through WP:Notability (music) and WP:GNG so you have a better idea of what counts as trivial or not. As it gets really old having discussions like this one when people don't feel like doing the due diligence to find sources that actually meet notability standards. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:53, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I've been editing on and off since 2006--I'm quite aware of them. We are talking about references for a short article/stub about a punk rock album from the early '90s. I think this is a case of a difference of opinion about the value of Wikipedia's hundreds of thousands of short articles and stubs. I assume you've been editing music articles for some time now. You've seen what bad/not notable/poorly referenced ones look like. This isn't one of them. Caro7200 (talk) 12:51, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's good. Then you know WP:Notability (music) says its better to merge album articles that are little more then a track listing, which describes this article, and that albums aren't except from WP:GNG standards. While I'm not a fan of perma stubs myself, and there lots in Wikipedia about how creating them isn't the point in the project, I'll usually give them a pass if they are at least encyclopedic and well sourced. That isn't the case here though. No where does Wikipedia say it's an encyclopedia of everything and even stubs should meet that standards. There's no reason articles about albums should get a special exception. Especially now that Wikidata exists for listing trivial, basic information like what is in the article. There's no reason the information in the article can't just be there at least merged into Scream's article if nothing else. It's important to have a good middle ground between including everything and indiscriminately deleting everything, and things shouldn't be done based on some arbitrary, relativistic standard like "let's keep it because I'm all for stubs." --Adamant1 (talk) 14:13, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But didn't you also nominate Scream for deletion? I still respectfully disagree, Adamant1, and I'm sure we both hope that more editors weigh in. I think that often short music articles are treated unfairly because there have been so many truly terrible, not notable ones over the years. Caro7200 (talk) 14:35, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well yes, but it's like a WP:Matryoshka doll. This merges into WP:Scream (band), it merges into WP:Dave Grohl, and then we all go home knowing we did our part to improve Wikipedia a tiny tiny bit. At least that's the plan. We'll see how it goes I guess. I'm not really invested in any particular outcome with either article. Usually the chase is better then the catch. Especially with this and the fact that what people vote on and how they vote can often times be pretty sporadic. I have no illusions that any AfD is a sure thing, but we are still improved as a community and Wikipedia a little each time we go through it IMO, whatever the outcome is. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:09, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:11, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Do the sources added by User:Caro7200 convey notability?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Scream (band). There certainly is some coverage in what are very clearly reliable sources, but I don't think there's sufficient coverage or content for a standalone article, and this album can be summarised adequately in the band article. --Michig (talk) 09:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also have to consider WP:NEXIST and WP:NPOSSIBLE. Additional information/sources may be found in Grohl/Foo Fighters bios; Nirvana bios; additional Washington Post stories; reliable D.C. alternative media stories; books and documentaries about the D.C. scene, such as Live at the Safari Club: A History of harDCcore Punk in the Nation's Capital 1988-1998; Dance of Days; Spoke: Images and Stories from the 1980s Washington, DC Punk Scene; Salad Days: A Decade Of Punk In Washington, DC (1980-90); other music journalism from the period, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 13:11, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Sources added by Caro7200 are reliable enough for the article to pass WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:03, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BTW, if you're thinking of arguing with me over my vote, don't bother responding at all. I'm not interested in looking for an argument in this AfD. So, I won't reply. I stand by my vote no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:05, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Might I ask how commenting by people on the delete/merge side is arguing? Everyone has a right to ask for things to clarified. Plus, it helps new/ingorant to the process users understand things better and maybe Id retract my AfD if there was a completely compelling reason to. Its rather dissmissive to discount all discussion as arguing to. I dont a bunch of useless back and forth off topic barnstorming either, but I dont see anyone here doing that and its a process, that sometimes takes discussion to resolve things. You should have the flexibilty to change your opinion in light of new evidence. I am. P.S. Feel free to ignore/discount this. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:53, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kwaku Manu[edit]

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

The subject of this article fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO and WP:NACTOR. The article is filled with unreliable sources that are either gossip blogs or promotional websites. A Google search of the subject doesn't show the subject being discussed in reliable sources. None of the movies the subject has starred in have been discussed in reliable sources. The subject has dropped four singles and none of them have been discussed in reliable sources. The only notability claim in the article is the subject being a recipient of the Favorite Actor award at the 2019 Ghana Movie Awards. This isn't enough to warrant a separate article. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 21:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not supposed to be a tabloid.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he also won Best Actor (local language) at the 2011 Ghana Movie Awards, was nominated at the 2014 Awards, as well as winning an award at the 2015 Ghana Movie Awards. So he seems to pass WP:ANYBIO with two awards and two nominations for a notable award, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:56, 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 04:55, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 07:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per WP:ANYBIO. The subject has received a significant award in his field which establishes notability. Gritmem (talk) 08:39, 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 delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 02:14, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimmy Sharma[edit]

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

non-notable actor with no coverage and no significant roles. Praxidicae (talk) 14:43, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:44, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Twitter is not a reliable source.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep: The coverage I've found is all quite routine and not very in-depth—but it does show that the subject has had significant roles in films. However, the question to which, frankly, I don't have an answer is whether those films are notable. Therefore, I'm going to err on the side of caution and vote "Weak Keep" for the moment. Here are the sources I found:

→https://www.hindustantimes.com/bollywood/bigg-boss-11-contestant-sapna-choudhary-makes-bollywood-debut-in-bhangover-song-love-bite/story-IvrCZW4nGsTNLs66UOnPaL.html

→https://indianexpress.com/article/entertainment/bollywood/surgical-strike-bollywood-film-4911845/

→https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/141217/like-padmavati-journey-of-bhangover-also-got-delayed-because-of-cbfc-director.html

→https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/entertainment/hindi/bollywood/news/saurabbh-k-roy-and-surbhi-singla-will-share-screen-together-in-love-alert/articleshow/64870099.cms

→https://www.deccanchronicle.com/entertainment/bollywood/060916/i-am-not-a-porn-star-like-sunny-leone-rakhi-sawant-slams-censor-board.html

Dflaw4 (talk) 05:30, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TOI is not a reliable source as per WP:RSN and specifically in this case, it's definitely not. It's a pushed PR piece with no author. Deccanchronicle also has a very tenuous relationship with presenting accurate information and identifying their paid pieces from none, not to mention it's a single sentence mention and not even about the subject. Hindustantimes and indianexpress are also just passing mentions. Dflaw4 I've seen several !votes like this of yours implying that passing mentions somehow satisfy our requirement for in-depth coverage, so I'd encourage you to read Wikipedia:Identifying and using independent sources. Praxidicae (talk) 18:49, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Praxidicae. I do not believe that TOI is a default unreliable source, as per the recent discussion at WP:RSN. If you believe that the particular article to which I provided the link is unreliable, that is fine, and I certainly have no issue with other editors disagreeing with me.

