Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 August 3

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 2 August 4 August >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete (mostly history-merged to Woodbine Community School District (Iowa)) Anthony Appleyard (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Woodbine Community School District[edit]

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

A duplicate article was created accidentally due to a typographical error on a list. The duplicate article, Woodbine Community School District (Iowa), has more information. The duplication was noted when trying to move the duplicate to correct the typo. RickH86 (talk) 23:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 04:49, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Speedy Delete. Article was speedily deleted by admin K6ka as a blantant hoax (non-admin closure) ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 13:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simon Riggs[edit]

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

No useful citations, and I can't find any reliable source mentioning this person. Probably not notable even if one exists. FLHerne (talk) 23:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland. A majority is in favor of deletion, redirection or merging because of privacy or notability concerns, but a sizable minority is for keeping the article either per GNG or because they consider the position of prince and ninth in line to the throne of Sweden to be inherently notable. In my view, the "keep" arguments are not compelling in the light of our policies, guidelines and practices: we have always rejected inherited notability, including for nobility and the like, and unlike for politicians we have no community-accepted guidelines presuming the notability of people with inherited titles. The GNG arguments are more convincing, but in my view the WP:BLP1E arguments put forth by the "delete" side are stronger because rather than in a guideline they are based in an important policy, and have not been rebutted. This leads me to conclude that we have consensus to not keep the article, but taking into consideration the substantial opposition to deletion and several merger proposals I think the most consensual outcome is redirection so that any relevant content can still be merged. The definitive merge or redirect target remains open for discussion. Sandstein 06:57, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prince Nicolas, Duke of Ångermanland[edit]

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

Nicolas is the five-year-old grandson of the king of Sweden, the son of the king's younger daughter. Last year's announcement that he is not a member of the royal house of Sweden and that he will not carry out royal duties as an adult makes me wonder why we have an article about this boy. His mother has stated that her children will "format their own lives as private persons". Wikipedia should take note and tone down the exposure of the child. The article is mostly a list of relatives, titles, and heraldry anyway. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 22:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per privacy concerns, lack of continuing (and likely future) coverage, and ease of merging what little info is in this article into his mother's. JoelleJay (talk) 05:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Devokewater @ 11:40, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the other comments above. Smeat75 (talk) 16:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. While he's no longer formally a member of the royal house, Wikipedia has a historic perspective as well as a contemporary one, and he has been. More importantly, he remains the duke of Ångermanland (and is still ninth line of succession to the Swedish throne). While I might be mistaken, I sincerely doubt there will be a lack of future coverage. His titles have generally not been rescinded. /Julle (talk) 17:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Being ninth or ninety-ninth in the line of succession is all the same: he will never inherit. Most of his titles have not been rescinded but titles are not why we have articles on people. It is the societal or constitutional role the titles entail that makes people notable, and in Nicolas's case, this sort of role in Sweden has been very clearly thrown out of the window. Surtsicna (talk) 20:30, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Notability is not temporary. If a subject has been notable, notability doesn't disappear. (It could of course be argued that there was insufficient notability and that the article shouldn't have been created from the beginning, but that doesn't seem to be the argument.) I agree that the constitutional role is no longer relevant. That doesn't mean the remaining titles have no societal role. That is, however, not the main argument for keeping the article. /Julle (talk) 01:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I do contend that the article should not have been created at all. The coverage of newborns is actually coverage of their parents and of an important event in the life of the notable parent. X AE A-XII, the newborn son of musician Grimes and entrepreneur Elon Musk, has received much more worldwide media coverage than Nicolas, and yet we understand that the coverage of his birth and naming does not call for a baby-biography. Neither does having an unusual name or a courtesy title. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG which is covered. Per good sourcing. Still in line for the throne though will not be officially a prince. Any privacy concerns needs to be more affirmed than a small mention and POV of the nominator. There is no reason for deletion at this point. And the Delete !votes above are Per Nom and vague.BabbaQ (talk) 12:29, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not notable on his own. Redirect to mother. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:27, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I so far count three Delete !votes without a single argument or guideline for its point of view.BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could you ping the users for further clarification? I would rather not guess which three !votes you find unsatisfactory. Surtsicna (talk) 15:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I cannot tell for certain which !votes are deemed unsatisfactory but I am pinging Smeat75, Devokwater, and JoelleJay for clarification of their stance. Surtsicna (talk) 09:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I didn't realise it wasn't enough to say "delete per nom." Is it better to say "I agree with everything Surtsicna and JoelleJay said? or should I repeat their reasons "small child, not notable, not going to carry out royal duties, private person, just being related to royalty is not enough for an article"? Is that better?Smeat75 (talk) 13:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does my citing "privacy" not count if I don't specifically link to WP:BLPPRIVACY? This child's coverage is mainly WP:BLPPRIMARY reports from the Swedish royal family's website, with the rest being WP:ROUTINE coverage that is either trivial or easily integrable into a relative's page. JoelleJay (talk) 18:22, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on not meeting WP:GNG, WP:NRV and WP:BASIC. None of the references address the subject directly and in detail, all seem very WP:ROUTINE coverage. Any claim to notability would rest on his family and WP:NINI. The privacy concerns are valid for a 5yr old child.   // Timothy :: talk  16:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing. Prince Nicolas and his sister were mentioned in numerous sources when their style of Royal Highness was removed. They are notable examples of their grandfather's use of remaining power. Due to the notability of their mother and grandfather, they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives. He also continues to hold the title Duke of Ångermanland and remains a Swedish prince. --Richiepip (talk) 03:30, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply Being in the media spotlight or famous is not a criterion for notability. per WP:BIO "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
This is far from certain "they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives" and is WP:CRYSTAL.
If the basis for their notability is "when their style of Royal Highness was removed" at best this makes them WP:1E, but since this was a non-notable event, I don't think it even qualifies for 1E. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TimothyBlue (talk • contribs) 03:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
They are notable examples of their grandfather's use of remaining power. In other words, they are not notable except for their relationship with someone who is – see WP:NOTINHERITED. TompaDompa (talk) 13:51, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the head of which has announced in no uncertain terms that he will do no princely stuff when he grows up, as did his mother. Are we to have an article about a toddler solely because he has an empty title? Surtsicna (talk) 18:25, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what guideline? Or article content. A lot of drive-by !votes here based on no guideline. BabbaQ (talk) 14:15, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Including the majority of the five keep !votes. It seems to me, however, that John Pack Lambert is referring to WP:ONEEVENT and WP:SIGCOV. Surtsicna (talk) 14:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: GNG requires ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". None of the refs meet this requirement. The article does not meet WP:GNG. GNG further states "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.". There are verifiable facts here, and it might be useful to mention in an article on a parent. Being born is not considered notable; if having your "titles" removed is notable, then they might barely meet WP:1E and the article should still be deleted. These are the guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  19:49, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I'll second what is mentioned above about this being a child whose parents intend to raise in privacy. If when the child becomes independent, something brings them to public attention then an article may have merit. Until then I think the parent's and family's intentions (and actions that back those up) to keep this child's life out of the public realm should be strongly taken into consideration and the community should choose to err (if it is one) on the side of the parent's wishes regarding the child's privacy.   // Timothy :: talk  14:15, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have seen nothing reliably sourced about the intentions of the parents, only about the actions of her father & the fact that they have accepted the demotion of all 3 of their children without complaint. This boy is simply not notable on his own. That should suffice. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:46, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Passes GNG.★Trekker (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep How on earth can one describe the coverage on a Monarch-heir as routine, that's a rather bizarre view. If anything, birth of royal members are more unique and modern news reporting will report such an event. This give credence to future notability which in turn will result in favour towards GNG. There are rather floored arguments in the delete camp in my opinion. WP:CRYSTAL aside, generally the media obsessed what happens to these type of people, events, where do they go to school, education, where does a royal member end up, working. If wikipedia survives another 10 years I am sure this article might be something more adapt and very different. Govvy (talk) 10:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He is not an heir. He is not even the child of an heir. There is no expectation of "future notability" because there is no public role for him in the future. He is a preschool child. In another 10 years he will still be a minor with no expectation of any future public role. The media is just as obsessed with the children of Beyonce, Kanye, Barack Obama, David Beckham, Angelina Jolie, etc, but tabloid journalism is not significant coverage (WP:SBST). Surtsicna (talk) 10:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any member of a royal household is a lined heir, Govvy (talk) 11:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, and he is not a member of the royal household either. The king said so. Surtsicna (talk) 11:17, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you even know what the definition of a Royal House? Everyone in the Swedish royal family belong to a royal house, these royalties can be separate between different houses, Prince Nicolas will always be in one house or another which makeup the royalties of the Swedish line. This can't be changed. You can give up a line of succession, only the King or Queen can strip a house, but that is never done. I strongly suggest you do your homework and provide sources with your arguments. Govvy (talk) 12:27, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"His Majesty The King has decided that the children of Their Royal Highnesses Prince Carl Philip and Princess Sofia, and the children of Her Royal Highness Princess Madeleine and Mr Christopher O’Neill will no longer be members of The Royal House." Here's your source. Surtsicna (talk) 12:40, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”Prince Nicolas and Princess Adrienne will continue to be members of The Royal Family.”. It is a matter of formality in their everyday life. They are still in line for the throne, though far a away in terms of number in succession. Govvy is right in his assessment.BabbaQ (talk) 13:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Being in the royal family without being in the royal house means they are just preschool-age relations of the monarch without any present or future royal role. And as WP:INVALIDBIO guideline states, simply being related to someone is not a reason for a standalone article. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Surtsicna: Why do you feel the rescind of House of Bernadotte takes away notability? That doesn't stop a new named house to be put in place, or to join another house. The fact remains, Prince Nicolas is still a member of the royal family and still in succession to the Swedish throne regardless. Where is there a policy of duties stripped that one fails notability? Govvy (talk) 13:28, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Users have cited multiple policies and guidelines in support of the view that the coverage of a child's birth does not warrant an article about the child. Surtsicna (talk) 13:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And again that depends on the child, like each person, every article should have its own assessment, I think you're overanalysing here, what are the key points, what sources are available, where are the sources coming from. I feel you have forgotten it all and throwing it out the window. I think there is merit towards a weak GNG pass and given some time, GNG will surely be established at some point, depends if you want to put the effort in to build something or put the effort in to dissolve something. Govvy (talk) 14:05, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Crystal balling does not make the boy notable and shouldn't. We are not supposed to have articles about people who are clearly not notable today. It's that simple, really. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There are many anti-royalty! So I dont want to say so much. A member of reigning monarch or royal family and ninth in the line of succession to the Swedish throne. Royalty are forever or auto notable. Notability is not based on their age! Hey delete voters from above, If you want to delete this article? To be fair_ Please delete this article first "Archie Mountbatten-Windsor". He is only 15 months old now. Please do not be biased! Ok? shame on you. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect somewhere appropriate, or delete. Weird case: sure, lots of coverage of the fact that he was born, but there's nothing encyclopedic for us to say about it. Hardly any biographical information because he's a young child not being promoted/exploited by his parents (unlike, say, some child actors). So the article ends up as a genealogy database dump about a young child. If the kid were royalty, I guess "he exists and will be king one day" would be a good reason to have such an article; but he's not, actually (per the nom and convincing comments in support of it). So ultimately I find the nom + the reasoning put forward e.g. by TompaDompa to be convincing. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only thing in the article that's actually about him seems to be his birth and I don't think that's enough to warrant an article. Even if he has a "notable" title. Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs. A grandson of a ruling king, ninth in succession to the throne, is clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Deleted yesterday: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Princess_Adrienne,_Duchess_of_Blekinge_(2nd_nomination). So. JBL (talk) 11:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wrongly, of course. But the deletionist coterie are out in force at the moment. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So when you say "always" you mean what exactly? --JBL (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    More "always": Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Prince_Nikola_of_Yugoslavia_(born_1958)#Prince_Nikola_of_Yugoslavia_(born_1958). --JBL (talk) 13:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ah, so you think because the coterie have managed to get another article deleted recently (and are clearly really, really proud of themselves for doing so, as though their actions have improved Wikipedia) that supersedes all previous results? No, I don't think so. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:06, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I get that you enjoy making attacks on other editors more than honest discussion, but let me try again: can you please explain what you mean by "We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs" that is compatible with observable reality? Thanks in advance. --JBL (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I really don't. I simply don't understand how deletionists' minds work or how they think their desire to delete benefits Wikipedia. I'm all for deleting rubbish, but not articles on what seem to me to be clearly notable topics. And I observe a little group of editors who seem to always vote delete, which, as someone who joined a long time ago to help create this encyclopaedia and has worked hard to do so ever since, mystifies me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:01, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Okay, one last time: can you please explain what you mean by "We have always kept articles on close relatives of monarchs" that is compatible with observable reality? Thanks. --JBL (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Prince George of Cambridge (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Child of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Prince George of Cambridge), Princess Charlotte of Cambridge, Prince Louis of Cambridge, Archie Mountbatten-Windsor (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Son of the Duke and Duchess of Sussex). All great-grandchildren of a reigning monarch who are thus far notable merely for existing. But no serious encyclopaedia would not cover them. The only difference is that the Swedish royal family do not come from an English-speaking country. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:12, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I give up. Nice to know that your poor contributions to AfD go back years, though. --JBL (talk) 18:08, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you. I have been helping to build this great project for over sixteen years. Mostly adding, not deleting, I'm pleased to say. Although I have deleted plenty of rubbish and non-notable fancruft in my time. But, I'm happy to report, not articles that are clearly encyclopaedic. That I leave to others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 21:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Hrm. IMHO, D&D goblinoid deities, D&D dragon types, minor Judge Dredd characters and the like (all which you've voted to keep at AfD) would strike the casual observer as non-notable fancruft, but I guess to some people "notability" and "encyclopedic" = "I like it." Ravenswing 23:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Ravenswing, that's because some people have a sense. Surtsicna (talk) 00:04, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That the 5-year-old Nicolas is a grandson of a king and (still) somewhere down the line of succession are two sentences that are sufficiently covered in Succession to the Swedish throne and his parents' biographies. The two sentences do not call for a standalone article. Neither does relationship with a public figure; see WP:INVALIDBIO. Surtsicna (talk) 11:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NPA
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Necrothesp Yes...same opinion with you! Ive kept many articles about members of monarchs since I writing on wiki. But this shitt are bullying by his delete voter group who are focusing to delete royalty articles on en-wiki. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC) Cape Diamond MM (talk) 12:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not just royalty. Anything. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hay Surtsicna, WP:INVALIDBIO is not working on member of royal family! Don't jealous! Ok well, If you are brave, You can nominate for deletion to the articles of King Mindon's daughters with the reason of WP:INVALIDBIO. Ok let see and come on. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 12:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very weird to see his sister's article deleted today, but this one kept. Could lead to an unfortunate discussion on sexism. Or do we think the Swedish Parliament is going to reverse itself & change the constitution back to where only boys were in line? Beats me! --SergeWoodzing (talk) 13:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Each article going through AfD are individually assessed. The POV about sexism has no place on Wikipedia.BabbaQ (talk) 14:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • "Could lead to an unfortunate discussion on sexism" is reasonable speculation and doesn't appear to express a POV about anything, let alone an inappropriate POV. Maybe if you're going to chide people in this AfD you should target your energy at those directly attacking other commenters? --JBL (talk) 14:45, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: As in his sister's AfD, the nom hasn't advanced a valid deletion ground ("no foreseeable public role" is as much soothsaying as any other WP:CRYSTAL violation), but other voters have. Being in line for a throne is not, as I've found, a valid part of any notability criterion on Wikipedia. Neither, despite some assertions above, is being the "duke of Angermanland," which the article itself admits is only titular. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not a hundred namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources. This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. There isn't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article."

