Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 April 8

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 7 April	9 April >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 15:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Baldwin family[edit]

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

This doesn't warrant it's own article and it's not encyclopedic Novalia (talk) 23:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose: Keep article, as these :Category:Acting families also have articles: Nominator appears biased and just wants to start shit by disrespecting.

--Discographer (talk) 01:34, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. This discussion is about the Baldwin family, whose suitability for a Wikipedia article (about which I have no opinion) has no relationship to the existence of articles about other families. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are many reliable sources that give significant coverage to the Baldwin Family, as a group. A quick google search shows this. However, I think the most beefy pieces will be in entertainment magazines from the early 90s and probably not available online. --Darth Mike^(talk) 13:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep per WP:GNG, WP:SNOW, and WP:BEFORE. President Clinton said, "They bombed the Baldwins!" I'm sorry, but literally a whole Oscar-nominated feature film was made based on the premise that this family is so famous that everybody would get the joke. Bearian (talk) 01:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep And seconded on the WP:SNOW make it a blizzard, close it out, etc. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:07, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ABBYY FineReader. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 15:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ABBYY[edit]

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

Seems to be a none notable software company. All the sources are to either press releases or the companies website. Nothing comes up in a Google search either. Except for trivial coverage that doesn't pass WP:NCORP. Adamant1 (talk) 23:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: non-notable, fails WP:NCORP. - Ahunt (talk) 23:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect To ABBYY FineReader. Plausible search term. May be delete and redirect. Pavlor (talk) 08:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with that. It seems like that article has questionable notability also though. I might do an AfD for it to. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect without deletion to ABBYY FineReader, as some of the information about the company can be reused there. @User:Adamant1: The software itself seems notable based on the citations there, so I would recommend against an AfD for that page. Modernponderer (talk) 17:26, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't going to do an AfD on it. It was just a general comment. I think if this article was redirected there it would boast it some. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:43, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect for now. Would be willing to take a look at ABBYY FineReader later. Certainly not enough to support two separate articles. Glendoremus (talk) 16:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect seems like the sensible decision for now as suggested above although I'm not overly impressed with the destination either. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:35, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanathon Chanphet[edit]

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

I see no indication this player passes WP:NFOOTBALL or WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 22:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 22:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 11:44, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Agree with nominator, subject fails notability and WP:NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 18:22, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:41, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. wholly fails WP:NFOOTY and zero evidence of passing WP:GNG Sulfurboy (talk) 04:05, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Leaning towards keep. People disagree about the quality of the sources, but there's clearly no consensus that they're inadequate. Sandstein 21:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Europay International[edit]

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

"entity" that was merged into MasterCard. The article hasn't had any sources since 2014 and nothing comes up for it in a Google search except for Wikipedia spin off sites and brief mentions in personal blogs. Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A web search is hardly the way to look for independent reliable sources about just about anything, let alone an entity that hasn't existed for nearly 20 years. More focussed searches find sources such as doi:10.1108/09555349910281405, doi:10.1016/S0167-4048(99)80014-4 and very many more. Phil Bridger (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glad you found a few sources. Did you find them by going through your local library's catalogue? ;) BTW, I'm not sure how much those sources count toward nobility. They seem questionable to me, but I'll let someone else decide that. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:09, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found them by a simple Google Scholar search, as can be done by simply clicking on the word "scholar" at the top of this discussion. More can be found by a Google Books search. What seems questionable about them? They look like cast-iron reliable sources to me: much better than the random web sites that you seem to be looking for. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing is questionable about them. Just that you said doing a web search isn't the way to find reliable sources, but that's exactly how you found them. That said, the second source is trivial coverage. WP:NCORP says product releases don't count for notability. All the other sources on Google Scholar seem to be the same and not specifically about the company. It's not like I didn't look through them to be sure when I did the AfD. Notability isn't inherited. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you just read the first couple of paragraphs of the second source you will see that the whole paper is about an initiative of Europay. And as I said, there are many more sources found by these simple searches. Just take a look rather than do web searches as you said you had. These are searches of academic papers and books, not the web. This is a very notable entity that was one of the two biggest credit card operators in Europe for many years. Just recognise that you were wrong rather than dig yourself deeper into a hole. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:52, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it seems to easily pass GNG and pretty clearly at least fits in the realm of WP:CORPDEPTH with a straightforward google search. Have some time this morning to put those on the page, just filtering out the ones that aren't significant enough to really help with notability. 67.243.20.177 (talk) 14:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that I don't appreciate your effort, but all the sources you added are trivial coverage and don't establish notability according to WP:NCORP. Generally speaking, sources about product releases and mergers don't work. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete References for the most part are about MasterCard buying Europay and they are simply regurgitation of press releases. Other citations are merely passing mentions, sometimes a single sentence. A lot of quantity but nothing that meets simple requirement of in-depth discussions by reliable, independent sources Glendoremus (talk) 16:28, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The peer-reviewed academic papers that I linked above are in-depth discussions by reliable, independent sources, and many more such sources are available by simply clicking on "books" or "scholar" in the links at the top of this discussion. Please take note of the previous discussion before making such an uninformed comment. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:35, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, just in case anyone is counting votes rather than looking at the quality of arguments. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NOTVOTE. Narky Blert (talk) 13:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes I know, but not everyone closes discussions in that way. I have made extensive comments above and below. Phil Bridger (talk) 13:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources show WP:SIGCOV required by WP:NCORP. Everything is just WP:ROUTINE merger/reformation announcements and are without depth. Sulfurboy (talk) 04:03, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain how the academic papers that I linked above meet that description. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:23, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Phil Bridger, Dude you can't be serious. Those aren't "academic papers". The first is some non-notable, not peer reviewed journal, that by their own site description ANYONE can write for. The second was written by an employee of Europay. If you want to reply or contribute to the AfD discussion in a meaningful manner, please don't try to pass off unreliable and primary articles as "academic papers". Sheesh. Sulfurboy (talk) 06:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now you are the one not being serious. Where on Earth do you get the idea that the European Business Review, published by Emerald Publishing, is not peer-reviewed? Yes, anyone can submit a paper, as with any academic journal, but, by their own site description, it will only be published if it passes peer review. Phil Bridger (talk) 06:58, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that journal was even marginally worth its salt it'd be indexed in JCR or Scopus. It's not. Fail. At least you gave up on trying to push that second "academic paper" that was written by the company. Sulfurboy (talk) 07:29, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is indexed by Scopus, where it is rated 10th out of 81 journals in the category "Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)". First you lied about it not being peer-reviewed and now you are lying about it not being indexed by Scopus. Please stop. And I stand by the "very many more" that I said in my first post to this discussion. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - both sources that Phil Bridger has identified were papers written by Europay employees. The second has already been identified as such, the first was written by “Marc Dutrieux (Senior Manager, Smart Card Development at Europay International.)” Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just getting ridiculous. The subject was one of the two credit card processors that dominated the European market until it merged with Mastercard, rather than representing it as it had done before, in 2002. That fact is sourced in the article. This is one of the most clear-cut notable articles that I have ever seen at AfD. I despair for the future of Wikipedia if people can actually support deletion of this article. OK, I didn't go out of my way to check the credentials of the authors of the articles I linked above, but they were just two of the hundreds of reliable sources that can be found simply by clicking the searches spoon-fed by the nomination process. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:45, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With respect, I disagree. And your belligerent and argumentative attitude to people who have disagreed with you during this debate has been noted. Please WP:AGF in future. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:52, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you disagree with? That this was one of the two dominant players in the European credit card market for many years? As I said, that is reliably sourced, so if you disagree then you disagree with the whole basis of Wikipedia. It is very difficult to assume good faith of people who refuse to look at the evidence. And if people utter lies about a journal being peer-reviewed or indexed by Scopus then of course I will call that out. Why should I let lies go unchallenged? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:59, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I wonder if perhaps we might be missing the big picture here. The EMV standard for credit cards (the kind that has the chip in it as opposed to just the magnetic stripe), for instance, was named for the companies that founded the standard: EuroPay, Mastercard, and Visa. Color me skeptical, but I doubt that the first company was just some little, non-notable company. In fact, it appears that newspapers from the 90s mention them as one of the "giants" of the industry to be mentioned in the same breath as Mastercard and Visa: [1][2][3]. I agree that sources are difficult to find, but I think this is more due to age than anything. bibliomaniac 1 5 21:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – Bibliomaniac15 summarizes my thoughts well. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:26, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. Newspapers.com returns 135 hits, some of which do appear to provide discussion past mere passing mention of the company and its products or mergers. There is also coverage in a number of books, for example:
- FBIS Report: Central Eurasia, Iss. 47-56 (1994), p. 79: "In 1992, after the sole Russian member of Europay International, the USSR Bank for Foreign Economic Activity, ceased its banking activity in November 1991, Europay International started to accept other Russian banks as members";
- Belgium, Economic and Commercial Information (c. 2001), p. 147: "Europay International, based in Waterloo, Belgium, is the European banks' leading provider of personal payment products and related services".