I have already read the document regarding sources, which you provided, and, to be clear, I do not believe that mere mentions equate to in-depth coverage. Above I stated, "The coverage I've found is all quite routine and not very in-depth..." I am probably more lenient when it comes to GNG than some editors, that is true, but I do not believe that the sources I provided above necessarily satisfy GNG. My "Weak Keep" vote was more motivated by the significant roles the subject has had than the sourcing, and it was a very tentative "Weak Keep" at that. But, as I said, I haven't been able to ascertain whether the productions themselves were notable, and I will update my vote if a strong argument is made that they are not. Thanks, Dflaw4 (talk) 08:12, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:29, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep as per new sources found. Lack of in-depth coverage is a significant point though. SerChevalerie (talk) 18:37, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BLP rules mean that to even consider keeping this article someone needs to put a source other than twitter connected to the article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:51, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete only passing mentions with no in-depth coverage. Gritmem (talk) 08:46, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom (including additional comments), user:Johnpacklambert (especially the 2nd comment), and user:Gritmem. See "Comments" to be added below. Otr500 (talk) 12:57, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I begin looking closely at an article when notability is questioned. I don't "assume" that someone has ill intent. I likewise don't make the same assumption when someone objects. If I see evidence of an editing practice that is callous or that habitually swings one way or the other (not in-line with policies and guidelines or even relevant community supported essays), I will give less credibility to those comments.

I have to give more scrutiny to comments when a search fails to give satisfaction. I have a disdain for articles created in blatant disregard of our core content and notability policies---but--- I NEVER just "vote". I actually have found a somewhat simplified solution to concerns of notability. I look for three sources that follow the basic WP:GNG criteria: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list., (also represented at WP:THREE).

As an example in this case, the first source I looked at (presented above), Like Padmavati, Journey of Bhangover also got delayed because of CBFC: Director (Deccan Chronicle) presents more challenges. The title of the article is "Jimmy Sharma". The source contains "The film stars five youths, all newcomers and their adventure as they encounter a Suthradhar, played by Hemant Dubey, a cop, Yashpal Sharma and a funny terrorist, Jaideep Ahlawat.".

I read the entire article wondering if "Yashpal Sharma" was or might be Jimmy Sharma. The last paragraph reads, "‘Journey of Bhangover, produced by Meenakshi Iyer and Mahinder Singh Saniwal, also starring Aradhya Taing, Jimmy Sharma and Palash Soni, hits the theatres on Friday.". Truthfully, I have no idea. I assume they are different people but I do know that. While the source might be good for content, it gives no advancement to notability but just proves a person with the same name as the article is listed as being in the film. The subject, however, is not the film, and there is certainly not any significant coverage.

I advocate "to err on the side of caution", however, while notability might be somewhat subjective, trivial mentions (passing mentions) are far and above easier to ascertain. To pick and choose or ignore (or the appearance of) any one or two of the basic criteria, gives a false result. Assuming a source is deemed reliable (If not then there are plenty of ways to arrive at a conclusion), we still need to question is a source reliable?. Is the subject the main topic (easy to tell): Either way, does it provide significant coverage (also easy to tell)? Is the source independent or somehow tied to the subject in any number of ways (related, connected, primary source), that may need closer examination? If I can't arrive at a satisfactory conclusion on all the above I tend to discount the source concerning notability.

I can't be "motivated by the significant roles the subject has had than the sourcing" when the entire concept of notability revolves around sourcing. Otr500 (talk) 16:08, 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 no consensus. I thought about doing a third relist for this 3rd renomination but given the complete lack of engagement think it's probably best to just close this as no consensus for the time being. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DhoomBros[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I don't know if the members of DhoomBros are notable individually but the channel itself is not. There is no meaningful, in depth coverage, just interviews and unreliable sources or event announcements.

And to refute the previous assertions about reliable sources: this is a student paper about an event, this is an interview, this is an interview but not generally a reliable source, and the bbc piece is yet another interview (one of thousands that they do for musicians, so not even significant as an interview) and a search for more sources reveals nothing useful. Praxidicae (talk) 15:14, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:20, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 15:21, 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 00:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Considering this has been through prior AFDs with differing results, this nomination needs more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:50, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:13, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strouds, Wyoming[edit]

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

A siding on the abandoned Milwaukee Road line on the eastern outskirts of Evansville. I find no evidence that there was ever a separate settlement, especially considering Brookhurst just to the north, which is a proper CDP. Mangoe (talk) 20:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wyoming-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:06, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:23, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I expanded the article, and found multiple sources indicating "Joshua Stroud" had lived there. Magnolia677 (talk) 23:03, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge We've seen this several times before, someone had a ranch, and the railroad named a stop there after the ranch. Here's a clipping about the Strouds, some of the first settler of Casper. This one talks directly about how the Strouds' ranch become Stroud's Station, and that it served as a roadhouse. Here's another mention of the ranch. Here's Joshua Stroud's water use. Links added [28] [29][30] don't establish this is a distinct notable settlement or community, but perhaps the newspaper clippings (also [31][32], which give other useful details that a separate town wasn't built there) would be relevant to Casper,_Wyoming#History! Reywas92^Talk 01:15, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:26, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

further comment The problem I keep having here is that, for all the talk of laying out a town, there is absolutely no sign of anything being laid out, other than the station building. The area is massively industrialized now, and already was even in the 1940s. Maybe it has some sort of historic notability, but I'm just not seeing the claim to it being a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 02:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's clear that a Strouds family lived and operated a business/railroad stop here, but there's no sign that a town or community was ever established. In any case the available sourcing does not meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 19:55, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:49, 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 redirect to Black Ink Crew#Cast. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Young Bae[edit]

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

GNG and no reliable sources outside of her employer, VH1. ⌚️ (talk) 23:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:NACTOR she had recurring role on television series. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She’s not an actor... she is a tattoo artist who is a recurring member on a reality show about a Harlem tattoo shop. ⌚️ (talk) 01:17, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Black Ink Crew#Cast Not an actor, article is basically a copy of the VH1 bio. Nate • (chatter) 00:42, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Minor coverage in Atlanta Black Star [33] [34] and some very tabloid-y coverage in Inquisitr [35] [36]. Not enough to meet WP:BASIC. userdude 08:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:25, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

redirect Mrschimpf’s suggestion is sensible. - Chris.sherlock (talk) 17:31, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:48, 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. There is consensus that this group does not meet our notability requirements despite good faith editing. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Revive the Rose[edit]