    And that being said, holy heck, could the venomous rhetoric above slow down a bit? Strange though it might seem to some, one does not need to be a member of a vicious secret society to apply notability standards to articles and find them lacking, even if the subjects are adorable little children. Neither is there any evidence of anti-monarchical or anti-Swedish bias, although a couple of you are sure making a case for the converse. Ravenswing 23:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep - per User:Julle. Notability is not temporary, and the article is as much about the title as the child, who remains part of the royal family. (The sister's article should not have been deleted either). I agree BTW with Necrothesp's point that Wikipedia makes itself look stupid by perversely deleting articles which are bound to be looked for. Ingratis (talk) 20:23, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nobody here is saying that his notability has ceased. The general view is that having this article was never warranted. Nobody should be the subject of a Wikipedia article merely for being related to a public figure, especially not someone who is 5 (WP:INVALIDBIO). Surtsicna (talk) 23:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "General view"? surely shome over-statement! The other "general view" is that being the grandchild of a living and ruling monarch does = notability. But in any case, as has already been said, the title has notability. Ingratis (talk) 01:06, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It is indeed the general view because it is enshrined in the project's notability guideline, thus obviously reflecting the consensus of the community. The topic of this article is not a title. Surtsicna (talk) 13:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Just a note that Duke of Ångermanland exists as a redirect to the relevant listing in Duchies in Sweden, which seems very reasonable to me. (Likewise, after the deletion of the article on the sister, Duchess of Blekinge continues to exist as such a redirect.) --JBL (talk) 14:15, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (No apology for using an "argument to avoid": some people ARE notable by virtue of their families, like it or not). Duchess of Blekinge, created by Surtsicna a few minutes ago, redirects to nothing at the moment! I note Duchies in Sweden, but the entries are very brief: there is more significant / encyclopaedic information about the dukedom of Ångermanland that should be kept (arms etc) in the article on Prince Nicolas. Since he is so far the only Duke of Ångermanland, the articles are pretty much the same, with a change of title, which is what I think is a suitable way forward. Ingratis (talk) 14:41, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, the WP:INVALIDBIO guideline is very clear about nobody should be the subject of an article solely for being related to someone. WP:BASIC applies to everyone equally. Articles about titles are structured much more differently than biographies. Surtsicna (talk) 14:48, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • To the point: does anyone contest that the Dukedom bzw Duchy of Ångermanland, as a royal dukedom and title, is notable? if it is, it merits an article, which allowing for the necessary differences (scarcely an insuperable obstacle) will use much of the content of the article on the Prince as the only title holder so far. Ingratis (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Ditto the Dukedom of Blekinge - the recently-created but malformed redirect is I see now fixed). Ingratis (talk) 15:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dispute that there is a need for a stand-alone article for the purely nominal title "Duke of Ångermanland", yes. All the relevant information can be kept at Duchies in Sweden, as is currently done. As far as I can tell the coat of arms you refer to is Nicolas' personal coat of arms, not any coat of arms belonging to the title. TompaDompa (talk) 16:13, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Uh huh. As already said, a royal dukedom is notable enough for an article. As already said, the entries on Duchies in Sweden are very brief, only a few words, doubtless because they link through to more informative biographical articles: it is proposed here to delete the biographical article. As already said, Nicolas is the Duke of Ångermanland, so his personal arms are also those of the duke, as the two are the same.Ingratis (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We've now reached the "crumpet" stage of the discussion - Speaker A: "Crumpets is wholesome, Sir!". Speaker B: "Crumpets is NOT wholesome, Sir!" and repeat ad inf.. I've no interest in adding to that.Ingratis (talk) 00:21, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Wikipedia is not a directory of princelings or anything else. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED. In the extremely unlikely circumstances that he ascends to the throne, we can review again. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:14, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep. A tricky one here. The article satisfies WP:GNG but notability of this five year old child is entirely grounded on his being member of the royal family. Although many believe royal family members are by default notable. This is a 50-50 situation. Being an inclusionist, I am going for weak keep. Nomian (talk) 04:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Notability is not inherited. Someone who is sixth in succession at birth has no prospect of inheriting the throne. If and when this person does something as themselves that warrants significant coverage, then we can revisit. The insistence of some folks here that all royalty are notable simply doesn't wash. They're not. Mackensen (talk) 00:07, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect I am inclined to say WP:NOTINHERITED. 9th in line for the throne is not really notable. Redirect to Princess Madeleine, Duchess of Hälsingland and Gästrikland or to Ångermanland. Wm335td (talk) 10:17, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:41, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of MUFON Chapters[edit]

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

This is a completely self-sourced list of MUFON chapters, of which exactly one has a wikilink, and that's a redirect to MUFON. This is the creator's sole contribution to Wikipedia. Google shows a name match to the only linked chapter. In other words, COI and promotion. Guy (help! - typo?) 22:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Michael Crichton. Selectively. Sandstein 15:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speeches by Michael Crichton[edit]

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

As I said in my PROD nomination (which was removed by Andrew Davidson without explanation), this article has no hope of being more than synthesis of primary sources. No RS has ever discussed this as a coherent topic, and probably none ever will. JBL (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 22:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Michael Crichton. This is bascially a selective bibliography with too much detail. Retain the speeches that have received at least some third-party coverage - that looks to be no more than two or three of the lot. Condense into one or two sentences each, add as another subsection to Michael_Crichton#Life, lose the rest. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep/Merge This is just a list and, per WP:NOTSYN, juxtaposition is not synthesis. Michael Crichton's work is the subject of considerable critical analysis and there's at least two books about it. Particular speeches such as the ones about global warming and the Gell-Mann amnesia effect have some specific notability – see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Gell-Mann amnesia effect which settled on merger to the page in question. If we did merge further then it should go to the Michael Crichton bibliography. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge per Elmidae. ~ HAL333 23:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Nominator comment): a selective merge would be completely fine with me. --JBL (talk) 23:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge or just plain delete, as per others. Bondegezou (talk) 18:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Michael Crichton period. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:19, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Selective merge to Michael Crichton, keeping only the speeches with media attention. Exadrid (talk) 22:16, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Norman Radio[edit]

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

A non notable factory, WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of notability. Currently unsourced with no potential to improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 American Philatelic Society. There was no reliably sourced coverage to merge, so I am closing as a flat redirect instead. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:18, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philatelic Society of Pittsburgh[edit]