BD2412 T 02:37, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There are sufficient references (at least two) that (just about) meets the criteria for establishing notability, that is significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content. For example Developing and Managing a Successful Payment Cards Business by Jeff H. Slawsky and Samee Zafar discusses the founding of the company as a merger between Eurocheque and Eurocard. Also Online Payment Solutions: The evolution of Visa and Mastercard. provides a paragraph on the history of Europay. While there doesn't appear to be entire tomes written about this topic, since there are references that meet the criteria for notability, topic meets GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:39, 18 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:04, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Environmental Waste Controls[edit]

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

UK based waste control company that doesn't seem to be notable. It's had a notability banner on it since 2010, the sources are all trivial or not reliable, and nothing about them that meets notability standards for companies comes up in a Google search. Adamant1 (talk) 22:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:27, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The rather promotionally-worded article text, originally contributed by WP:SPA Ewc12, makes no mention of significant events in the company history, such as financial issues and restructuring in 2013. There is also some announcement coverage relating to plans in 2011 for an Alternative Investment Market listing, and more recent coverage of deals such as with Hibernian FC ([4], [5]), but these are trivial coverage in terms of WP:CORPDEPTH. Clearly a company going about its business, but I am not finding the specific coverage required for WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 08:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NCORP, and WP:SIGCOV. Let's face it, recycling companies and rag men have always been run of the mill and few are notable. This in particular has very shallow sources. Such a company or its owner could become notable by donating stuff to charity, but that's about it. Bearian (talk) 01:31, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:03, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alena Raeva[edit]

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

Fails WP:NMODEL, article in ru-wiki was deleted. Gruznov (talk) 19:26, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 20:06, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete failed to satisfy WP:GNG---Richie Campbell (talk) 03:48, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:16, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as the winner of one of Miss International franchise beauty contests (therefore meets notability criteria) who has significant coverage in Russian media (see REN and Pyatnitsa on YouTube Russian channels); almost all sources (except one or two) are the secondary ones. Mark Ekimov (talk) 15:37, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Note that Russian media is generally considered to be of questionable quality, relisting for further discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 22:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, winning a beauty competition does not mean automatic notability. Dan arndt (talk) 05:46, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. "Face of Beauty" is not so big as to rate automatic notability. Bearian (talk) 01:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sourav Dagar[edit]

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

Fails WP:CRIN as has not played first-class/List A/t20 cricket and under-19 cricketers are not notable. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. StickyWicket (talk) 21:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 21:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify; no significant coverage but may have some later. — J947 ^{(user | cont | ess)}, at 22:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete our cricket notability criteria is one of the worst on record. He clearly does not meet any understanding of the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 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 draftify. Moved to Draft:Arienne Mandi. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Arienne Mandi[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actress, not properly referenced as passing WP:NACTOR. As always, actors and actresses are not all automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they need to have reliable source coverage about them to verify that they pass a notability criterion, such as having multiple (meaning more than one) major (meaning not just one-off guest shots on TV shows she wasn't a regular cast member of) roles and/or winning or getting nominated for a major acting award. But there are just three sources here (four footnotes, but one of them is a repetition of one of the others), of which two — her IMDb profile and her cast bio on the self-published production website of the show she's on — are not reliable or notability-supporting sources at all. And while the other one is a real (albeit paywalled) magazine article, it appears as far as I can tell to be a Q&A interview in which she's talking about herself in the first person — which is a type of source we can use for supplementary verification of stray facts after the person has already gotten over GNG on better ones, but not a type of source that brings a GNG pass all by itself if it's the best sourcing on offer. And even if I'm wrong and it is a real article written in the third person, a person still has to have more than just one of those to pass our notability criteria.
As always, no prejudice against recreation in the future if and when she's got stronger sourcing, but just being verifiable as a working actor is not an automatic notability freebie that would exempt her from having to be referenced better than this. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 22:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing does not come even close to showing a pass of our notability guidelines for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:14, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify: The subject had a main role in the film, Baja (film), and is currently starring in The L Word: Generation Q, so I believe she passes WP:NACTOR. As for WP:GNG, she does get some non-trivial coverage, such as these articles (and I'm sure there are more):