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

Article about a band, created by their own record label, which claims absolutely nothing that would pass WP:NMUSIC at all. The "accomplishments" documented here are exclusively local stuff like making the final round of a local radio station's battle of the bands competition and creating a theme song for the local junior hockey team and gigging at local venues, and the sources present to support it are entirely local coverage in their local media. As always, however, bands are not automatically exempted from having to pass NMUSIC's achievement-based criteria just because they can show a handful of local coverage in their own hometown -- to claim that they pass NMUSIC #1 in lieu of having to tour or chart or release music on a major label, you have to show nationalized coverage, not just "local band does stuff" pieces in the local newspapers. And even if they could be shown to pass NMUSIC somehow, their own record label still wouldn't get to create the article themselves per our conflict of interest rules. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:40, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I agree that record labels shouldn't make articles about their bands. That's why this article was submitted as a draft at WP:AFC - the right thing to do. Before being moved to mainspace, almost all of the text was changed or added by me, a neutral editor who has never met this band, to mitigate any conflict of interest. The band has been written about extensively in several newspapers, and while the articles were written mostly by journalists from their local area, several were also carried by papers in Cambridge, Waterloo and Peterborough. I added references to show that the band was interviewed or featured on at least three Toronto radio programs as well as two television stations, including Global. Although their touring around Ontario (as far as Windsor and Ottawa) didn't attract concert reviews outside of Niagara, their music has been reviewed by two online music magazines not based in the Niagara area. I believe that they pass the general notability requirements.—Anne Delong (talk) 10:55, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NMUSIC #4 requires a national tour that receives national coverage, not just a provincial tour that fails to garner any attention outside the band's hometown local media, so there's no basis for claiming that they're notable for touring. NMUSIC #12 requires a "substantial broadcast segment" across an entire national radio or television network, not just appearances on local radio or television stations in any local market (not even Toronto). Neither interviews in which the band is speaking about themselves in the first person nor video clips of the band performing a song are support for notability at all — to support notability, a source has to represent the band being written or spoken about in the third person by somebody other than themselves. And Canadian Beats, The Sound, Music Life Magazine and Spill Magazine are all unreliable and non-notability-supporting blogs, not GNG-worthy music magazines, so they count for nothing — as does Brock Press, because NMUSIC specifically deprecates university and college student media as not legitimate support for musical notability.

So for all the reasons I listed above, there are still no notability-supporting sources here that represent anything more than local coverage in their own local market. In a nutshell, the only Canadian producer of radio content that helps to get a band over NMUSIC is the CBC (English and French divisions), and the only Canadian music magazines that count toward getting a band over NMUSIC are Exclaim!, BeatRoute, Canadian Musician and SOCAN's Words and Music. Outside of that, it's daily newspapers or bust, and commercial radio stations and blogs count for nothing.

All of which means they pass none of NMUSIC #2-#12 at all — and if a band passes none of NMUSIC 2-12, then they have to have nationalized coverage, not just Golden-Horseshoe-ized coverage, to claim that they have enough media coverage to exempt them from having to meet any of NMUSIC's accomplishment-based criteria. Bearcat (talk) 22:57, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the band's tour didn't add much to its notability; the student press reference was added to support facts, not for notability. I also agree that the band members' own words aren't independent information; that's why I only used interviews as references to facts stated by the interviewer. I looked over NMUSIC #1 as carefully as I could, and couldn't find anything saying that only articles in "daily" papers can be used, but the Hamilton Spectator and St. Catharines Standard are dailies. The band has certainly been "the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself"; NMUSIC #1 doesn't say where they have to be published, and anyway the Golden Horseshoe you mention has seven million people. Your statement that play on "commercial" radio stations (ie, those which make money) isn't important can't be right - isn't it the other way around, that subsidized community and campus radio stations are the less notable ones? And Global's The Morning Show is a nationally syndicated program. I agree that the band doesn't meet the other criteria, but only one is required.—Anne Delong (talk) 12:12, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All of NMUSIC's criteria that mention radio at all clearly indicate that the radio content has to come from a national network. Content from local radio stations doesn't go to NMUSIC regardless of whether it's a commercial radio station or a campus/community radio station — the reason I mentioned commercial radio stations, and not campus/community radio stations, in that context isn't that campus/community counts for more than commercial, it's that I already pointed out that NMUSIC already deprecates campus/community media as ineligible for use at all, so it wasn't necessary to bring them up again.

As for The Morning Show, the problem with that doesn't hinge on whether it's local or national content, and I didn't say it did — the problem with it hinges on the fact that it's not a segment about the band from which to extract any potentially noteworthy information, like a documentary film or a news report, but merely a video clip of them performing a song. Performing live never speaks to NMUSIC just because you meta-reference the performance to a video clip of its own occurrence — performing live only goes to NMUSIC if other third party sources, completely independent of either the band or the performance venue, write or produce third person journalistic content about the performance, such as concert reviews and entertainment news articles. It's not enough to provide technical verification that the performance happened: notability on that basis requires external third party analysis to establish the significance of the performance.

It's simply how notability works: if a band actually has strong evidence of passing NMUSIC's specific achievement criteria (2-12), then we don't care how local or non-local the coverage is as long as it properly verifies that the specific achievement is true. But if they pass none of the achievement-based criteria, and instead you're going for "notable just because some media coverage exists", then that media coverage does have to be more than just local to their own hometown media market. Most of our notability criteria for people, in fact, would be completely invalidated if the existence of a handful of local coverage were enough in and of itself to hand someone a GNG-based exemption from actually having to pass the defined notability criteria for their occupation — there are literally millions of people in the world, including me, who could show a small cluster of local coverage in local interest contexts without actually accomplishing anything that would actually satisfy any of our SNGs. GNG is not just "count up the footnotes and keep anything that surpasses an arbitrary number" — it does also test for depth and geographic range and context, not just number. And the population of the GTA doesn't matter, either: NMUSIC looks for nationalized markers of notability, not just technical verification of local or regional activity. Bearcat (talk) 14:36, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like we'll have to continue to disagree. NMUSIC clearly states only one criteria must be met, even just NMUSIC #1 which appears to be just the general notability requirement for any subject, even bands. You don't think the media coverage is adequate to pass that, and I do, so I'll leave it at that.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'd consider this a case of WP:TOOSOON: it's an 'up-and-coming' Toronto-based band with a few hundred subscribers on YouTube, a few thousand video views, and a few thousand plays on Spotify. No basis for notability. --Dreamanderson (talk) 07:20, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it seems they have been mostly ignoring YouTube and posting videos directly on Facebook.—Anne Delong (talk) 05:01, 27 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:28, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:47, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I cannot possibly fathom why we should have a Wikipedia article on this unknown band. It only cites sources from local news websites, all of which are WP:QUESTIONABLE or possibly even WP:SPONSORED. I also suspect Anne Delong, who initially approved this article and is petitioning to keep it, has an undisclosed affiliation with the band. Once again, this garage-band (without any hit songs, no national tours, and no mentions outside of a few local sources) does not meet Wikipedia's guidelines for notability and, at the very least, should be considered WP:TOOSOON and removed. -Dreamanderson (talk) 02:34, 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:28, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetta777[edit]

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

Article is not in english, and subject is not clearly notable. dmartin969 02:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. dmartin969 02:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am gong to bet that if he has 29 million subscribers, someone has written about him and he therefore meets GNG. For example, here, here, here, here and here are a start.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:40, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like a few days ago a Spanish editor blanked an earlier version in proper English, which I have restored.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:54, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:55, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:40, 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. There is consensus that available sources do not convey notability. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:08, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abbey DiGregorio[edit]

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

I'm nominating this article for deletion due to my inability to find reliable secondary sources that establish the subject's notability. Additionally, the subject appears to fail WP:ENT, in that (1) she has not had significant roles in multiple notable films, television, etc. (appears her only major role was as Ling Ling in Drawn Together; (2) she does not have a large fan base or a significant "cult" following; and (3) she has not made unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment.