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

A non notable club with no evidence of influence outside of its local area, fails WP:GNG Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable club.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - referened only to a directory entry in the article. I can find no coverage in reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 19:15, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect into its parent American Philatelic Society where this deserves a brief mention about its early founding. Not notable in its own right, not that I can see. --Lockley (talk) 05:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge I don't think it's notable enough on it's own, but it still might be worth mentioning in the American Philatelic Society article. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge - Delete per nom, Merge per lockley. That's all. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 16:41, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:43, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manoutchehr Eskandari-Qajar[edit]

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

BLP of an academic with only references to his own work. No sign that anyone else thinks he's notable Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete does not meet criteria. --hroest 18:14, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Google Scholar found only single-digit citations to his work, and I also found no books by him let alone well-reviewed books, so I don't see a pass of WP:PROF#C1. Searches for his supposed book "Life at the court of the early Qajar Shah" turn up only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. His position at a community college is also not promising for scholarship-based notability; certainly department chair is far below the level of administrative responsibility (heading a whole university) needed for notability. So the only possibility for notability seems to be his founding and heading the International Qajar Studies Association. Setting aside whether that association is even notable, it seems to be a small and very specialized research subcommunity, not the sort of "major academic society" for which leadership would bring WP:PROF#C6 notability. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not sufficient independant coverage. I found some books at Amazon but not any reviews beyond that. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:17, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I have to admit I am still less than covinced Academic notability point 6 was meant to refer to community colleges. However that only applies clearly to heads of a free standing institution. It may apply to the heads of a law school or medical school in a larer institution, it never applies to department chairs, least of all to ones junior and community colleges.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:40, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete refs are not much. WP:BIO is not met here. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 06:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Genoese naval boarding sword[edit]

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

The topic itself is fake originated for Russian wiki. There it is recently exposed and deleted, one can see the whole discussion here Andrei Romanenko (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete as hoax as indicated by the useful notes from the Russian deletion, the oddball sourcing, and that image. --Lockley (talk) 01:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to melee weapon as a typical example. MissiYasında&& (talk) 19:21, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as being a hoax per the Russian deletion discussion and the off sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:24, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:21, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Denby[edit]

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

There's no real major reliable coverage. Many of the sources are straight from his channel, website, and even a tweet. Thanoscar21talk, contribs 22:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep Coverage from Forbes [1], Svenska Dagbladet [2], Ny Teknik [3], The Daily Telegraph [4], Popular Mechanics [5][6][7]. TompaDompa (talk) 23:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TompaDompa, but those just reference his videos. Thanks, Thanoscar21talk, contribs 01:14, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Conrad T. Pino (talk) 03:51, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep It is reasonable to assert that a writer who has directed documentaries viewed by millions meets the criteria for notability. This article is no stub, individuals with lesser reach have their own articles unchallenged.Tar-Elessar (talk) 05:28, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Given that this article was only now put up for deletion despite being up for over 2 years, having a rich revision history, and consistently hundreds of views per day, it would seem to me that the only reason this article was nominated for deletion was because of Denby's connection to Nebula, which has also been nominated for deletion. Association between this article and another which has been nominated for deletion does not itself impact the notability of this article.Tar-Elessar (talk) 05:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Izak Barnard[edit]

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

NN safari guide and business owner, fails the GNG, WP:BIO and WP:CREATIVE. I looked for significant coverage on the South African Google (figuring that'd be a better bet), and found nothing but Wiki mirrors, his own company, YouTube and so on. None of the sources -- save for a video clip -- cited in the article provide more than a namedrop or casual mention of the subject; the "publications" he's credited with are, respectively, a foreword and two photo credits. Notability tagged for over ten years. Created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity was creating this article and one for his son, who likewise doesn't pass notability muster. Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oak Grove, Calaveras County, California[edit]

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

I literally cannot find anything about this spot besides what old topos show: a pair of buildings beside the road, and that is it. I get lots of hits on other "Oak Grove" places, but not this one— and I don't see a grove of trees either. Mangoe (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Notability cannot be established. Not even clear what it is. Glendoremus (talk) 04:24, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A search or newspapers.com found plenty of other Oak Groves, but not this one in Calaveras County. No post office listed at http://pbbook.com/caindex.htm Cxbrx (talk) 18:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not appear to be a notable location. Fails GNG. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 20:06, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 03:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shotbow[edit]

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

Not notable. Searched for independent reliable sources and found none. Just UGC and SELFSOURCE. The buzzfile source only demonstrates that the company exists, but does nothing for notability. Leijurv (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. -- ferret (talk) 20:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also sent this on WP:DISCORD Leijurv (talk) 02:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG. The only hits I could find of significance related to a 2014 change to Minecraft's EULA, where the server owner was quoted in a small handful of articles about monetization changes. No indepth coverage found of the server beyond those passing mentions. -- ferret (talk) 20:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are the four June 2014 articles that mention Shotbow: 1 2 3 4. All are trivial mentions of the Shotbow server, and they are all quoting the same event. There is also another passing mention here in which Shotbow was again quoted speaking out against Mojang EULA enforcement. None of these are in depth coverage of the server though. Leijurv (talk) 20:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I also searched on Google Books and don't see significant coverage other than single paragraphs. Zakaria1978 (talk) 03:02, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 07:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bonanza Portfolio[edit]

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

Unable to locate any in-depth coverage about this company. The references are routine listings, passing mentions and unreliable/PR articles. The article was created by a digital marketer who works for the company. M4DU7 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 19:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is essentially a bunch of name dropping promo crap that is extremely badly sourced. Which makes this a hard fail of both WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Probably along with a bunch of other guidelines. So it should totally be deleted. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:48, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Diggnation episodes[edit]

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

A non notable list of podcast episodes. Tagged as potentially non notable almost continuously since 2012. To me, this seems to be unsourced fancruft and far too much detail which could be neatly summed up on the main page in a sentence or two. Article was soft deleted but undeleted earlier this month - I’d like to settle the matter once and for all with this nom. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 18:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Individual podcast episodes are generally non notable and this is no exception. The article also consists of a horde of external links, so it also fails WP:NOTWEBHOST. Ajf773 (talk) 22:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 18:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I have to discount "keep" arguments based on inherent notability, because there's no community consensus about that for nobility. The GNG-based "keep" arguments are stronger, but the "delete" majority's argument that we can't write an article about her because there's nothing more to write than "she was born" appears at least equally valid to me. There's no consensus for a redirection, but anybody is free to create (and then contest) a redirect. Sandstein 06:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Adrienne, Duchess of Blekinge[edit]