→https://deadline.com/2019/06/the-l-word-generation-q-adrienne-mandi-leo-sheng-jacqueline-toboni-rosanny-zayas-showtime-1202637138/

→https://www.nytimes.com/2019/11/29/arts/television/l-word-generation-q.html

→https://variety.com/2019/tv/reviews/the-l-word-generation-q-review-showtime-reboot-1203413599/

She also gets a huge number of passing mentions, which can be used to verify her roles, like this: https://www.latimes.com/entertainment/movies/la-et-mn-capsule-baja-review-20180412-story.html. The page probably was prematurely created, but I don't think deletion is necessary, considering her rising notability. However, if the consensus is against me, I would suggest "Draftifying" the page. Dflaw4 (talk) 11:11, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify Likely WP:TOOSOON but the sources identified by Dflaw4 and others available in searches (e.g., Distractify, HITC) indicate that her high-profile role is likely to result in RS which would establish clear notability in the near future. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 17:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

An impressive amount of subscribers, but there isn't coverage in reliable sources to match. Does not meet WP:GNG, article creator appears to be a UPE creating articles about the channel's productions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 00:32, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per GNG and NORG. This is the coverage I could find:

[6] has minor coverage of of the channel and its parent company.
[7] has minor coverage
[8] (from the article) also has minor coverage.
[9] has minor coverage.
[10] has trivial coverage.

Not enough to meet GNG; certainly not enough to meet NORG. userdude 00:38, 1 April 2020 (UTC); struck duplicate entry 01:07, 3 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⁺⁺ 12:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lack of coverage that is significant in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:53, 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 02:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faetal[edit]

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

Completely unsourced article about a band with no strong claim to passing WP:NMUSIC. The only notability claim being attempted here is that some of their music was included in the soundtrack to a video game -- but that still isn't an instant inclusion freebie in the absence of any reliable source coverage about the band, because we still have to be able to verify that the notability claim is true, and even our article about the video game doesn't claim that any of their music is in it. Furthermore, this has been flagged as unsourced since 2008, without ever seeing a whit of improvement. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS. Caro7200 (talk) 22:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The band fails WP:MUSICBIO and lacks coverage in reliable sources. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:32, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Unsourced article, does not pass WP:NMUSIC . Alex-h (talk) 18:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Still looking for band members 15 years later? Lots of bands get incidental music into games, but that alone doesn't make them notable. Bearian (talk) 01:41, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:09, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jenova Reunion[edit]

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

Article about a band, not making or sourcing any claim to passing WP:MUSIC. As written, this literally just states that the band exists, without even attempting to state anything about them that could even be measured against NMUSIC at all, and it cites no references whatsoever -- literally the only thing here at all is an external link to their profile on a social networking platform, which is not a notability-supporting source. As always, bands are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they exist -- they have to have reliable source coverage in media, verifying one or more accomplishments that would satisfy NMUSIC, for an article to become earned. The article was once a lot longer than this prior to 2012, when the page creator blanked most of their own past work on it -- but simply restoring the old version of the article wouldn't save it, because it was still fundamentally advertorial content still not supported by any reliable sourcing.
And for added bonus, the article has literally gone almost completely untouched since then, with just four minor new edits over the next eight years combined, which doesn't speak well of the prospect of salvaging it with new notability claims or sourcing either: if they had accomplished almost anything since 2012 that would have made them appreciably more notable, somebody would already have added it to the article. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 22:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per Nom. Unsourced disguised (embedded) list article. Notability is so lacking that the names of the members were omitted from the article. Otr500 (talk) 19:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I ran a Google search and could not find a single reliable source about the band. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 15:39, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per nom. no reliable source , Alex-h (talk) 18:52, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:A9. —⁠烏⁠Γ ^(kaw) │ 09:10, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above, WP:V. Can't verify them with even a single newspaper review. Bearian (talk) 01:43, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:58, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College of the Holy Spirit of Rosario[edit]

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

This article is about a fake university, or at least an organization that does not seem to be an educational institution of tertiary or any other level.

This is not an officially recognised university in Uruguay, neither an officially recognized "universitary institute" (lower category of tertiary universitary institutions with lesser academic offer), and also is not a tertiary non-universitary recognized institution.

It does not seem to be a former University since I could not find any past reliable references about this. The claim of that this institution was founded in 1970 is not what the cited source said. Moreover, is worth to say that the private universitary institutions began to open in 1984 with Catholic University of Uruguay (that reopened since its closure as an organization with tertiary grades in late 19th century), and before this year of 1984 the only university in the country was the public University of the Republic (ORT Uruguay was established as an organization in 1940s, but recognized as University in 1990s).

An older version of the website https://web.archive.org/web/20150215070136/http://www.cdes.edu.uy/ states that it was at that time registered at the Civil Associations and Foundations Registry of the Ministry of Education and Culture of Uruguay, but this does not mean it was an university, furthermore it cannot be taken as a proof unless a non-affiliated source would be provided.

The older (archived) website stated it was based in "Avda Artigas 673, Juan Lacaze, Colonia, Uruguay", but the newer (archived) website "Zorrilla de San Martin 526, Rosario, Colonia, Uruguay". Both mentions religious activities led by "Daniel Esteban Odin". The current version of the website does not even say anything about activities in Uruguay at all, just links websites of its affiliated organizations in countries in Central America. The current version of the website seems to be usurped by another (unrelated) alleged organization (that could be linked to an US based organization), that in appearance is different of what it looked like and it is poorly designed with tons of plain links.

Searches in Google Maps street view did not reveal the location of the headquarters and its building, not in the claimed one in Juan Lacaze city neither the claimed one in Rosario city.

The article says "It was the only private university in the state of Colonia, Uruguay Country for 11 years until 2007.", and it is clear that who wrote the article does not know enough about Uruguay, because first level administrative division of the country are "departments", not "states". And is also worth to know that it claims to have around 10,000 students (in a city with a population of 10,085 inhabitants in 2011; the department of Colonia where the city is part of has 123,203 inhabitants), while properly established and well know private Uruguayan universities have 5,000~10,000 students and the main public university has 100,000 students.

I could research more, but I think this is enough to consider the deletion of this article. I would like to add that since Wikipedia started to spread this false information in internet a circular reference began to spread in https://academicinfluence.com/schools/28220974/College-of-the-Holy-Spirit-of-Rosario/.