I will gladly support keeping this article if others can prove otherwise. I would also support redirecting the article to Drawn Together or something similar. Thanks everyone for assuming good faith and volunteering to review this article. Missvain (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Missvain (talk) 02:57, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:04, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 09:06, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks the reliable sources needed for a BLP to exist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: The subject's role in Barely Famous could also go towards WP:NACTOR. As for sources, there are actually quite a few recent articles from reliable news outlets, regarding her position as one of the writers on What Just Happened??! with Fred Savage. The problem is that the coverage is basically little more than mere mentions. Maybe others will be able to uncover something more substantial. Here are a few of the sources I found, and there are several others in this vein:

→https://variety.com/2019/tv/news/fred-savage-after-show-spoof-fox-1203200400/ – Variety

→https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/live-feed/aftershow-spoof-what-just-happened-starring-fred-savage-a-go-at-fox-1205186 – The Hollywood Reporter

→https://www.vulture.com/2019/04/fred-savage-what-just-happened-fox-after-show-parody.html – Vulture

Dflaw4 (talk) 03:05, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:40, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete per Nom: We have policies that are actually community consensus mandates and the criteria is even higher for WP:BLP's. It might just be an accident or some attempt to prove that the state of an article is irrelevant, but we have sourcing criteria for multiple reasons. We also have essays like WP:SAVE and WP:Hey (essays on the deletion policy) for a reason. They are just essays but carry weight of community consensus. A problem is that when material is contested, along with notability because there are no sources, "policy" gives a mandate concerning the burden of proof that are all part of the "Responsibility for providing citations". When IMDb is used as an only source there are possible WP:YTCOPYRIGHT issues. Just adding some sources to the talk page does not in any way cover the policies and guidelines concerning an unsourced BLP. Such things as WP:CITE are important but pretty hard to follow when there are zero sources. Ignoring the rules is a possible rationale but requires consensus that inclusion is an improvement to the encyclopedia, in spite of policies and guidelines, and a closing admin will likely have to agree. If others think the article worth "saving" then ping me if improvements are applied and I may agree. My reasoning is that the extra sources above does not provide substance to prevent this from being a pseudo biography. Otr500 (talk) 02:30, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jemma Dallender[edit]

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

Non notable biography. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 00:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete lacks the multiple, indepdent, 3rd-party reliable secondary source coverage needed to pass the general notability guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:26, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:28, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:29, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. The following is the coverage I found about Dallender:

She is mentioned in a Bloody Disgusting article. [37]
She appears in two London FrightFest Film Festival 2013 interviews [38] [39].
She appears on an interview with a blog [40].

I do not believe this qualifies as significant coverage per WP:GNG, nor do I believe this qualifies Dallender for any of the criteria of WP:NACTOR. userdude 03:47, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The subject passes WP:NACTOR—she had a lead role in I Spit on Your Grave 2 and a main role in Contract to Kill, among other films, and she has also had a few recurring roles in TV shows. I think an argument can be made for passing WP:GNG, too, because her acting is reviewed in a number of reliable sources, including:

→ https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/moviesnow/la-et-mn-i-spit-on-your-grave-review-20130920-story.html – Los Angeles Times

→https://variety.com/2013/film/reviews/i-spit-on-your-grave-2-review-1200652161/ – Variety

→https://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/contract-to-kill-2016 – rogerebert.com

She also gets mentions in various other Los Angeles Times, Variety and Deadline articles. In addition, I would add that the fact that the films listed above weren't well-received—in fact, nor was the subject's acting, at times—is not relevant to the question of notability. Dflaw4 (talk) 13:12, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:56, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closing administrator: Please note that John Pack Lambert's "delete" vote was cast one minute after the AfD was created, so I'm not sure how thorough a WP:BEFORE could have been performed in that short period of time. Dflaw4 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still need comment on additional sourcing.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Keep per the sources and roles listed by Dflaw4. She easily passes WP:GNG and so the article should not be deleted. As an aside, I also believe she passes WP:NACTOR.IphisOfCrete (talk) 20:41, 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 moved to Draft:Dario Bisso Sabàdin. There is no consensus either way, but the argument against deletion is premised on future improvements to be made to the article, which can remain in draft until the issues raised as a basis for deletion are resolved. BD2412 T 18:05, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dario Bisso Sabàdin[edit]

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

This article is (and I believe always has been) unsourced, and I have failed to find any suitable online sources to use to improve it; hence I do not think that it passes the general notability guideline. The best two pages I have found in a normal Google search are:

This biography (in Italian). At the bottom of the text it is annotated Fonte diretta, which I take to mean that it was contributed by the article subject.
This biography (pdf), from a (probably non-notable) musical competition, which I also suspect was self-authored.

There are no Google books hits, two passing mentions on Google news, one citation on Google scholar. According to the article Bisso Sabàdin's conducting career began in 1998 so there might be offline sources that I am missing. I didn't gain much assistance from WP:NMUSIC, which doesn't have much to say about conductors.

The article bears a strong similarity to the two documents that I link to above, which may indicate that the (effectively sole) author, User:Fedetx, may have a close relationship with the article subject. Fedetx has twice removed the {{notability}} maintenance template from the article without comment; hence me bringing it here for further discussion. Wham2001 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Wham2001 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Wham2001 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Wham2001 (talk) 13:58, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: User:Tramarin has provided input at the AfD talk page. I advised them to move their comments here but they have not edited since and may not have seen my message. Wham2001 (talk) 12:36, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer: I am User:Tramarin. As Wham2001 (talk) stated, I provided some input at the AfD talk page. In particular, I asked for more time to edit the page of Dario Bisso, since in these days I am pretty busy with teaching. I know I have been advised to move my comments here, but time constraints impeded me to do so, and only two days have passed. I strongly believe in Wikipedia's project, but editors have to understand that sometimes people who write pages may have to do that in their spare time, and stating "they may not have seen my message" only after two days is, in my opinion, a bad policy to maintain pages, especially since I expressed my willingness to edit a page for someone else. Anyway, I am collecting the needed sources. If Wikipedia may wait for some days to let me edit, this will be perfect. Tramarin (talk) 13:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 17:23, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — Coffee // have a ☕️ // beans // 06:38, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear all, I collected some materials and references to support the claims contained in the Dario Bisso Sabàdin page. I would provide some argumentation against the deletion of the page.