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

Adrienne, aged 2, is the youngest child of the youngest child of the Swedish king. Her (and her siblings') status as "Royal Highness" and membership in the royal house have been rescinded because, as the Court said, she will not have a public role in Sweden. Her mother said that this would allow the children to "format their own lives as private persons". The family has also relocated to the US. Having an article about an infant, now toddler, was wrong from the start, but exposing her further on Wikipedia despite no foreseeable public role and her mother's clearly stated wish for privacy is simply unjustifiable. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Smeat75 (talk) 19:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to mother's article: my first thought was that as a member, albeit 10th-in-line, of a current royal family she should have an article, but on reading the nomination more carefully, and her mother's sourced article, I agree that this "princess" should not have a Wikipedia article, as a very minor (in both senses) royal living the life of a private person. I think a redirect is still useful, to help enthusiastic royalists to identify "Princess Adrienne" and also to clarify that the article has been created, considered, and rejected - so "delete and redirect" rather than the more quickly reversible "change to a redirect". The unsourced statement about the Order of the Seraphim needs to be sourced and added to Royal_Order_of_the_Seraphim#Royal_family, along with any other post-2014 updates, as that section is apparently incomplete. PamD 09:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom Devokewater @ 11:41, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, with a redirect to mom as well if necessary. JoelleJay (talk) 07:38, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - per WP:GNG which is covered. Per good sourcing. Still in line for the throne though will not be officially a Princess. Any privacy concerns needs to be more affirmed than a small mention and POV of the nominator. There is no reason for deletion at this point. I also see that most of the Delete !votes has no rationale for their stance at all Per Nom does not cut it. BabbaQ (talk) 12:35, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - simply not notable on her own. Redirect to mother. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 14:25, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment:I so far count four Delete !votes without a single argument or guideline for its point of view. BabbaQ (talk) 15:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my reasoning is that this article is sourced almost entirely to routine press releases about her birth, with the one other news item essentially stating there will be even less coverage of her in the future. BLPPRIVACY should be maintained, particularly for children. JoelleJay (talk) 18:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete based on not meeting WP:GNG, WP:NRV and WP:BASIC. None of the references address the subject directly and in detail, all seem very WP:ROUTINE coverage. Any claim to notability would rest on his family and WP:NINI. A 2yr old baby cannot be notable for anything they have done (usually not even dress themselves properly); any possible notability at this point would be from an event (unless its a pretty extraordinary life for a baby) and Wikipedia covers the event not the individual in these cases. As for the future, WP:CRYSTAL. there is no WP:ENCYCLOPEDIC CONTENT in the article.   // Timothy :: talk  16:12, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:GNG. Per good sourcing. Princess Adrienne and her brother were mentioned in numerous sources when their style of Royal Highness was removed. They are notable examples of their grandfather's use of remaining power. Due to the notability of their mother and grandfather, they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives. Se also continues to hold the title Duchess of Blekinge and remains a Swedish princess. --Richiepip (talk) 03:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reply: Being in the media spotlight or famous is not a criterion for notability. per WP:BIO "For people, the person who is the topic of a biographical article should be "worthy of notice" or "note" —that is, "remarkable" or "significant, interesting, or unusual enough to deserve attention or to be recorded" within Wikipedia as a written account of that person's life. "Notable" in the sense of being famous or popular—although not irrelevant—is secondary."
This is far from certain "they will remain in the media spotlight and remain notable all their lives" and is WP:CRYSTAL.
If the basis for their notability is "when their style of Royal Highness was removed" at best this makes them WP:1E, but since this was a non-notable event, I don't think it even qualifies for 1E.   // Timothy :: talk  03:44, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Based on what guideline? Because she covers WP:GNG. A lot of drive by !votes here without any rationale based om guidelines and/or notability per sourcing etc.BabbaQ (talk) 14:13, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: GNG requires ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail". None of the refs meet this requirement. The article does not meet WP:GNG. GNG further states "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.". There are verifiable facts here, and it might be useful to mention in an article on a parent. Being born is not considered notable; if having your "titles" removed is notable, then they might barely meet WP:1E and the article should still be deleted. These are the guidelines.   // Timothy :: talk  19:48, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep or Draft I fail to see why this should be deleted, it's a good start to an article which will probably be improved over time. The assumption that the article should be straight up deleted I find kind of absurd for an article of this nature. Royals are always going to be in the lime-light and GNG can be established easily from multiple sources. Govvy (talk) 11:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It cannot be improved into anything encyclopedic for at least another 16 years because she is a 2-year-old whose parents intend to raise her in privacy on another continent. It is explicitly stated by the king and the parents that the children will not be in any lime-light. TimothyBlue has explained how this topic does not pass WP:GNG. Surtsicna (talk) 13:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'll second what is mentioned above about this being a 2-year-old child whose parents intend to raise in privacy. If when the child becomes independent, something brings them to public attention then an article may have merit. Until then I think the parent's and family's intentions (and actions that back those up) to keep this child's life out of the public realm should be strongly taken into consideration and the community should choose to err (if it is one) on the side of the parent's wishes regarding the child's privacy.   // Timothy :: talk  14:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That they would like privacy is POV from the two editors above. WP:GNG trumps that and other POV or drive-by none rationale !votes further up on this AfD. Still in line for the throne. Still royal. Goovys rationale for Weak Keep is good.BabbaQ (talk) 14:20, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That is not a guideline. And guidelines has been provided by several editors here for Keeping. BabbaQ (talk) 14:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Regarding privacy, I have quoted the children's mother so it is quite factual. The term "POV" refers to something else but as far as I am concerned, you may call it that or clairvoyance or whatever. Also, not royal anymore: expressly removed from the royal house, stripped of the "Royal Highness" appellation, denied any public funding, and relieved of any future royal role. Surtsicna (talk) 14:42, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply TompaDompa, Surtsicna are absolutely on point about this. In addition BabbaQ assertion, "Still in line for the throne. Still royal." is completely false. They are not in line for the throne per [8] which states "in the future, will not be expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State." Being in line for the throne would clearly mean they might be "expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State" at some point in the future or even becoming the Head of State. This source also clearly states they are not members of the Royal House, but they are still members of the family. They are not royal, they are members of a royal family. There are plenty of examples of this happening in European royal families, including Harry and Megan (see [9]). They didn't cease to be members of a family; they did cease to be members of the royal house.   // Timothy :: talk  14:56, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • TimothyBlue, the children are still in the line; see this. It has been announced by the riksmarskalk, however, that Princess Madeleine's children would lose succession rights if not brought up in Sweden from the age of six, and since the family moved to the US two years ago, their exclusion is very likely. But their still being somewhere in the line of succession is inconsequential because they will never inherit, and the monarchy has acknowledged that reality with last year's announcement that they would grow up as private citizens with no royal obligations or privileges. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments Just look at the evolution of articles relating to the children of Prince William, Duke of Cambridge. If the editing follows the same pattern I don't see a problem with GNG. Govvy (talk) 15:12, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • William will be a monarch. Madeleine will not. One of William's children will be a monarch. None of Madeleine's will. They will not follow the same pattern. Surtsicna (talk) 15:24, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles about royal toddlers function as placeholders for future notability, and in this case it has been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up. The article is now (and will remain, if kept) a mere genealogical entry, stating nothing more substantial than the subject's relationship to adults who actually are notable. Wikipedia, however, is not a directory of genealogical entries; see WP:NOTGENEALOGY policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:33, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where, reliably sourced, has it "been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up"? I might have missed that. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 19:49, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's here. The children "will not be expected to perform duties incumbent on the Head of State". Following this announcement, Madeleine wrote that the children would be private people. Surtsicna (talk) 22:50, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Where, reliably sourced, has it "been made clear that the children will not be public figures when they grow up"? I'm only asking about that specific wording, nothing else. As far as I know, nobody anywhere has ever made that clear: "that the children will not be public figures when they grow up". --SergeWoodzing (talk) 16:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Saying that the children will be private people is saying that they will not be public figures. Private people = not public figures. Surtsicna (talk) 16:57, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She said that they will be free to shape their own lives in their capacities of private people (som is a very tricky Swedish word). That rather obviously would include their right to become public figures, royal or not, if they so choose in the future, and it is not quite correct to foresee a future where they will not be public figures. The girl is not notable today. That's enough. All the other chatter just damages the deletion case. --SergeWoodzing (talk) 17:22, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, of course. We are reading it the same: they will inherit no public role in Sweden but there is nothing stopping them from, say, becoming America's Next Top Model. The point I am making is that keeping the articles as placeholders for future notability is senseless because no future notability is guaranteed. Surtsicna (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A member of reigning monarch royal family. Royalty are forever notable. Not based on their age! You have no power here! Ok? So go away !! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 17:53, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yikes. This is exactly the sort of attention to which one of the world's most frequented websites should not expose children. Surtsicna (talk) 18:20, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Go and say at Archie Mountbatten-Windsor first! Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:26, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Community WP:CONSENSUS does not agree with your implicit assertion that being royalty is sufficient for a stand-alone article to be appropriate. See the similar case of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Amalia of Nassau. TompaDompa (talk) 18:44, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Grand Duke is lower than King ! Not same .Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:59, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you're not happy with that one, see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Luisa Maria of Belgium, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium, and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Princess Maria Laura of Belgium. Those are all in the line of succession to the Belgian throne, and Belgium has a King. TompaDompa (talk) 05:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article also has been nominated for deletion twice, you know. The first time it was speedy kept, and the second time is how going? Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:45, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Arguments to avoid in a deletion discussion: But what about x? WP:WAX. - hako9 (talk) 05:17, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect somewhere appropriate, or delete. Weird case: sure, lots of coverage of the fact that she was born, but there's nothing encyclopedic for us to say about it. Hardly any biographical information because she's a young child not being promoted/exploited by her parents (unlike, say, some child actors). So the article ends up as a genealogy database dump about a young child. If the kid were royalty, I guess "she exists and will be queen one day" would be a good reason to have such an article; but she's not, actually (per the nom and convincing comments in support of it). So ultimately I find the nom + the reasoning put forward e.g. by TompaDompa to be convincing. --JBL (talk) 20:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect I totally agree with the voter above this comment and the original nominator as to why this article should be deleted. Everything about this that might be notable is about a single event, that she was born and whatever line of succession she might have been is has been shot down. Plus, her family moved to America and wants to be left alone. So, this article shouldn't really be a thing. Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect: The nom hasn't advanced a valid deletion ground ("no foreseeable public role" is as much soothsaying as any other WP:CRYSTAL violation), but other voters have. Those claiming a GNG keep plainly misunderstand the GNG, which is not a hundred namedrops in however-reliable sources, but actual significant coverage, to the subject, in reliable sources. This obviously has not been forthcoming, and to any voter who might respond "Well, how much can you say about a toddler?" I answer, "You're right. You can't. Which is why the subject does not qualify for a Wikipedia article." Ravenswing 04:05, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to father's article: There's no significant coverage for the child. Being born is not a significant event. - hako9 (talk) 05:31, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Empire, Contra Costa County, California[edit]

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

Another rail station mistaken by GNIS as a community. Durham describes it as a locality on the Southern Pacific Railroad. This map shows it as a coal station where the old Empire Railroad crosses the SP rail. No evidence that it was ever a community of its own and otherwise not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 17:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. no post office. WP:STATION applies. The Empire railroad is possibly notable, though as it was a corporation short line, it should probably just go on a list. The Black Diamond Mines book cited in the nom has a map that shows Empire and some hits for the railroad, but nothing about the station other than the map. Searching newspapers.com was tricky and did not yield anything. Cxbrx (talk) 13:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isabel Arzú Escobar[edit]

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

Being the child of a notable person does not confer automatic notability on a person, and that seems to be the only true claim to notability here John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Guatemala-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless somebody can locate a stronger claim of notability. Although the article fails to state this in body text, one of the categories claims that she competed in equestrian at the 2019 Pan American Games — but that's a level of competition where a person has to medal to be notable, not just be in attendance, and according to Guatemala at the 2019 Pan American Games she came nowhere close to that. Notability is WP:NOTINHERITED, further, so she isn't automatically special just because of who her father is. She has to show more than this to be notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 19:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete she doesn't meet the notability standard for athletes and notability isn't inherited. So, I don't see anything worth having about this. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:00, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjiv Das[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No effective referencing. scope_creepTalk 16:43, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 16:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 17:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:55, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete there's a few things about him that make his notability borderline. They don't seem to be that in-depth though and are kind of questionable. So, I'm going with weak delete. Since there might be enough in-depth coverage of him at some point. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:02, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan Korngold[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. Additional BLP refs needed tag since 2017.scope_creepTalk 16:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:13, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

College Abacus[edit]

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

Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Generic calculator. Notability tag placed.scope_creepTalk 15:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:16, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think it was heavily used as a useful utility, but there is several other ones now on the go. Also, I think to Stubify it, as an 8k article would be difficult. You could take 3-4k which wouldn't leave much. As well as that, it also been subject to a request of G11 from another editor in good standing, which was the reason I nominated it.scope_creepTalk 09:26, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have found a way to stubify it, if need be. I will do the work. scope_creepTalk 14:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Bri! College Abacus was indeed mentioned in a New York Times personal-finance column, on two separate weeks. But are you really sure that it therefore passes the WP:CORPDEPTH bar, and that there's enough WP:RS content out there to let us write a well-sourced article about the company? —Unforgettableid (talk) 12:27, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this doesn't seem to pass WP:CORPDEPTH. There is the one New York Times mentions, but they only count as one source and it's not enough. Other then that, there doesn't seem to be anything to make it notable. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference[edit]

Asia and South Pacific Design Automation Conference (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Lack of independant coverage to make it notable as a standalone article. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While the article should be expanded, the conference is very well known in the electronics industry. It's referred to by independent sources, mostly under the name ASP-DAC. For example, ASP-DAC convenes. There are issues of well known journals that concentrate on the results. It's considered an academic honor to be featured there. Finally, I think this may be case of geographic bias. Most of the attendees and presenters are from Japan, Taiwan, and other Asian regions, not surprisingly. So the conference is better known, and more notable among folks who are not likely to be editors here. LouScheffer (talk) 20:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd agree there is some coverage. Some of it doesn't seem to be completely independant though, which includes reports from award winners institutions potentially. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would be great if some of our Japanese, Korean, and Mandarin speaking editors could check the sources and publications in their languages, since that's where most of the attendees and presenters are from. LouScheffer (talk) 23:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If anyone here knows how, that would be a good idea! -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing about this passes the notability guidelines. The article doesn't have any sources and I was unable to find any when I did a search for them. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look for "ASP-DAC"? It's almost always abbreviated. LouScheffer (talk) 23:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment To be honest I think I missed a trick not searching for it abbreviated... -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Engineering-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Clear consensus in favor of keeping the article after multiple relistings. (non-admin closure) EggRoll97 (talk) 21:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Academy[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable school. All the sources in the article are either primary, extremely trivial coverage, or otherwise not reliable. Also the article is largely promotional in tone and has been mainly edited by editors that seem to have COIs. Ultimately, there's nothing about this school that would pass WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 09:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Cheng, Margaret (2000-10-08). "KIDS: Dr Margaret Cheng discovers a new school of thought (Hong Kong Academy)". South China Morning Post.
    2. Davies, Kate (January 2017). "Community relations: Kate Davies finds out how Hong Kong Academy is keeping its students on their toes". Expat Parent. Hong Kong Living. pp. 44–47. Retrieved 2020-07-20 – via Issuu.
    3. Forestier, Katherine (2002-12-07). "Breaking down the barriers". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
    4. Whitehead, Kate (2001-06-09). "Parents with mission to build new schools". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.