Precedent: it seems to be related to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/International Handbook of Universities and the hoax spreaded by the author of the article, Taesulkim. There even mentions "Prof.+Daniel+Odin+(Ph.D.)" in a linked website. Onwa (talk) 20:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Its author Taesulkim was not notified due to being indefinitely blocked. --Onwa (talk) 21:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V and WP:HOAX. I tried four different searches, from Google to scholar, and found nothing at all except a single Wiki mirror. Bearian (talk) 01:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep WP:SNOW based on changes since nomination and nominator's comment below. -- JHunterJ (talk) 16:21, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Darby (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Every article in this page has people with similar, but distinct full names. There are short hatnotes on all three of the articles that make it is a lot easier to navigate for people who accidentally made a typo or need a distinguishment per WP:HATCHEAP. And before anyone asks, I have looked throughout Wikipedia to see if there was anyone else with a name similar to Stephen (or Steve) Darby (or Derby) and I couldn't find any at all. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 19:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep not again! you have been told at previous afds that there is nothing wrong with dabs with 3 entries. They do not have distinct full names - the football coach is a Stephen too, as his article makes clear, and the redirect. Stephen Derby (which is pronounced the same as Darby) lived 14th century, before standardised spelling. His name was probably spelt many different ways in original documents, probably often in Latin rather than English, so is definitely needed here. Boleyn (talk) 07:16, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Boleyn: I wouldn't have minded the dab page if there wasn't an "appearant WP:PRIMARYTOPIC", which there isn't. The hatnote isn't long or "busy" at all, plus there are less than three links in each hatnote, which is very little compared to many others. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TWODABS. While it is true that spelling was rather fluid in the heyday of the MP (e.g. Shakspere), the only source spells his name Derby. Anything more is speculative. Hatnotes are sufficient in this case. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:20, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend, 2dabs says nothing that would support deletion for this. Boleyn (talk) 13:19, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boleyn. And hatnotes are rarely a good idea when there's more than one option, as they look too "busy". -- Necrothesp (talk) 08:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Necrothesp: Busy? How? If there were more than two links in the hatnote or it was longer than a line, then it would be "busy". The disambiguation page seems unnecessary just for two links which easily fit in a hatnote. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 13:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Two dabs = hatnote only; more than two dabs = dab page. This is always how we do it. No reason to make an exception here because you don't like it. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:26, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Exactly. Also someone looking carefully added entries, as often happens. Dabs are also far easier to expand than hatnotes. This seems to be a campaign based on personal preference rather than guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 13:31, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Boleyn + @Necrothesp: I was referring to how the dab page looked like before the additions by JHunterJ. Now that the dab page has been expanded, there really isn't a point in keeping this discussion going on any longer. I would like to withdraw my nomination however I can't due to WP:WITHDRAWN. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:11, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I expanded the list with other MOS:DABMENTIONs. (Adding -football to the search helped.) -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:23, 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) 09:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Westbrook University[edit]

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

"In general, all colleges and universities are de facto notable and should be included on Wikipedia."

However, this "university" isn't accredited and is not recognized by the United States Department of Education. I can't find any independent, reliable sources on it.

Amazingly, it seems as though the majority of search results for "Westbrook University" involve articles mentioning individuals with the last name of Westbrook that happen to have University as the next word.

I don't see how it meets any general requirement of notability and doesn't even seem to meet the criteria of WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Jauerback^dude?/_dude. 18:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of West Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. For quite some time I've had this on my watchlist and tried to prevent the inclusion of unsourced or badly sourced content in the article (which culminated in my getting an email containing a legal threat today) on the basis that it's better to have an article that shows that this "university" (and don't get me started on the way that Americans allow anyone to call themselves a university, debasing the word) is run by charlatans so readers can see it for what it is, but now after searching I see that there are no sources that bring it anywhere close to notability. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:03, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Stub. As mentioned above, unaccredited and unrecognized. Is it that notable? TuorEladar (talk) 21:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG. Articles about questionable institutions (a "university" that uses a Gmail address?) can be helpful to readers, as Phil Bridger notes, but there aren't sufficient sources here. Cordless Larry (talk) 08:50, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 02:12, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marc Hodosh[edit]

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}}.

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

I initially tried to redirect to TEDMED but it's been contested. Hodosh is not independently notable of TEDMED and this article should be deleted and redirected to TEDMED as there are no sufficient sources about Hodosh directly. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In agreement with userdude's notes below, to keep page, per relevant sources indicated. Also, to address concern by Praxidicae, added citation on main page to Entrepreneur Magazine which is independent article significantly about Hodosh, in addition to already existing citations. Praxidicae: Do you consider this sufficient to address your concern and conclude discussion? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 17:20, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfuly disagree, as this page has been in place since 2012, plenty of sufficient sources online as well as individual's other businesses are of notable mention. Also appears TEDMED was sold, so that is not an appropriate redirect while his new business involves Dr. Sanjay Gupta, with high notability. His previous colleagues have existing pages as well with no contention.

With brief search, additional source links for page notability include:

https://blog.ted.com/tedmed_a_new_pa/

https://xconomy.com/boston/2007/08/23/entrepreneur-segways-toward-medical-revolution-directing-genomics-x-prize/

https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/15402

https://www.forbes.com/2009/10/30/healthcare-irobot-cancer-technology-breakthroughs-tedmed.html#5e83a6c2319b

Open to discussion but especially during these particular times, I think better to keep such health related pages active.----- — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 17:53, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Existing for a long time doesn't make something notable. You'll need to provide sources that feature in-depth, independent coverage. His "colleagues" having articles is also 100% irrelevant. Praxidicae (talk) 18:25, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:07, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In reply to: "His "colleagues" having articles is also 100% irrelevant.": It's relevant in this instance as it's of the same nature. Chris Anderson (notable for TED) or Richard Wurman both have similar pages. Also, see above links for independent sources from Entrepreneur Magazine, Forbes, Xconomy, and others. Also additional in-depth links include Nature: https://www.nature.com/articles/nm0108-8

This page could use work, but believe it's appropriate, with sources found on page as well. No major objections. Rather than back and forth, open to other opinions. Stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 18:36, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please read WP:OTHERSTUFF. Also you'll want to take a look at WP:COI. Praxidicae (talk) 18:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding "other stuff", I think we disagree and welcome input, as I've provided sources. Regarding "COI", don't understand, I see no COI. Stay safe. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk • contribs)

It's not a matter of disagreeing with each other but consensus and policy. You can disagree that water is wet, it does not make you right. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree and welcome the additional opinion. If consensus turns out that this page is in violation then I will assist you in redirecting or deleting other pages with same parameters accordingly. Stay safe during these complex times. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.218.184.166 (talk) 19:13, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Wikipedia's general inclusion criterion is the WP:GNG (simplified summary). In order for sources to qualify for this criterion, they must be reliable and independent. Of the sources in the article:

[11] is a primary source
[12] is a primary source
[13] is a primary source
[14] is a primary source
[15] Is not independent and is a blog post.
[16] is a primary source