"...from a (probably non-notable) musical competition, which I also suspect was self-authored." -> No, that musical competition is not "non-notable". It may be not widely known, or not known to the Editor, because of the specific genre of music and its peculiarities, but it is an International Competition, recurring each year in the past 20 years. It is sufficient to look at the page dedicated to past winners (http://www.valtidone-competitions.com/eng/competitions_en/ic_winners.asp) to understand that participants comes from all around the world.
"...There are no Google books hits, two passing mentions on Google news, one citation on Google scholar. According to the article Bisso Sabàdin's conducting career began in 1998 so there might be offline sources that I am missing." Yes actually there are rather several sources one can cite, from press news to hits on archives of the events the page claims.

Another point against its deletion on the basis of a scarce notability is also the presence of the conductor's works in Spotify, which indicates an active career and an international reputation. So, I wish to thank to Wham2001 for highlighting the issues. I am, slowly, updating the page. I am not involved in the activities of Dario Bisso Sabàdin and I am doing this during my spare time, in between University classes, which are going full online due to this Covid-19 situation. I hope you may understand the page will get better soon, but not immediately. Thank you for your attention. – Tramarin (talk) 14:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tramarin, thank-you for your work on the article. Unfortunately I am not yet convinced that it demonstrates that Dario Bisso Sabàdin passes the general notability guideline. To quote that page, If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list.. Whilst you have added a number of sources, all but one of them are passing mentions in programmes of concerts, etc. The best source I see amongst the set is this interview. My view is that it is a primary rather than secondary source and hence does not contribute to notability, but this point could perhaps be argued.

Regarding your other numbered points:

I did not find much coverage of the competition, mostly passing mentions in the context of more notable winners, hence my concluding that it was probably non-notable, but I did not look very closely. I see from this document that DBS acted as a juror for the competition a few years ago. That perhaps supports notability, though not particularly strongly.
What is needed are sources that provide significant coverage of DBS himself, not passing mentions in press releases, concert programmes etc. That is why I discounted those sources when doing the pre-nomination search for sources.

Finally, I am sympathetic regarding COVID-induced time constraints, and indeed I will have very little time for Wikipedia myself over the next few days. I suggest that, if the discussion closes with a consensus to delete the page, that the closer considers converting it to a draft, so that you can continue to work on it and make a stronger case for notability. It is very unfortunate that no editors with extensive experience of Wikipedia musical biographies have contributed to this discussion, but there are still a few days before it is due to close. Best, Wham2001 (talk) 12:28, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wham2001, I do not agree with your claims and inferences about DBS notability. I have gone through the general notability guideline, too, and also through the notability criteria for musicians (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(music)). It is my opinion that points 1 and 2 are relevant to the activities of DBS for supporting his notability. Indeed,

he has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself. -> This criterion includes published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, books, magazine articles, online versions of print media, and television documentaries...
Has had a single or album on any country's national music chart.
Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels.

The references to support these claims have been already provided in the DBS page, but in case it may better support my argumentations to support his notability, I will be happy to add them here.

Moreover, being a component of the jury of an international competition, relevant to the specific field of art (please, take into account that the competition has not to be widespread to the general public, as per Wikipedia guidelines) is a proof of notability. There are also other sources that are not only passing mentions, as for instance http://www.veneziatoday.it/cronaca/il-ministro-della-cultura-dell-estonia-in-visita-al-conservatorio-di-musica-di-venezia-3321773.html, or

I would like also to underline that the claim "[...] no editors with extensive experience of Wikipedia musical biographies have contributed to this discussion" is itself a proof that the argumentations about deletion are not really solid, mostly because in the current situation, we may assist at a page deletion on the basis of the decision of a single editor, which in turn has already declared to not be an expert in the field.

I will provide more sources after the Easter holidays. Thank you for your help and suggestions. Tramarin (talk) 16:41, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of crossings of the James River (Virginia). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:27, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hatcher Island Bridge[edit]

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

Fails Wikipedia:Notability_(Transportation)#Bridges_and_tunnels, not officially named and no tolls collected. Just a bridge to a private island. The only reference is to a private blog. Does not seem notable enough to me. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islands-related deletion discussions. Sanyam.wikime (talk) 06:21, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 07:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of crossings of the James River (Virginia) where there is already an entry for this bridge. Had that list page not existed, I might have !voted delete, but I see no reason not to link to it as it is a legitimate, physical crossing point, whether privately owned, or otherwise. Nick Moyes (talk) 11:56, 6 April 2020 (UTC) [reply]
Redirect as above. It's not independently notable, but redirect is sensible. Joseph2302 (talk) 12:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:48, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:27, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Andrews (producer)[edit]

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

Article does not meet general notability guideliness. Citation needed warning appears throughout article, and existing citations go to dead links. Lord of the East (talk) 05:08, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:31, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Andrews fails WP:BASIC as there are no "multiple secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject". My searches bring up either CEOs of the same name for other companies, or self-published books results. The references seems to be either unreliable or passing mentions and the article looks like a WP:PROMO case. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 09:55, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:22, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adivishnu[edit]

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

This article fails to establish notability and does not have adequate reliable sources. Also notability is not inherited (the lead actor of the film is a producer's son) -- User:TamilMirchi (TALK)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:50, 13 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, xinbenlv ^{Talk, Remember to "ping" me} 05:39, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:02, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Akhiljaxxn (talk) 04:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delet. There is no reference and fail GNG.Kashish pall (talk) 06:32, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:42, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clary Kurs[edit]

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

As far as I can tell, no experience in fully professional leagues so appears to fail the notability threshold for football players. Even more worryingly, there's no indication that he meets the general notability criterion. Pichpich (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Pichpich (talk) 03:16, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:36, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:37, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Article is only sourced to Transfermarkt which is unreliable. Kurs easily fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 08:09, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 17:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Can be sourced to this; it being inadequately sourced is not a reason for speedy deletion. Giant Snowman 17:45, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 18:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is an easy delete here. HawkAussie (talk) 00:22, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTY.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 01:08, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My recent updates shows that at least Clary Kurs has a notable professional football league considering 1.liga Latvia The Latvian First League (Latvian: Latvijas Pirmā līga, 1. līga) is the second tier of football in Latvia and is organised by the Latvian Football Federation. The league is also known as the Komanda.lv First League (Komanda.lv 1. līga) Marshall294
- @Marshall294: I will counter-that to say that the Latvian football isn't classified as a professional league via the WP:FPL which WP:NFOOTY is partially based of. HawkAussie (talk) 02:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fains NFOOTY and GNG. I don't think any speedy criteria is met here, though, particularly now that we have other sources that are unquestionably reliable (albeit routine and not GNG-establishing.) Smartyllama (talk) 12:23, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. This closure as no consensus is in reference to deletion, but there is plenty of agreement that the article needs a major (or even complete) overhaul. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon Coleman[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Random sample of sources cannot find anything supporting notability, but it's impossible to be sure in this unsalvageable mess of self-published / self-authored sources (the most frequent source is his own website, and most of the other sources appear to be crank letters to the editor authored by the subject and so on), COI, and promotionalism. If nothing else then WP:TNT applies. Anyone supporting keeping will need to point explicitly at appropriate sources. E Eng 14:47, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Followup: The claim (recently removed from the article) that the subject is "the author of over 100 books in 25 languages" pretty much sums the whole thing up. E Eng 04:44, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One might think it would be impossible to top that claim, but if so one would be wrong. Below we have an SPI claiming that the subject (born in 1946) "was the author of the first software for computers". What next? Designed the atom bomb? Discovered America? Walked with Jesus? E Eng 07:04, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources used on here are for the most part national and regional newspapers or national magazines. As the subject is an author there are many references to these books, which are all legitimately published and have been in the marketplace for decades. The previous proposal for deletion was rightly denied. It is very obvious that this page is being targeted because of the author's views as the deletions followed his video regarding the corona virus. This is simply redundant in comparison to this account of a notable author's life and work. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.91.66 (talk) 14:54, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You need to list and quote the specific sources constituting "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" (WP:GNG). It's impossible to tell from the article what those would be. E Eng 15:18, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - overly promotional, needs a rewrite but passes WP:GNG as an author whose book was made into a movie. See reviews by BBC, SBS (there are others) - perhaps a Reception section is needed for his work? I'm not sure about the European Medical Journal but they published his book, "How To Stop Your Doctor Killing You", September 1st 2003 (first published 1996; ISBN13: 9781898947141). ^Atsme _Talk 📧 15:58, 20 March 2020 (UTC) ^{Adding my iVote - echoing the sentiments below by Timtempleton. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:34, 22 March 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