      This brief mention helps more with Wikipedia:Verifiability more than it helps with Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.

    5. Chong, Dennis; Wong, Olga (2013-01-08). "Education experts angry at possible third school site turned into flats". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
    6. Lau, Mimi (2008-11-15). "HK Academy 'frustrated' over school site offer in Chai Wan". South China Morning Post. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
    There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Hong Kong Academy to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

    Cunard (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Keep. Agree with Cunard. Also, Wikipedia usually keeps schools in article for deletion nomination battles if they are bona fide schools.Knox490 (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lovely, more trivial sources that don't pass WP:NORG and that most of seem to be on a single topic to. For about the hundredth time, Wikipedia isn't a news source. --Adamant1 (talk) 16:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep based on the sources identified by Cunard. There are several articles from the South China Morning Post, which as far as I can tell looks like a reliable source. The Expat-Parent source looks especially good: a five-page magazine article specifically about the school. The nominator's argument that "Wikipedia isn't a news source" is odd. No, it's not a news site, but newspaper and magazine articles are absolutely appropriate for determining notability of a subject. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All the sources except for like are to South China Morning Post. As far as my "Wikipedia isn't a news source" comment, it was in relation to the triviality of the topics being referenced. For instance stories like "HK Academy 'frustrated' over school site offer in Chai Wan" and "Tales of College Admissions Puffery" are more passing "special interest" news pieces then they are things that IMO would show the long-term or meaningful notability of something. Especially the first one about someone at the school being "frustrated" about something. That's not really an in-depth notable discussion of the school itself per say. Most schools and other organizations get coverage for that kind of thing. There's zero unique or notable about it and it's pretty WP:MILL IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like to point out this discussion where Adamant1 was judged to lack competence in evaluating sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: Feel free to point it out. Since in the discussion I pointed to two discussion in WP:RSN about the sources I supposedly had lack of competence evaluating where a bunch of people, including long standing administrators, agreed with me that the sources weren't reliable. Including the discussion I started about Wen Wei Po where the overwhelming consensus seems to be that it shouldn't be used for even basic facts and should probably be depreciated. Clearly the fact that I knew as much before starting the RfC must have been because of my "lack of competence in evaluating sources." You clearly have a lack of competence when it comes to following WP:NPA. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Per the sources above, I believe this would pass notability guidelines for a school. -- Dane talk 02:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khmer Improvement Party[edit]

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

I believe this should be deleted on grounds of non-notability. This article seems to refer to a one-man, one-election party. I can find no other reference apart from the article cited, which was not so much about the Khmer Improvement Party as about it and similar such parties. There have been no significant additions to the text since the article was posted in 2009. Roundtheworld (talk) 15:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cambodia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. Article does not provide evidence for notability beyond existence, no achievements of note prior to, or during, an election campaign. Usefulness is not a valid reason to retain. doktorb wordsdeeds 06:58, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, article has only one source, meaning it fails WP:GNG, and it is also highly promotional. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:05, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:14, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caplin & Drysdale[edit]

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:15, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Private Trials[edit]

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nevada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2007-01 ✗ deleted
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reinhold Cohn Group[edit]

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Also, the original author of the article appears to be a marketing professional working on behalf of intellectual property firms. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 04:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Silicon Valley Law Group[edit]

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:25, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nothing stands out as remarkable with respect to this firm. BD2412 T 00:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stark & Stark[edit]

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

Insufficient notability and lack of independent sources that discuss the organization. Buckaboob Bonsai (talk) 15:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I see no indicia of encyclopedic notability. BD2412 T 00:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lee Harvey Oswald. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ella German[edit]

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

    Although this article is well written and sourced, there seems no evidence that Ella German is sufficiently notable for her own article. She would not pass the specific guidance in WP:BIO and there is nothing in the sources currently cited to indicate that WP:GNG are met either as she has apparently had no sustained coverage in her own right. In essence, the article depicts her as notable only because of her links to Oswald which raises obvious issues of WP:NOTINHERIT. —Brigade Piron (talk) 14:54, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. While she may indeed have only become notable due to being related to someone precipitating one event, that particular event was profoundly damaging to the American psyche and relatively rare in American history. Had she been one of a string of girlfriends that had come and gone I would be more inclined to agree that she may not deserve her own article, but the fact is that she even appears in the Warren Commission’s report and if they felt she was notable enough for examination, I would concur. It is possible that this relationship had affected Oswald’s mental state in his decision to return to the United States and exploring that relationship deserves more than a byline in that article. I would also be very interested in seeing more existing references put into her article as the majority of them come from one or two books at present. LovelyLillith (talk) 08:13, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No-one has denied that the Kennedy assassination and Oswald are notable which is basically what we can deduce from the Warren Commission report. The question is whether Ella German independently meets the requirements in WP:GNG or WP:BIO in light of WP:NOTINHERIT. I'd also suggest WP:NOTEVERYTHING is relevant. —Brigade Piron (talk) 10:28, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - This is really, oddly, detailed, but she is part of the story of one of the defining events of the 20th century. It transcends WP:NOTINHERIT. Caro7200 (talk) 17:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That sounds like a WP:NOTIDONTLIKEIT argument. I'm interested to hear that the Kennedy assassination ranks alongside World War II. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It isn't at all, but I can't tell you what the above sounds like to you--only you can do that. And if the assassination of a major head of state is not a defining event, perhaps your list of the defining events of the 20th century includes only World Wars I and II... Caro7200 (talk) 20:39, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure we'd be having this discussion about an ex-girlfriend of the culprit of the Assassination of Olof Palme, but there is an obvious subjective quality to the most important events of the 20th century. There is still no reason to wave the long-established policy of WP:NOTINHERIT just because the INHERITOR is particularly noteworthy. It's the sort of argument that would permit every soldier of World War I and World War II to have their own WP biography. —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I wrote, I don't think this is a case of WP:NOTINHERIT--this isn't an article about someone who briefly lived next door to Oswald, or something. She was written about in the Warren Commission report. A major writer, Norman Mailer, wrote about her, as did Vincent Bugliosi. She is written about in other RS books and articles, some of which appear in the references, some of which do not. Caro7200 (talk) 15:38, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    See WP:VALINFO. Does the non-Oswald related information really allow her to pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO, that's the standard. —Brigade Piron (talk) 19:14, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes, the question of GNG is moot in this discussion, it’s a question of WP:NOTINHERITED and WP:BLP1E. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:10, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Since you raise WP:BLP1E, can you explain how you think the three criteria there are met? It seems pretty clear that (i) EG is only covered in the context of her relationship to Oswald, (ii) "the person otherwise remains, and is likely to remain, a low-profile individual" and (iii) EG's role in the Kennedy assassination was, to put it mildly, "not substantial". —Brigade Piron (talk) 13:21, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I think the Keep votes clearly demonstrate this is a case of WP:BLP1E (not a single event in her life not associated with the assasination of Kennedy is mentioned) and WP:NOTINHERITED (If it wasn't for her connection to Oswald she would be unknown to history). The keep arguements are not based on guidelines and sources but are based on opinions and feelings. Merge it with Oswald.   // Timothy :: talk  18:34, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Lee Harvey Oswald. This is absolutely a BLP1E issue. Ravenswing 23:07, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. While this appears to be a borderline case, there does seem to be enough consensus, given the lack of participation after the 2nd relist, to say that this should be kept. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ARITH Symposium on Computer Arithmetic[edit]

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

    Lack of independant coverage to make it notable as a standalone article. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. As usual, the difficulty here was at least in part that there are so many publications that mention this conference to cite a paper in it that it made it very difficult to find material about the conference itself. But I have added three testimonials to its importance (not very detailed, but all published independently of IEEE) together with a chronology of its first 16 years that was published by IEEE. It is an old, well-established conference in an area that is also maybe a little old-fashioned but still important for computing infrastructure. —David Eppstein (talk) 07:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 03:51, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    VlibTemplate[edit]

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

    no citations or evidence of notability; much of text unencyclopedic and promotional Tdslk (talk) 17:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 13:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Delete or edit I'd say. Has some online presence, and if someone feels enough notability to expand, then do it soon. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - It's being used but I don't see substantial coverage to establish notability. -- Whpq (talk) 21:11, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    OptinMonster[edit]

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

    Another SEO vanity WP:ADMASQ created by an WP:SPA. All references are obviously non RS. Some might appear RS at first glance but notice that they are written by the company's founder Balki himself and are therefore not independent and don't establish notability. Similar to Ahrefs, Yoast SEO and Moz (marketing software). TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - Software article of unclear notability, lacking significant coverage in independent sources. Per nom, most refs are written by founder and are not independent. Refs not by Balki are incidental mentions in low-quality sources, not significant coverage, and a search turned up no significant WP:RS coverage.Dialectric (talk) 17:50, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The article stands notable with support of adequate WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bill Switzer[edit]

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

    Non notable voice actor, sourced only with IMDb. WP:BEFORE shows some Google hits but nothing that could count as a reliable source, and nothing substantial to help source and improve article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 05:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as notable as he meets WP:NACTOR with multiple leading roles in notable productions. Eerie, Indiana: The Other Dimension; Mr. Rice's Secret; Sabrina The Animated Series (65 episodes as Harvey Kinkle!), and quite a few others. IMDb page mentions his having won one and been nominated repeatedly for Young Artist Awards. Nominator should have seen these things if he followed the external link to IMDb and saw the multiple roles, award mentions, etc. Naming notability as an issue in the nom statement is disappointing. And I found reliable sourcing on Google Books. If the nominator means the whole package --reliable, secondary, independent, significant--they ought to work on precision. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • DiamondRemley39 Yet again, I need to remind you to focus on the article rather than failing to WP:AGF. WP:NACTOR means nothing without reliable sources to back up, of which IMDb is not one. I have yet to find reliable, substantial, independent sources from Google Books, I don’t see anything in the sources you’ve added. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yet again, it's not a question of good faith but of competency. See WP:AGF "If criticism is needed, discuss editors' actions, but avoid accusing others of harmful motives" and the essay WP:AAGF. So stop implying that I'm accusing you of bad faith. All I'm saying is you should familiarize yourself with the subject specific notability and write better nom statements if it is the lack of sourcing to which you object. I don't know what to make of your final statement that "[you] don't see anything in the sources [I've] added". Again, be more precise. What do you mean? Last: it's not just the article but the AfD nom that gets discussed in AfD discussions. Weak or incorrect nom statements will be noticed by the people putting in the time to see the facts. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DiamondRemley39 OK - specifics - the two Google Books sources you’ve added, in my view, do not demonstrate substantial, reliable coverage, and I don’t understand how you expect me to improve an article with them. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 13:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for the clarification. The coverage is reliable and serves to verify some of what is in the article. That's why I added them. I don't expect you to do anything to improve the article with them as the work is done. I found it easy enough to add these and remove the unsourced tag, improving it in a small increment. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The significant coverage is in the four articles I've added so far. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DiamondRemley39 OK, that’s great - but bear in mind that the significant coverage you’ve found is not covered by WP:BEFORE, so I wondered if you’d like to take this opportunity to rephrase your first comments about IMDB, about my nom statement, and about “precision”? Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'll take an opportunity again to try to help you understand the problem with the nom, though we are beating the dead horse: in the BEFORE process you should have seen IMDb, which had those multiple roles and awards mentioned meeting WP:NACTOR, so you shouldn't have said that the notability was an issue. Don't say something is wrong when it isn't. Notability issues and sourcing issues are not the same things, so if it's just the sourcing, say so. Does that help? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I’m not going to take any notice of IMDb when it’s a deprecated source. So no it doesn’t help. Ceasing this conversation. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Added some sources. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the sources added by DiamondRemley39, which demonstrate notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per the multiple reliable sources added to the article as per WP:HEY so that deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:48, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Murder of Engineer Delwoar[edit]