Of the sources 73.218.184.166 added:

[17] See above.
[18] (from Xconomy) is significantly about Hodosh.
[19] (from Entrepreneur (magazine)) is significantly about Hodosh.
[20] only trivially mentions that Hodosh runs TEDMED
[21] is a Q&A and therefore not independent

Of additional sources I found:

[22] only mentions Hodosh trivially; may not be reliable
[23] (from The Providence Journal) is about Hodosh
[24] (Boston Herald) has minor coverage of Hodosh
[25] (Forbes) has minor coverage of Hodosh
[26] only trivially mentions Hodosh
[27] (Boston.com) has minor coverage of Hodosh

All in all, I think this is enough to meet WP:GNG. The article still needs to be rewritten to meet WP:V. userdude 20:02, 31 March 2020 (UTC); edited 20:08, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. In agreement with UserDude as there are sufficient independent sources provided. Separately, while perhaps not directly related to Wikipedia's general inclusion criteria, considering that Hodosh's co-host and partner (Dr. Sanjay Gupta, CNN) is the most recognized person on television news right now, this page is additionally relevant. I support to Keep page and close this discussion immediately. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.200.188.253 (talk) 15:01, 3 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to whomever closes or relists this, please note that aside from UserDude, every single keep has been an SPA who shares the same geolocation with the subject and the subsequent IP edits are in the same geolocation. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~

Praxidicae, This is not accurate. 73.78.158.214 is from Colorado, 73.218.184.166 from Boston and 72.200.188.253 is from Rhode Island, although agree on SPA. Regardless, according to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Non-admin_closure there are no formal requirements in terms of time spent on Wikipedia or number of contributions made for non-administrators to close discussions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Texasnexus (talk • contribs) 18:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Texasnexus, consider her overturning your closure to be endorsed by myself. I neither know nor care how you came across this AFD, but I will always support overturning the closure of an AFD when it is literally the first edit made by an account. Primefac (talk) 18:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Checkuser note: I have struck Texasnexus's comment per WP:SOCKSTRIKE. Mz7 (talk) 18:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: As a full disclosure, I was asked to look into this close as "suspicious". I concur with that assessment. While there is a reasonable rebuttal of the nomination by one user, the proliferation of SPAs has me concerned about the overall neutrality of the voices and honestly I'd like to get some more neutral eyes to look into the article. If an admin finds that despite these concerns the keep is justified (or at the very least a "no consensus") I have no prejudice against a "speedy" closure post-relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The article needs a rewrite and the scope broadened - by our definition he is more notable for his work related to genomics and longevity than TEDMED:
Talking to Robots by David Ewing Duncan; almost the entire chapter
2007 article from The Economist ;
Gen E: Generation Entrepreneur is Rewriting the Rules of Business--and You Can, Too! ,*
"X games for scientists offers $10m top prize" from the Boston Globe ;
"Hot to Bot", another article from the Boston Globe
Xconomy "Entrepreneur Segways Toward Medical Revolution Directing Genomics X Prize"
Entrepreneur "Package Deal"
Boston Business Journal "Inventor Kamen joins advisory board of facial recognition company ID One"
The Tab "The X factor: Innovator leading charge in genetic competition"

All of the above provide extensive coverage, and there are more refs than what I have included here. But I just accidentally hit publish (distracted on this Covid-19 morning) so leaving it here. (I will work on a rewrite of the article because I have nothing but time.) JSFarman (talk) 13:25, 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 04:08, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinayagapuram Maha Vidyalayam[edit]

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

Fails WP:NSCHOOL, lacks any references or sources Dan arndt (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Noting that of the three references subsequently provided one is a deadlink, the other is Tamil (which is only a mention is passing - not significant coverage) and the third is to the article on the Tamil Wikipedia (which is not an acceptable source and doesn't have any reliable supporting reference/sources). Dan arndt (talk) 03:54, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Dan arndt (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom Steven (Editor) (talk) 19:40, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:26, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Age Of Civilizations 2[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Could not find any multiple reliable sources to establish notability in. Moreover, there's also nothing on Age Of Civilizations 1, either, in my searching. --MuZemike 17:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. --MuZemike 17:15, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A paragraph in RPS and that's it. This is a delete. --Izno (talk) 17:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find any reviews in the press, nor any significant coverage. TheAwesome Hwyh 20:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Does not pass the GNG test. Pichpich (talk) 22:40, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The subject is not notable for inclusion in the English Wikipedia because it does not have any significant coverage or reliable sources. Koridas (Speak) 01:44, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:31, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rui Pereira (architect)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only for participating in the renovation and reopening of two local movie theatres in a single city, not referenced well enough to get him over WP:GNG for it. Two of the seven footnotes here are blogs, and one is a community hyperlocal, which aren't sources that help to get him over GNG at all -- and while the other four sources are real daily newspapers and a book, they all just briefly namecheck Rui Pereira's existence within coverage of other things rather than being substantively about him. As always, people aren't automatically entitled to Wikipedia articles just because their name has been mentioned a few times in the local media -- the more localized a person's notability claim is, the better they have to be sourced before they actually clear the notability bar in an international encyclopedia, and nothing stated in the article is "inherently" notable enough to exempt him from having to show more than just a few brief mentions of his name in coverage of other things. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:09, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 18:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet notability guidelines or architects.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no evidence of notability. Mccapra (talk) 05:48, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 18:54, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ratnesh Barnwal[edit]

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

Non notable actor has played no significant roles. Fails WP:BIO and WP:NACTOR. Cant seem to find any independent coverage on him. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 16:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject (a comedy actor) passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. I believe it is wrong to assume that only actors with lead roles should have Wikipedia articles. Supporting actors and film comedians can also have articles, see the enormous list on Category:Comedians. This actor has worked in multiple films as shown in this link [28]. As for the example of Independent coverage, after going through the google translate, these articles [29] [30] easily qualifies for independent and significant coverage by Jagran and Bhaskar that are reputed national newspapers from India. Cedix (talk) 17:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep Article somehow manages to scratch the surface of crossing GNG. Still looking for sources. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 22:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It is openly seen that article passes WP:GNG. Barnwal is an Bhojpuri movie comedian actor as showed in source: Jagran and Bhaskar. --Raaj Tilak (talk) 06:34, 10 April 2020 (UTC)— Note to closing admin: Raaj Tilak (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]
Delete the keep claims are a bit absurd considering the sources are all other Wikis/unreliable sources/listings. Praxidicae (talk) 15:12, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He appears to be a run of the mill bit actor, possibly a little person? Bearian (talk) 01:49, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete appear to have acted in some minor non-notable productions. Fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 06:12, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Above editors, please review the detailed coverage provided in the links I shared. --Cedix (talk) 17:09, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources support notability. GSS ^💬 17:44, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And why not ? aren't they "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" ? Cedix (talk) 19:35, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:30, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ankita Harshvardhan Patil[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NPOL, only position is in local government. Only source just says she is the daughter of a state government minister. MB 16:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:41, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 17:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. People are not automatically entitled to have Wikipedia articles just because they have jobs: they actually have to have genuine evidence of fairly broad significance, supported by reliable source coverage about them in media (which is not the same thing as "coverage of other people that happens to also briefly mention this person's name"). But nothing stated in the article is an "inherently" notable role that would get her over WP:NPOL, and the article is not referenced even remotely close to well enough to get her over WP:GNG. And notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, either: people aren't automatically notable just because they happen to have a family relationship to a notable person — so just because her father has an article doesn't mean she's automatically entitled to have one too. Also there's a possible conflict of interest here, as the creator's username also has the subject's surname in it. Bearcat (talk) 17:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable local politician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Very minor local politico. Notability is not inherited from her father. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bernie Sanders#Early life. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 02:15, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elias Sanders[edit]