I've spent the last 15 minutes or so looking round the EMJ web site and have been unable to find the names of the people on the editorial board, which would be the minimum that anyone would need to judge its reliability. I note that it has been around for eight years but still says that it is not indexed by any selective indexer and does not have an impact factor. The fact that Coleman's other books are self-published leads me to believe that this is simply another self-publishing outfit. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:25, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Is this the same as "Averroes European Medical Journal"? If so, it was listed as a predatory journal on Beall's list. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  David Eppstein, pretty sure it's a scam journal. Normal for Coleman. Guy (help!) 20:17, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have contributed a fair amount to this article because of enjoying the subject's fiction work. Some were indeed self-published but others were not. Regardless he is a notable person whether he is likeable or what he says is popular. He has been heard in government and as Atsme writes, his work was turned into a film. I'd be happy to help to repair wherever the article can be improved. When it was started it clearly lost its way and lost cohesion. I tried to remedy this somewhat but it's hard without effectively starting all over again. I am against total removal of text as there is no basis for this especially on such a longstanding page - it simply needs to be improved if anything although many of the references seem to stand up to scrutiny as I have checked many of these myself. (talk)
This is seriously in TNT territory due to promoting the subject's crackpot views rather than being an NPOV article. Maybe there is notability, but from the article I would have guessed yet another nn crank. I'm not convinced by the sources presented so far, either. b uidhe 18:14, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's a mess. Delete or cut down to the bare essentials. Peter Damian (talk) 18:59, 20 March 2020 (UTC) [EDIT] Or at least add information to make it clear that he is anti-vaccination and against MMR. I would have linked to the article where he says this but it is on Wikipedia blacklist! Peter Damian (talk) 19:05, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless we can turn up an adequate supply of in-depth mainstream sources to provide a properly neutral point of view on his fringe opinions. The first AfD discussed the quantity of independent sourcing, but did not address the requirement that sourcing provide a neutral point of view. And even if adequate good sources can be found it looks like we would need to burn it to the ground first, and then likely indefinitely semiprotect it against restoration of the promotionalism and crankery as has already happened more than once. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:28, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There might be a case for wiki-notability, but there's a much stronger case for WP:TNT. XOR'easter (talk) 19:33, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I am familiar with Mr. Coleman. He is a crank. I do not think he is a notable crank. Guy (help!) 20:16, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To the deletes - neither calling the author a crank nor him being one is a valid reason to delete his BLP - see WP:AUTHOR #3 - The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. 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. I provided the RS that verify the movie resulting from his book, and there are plenty of RS about it and the BLP as the book's author. GNG and N have both been met. Further...an article that needs a rewrite is not a reason to AfD it, either. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 22:26, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are echoing the first AfD, which made similar arguments but failed to address WP:FRINGE and WP:NPOV. We don't merely need sources because they are sources; we need them to provide a neutral point of view on the subject, especially in this case. That's why it's relevant that he's a crank. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:03, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, David - we are expected to maintain a NPOV when choosing sources, and those sources may or may not be biased or nuetral. I am echoing WP:PAG and accepted protocol for controversial BLPs per this example, which I highly recommend reading. I am not aware of any PAGs that say we cannot use biased or non-nuetral sources or that we must not include or keep BLPs of people who have fringe views, or author fiction, or have over-indulgent imaginations, or are simply not liked or respected because of their views and opinions. We write what RS have published. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 04:23, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atsme, my experience with you at the G Edward Griffin article suggests your views on sourcing articles on cranks are perhaps not the soundest. Guy (help!) 17:28, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the goal of WP is to censor cranks who have authored books that were made into movies, I will be happy to oblige if you will point me to that policy or guideline. Please do so on my TP as I will not be responding here anymore. ^Atsme _Talk 📧 20:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I am not very familiar with Coleman, and disagree with some of this views, but I know one or two admirers. The article is sometimes POV and could do with editing. Coleman seems to be controversial but has published a lot. If the following is true, he should be kept: "the author of over 100 books in 25 languages, including non-fiction works about human health, politics, cricket, and animal issues,[2] and a range of novels.[3] His books have appeared on several bestseller lists, including The Sunday Times. Life Without Tranquillisers reached the Top Ten of The Sunday Times in March 1985.[4] His book Bodypower reached several bestseller lists in the UK". I'm pretty sure people want to delete him because they disagree with him. (When you think of the third-rate contributors to the Guardian who have Wikipedia entries ...) Bougatsa42 (talk) 21:51, 21 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Bougatsa42, Well, he thinks they're non-fiction, anyway... Guy (help!) 17:19, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - his harmful views are surfacing with a recent YouTube video calling coronavirus a hoax. I think this is more useful being kept and accurately labeling him as a quack. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes that was my original point. I saw the Youtube video with horror, then referred to his Wikipedia page. There was almost nothing on the page to indicate his views on the subject of vaccination. Peter Damian (talk) 17:17, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The problem with that is that, per WP:BLP, we can only label anyone as a quack if we can show that the preponderance of reliable sources does so. Most reliable sources simply ignore such people rather than bother with stating the obvious. That is why we need to take account of WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE rather than just WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:21, 22 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are so many libels in here that it is difficult to count them. You cannot call a qualified doctor a quack unless you are willing to defend a libel action. In addition to self publishing Coleman has written books published by a dozen major UK publishers, over 30 foreign publishers, large print publishers and audio publishers. It isnt difficult to see evidence of over 100 books in 25 languages. The page as most recently edited is prejudiced, biased and inaccurate. Why not mention why Coleman left The People (because a column criticising the Iraq war was rejected). Is it not of significance that the government changed its policy on tranquilliser prescribing because of Coleman. (See Hansard). Coleman was the author of the first software for computers. See Times article. The ASA is a private organisation which refused to look at evidence linking meat and cancer and then tried to ban an ad for the book. The ad was then published (full page) by The Observer and The Guardian. Coleman has been widely praised by almost all UK national papers. See his website. Coleman has presented programmes on BBC and ITV. He was the first TV agony uncle and the TV AM doctor. The Youtube video title has a wuestion mark at the end. Have any of these critics actually watched it? Why no mention of Colemans speech to UKIP. (I see that Guy believes that Brexit was swung by Putin. And he calls Coleman a crank! Also Guy works for a company making mobile phones. Coleman has been a stern critic of mobile phones. A clear conflict of interest. EMJ Books has been an imprint run by Coleman since the 1990s. Colemans books are still being published by 'proper' publishers around the world. Coleman who is in his 70s took his name off the register. It is no longer possible for retired doctors to have a licence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr (talk • contribs) 00:55, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete