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

    No reason to think that this has Any lasting notability DGG ( talk ) 22:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I am inclined to say WP:1E or WP:NOTNEWS. I will think on it. Lightburst (talk) 23:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - I have improved the article further and have also added more references. To show notability, I will make argument here only considering Delwoar's death (Please note that the article is not necessarily about Delwoar but rather it is about his murder). This article satisfies the criteria for WP:VICTIM and WP:ONEEVENT under WP:BIO. For better understanding of WP:1E or WP:ONEEVENT, consider the examples of wiki page for Rodney King or George Floyd under the same criteria. Do you know George Floyd outside of one single event? And if you do not, then would you like to delete that page? I assume you will agree that in case of George Floyd, the single event itself has lasting impact and hence lasting notability. Now, I have to show that the murder incident of Delwoar satisfies the notability criteria for single event. If you go through the reference section of the article, you will find that all the major news media outlet of Bangladesh has continued to cover the death, investigation and demand of justice for this murder. The dates of those articles are (in ascending order): May 17, May 18, May 21, May 22, May 26, May 27, Jun 2, July 18, and July 19 of 2020. In a country where 1 million people die every year, do you think the news sources have any reason to cover a non-notable incident continuously? Thanks. - Kaisernahid (talk) 01:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep- I am convinced that given the coverage of his death and the prevalence of corruption in Bangladesh that there will have a lasting effect and coverage. I am also convinced by the arguments put forward by Kaisernahid.Vinegarymass911 (talk) 06:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 01:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - as discussed above, passes WP:NEVENT. Article has been significantly expanded after the nomination. --Zayeem (talk) 15:39, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Per WP:GNG. Per sources. Per WP:NEVENT.BabbaQ (talk) 09:27, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Agree that this passes WP:GNG. -- Dane talk 02:53, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as significant, because of the good constructive improvements since the nomination. --Lockley (talk) 03:55, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Meets WP:ACADEMIC and passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Ziad Nasreddine[edit]

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

    a clear case of BLP1E, all the references are there just because he treated Donald Trump Dtt1Talk 07:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Dtt1Talk 07:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Dtt1Talk 07:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Meets WP:NPROF criteria 1, creator of MoCA is notable in the field of ideas. Per the ~12,000 citations and widespread medical adoption, he is the corresponding author and first author so it is highly likely to be his creation. I don't believe he has ever treated Donald Trump. Original article. PainProf (talk) 04:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails WP:SNG WP:BIO and also lacks significant coverage WP:SIGCOV. -Hatchens (talk) 03:38, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Could you explain a little better, I did think NPROF was met "Criterion 1 can also be satisfied if the person has pioneered or developed a significant new concept, technique or idea, made a significant discovery or solved a major problem in their academic discipline. In this case it is necessary to explicitly demonstrate, by a substantial number of references to academic publications of researchers other than the person in question, that this contribution is indeed widely considered to be significant and is widely attributed to the person in question." 12,000 citations is quite a lot. PainProf (talk) 03:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The 2005 paper alone has been cited nearly 12,000 times; several others have hundreds of citations. This person meets WP:PROF#1 quite comfortably. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Reliable Resources. Passes GNG.DMySon 18:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:19, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Dana al-Salem[edit]

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

    Not notable. Possible COI with two major contributors to the article (User:FanFactory and User:Danaalsalem). - hako9 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 13:13, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Lower Silesian Provinzialtag elections in the Weimar Republic[edit]

    Lower Silesian Provinzialtag elections in the Weimar Republic (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Confusing and has no context. I tried CSD'ing and PROD'ding for no context or sources, yet 144.71.77.240 and GB fan declined it and refuse to tell me what the article was about.

    Also, the article has been unreferenced since 2006, if no sources can be found, than this article should be deleted. Even on the talk page, people discuss how the websites they found on other Wikipedias were also unreliable and incorrect. Koridas 📣 02:15, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I didn't refuse to tell you what the article is about, you never asked. The article is about the provincial quadrennial elections for Lower Silesia from 1921-1933. It shows how many seats each party won in each of the four elections. The only interaction I had with this article was to decline the A1 speedy delete request you placed. Prior to you placing the speedy delete tag, three people were discussing the article. They obviously knew what it is about. You could have asked any of us if you didn't understand what it is about. ~ GB fan 10:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It is pretty obvious what this is about from the title itself. If anyone is unsure then they can look up Lower Silesia and Weimar Republic in their favourite encyclopedia and it doesn't take any great linguistic ability to get the meaning of Provinzialtag by analogy with Bundestag. Phil Bridger (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yeah, seriously. Doesn't take a whole lot of work there, and if one isn't willing to do the work to click a link or two, one ought not be filing for deletion on it. Ravenswing 23:05, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think it's unreasonable to ask for at least one line of prose...Mackensen (talk) 00:09, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 16:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge to Province of Lower Silesia. Mccapra (talk) 06:24, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Would be undue detail in Province of Lower Silesia, and more importantly is unsourced, so not mergeable. Sandstein 17:24, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Province of Lower Silesia has its own issues, we shouldn't add to it by importing this unreferenced problem into it. Kusma mentioned de.wikipedia, I'm assuming since they didn't mention sources there, they don't exist on that site either. Since it's been so long unsourced here and if there are no sources forthcoming from de.wikipedia, I'd say it fails WP:V and should be deleted.   // Timothy :: talk  01:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Merging would give undue weight. The tables are unsourced anyway. Nomian (talk) 04:29, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:48, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Igor Mazurenko[edit]

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

    The sole reference does not mention the gentleman. The article is pretty much his resumé but Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Non notable gentleman and advert Fiddle Faddle 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 16:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 03:47, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Putting Cumbria First[edit]

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

    Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. The previous AfD was no consensus, and little if anything has been improved upon. Citations prove that the party exists without any notable achievements. Fails WP:GNG and ORG. The article reads as a summary of election results and there is no notable achievement or importance. Usefulness is not a valid reason for retention. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. doktorb wordsdeeds 10:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The party has received direct coverage in local newspapers [10] [11] (satisfying WP:NORG), and has an elected councillor on Allerdale Borough Council. The page has been improved substantially since the first AfD (compare [12] to [13]). PinkPanda272 (talk/contribs) 17:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:21, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum2.0 00:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 15:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mark Christopher Israel (filipino actor)[edit]

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

    A autobiography that was saved from being A7ed by Ritchie333 after posting on Wikipedia Weekly's Facebook group. It is a recreation of Mark Christopher Israel which was speedy deleted on 1 August. There are no reliable sources used in the article and a quick google search finds nothing helpful. The linked IMDB shows some minor roles, but nothing that would make them eligible for inclusion in the encyclopedia. Guerillero | Parlez Moi 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as speedy deletion nominator - an autobiography about a non-notable actor that quite frankly should have been A7ed. — Chevvin 19:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Chevvin: This does not meet the criteria for A7 because it name-checks several blue-linked television series; therefore the potential for a redirect should be discussed per the deletion policy. See also User:SoWhy/Common A7 mistakes. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Blakegripling ph: There is no need be insulting about articles you don't like. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:54, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 15:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Wave Group[edit]

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

    Nominating because nothing substantial would remain if one tries to exclude and remove the blatant advert/promotional content WP:ADPROMO. There are a few reliable sources like this- on ET and elsewhere but they by and large talk about Gurdeep Singh Chadha or his son Monty Chadha [14] or their past frauds. Nothing worthy to merge to any existing articles too. - hako9 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 17:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:09, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mexico and the World Bank[edit]

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

    This article would require a complete rewrite to match our standards (sources, language, style, structure). Considering that there is nothing really striking about the relationship of Mexico and the World Bank, I don't think that we should keep this piece. If editors feel like some information needs to be preserved, it could be merged into the "Economy" section of our article on Mexico. wikitigresito (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I wouldn't say that the need to rewrite an article disqualifies it from being an article outright. Yes, this article could use some work, but it is a notable topic that is, in my opinion, better served as its own article. -Navarre0107 (talk) 17:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep and improve The article definitely needs some work, of that there is no doubt. But it's nothing that ten minutes of editing couldn't resolve, even if it means ending up with a shorter and simpler article. There are any number of similar 'Country and the WB' articles in the category, so I don't see why Mexico's should be deleted. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:26, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep We have a whole series of articles about individual countries and their relationship with the WB. That’s a notable topic because it is much discussed in multiple sources. If the article needs improving that’s easily done. Mccapra (talk) 06:33, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:20, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Chupadera Formation[edit]

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

    Chupadera Formation is an abandoned geologic rock unit name ([[15]]) As an abandoned formation name, it lacks notability. Since it refers to three currently accepted formations, there is no obvious unique redirect. Kent G. Budge (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Mexico-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Well, that's a damning source analysis. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:04, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Bader Samir Tayeb Al Awadhi[edit]

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

    Non notable gentleman, this is more WP:ADMASQ and PR to try to make him notable than an article about him. It was declined at WP:AFC and the creating editor chose to move to main space anyway

    I have analysed the references from this permalink:

    Source assessment table:
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    https://www.yahalla.com ? Mobile phone sales site No Mobile phone sales site No Subject not mentioned ✘ No
    https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/290828 No interview with the subject ? hard to determine No interview with subject ✘ No
    http://www.vivacity.ae No advertising site No advertising site No No mention of the subject ✘ No
    https://www.healthysportsme.com Yes unrelated to subject No sales site for gym equipment No No mention of the subject ✘ No
    http://www.leadergroup.ae No subject's own business No subject's own business No subject's own business ✘ No
    https://www.millenniumhotels.com/en/dubai/millennium-place-barsha-heights-apartments/ No subject's own business No subject's own business No subject's own business ✘ No
    https://www.khaleejtimes.com/nation/dubai/dubai-to-have-worlds-largest-sports-mall Yes Newspaper Yes Seems to be a good paper No no mention of the subject ✘ No
    https://www.dlrgroup.com/about/press-releases/arabian-property-award-sport-society No Press release No press release No press release ✘ No
    https://gulfnews.com/technology/after-success-in-africa-yahalla-tries-to-capture-its-ceos-home-market-1.2133120 No Press release No press release No press release ✘ No
    https://www.pressreader.com/uae/khaleej-times/20180102/282492889077228 No Appears to be a PR site No Appears to be a PR site No Subject is quoted. ✘ No
    https://issuu.com/entmagazineme/docs/entrepreneur_ar_march_2018_issuu-ss ? in Arabic ? in Arabic ? in Arabic ? Unknown
    https://tracxn.com/d/companies/yahalla.com/ Yes Seems like a listing of companies ? Seems like a listing of companies No no mention of subject ✘ No
    https://www.albawaba.com/business/uae-first-global-connectivity-index-mena-region-1127540 No Press release No press release No press release ✘ No
    https://assets.entrepreneur.com/magazine/2017-03-entrepreneur-middle-east.pdf?_ga=2.235184006.629528546.1595508745-1682250486.1595349112 Yes magazine Yes looks to be a decent magazine ? I am not leafing through a huge magazine to see if a reference is there ? Unknown
    http://www.ironmind.com/news/Bader-Samir-Tayeb-Certifies-on-the-IronMind-Red-Nail/ Yes not owned by the subject at lest ? No PR piece on his sports qualification ✘ No
    http://musselwhitepapers.blogspot.com/2014/02/first-gripper-donation-for-2014.html Yes Blog No blog No passing mention ✘ No
    https://www.albayan.ae/five-senses/occasions/2012-07-13-1.1687674 Yes Not 100% sure ? No Seems like his family was present at wedding ✘ No
    https://www.emaratalyoum.com/life/society/2012-07-09-1.497613 Yes Not 100% sure ? No Seems like the subject held a dinner party. Passing mention ✘ No
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    Fiddle Faddle 15:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Portions of this article are in non-neutral language written to praise the subject rather than to describe him neutrally.

    Robert McClenon (talk) 15:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 15:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kirillyakovlev (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)Thank you for your reviews, I have edited article's tone to more neutral and also worked on links and refs.Kirillyakovlev (talk) 15:04, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete as per nom and above all. -Hatchens (talk) 15:13, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The creating editor removed the AfD banner. I have replaced it just now. Fiddle Faddle 08:04, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment There has been a deal of work done on referencing. I will not do a further analysis, you are easily able to scan them. My view is that the calibre of the references remains the same, but this needs to be checked by the closing admin. I have not seen anything to alter my view expressed when I nominated this article. One reference suggests that the phone might merit an article, but I think not the gentleman. Fiddle Faddle 08:12, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - this is likely paid-for spam. MER-C 17:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 13:31, 16 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ZX Spectrum Next[edit]

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

    The ZX Spectrum Next is a kickstarter-funded modern clone of the ZX Spectrum. Only around 3000 units have been produced so far. As such, it is an extremely niche product. Unlike the original Vega or Spectrum Vega+, this product is not marketed at the general public seeking nostalgia, nor does it have the involvement of Sinclair Research.

    As a crowdfunded product, the only reliable third party coverage of the machine has been for the initial launch of the project and the delivery and reviews of the final product. It is extremely unlikely that mainstream sources will be covering the machine again in the future.

    Most of the article consists of meaningless jargon and technical specifications, some of it repeated which makes the article appear to be larger than the actual content.

    A product being successfully crowdfunded and delivered is not in itself notable.

    There is no reason why this machine requires a dedicated page when all the valuable information about it is included in the relevant section of the ZX Spectrum page. The page has been nominated for speedy deletion several times since it's recreation. MrMajors (talk) 15:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    (update: a new kickstarter is being launched to fund a second production run of these machines: https://www.kickstarter.com/projects/spectrumnext/zx-spectrum-next-issue-2 MrMajors (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC) )[reply]