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

No notability or accomplishments whatsoever. Notability is not inherited. Kbabej (talk) 16:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete close relatives of notable people do not become notable for that fact.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notability is not a matter of your relatives or accomplishments; it's a matter of sourcing per the WP:GNG. We have detailed sources about the life of the subject and so they pass WP:BASIC. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:57, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to discuss which sources, and what to they say? It's enough to tell is '4 paragraphs on page 7 of source XYZ', no need to cite in detail. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete notability isn't inherited, and Elias doesn't seem to be noted for anything of his own merit (i.e. outside of family affiliations). Furthermore, aside from a routine burial posting at Find a Grave (which doesn't even offer a cumulative paragraph of coverage), the only third party references used that specifically focus on him (not just pieces on his sons or their commentary on him) are questionable (Bustle, Notes from Poland) or subpar (Heavy.com). This site already has previously given too much lenience to articles on relatives of politicians, and keeping this page would only worsen that. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 19:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to article about his notable son/politician. But I don't see what makes him notable on its own. WP:NOTINHERITED. He had a normal, non-encyclopedic life, and no source even discusses him in detail relevant to the life of his son. PS. A possible solution is to have an article about the early life of Bernie where this redirects. Consider: father of Pope JP2 redirects to Early life of Pope John Paul II. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:18, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge All coverage is in the context of Bernie and inherited, not independently notable. Reywas92^Talk 18:58, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/merge per WP:NOTINHERITED. Best, GPL93 (talk) 15:34, 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 speedy keep. My reasoning to nominate this page for deletion was a little shortsighted and now seeing as how it can be expanded, I am withdrawing my nomination. (non-admin closure) KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 16:35, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Breukelen (disambiguation)[edit]

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

Only two other articles in the disambiguation page. It's a lot easier to use a hatnote at the top of the page per WP:HATCHEAP. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep please stop nominating dabs for deletion when they have 3 or more entries. dabs are cheap too. This is a valid and useful page and all these afds are a waste of editors' time. I am not convinced you are even looking for possible entries first. Boleyn (talk) 14:33, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to WONB. bibliomaniac 1 5 05:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WOHA-FM[edit]

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

Radio station of unclear notability that doesn't exist yet. ... discospinster _talk 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster _talk 13:39, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

merge with WONB. I can't see enough notability for a standalone. Although looking at that article, there's also no references included. Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 16:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete - too soon. WONB should be merged and redirected to Ohio Northern University. Sounds like the call letters are being retired for over the air broadcasts. TimTempleton ^(talk) ^(cont) 22:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary - We don't need two articles for the same station. History merge (pinging Mlaffs), callsign merge, and put everything on the current callsign. Don't create two pages for the same station. You know this people. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 02:34 on April 9, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Redirect to WJTA This station is planned as a 24/7 simulcast of that station with no local programming whatsoever; a mere mention of its calls and basic details, followed by a link to their FMQ is more appropriate than creating an unneeded carbon copy. Appropriate mention of the station's fate can be made on the WONB page, which can be retitled WONB (1991–2020) once the transfer from ONU to Holy Family Communications is actually made. However, I will cede to Mlaff's analysis of the situation, as they might have a better suggestion. Nate • (chatter) 05:03, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Since WONB has the history of the station, just going straight redirect kinda loses all that history. Sometimes, even though a station is a 24/7 simulcast, having a page with historical information of past ownerships is OK. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 10:29 on April 9, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
In and of itself, a separate article on WOHA is a bit premature, simply because that call sign hasn't taken effect yet and that incarnation of the station is yet to launch. (The current general practice is that yet-to-launch stations generally don't get articles unless the general notability guideline is somehow met in some other way.) Since WOHA will operate on the same license as the current WONB, for all intents and purposes it isn't independently notable of WONB. Yet apparently the current WONB programming, and that identity, will continue as a webcast, that without the connection to a licensed broadcast station probably wouldn't be independently notable of Ohio Northern University. But any potential notability for the station with this broadcast license is tied in to the fact that WONB as it exists now originates programming; detached from that, WOHA will not be independently notable of its parent station WJTA! And that's all before considering the present limited-to-no sourcing. (And the article title is wrong, as the WOHA call sign request doesn't include an "-FM" suffix, so under naming conventions it would be more properly at WOHA (FM) — a questionable-notability radio station seems unlikely to displace the Singapore architectural firm that is the current primary topic at WOHA, but that's beyond the scope of AfD.) I suspect in the end some nominal merging of sourced content, and redirects as required, should happen, somewhere and somehow… but for the WOHA-FM article as it exists now, I'm leaning towards delete. --WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 00:16, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article, add information about the sale to the article currently at WONB, and move WONB to WOHA (FM), with WOHA-FM as a redirect, when the call sign change is official in FCC databases. Typically, we maintain one article per station license. A station that is currently a rebroadcaster of a larger network but was a separate station in the past typically has its own article (similar examples from my DYK record include KYFO-FM and KNKL (FM)). Raymie (t • c) 04:00, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Planned call sign, and not even the correct form of it. Delete this article, and then we can figure out how to handle splitting up the WONB article once the license assignment has closed and the change of call sign has actually taken place. Mlaffs (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge With WONB, due to the fact that the callsign change does not seem to be assigned yet, also due to a lack of notability, perhaps adding a section about the acquisition by Holy Family Communications. As stated in a previous comment, adding a redirect after the merge would be a good idea.Stickymatch (talk) 00:45, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Discussion Started: Just letting everyone know that Stickymatch has started a merge discussion on WOHA-FM's talk page. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 08:19 on April 11, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome
Redirect to WONB: Though it has a tentative launch date, its details haven't reflected on the FCC database yet. Hence, it's WP:TOOSOON. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - I'm not sure what to add to the above arguments. We shouldn't keep this as is, but outright deletion appears to be the wrong call. I'd prefer that things get merged. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 19:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Murtaza[edit]