Further investigation shows that Guy, who says he works for Dell, appears to be proudly left wing so there are conflicts of interest 1. Coleman was the first doctor to draw attention to the danger of mobile phones - causing brain cancer cf Superbody 2. Coleman wrote a number of pro Brexit books Coleman is known to be litigious in defending his reputation and much of this material is indefensible in court. Coleman has written that he does not want a Wikipedia page and I recommend deletion of the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr (talk • contribs) 03:22, 23 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Most of the subject's self-published books are either out of print or being given away on Amazon for zero dollars as a Kindle book. A WorldCat search turned up a nominal number of his titles in libraries, despite the number of books he has released. A Google search turned up no significant or wide coverage of him by reliable, third-party sources. He appears to punch out books yet they have not been well received and have received no significant reviews. The article does not come close to meeting WP:GNG, and it fails WP:BIO and WP:NAUTHOR. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 03:33, 24 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked and found most of Colemans self published books are in print and in public libraries. All authors ebooks on Amazon are, if in kdp, given away to readers and authors receive a royalty payment from Amazon. Colemans books have been very well reviewed around the world but particularly in the UK - I remember reviews were on this site but were removed for no sensible reason by someone with their own agenda. And my apologies for a silly slip - The Times reported that Coleman co wrote the first medical software for home computers - obviously not all software. That too was removed by someone who simply wanted to make Coleman look bad for their own reasons. It seems that this page is now controlled by one or two 'editors' who have turned the page into a vindictive blog because they disapprove of Colemans views on Brexit, mobile phones, vaccination, meat eating or whatever. This page is now a disgrace and nothing to do with an encyclopedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr (talk • contribs) 02:19, 25 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now that the coronavirus has been officially downgraded by the UK government (cf government site) perhaps one of the critics would like to put a note on the Coleman page congratulating the Dr on yet again being the only dr to get it right on his website and that much criticised YouTube video! He was right about Aids, Sars and all the big issues for 30 years. This page now just looks silly and the moaners who are proven wrong should offer their apologies. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr (talk • contribs) 00:41, 26 March 2020 (UTC) See gov.uk status of covid 19 for confirmation — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr (talk • contribs) 00:50, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What planet did you say you were from, exactly? E Eng 01:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

23wqr, this is exciting information. Could you please provide the exact url where the government says this, because I have been unable to find it? Phil Bridger (talk) 07:59, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You go to gov.uk Which is the main uk govt site You search for High Consequence Infectious Diseases (HCID) Its a bit hidden but its there You will see that the Public Health Bodies in the UK and the Advisory Committee onDangerous Pathogens decided on 19th march to downgrade the coronavirus The govt put this on gov.uk and four days after the decision put the country into lockdown and today are introducing new legislation giving them great powers Why do you have to be rude? An apology would be nice but I doubt I will get one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr (talk • contribs) 14:19, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And Trump says the churches will be packed at Easter. Go play in the street if you want but just so you know, neither I nor anyone else will be able to attend your funeral. E Eng 15:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was anything rude about my question. Like most people I'm trying to get the best information that I can about this virus and its effects, not least because my wife is stranded in Poland at the moment waiting for a phone call to tell her she can get a flight home to the UK. Can't you just provide the url where this information is on the gov.uk web site, rather than vague instructions for finding it? Just copy and paste the location from your browser to here. Phil Bridger (talk) 14:36, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's talking about me. People who don't believe in natural selection can be very tetchy. What he's talking about is here; https://www.gov.uk/guidance/high-consequence-infectious-diseases-hcid E Eng 15:03, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the url. I'm glad to know that this virus is less serious than we thought it might be, in that only a lot of people are going to die rather than all of us. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:08, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You might like to look at the govts 358 page emergency bill brought in today - especially at the section about vaccination, exactly as Coleman predicted on his website and video But all this Wikip page includes is decades old junk about trivial ASA rulings (its a private body by the way and its rulings are less significant than parking tickets) I bet the guy has had some parking tickets - you could put those up instead of bothering to mention a brave and now proven accurate prediction no one else had the guts to make — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23wqr (talk • contribs) 15:14, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No actual good reason for its deletion except that he seems to have troubled some financial and government interests. Has had clear notability over the years. No justification for removal. desmay (talk) 19:01, 26 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As much as it grates me to see crackpots given oxygen on Wikipedia, there is sufficient independent coverage of this one (eg 1, 2). Cheers, 1292simon (talk) 07:27, 28 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) 21:45, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DO NOT DELETE VERNON !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Deprince10 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Although he may be controversial (and not someone that I'd agree with on most subject), he appears to meet the notability criteria. The article needs cleaning up, for sure, but that is not a reason to delete it. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 10:24, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's a very well known personality in the UK at least, and he has sold an awful lot of books. There is enough coverage to satisfy notability criteria. Thinking that he is a crank and disliking him and his views are not valid reasons for deletion. --Michig (talk) 09:29, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, this guy is a hoot ("What an eccentric performance."), two sources (both probably not useable) that amply summarise him/his writings are here: "You have been warned, Mr Blair", and here: "Why I Won’t Be Buying Vernon Coleman’s ‘Oil Apocalypse’.", i especially like one of the above statements - "DO NOT DELETE VERNON !!!!" - he certainly appears to instill some fierce loyalty, anyway, Coleman has produced a substantial body of work but is it significant/well known? his works are held in, according to WorldCat, mostly doublefigure libraries see here, just take your pick and click, is this enough? some have, according to the article, been in bestseller lists, notably The Sunday Times, unfortunately, references in the article do not link to online sources which would be helpful, one book has been made into a film so thats a tick, here are some book review listings in Journal of the Royal Society of Health (here, and here); Health Education Journal (here, and here), and from the previous afd there are the two pieces from The Independent (thankyou Rhododendrites) - "Doctor on the Make", "What Seems to be the Problem Doctor Coleman?" so i reckon he makes it over the wikinotabiity line. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coolabahapple, the issue is whether there are sufficient reliable sources about him to write a neutral biography. Most of what is written turns out to be self-promotion. Guy (help!) 08:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry JzG, are you saying that the majority of the sources in the article at present are not reliable/relevant? please list them here/on the talkpage and/or be bold and remove them. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:16, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I’m surprised to find he has virtually no RS press, surprised because you would assume he had from this page, but everything he has written appears to be self published and self promoted. Regardless of his views, he doesn’t meet notability if you actually look closely. It’s a clear case of self aggrandizement and we’re not here to be his publicity department. Mramoeba (talk) 23:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He does have quite a lot of RS press. He was more well known pre-2000 when he was regular newspaper columnist. The British Newspaper Archive has several reviews of his books and articles about him in reliable sources. --Michig (talk) 11:26, 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) 13:22, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logan Williams (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