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

Obvious. A one-liner without any references and the subject is a given name. Fails notability. AhmadLX-(Wikiposta) 13:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep + populate: there are lots of articles about people called Murtaza and a list of them csn be added to make this a functioning name page. Perhaps the nomr would like to do that? Ingratis (talk) 23:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Is there any version within the revision history which may be salvageable? The current version appears to be providing possible misinformation based on prior diffs. Regards, Yamaguchi先生 (talk) 23:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, this version of April 2018 appears to be the most complete version and includes a list of around 30 notable people with this name, since then, it has been heavily edited, read most content removed, by various ips/learners(?)/puppets that seem to have some sort of bugbear against people with this name, suggest that it can go back to/add most of this version with a few relevant adjustments. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:54, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per above. This is not even the first article of this kind. Orientls (talk) 11:11, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and restore/expand to proper DAB page. Note to nominator, WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD require us to consider a page's potential for expansion, as well as to review if there is any viable content in its history, prior to nominating a page for deletion. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In favor of WP:ATD-T Sulfurboy (talk) 04:11, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:28, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Text Verification Tool[edit]

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

Fails to establish notability – sourced primarily to the manufacturer's website, the few remaining references are to market news aggregators and infomercials. I haven't succeeded in finding independent secondary sources. Article created and predominantly edited by a single-purpose account, and the promotional tone makes one suspect a COI. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. kashmīrī ^TALK 12:44, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, not a single mention in independent sources. Very promotional. – Thjarkur (talk) 19:45, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wait, I will correct the entries and add the missing references. Text Verification Tool is known in the industry for proofreading tools and relevant to the pharma industry. – Transsonic (talk) 17:23, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overly promotional, no evidence of notability. ST47 (talk) 16:39, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article Updated, Entries with no evidence of notability removed, references updated – Transsonic (talk) 18:15, 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 01:24, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usage share of Google Chrome extensions[edit]

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

i'm not even sure what N criteria this would fall under but it doesn't meet any and is rather unencyclopedic. Praxidicae (talk) 12:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:53, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Un-encyclopedic and WP:NOTSTATS--Editor-1 (talk) 14:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's merely recreating a list generated by a commercial website that sells monitoring of browser extensions. Not notable, not reliable source, not encyclopedic. Schazjmd (talk) 16:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Absolutely nothing worthy of an encyclopedic here. Ajf773 (talk) 20:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the above, WP:NOTSTATS. SemiHypercube 20:34, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete too trivial. desmay (talk) 20:50, 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 01:25, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rattanakosin Kingdom (1932–1939)[edit]

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

This period is neither distinct or long enough to merit its own page. The article History of Thailand (1932–1973) covers this topic already. Sodacan (talk) 11:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. MT Train^Talk 17:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This appears to be a misguided attempt to treat the country's renaming as a formative event and arrange the articles accordingly, but a formative event it is not. We don't split history articles merely according to name changes. --Paul_012 (talk) 08:15, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to History of Thailand (1932–1973) since other article already covers this small subject. Capankajsmilyo^{(Talk | Infobox assistance)} 14:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Absolutely empty sectioned article with no sources about it. 🌺Kori🌺 - (@) 16:27, 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 01:11, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christopher Fayers[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY BlameRuiner (talk) 11:06, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 14:02, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NFOOTBALL. WWGB (talk) 12:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 14:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 20:47, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:38, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automation and the Future of Jobs[edit]

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

I can't find any reviews or any significant coverage of this documentary in Swedish or in English. The film exists, the sources verify that (and I think I'll try to find time to watch it as it seems interesting) but that doesn't mean it is notable. It is simply a UR documentary like many many others; I'm a fan of UR, they produce good stuff, but this fails WP:GNG as well as WP:NFILM. I thought that perhaps the filmmaker might be notable enough so there could be an article about him which this could redirect to, but I haven't even been able to find sources for that. bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 10:26, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no evidence of significant coverage in English or Swedish (Note: there are only 1-2 decent references in Swedish language article, if there were more available then we could use them here.) Joseph2302 (talk) 11:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly – I added one of the sources in the sv.wiki article to this one, and so two of the three sources used there are present here, the third one being IMDB so not useful for en.wiki purposes. --bonadea contributions talk 09:34, 12 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This seems to be an excellent example of the principles that "famous doesn't necessarily mean notable" and "well-known doesn't necessarily mean notable". It's a run-of-the-mill production broadcast by a group that does such work routinely. One can as a reasonable person totally find it frustrating that on Wiki we have articles on all kinds of awkward and weird things but not on some genuinely helpful matters, but that's just how it is. CoffeeWithMarkets (talk) 05:22, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sleeper x[edit]

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

Non-notable band, famous in their own lunchtime in Australia. Article was created in 2006 and then ended with the sentence "The band are currently in pre-production for their debut full length album, The Long March" which it seems is still a work in progress. Releases are two EPs for Cartel Music and a self-released split EP. Nothing indicates any notability. Emeraude (talk) 08:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 08:51, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no RS to be found; many dead links. Caro7200 (talk) 12:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: fails WP:GNG and WP:BAND. The dead links aren't a problem, because they are all retrievable using the Wayback Machine, but they don't amount to much. The Perthmusic source is a primary source interview with the lead singer and is a blog. The FasterLouder source is a review of a local alternative metal festival in which Sleeper X were one of ten bands playing (and were not the headliners). The Music Vice source is an interview with the band who recorded the split EP with them, and they are mentioned in just one paragraph. The Mediasearch citation, a review of one of the EPs, is the closest thing to a decent source, but the website is hosted on Wordpress and still appears to be nothing more than a news gathering website, edited by one person and helped by a bunch of voluntary contributors. In short, this band don't appear to have received any attention outside of the Perth underground metal scene. The three EPs listed in the article appear to be the only things the band ever recorded – the Music Vice interview with Errata states that Sleeper X had split up by 2010, so there are certainly no more sources waiting to be found from the past ten years. Richard3120 (talk) 16:17, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Teraplane (talk) 22:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, all references have been updated and further reliable sources added which addresses WP:GNG. Dan arndt (talk) 08:19, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still don't see how any of the newly added sources help with notability. The AllMusic source is an empty entry so it's no use whatsoever. The Music Forge states on its site that it is a "non-commercial/hobbyist site" which accepts voluntary contributions, so it isn't going to be acceptable as an RS because it's no more than a community blog. X-Press and Groove were local Perth magazines, so again no indication of notability outside of their home town. Rockus no longer exists, which suggests it was a blog. The St. George's Online website was just an online record shop. Richard3120 (talk) 13:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The band fails WP:GNG and WP:MUSICBIO. The references cited in the article are either interviews or press releases. I can't find in-depth secondary coverage. Versace1608 ^{Wanna Talk?} 16:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deshaj Times[edit]

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

Promotional. Lack of reliable secondary sources to pass the notability. - The9Man ^(Talk) 07:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:20, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Article doesn't support Wikipedia general notability guidelines. --Raaj Tilak (talk) 07:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. Appears to be written by the site's founder, who has been previously been issued a COI notice due to writing articles about non-notable relatives. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:53, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails all the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (web) and also fails WP:GNG. As the subject lacks coverage in reliable media. Cedix (talk) 14:58, 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 18:55, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joaquim Custódia[edit]

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

A non notable actor, article inappropriately using only IMDB as a source. Research shows that some of the article’s credits weren’t even credited roles, and most were minor appearances. No evidence of substantial secondary sources that could help improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 07:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:29, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete while the just over 2 years survival with this non-exitent of sourcing has nothing on the 14 or more years survival I have seen recently with some other articles with such atrotious sourcing, we should still not allow it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:12, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability in article or in searches. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 16:41, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 01:05, 16 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oxi Fresh Carpet Cleaning[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet WP:NCORP. The article was originally created by a copywriter for the company, and has changed little in the intervening years. The sources provided are passing mentions and listings only, and a search for more has only provided press releases (presumably produced by the article's author) and a single interview with the company's director. Yunshui ^雲 _水 07:05, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:23, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 07:24, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete God loves a trier, but really! Mccapra (talk) 09:04, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails to meet any of the notability guidelines, and not likely to do so in the foreseeable future. --Jack Frost (talk) 23:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 22:03, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red Scare (podcast)[edit]

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

Not notable - not every tiny podcast needs a Wiki page. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Yellow-billed Loon (talk) 06:22, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Has received coverage from The Telegraph, The Times, and The New York Times. Greyjoy^talk 06:38, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it has been covered by notable publications and has thousands of listeners, according to its Patreon page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Socksinrain (talk • contribs) 09:25, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - it is able to attract notable guests such as Steve Bannon, Glenn Greenwald and Tulsi Gabbard. A small non-notable podcast would not attract a US presidential candidate as a guest. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7F:D612:3E00:1533:707C:3195:34 (talk) 13:00, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - By the first two references pointed out by Greyjoy. The NYT reference is a passing mention, but the previous two are more than sufficient. Jlevi (talk) 17:42, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - page needs to be reworked and fleshed out more but the podcast is obviously notable, with significant coverage in reliable sources. This nomination was unquestionably made for the purposes of vandalism or disruption, OP seems to have a personal gripe with one of the hosts and therefore their concerns about "notability" cannot be taken seriously. If you check their history, they've nominated Dasha Nekrasova's page for deletion twice in less than two months (both times the page survived by significant margins), and they are now trying to get the podcast's page deleted. Pinchofhope (talk) 21:38, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abolishment of the School Boards[edit]

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

The article would benefit from a consensus as to whether or not it's a WP:NOTNEWS violation. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. I dream of horses ^{(talk) (contribs)} _{Remember to {{ping}} me after replying off my talk page} 04:36, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It's a Ctrl+C/V of the same section in Education in Quebec#Abolishment of the school boards, suggesting this is some kind of WP:CFORK that really needs to be rewritten in a much more neutral manner. Nate • (chatter) 09:43, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per above. Material already exists in the other article, there’s no reason for a separate article at all, let alone the current offering. Neiltonks (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it's notable information but it belongs as a section in Education in Quebec, where it already exists word-for-word, lo and behold. PK T(alk) 14:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I can imagine a path to a standalone article about this — but it would need to be written and titled much more neutrally than this (the actual objective name of the legislation is the correct title for any article about a piece of legislation, dudes!), and include a lot more detail supported by a lot more than just four footnotes. Simply cutting and pasting the existing content verbatim from another article that already contains it, and then walking away without making any discernible effort to expand it any further, is not the path to spinning this out as a standalone topic. Bearcat (talk) 01:37, 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) 09:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Watchara Kaewlamun[edit]

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

A check of WP:BEFORE sees no result in English with the Thai language only showing up five results, none of them possibly be suitable for WP:GNG. HawkAussie (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:28, 8 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 8. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions.CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:32, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG comprehensively. Giant Snowman 14:13, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 22:53, 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. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 09:26, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cam Folker[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and no sources other than the one in the article can be found. PotentPotables (talk) 02:08, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:48, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one local newspaper article is not enough to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:07, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The content is unclear and has not been written in a clear tone. The content completely relies upon a single source and lack reliable sources. Abishe (talk) 15:58, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the tone and formatting of the article are way off. Only one source and its a local interest story. Fails WP:GNG. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:14, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:GNG. I can't even. Bearian (talk) 01:57, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Insect fighting. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 22:02, 14 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese Bug Fights[edit]

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

This article does not meet notability guidelines, as very few sources link to it. MiasmaEternal^TALK 01:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into insect fighting which is a more general treatment which could use some fleshing out. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:50, 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. WP:SNOW. postdlf (talk) 20:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of awards and nominations received by Keisha[edit]

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

List of awards and nominations for a non-notable porn performer deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Keisha (actress). This content may be a re-creation of content deleted at Keisha (actress). Even if it isn't, the consensus at the AfD discussion was that the list lacked independent sources to establish notability. No new facts have emerged in the 3 months since then. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete If the subject isn't notable enough for their own wiki page, then they sure aren't notable enough for a separate awards page. Sulfurboy (talk) 02:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:14, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 01:19, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if the performer isn't notable then this certainly isn't. Crossroads ^-talk- 03:01, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 05:46, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Subject was recently deleted, so logically this should be too. Ajf773 (talk) 09:11, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. KingSkyLord (talk | contribs) 14:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per nom. What's the point on keeping the list article relating to a person even when the person herself doesn't pass WP:GNG. Abishe (talk) 15:55, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: per Sulfurboy. Seems incongruous to have an awards page for an individual about whom we lack an article, to say the least. — Javert2113 (Siarad.|¤) 16:47, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow delete 8 delete !votes, including mine and the nominator's, over the course of less than a day. Much faster than if it had been PROD'd. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 20:11, 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.