Promo article which added multiple promotional images in the advert version found here and a fictional unverifiable net worth. The infobox contains a blatant promo headshot photo. I can only find a few sources which appear to be PR. Valoem ^talk ^contrib 02:43, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly violates general notability guidelines. Looks like a social media profile spoofing as a Wikipedia article. Sources might as well be non-existent, and (if I may be so bold) look like they were written by the subject or their associate(s). Lord of the East (talk) 05:23, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Looks like it was deleted before see this AFD. Mysticair667537 (talk) 13:13, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:32, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant coverage. InedibleHulk (talk) 23:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. The infobox photo is always a dead giveaway for promotional/vanity pages. Best, GPL93 (talk) 13:56, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As a doctoral student, he fails WP:PROF. Inventors are very common, and merely inventing a new device is not automatically notable. Forbes publishes lots of "30 under 30" lists but that is merely passing mentions of up and coming persons. In 2020, everybody knows we are a charity, not a LinkedIn. Bearian (talk) 15:39, 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 merge to Wamp 2 Dem. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:25, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Essence[edit]

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

Film series failing GNG and film notability guidelines. Besides the Complex article, none of the (few reliable) sources cited, and nothing I found in a Google search, provide significant coverage. I recommend this be merged and redirected to the soundtrack that inspired it, Wamp 2 Dem. Citrivescence (talk) 02:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Citrivescence (talk) 02:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as suggested by the nominator, not independently notable and can be covrred at the Wamp 2 Dem article, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 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. WP:SPA !votes are discounted, leaving nothing but consensus for deletion. BD2412 T 17:58, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tarik Freitekh[edit]

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

Fortunately for Wikipedia being rich doesn’t equate to notability. There is no meaningful coverage of this individual despite the several attempts by multiple SPAs. Praxidicae (talk) 00:52, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:02, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:04, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Hipal fixed the issues. SPAs -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.8.146.192 (talk) 18:46, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Wiki great editor Hipal fixed the missing reference, thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by NatePBillington (talk • contribs)
Delete Non-notable promotional article. I think this articles edited by SPAs --Alaa :)..! 06:48, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I can't find any significant media coverage. While he has been associated with several well-known people, notability is not inherited. This page demonstrates why NOTLINKEDIN was written. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 10:47, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:18, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Centretown Movies Outdoor Film Festival[edit]

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

Article about a small film festival, not reliably sourced as clearing our notability standards for events. This isn't even really a true "film festival" in the sense usually connoted by that term, but just a weekend family screening party in a public park -- and accordingly, it has no significant media coverage, but rather is "referenced" exclusively to its own self-published web presence rather than any evidence of media coverage. As always, however, events are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because their self-published content technically verifies that they exist -- the depth of media coverage they can or cannot show, demonstrating that sources independent of the organization consider what it does to be important enough to write about journalistically, is the notability test. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:35, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I tried, but couldn't find any reliable sources on the subject. ~ HAL 333 01:28, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 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) 02:28, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frame Film Festival[edit]

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

Article about a small student-run film festival, "referenced" entirely to primary sources with no evidence whatsoever of any real reliable source coverage in real, notability-supporting media. As always, every event is not automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because its own self-published web presence technically verifies that it exists -- just like any other kind of event, the notability bar that a film festival has to pass is that it is the subject of significant press coverage in real media. Also very likely WP:COI, as the creator's username was "Frame Film". Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 00:15, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:MILL and WP:SIGCOV - shorts film festivals are so common and lack media coverage they are almost never notable. Ping me if you can fix this. Bearian (talk) 15:34, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sicily (actress)[edit]

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

A nonnotable former actor, she appears to have done a succession of minor roles that includes her roles on the sitcom One on One and as young Aisha on Mighty Morphin Power Rangers. There is no evidence of secondary sources to back up any claims as the template on the article mentions that it has multiple issues that I think if some were to be found wouldn't be enough to prevent this article from being deleted. Pahiy (talk) 01:44, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress. The article also lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:33, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note to closing administrator - Johnpacklambert recently stated " I am tired of being attacked for looking at articles as they are. The fact that a list sprouted up without good sourcing should be held against it. If we want Wikipedia to be useful and reliable we need to stop letting junk like this just sit around indefinately because it allegedly can be improved.".
  I find his admission alarming. Since the article has had references added, since he left this comment, I'd like to request his opinion here to be discounted.
  As for his comment about "letting junk sit around indefinately [sic]"... The wikipedia has been undergoing a slow process of increasing standards. Yes, this article was unreferenced. However, when this article was started, in 2005, ALL our article were unreferenced, as the technical support for {{cite}} style references wasn't added until 2007. So, I see this as an irresponsible criticism of this article, and in the AFDs of every other older article where he has applied it. Geo Swan (talk) 02:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep Yes, the article was unreferenced, a serious problem, but it didn't take that long for me to start to update the article, and add half a dozen references. Geo Swan (talk) 23:17, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nominator may have been confused by the article's ill-advised move from Sicily Sewell to Sicily (actress), and so not realized that the appropriate web searches in order to comply with their WP:BEFORE obligations would have been "sicily sewell" or "sicily johnson". That search shows Sewell shifted from acting to being a celebrated chef.
  FWIW, the article should be moved back to Sicily Sewell as soon as this AFD closes. Geo Swan (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep a notable actress passes WP:NACTOR with significant mainstream roles. Lightburst (talk) 03:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move back to Sicily Sewell, moving it to Sicily (actress) just makes it more confusing for everyone.IphisOfCrete (talk) 21:28, 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.

[1] ttps://www.yorkshirepost.co.uk/news/uk-news/conservatives-must-deliver-north-or-be-ousted-five-years-says-metro-mayor-ben-houchen-1743848

[2] ttps://www.newstatesman.com/politics/uk/2020/01/what-should-we-expect-year-s-mayoral-elections

[3] ttps://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/local-news/way-out-wins-entrepreneur-award-3716518

[1]

[2]

[3]