    • oppose/keep The ZX Spectrum Next is not a clone of the 1980s' ZX Spectrum. It is a distinct product, more accurately described as a platform for recreating (and not just emulating) a growing number of older computer systems. It achieves this through FPGA, and is arguably the first, or at least most, consumer-friendly FPGA-based product.
    I don't believe that the number of instances of something which exist is a criteria for its notability. For example, there is only one Eiffel Tower, only fifty States of america.
    As such I believe that it is notable and does not warrant coverage as part of the ZX Spectrum page, being a distinct (albeit related) product consequently having far more distinct information than can "fit" into another product's page.
    The page, like the ZX Spectrum Next itself, is relatively new and still developing towards the level of quality we've come to expect from Wikipedia; perhaps authors should've used the Wikpedia:Draft namespace until it was more mature, but I don't think deletion is an appropriate response to such an oversight. --DuncanCorps (talk) 22:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The amount of "distinct information" is inflated by repeating the same technical specifications in the 'Models' section, the 'Hardware Specifications' and in the infobox at the side. Without this unnecessary jargon, the remaining information would fit into a single paragraph on the ZX Spectrum page. MrMajors (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is not the first FPGA-based project. The ZX Uno project is another ZX Spectrum based FPGA device, but doesn't have it's own article. Neither do the MiST and MiSTer FPGA projects, which are more generic devices that can "recreate older computer systems". In fact, it's the "cores" (small programs that configure the FPGA to run as a particular system) developed for the MiST and Uno which are used by the Spectrum Next so calling it "distinct" is absurd - it's an FPGA device with a custom keyboard, not a "modern 8-bit home computer" as the article claims. MrMajors (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That is a big misunderstanding of this particular device. It is true that the Next can run other FPGA cores, but the main purpose is to be the hardware which runs the Spectrum Next's own operating system NextZXOS. NextZXOS is open source, so it is also true that it can run on other FPGA devices. But that doesn't detract from the fact that the whole package here - the hardware, the software and not least the very extensive and substantial manual - is intended to be highly reminiscent of the 8-bit computers of the 1980s, allowing anybody to take it out of the box and start playing games (old or new), or start programming. The other devices mentioned above are not the same thing, targeted more at the emulation scene.--Bryces (talk) 16:05, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The quality of the product isn't in dispute. MrMajors (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This very eloquently describes the consumer-friendliness of ZX Spectrum Next which makes it distinct from other FPGA devices, and also clarifies what its primary purpose and secondary applications are. --DuncanCorps (talk) 18:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Here, MrMajors points out ways in which ZX Spectrum Next is a distinct product from ZX Spectrum, seemingly refuting his own argument, not least because those differences would indeed be a great deal of information which has not yet been added to the page. I'd like to also emphasise that my point was the distinctive consumer-friendliness not unqualified "firstness". --DuncanCorps (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Then find a citation to support this "distinctive consumer-friendliness" and add it to the article. MrMajors (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The "distinctive consumer-friendliness" is described quite clearly in the cited PC Pro article. SRG275 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I have significantly edited the article, and removed most of the complexity and the promotional language, as well as the primary sources. I had no difficulty finding substantial coverage in reputable independent sources. Notability is clearly established by the references I added, such as Electronics Weekly, Metro (UK), PC Pro Magazine (UK), and MagPi Magazine. Indeed the product has been reviewed post-launch in several of those mainstream titles. When searching I also noticed significant coverage in non-English-language reliable sources. Thparkth (talk) 22:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NRV: "the evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest, nor a result of promotional activity or indiscriminate publicity": those references are clearly "short-term interest" as they are reviews of the machine sent out to reviewers around the time of the product's release ("promotional activity"). There is no likelihood of further broad coverage. MrMajors (talk) 14:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite obvious that this is not actually the case. For example, the MagPi articles are four months apart, in-depth, cover completely different material, and are by two separate journalists. The PC Pro article was a followup to an original review from two years earlier. Retro Gamer has been covering the topic since 2016. This isn't "short term interest", and nor is it the kind of "journalism by reprinted press release" WP:NRV is talking about. Thparkth (talk) 15:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's quite obvious that the earlier coverage was for the launch of the kickstarter and that the later coverage was for the delivery. There won't be any further broad coverage. MrMajors (talk) 16:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would very much like to have MrMajors's precogniscence regarding coverage of personal computers. People still talk about ZX Spectrum nearly four decades after its launch, it's entirely possible that ZX Spectrum Next will continue to receive coverage as its potential is explored by the "retro computing" community, and geeks of all flavours across the world. --DuncanCorps (talk) 18:10, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    We don't create articles for things in the hope they might become notable in the future. MrMajors (talk) 18:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ZX Spectrum Next is already being shown to be notable now; I thought your point was that it would cease to be notable, not that it has yet to become notable? IMHO, from past experience, we can't reliably predict that something will cease to be notable. --DuncanCorps (talk) 08:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    No, it's not shown to be notable now. Notability does not come from simply having been created. MrMajors (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It feels like we're focusing on coverage as a way to judge notability. How much current coverage is required in order for something to be proven notable? How does the level of current coverage of ZX Spectrum Next compare with, say, The Prisoner which still has a page which isn't under threat of deletion? I think I need to read an official Wikipedia definition of notable. --DuncanCorps (talk) 09:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relevant guidelines are WP:N and WP:RS. Pavlor (talk) 09:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So the Next is clearly notable. It was covered by print publications (PC Pro) and major websites (msn.com, theinquirer.net, theregister.com) over a period of more than four years. SRG275 (talk) 14:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Only because it took 4 years to deliver due it being a crowdfunded product. Taking a long time to deliver a product does not make it notable. This article was first deleted four months ago - none of the websites you mention were cited in the article then, nor are they in the current one. MrMajors (talk) 16:29, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks are due to MrMajors for pointing out some more sources to cite. --DuncanCorps (talk) 16:41, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    If you will read WP:N, specifically WP:CONTN, you will see that the content of the article is not relevant to notability. The websites exist, and discuss the Next (and are cited in the Czech language version of the article), so the Next is notable. The article is deficient and needs improvements, but that is not a reason for deletion. SRG275 (talk) 18:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Simply adding more citations that support the same thing - that the Next was crowdfunded and delivered - cannot improve the article. Wikipedia is not a catalogue - it doesn't have an article for every product that has been created and reviewed in a magazine. MrMajors (talk) 08:24, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is not a ZX Spectrum clone, but a new system which is backward compatible with the ZX Spectrum. Acceptance of this status by the wider ZX community can be seen by other FPGA based systems striving and advertising Next compatibility. Thus, it is not comparable to clones which do not have (or need) a separate page. SRG275 (talk) 21:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Whether you call it a clone or a new system is not relevant to it's notability. MrMajors (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    When you use the fact that FPGA clones like UNO or MiST do not have a page to claim that the Next should not have a page, a difference between those systems and the Next is very relevant to the discussion. SRG275 (talk) 12:23, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The Uno was funded and delivered by crowdfunding and reviewed in a few niche publications. It is not notable enough to warrant a separate article. The same applies to the Spectrum Next. MrMajors (talk) 14:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The article grew substantially in the last days, using cited materials. It's comparable in length, style, citations and information to an average article on Wikipedia. If there is a page on ZX Spectrum Vega+ than this alone is a reason to keep the article for the Next. Mitja i (talk) 05:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out earlier, the length of the article is artificially inflated by the repeating the technical specs several times. The Vega+ is notable for the fact it failed and led to court cases and was covered by mainstream media. MrMajors (talk) 12:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Perhaps we can increase the notability of ZX Spectrum Next by detailing how delivery of some models was delayed from original estimated dates and why? Not as dramatic as ZX Spectrum Vega+ (or ZX Spectrum Vega) but still sort-of trouble in the project... --DuncanCorps (talk) 14:43, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: There's way too much bickering about how different this product is, and way too little analysis of the sources that have been provided here.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Despite the pile-on from advocate accounts here, I do think this just about meets the bar for inclusion; there are multiple secondary sources, and several distinct claims to notability (successful crowdfunding campaign, the involvement of the original Spectrum's industrial designer). With that said, if the single-purpose accounts don't start behaving themselves (stuff like this is inappropriate) then they'll find themselves without any presence here too. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 09:50, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The ZX Vega, Recreated ZX Spectrum and ZX Uno all had successful crowdfunding campaigns. The Vega+ had the involvement of the original Spectrum's industrial designer. MrMajors (talk) 12:03, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • "Other notable subjects share the same characteristic" is not a very strong refutation. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 21:36, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Did I say the other subjects were notable? You stated that having a successful crowdfunding campaign and the involvement of the same keyboard designer were "distinct". They aren't. Yes, there are multiple secondary sources - but they all cover the announcement of the kickstarter and the reviews of the final product. Wikipedia doesn't have an article for every kickstarter and it doesn't have an article for every product reviewed. Not every product designed by a notable designer automatically becomes notable. MrMajors (talk) 10:24, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Distinct" as in "discrete", not as in "unique". The Vega has an article and has exactly the same claim to fame as this one, and yet I haven't see it challenged. (The Vega+ has its own reasons to be notable on top of that.) When it comes to the consideration of whether a subject is notable, in the general case the primary factor is whether a subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The sources look acceptable here. Appeals to universality ("all/no kickstarted products are notable") are generally unproductive in discussions about individual AfDs. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 15:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • Multiple sources all covering the same single event though. In fact, the entire article could easily have used a single source for all of the citations. Neither the article, nor any of the sources actually demonstrate why the Next is notable beyond it simply existing. MrMajors (talk) 17:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I do think we need to also add a Software section detailing a few of the games developed for the ZX Spectrum Next, and enhanced versions of old games. This is not a ZX Spectrum clone. It's it's own thing, and games developed for this platform can't be run on Normal ZX Spectrums. There should also be a list of alternative cores that allow this machine to emulate many other machines. --Jcnventura (talk) 21:35, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I'm not sure I get a vote here being unregistered Wikipedia user, but for what it's worth I do not think this article should be removed. Being somewhat active follower of the retro-computing scheme, there certainly is notable international buzz around this machine. This shows in YouTube retro-computing specific channels (for example Retro Recipes and Nostalgia Nerd). The machine has also been covered for example in my home country with a multi-page feature on a retro computing magazine. How far this buzz will carry is anyone's guess (I seriously doubt that MrMajors really is able to predict it with the accuracy he claims :D), but in my view this is certainly a notable machine at this time. The article will absolutely need improvement, but people (including myself) seem to be working on it. I must say however, that it's not very motivating to put lots of time and effort into an article that might dissappear over night. Having read the conversation about the deletion, it seems to me that the decision has actually already been made and no amount of work put into this article and opposing opinions will change that. Afterall it has been explicitly stated that the amount of opinions opposing deletion is not a factor in the final decision, which is kind of weird to me. Because what makes thing x important and notable if not the amount of people who think it's important and notable? If none of this matters then why have these conversations at all? Just my 2 cents... 81.175.155.7 (talk) 23:32, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia has its own defintion of notability (WP:N). In short, article subject needs broad enough coverage in multiple reliable sources (again by own Wikipedia definition WP:RS; major news media, published magazines or peer reviewed papers may work). As there is no delete "vote" other than that one by the nominator, this discussion could be closed at worst (from your POV) as a no consensus (which defaults to keep). Sure, most of the keep "votes" (but not all) here are somewhat close to "I like it" and would be probably discounted by the closing editor, but at least some offer policy based rationale centering on the quality of sources. However, it doesn´t matter how strong or weak these arguments are, at this point, there certainly is not a consensus to delete this article. Pavlor (talk) 05:14, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Being "a notable machine at this time" is exactly the problem with the article. Coverage needs to be WP:SUSTAINED and needs to satisfy the policies of WP:NOTNEWSPAPER, WP:NOTPROMOTION and WP:NOTCATALOGUE. MrMajors (talk) 13:33, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It's had press coverage since 2016. I don't think you will obtain a consensus for your position on this. Thparkth (talk) 15:03, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Short term press coverage is not enough in itself. None of the sources show why the Spectrum Next is notable, they only confirm it exists. MrMajors (talk) 18:02, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Generally speaking (and according to the WP:GNG), significant coverage in independent reliable sources is what makes a subject notable. Thparkth (talk) 18:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...and from WP:NRV "no subject is automatically or inherently notable merely because it exists" and " evidence must show the topic has gained significant independent coverage or recognition, and that this was not a mere short-term interest". MrMajors (talk) 18:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I do sympathise with this position, but honestly, there's a second kickstarter campaign happening right now. In my experience it is a collossal waste of time to try to XfD subjects which are literally currently in the public eye. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 23:53, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wonder what kind of mentions and articles would in MrMarjors opinion make something notable enough to be included and not merely confirm that it exists? Could you perhaps ellaborate on that a little bit? The way I see it 1) There is a sizeable public interest in the machine (as confirmed by the news sources and funding campaigns). 2) The machine has been covered (at least to some extent) in several 3rd party sources since 2016. These third party sources include the BBC and CNN. 3) Specialist magazines have internationally covered the machine in detail. At the moment this isn't very visible in the article to be honest. 4) The machine is a continuum of the Sinclair ZX Spectrum series, and I don't think anyone would contest the notability of ZX Spectrum. Next includes a number of enhancements made to original ZX Spectrum along the years and is fully compatible with original ZX Spectrum hardware extensions and peripherals. It is in every way currently possible a ZX Spectrum with 40 years of development on the original platform. I will give you that the article could indeed be part of ZX Spectrum article, but the fact is that it differs from the original ZX Spectrum to such an extent that including Next in the article would make the ZX Spectrum article grow way beyond its scope. 5) As for what comes to sustained attention is, like I said earlier, anyones guess. Then again Does ZX Spectrum, Commodore 64 or Amiga at the moment have sustained attention in the mainstream media? Or in fact did they ever? I don't remember that being the case in the '80s and '90s, the media field was very different back then. I find this requirement potentially somewhat problematic in many cases. 81.175.155.7 (talk) 10:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Can´t speak for the other platforms, but there is still some coverage of Amiga in "mainstream" media (eg Ars Technica). Be it some a piece about history of computing, or articles about several attempts for rebirth (eg. AmigaOne). Although all experienced Wikipedia editors will say notability is not inherited, both AmigaOne and ZX Spectrum Next are interesting to the outside of their own communities only because of this heritage (unlike eg. Raspberry Pi, which achieved notability on its own). As of mainstream media coverage in the 80s and early 90s, these platforms were "mainstream", so their dedicated press is sufficient for Wikipedia. Pavlor (talk) 11:47, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That notability is not automatically inherited does not mean that anything which is derived from something else is inherently non-notable. With regards to popularity, note that the general market for microcomputers has exploded in the last two decades: the Raspberry Pi for instance has already sold more than six times the total number of units the Amiga ever did despite being in a far smaller niche relative to the rest of the computing market. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 11:59, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you for clarifying this for me. I would argue that both AmigaOne and ZX Spectrum Next are actually interesting also within their communities only because of their heritage. It's the same for all of the "retro revival" scene. The heritage is precicely the "thing" here :D 81.175.155.7 (talk) 12:05, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 08:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Jonathan Kiefer[edit]

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

    Non-notable individual - fails GNG. I cannot find anything establishing notability via my searches. Only movie cited for relevance in article is not even notable in itself. At best, WP:TOOSOON. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. There is a reason that our notability guideline when discussing lists notes that our community is frequently divided on how to treat lists. That divide was on display in this AfD. Those who suggest that this article should be deleted, suggest that the list has ill-defined criteria, duplicates content found in other lists in ways that are not helpful, and lack sources necessary to establish independent notability. Those advocating keep note that lists provide different kinds of value to our readers compared to categories, that the need for inclusion criteria to be tightened and implemented or for other lists to be merged, is not a reason on its own to delete, and that there is verifiable information found on the topic. Ultimately this view had the consensus of participating editors. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:48, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of fictional schools[edit]

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

    This is a list article which could easily run to hundreds of pages, and without being useful. An encyclopaedia isn't a search engine. This has been in CAT:NN for 4 years. No consensus in 2007, decision to delete at 2010 AfD. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Keep The nomination's rationales are ludicrous. Not a search engine? So we should delete all lists, categories, navigational templates and the search function? That's nonsense. The key point is whether the list is notable per WP:LISTN and this one clearly passes. As we're apparently not a search engine, I won't list any sources yet; that's an exercise for the reader. This includes the nominator as they don't seem to have studied the topic in any detail, as required by WP:BEFORE. If they had done, they would have noticed that the famous Hogwarts isn't in the list because there's a separate one for magic schools. 5 points from Slytherin! Andrew🐉(talk) 20:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Andrew, I'm actually somewhat with you--but I wish you hadn't just dumped a bunch of citations in that article without actually citing anything. If you want to argue that it passes per LISNT, you need to prove that "it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources", and while it is possible that those books (or some of them? what The Fictional Dimension of the School Shooting Discourse is supposed to prove is anyone's guess) do that, you submit no evidence that this is happening. Thank you, Drmies (talk) 21:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • It's the nominator's job to make a case and, per WP:BEFORE, "The minimum search expected is a normal Google search, a Google Books search, a Google News search, and a Google News archive search; Google Scholar is suggested for academic subjects.". It doesn't appear that any of this has been done and, instead, we get some nonsense about search engines. Insofar as I have done anything at all, this is a gratuitous bonus. Andrew🐉(talk) 22:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a bit misleading to add them as sources unless you've confirmed that they each support the presence of specific entries currently in the list. I propose renaming the section to "Further reading" otherwise. pburka (talk) 22:43, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Both the nominator and myself anticipate that the list will be expanded to contain many more entries. What I've done at this stage is some broad strokes to help improve the page's foundations. I favour putting lists of sources in the References section at the outset to facilitate addition of citations. I sometimes use list-defined references but otherwise establish a separate list of sources which can then be cited inline using {{sfn}} short footnotes. Such sources can be considered general references, which are quite valid:

      A general reference is a citation to a reliable source that supports content, but is not linked to any particular text in the article through an inline citation. General references are usually listed at the end of the article in a "References" section ... General reference sections are most likely to be found in underdeveloped articles ...The appearance of a general references section is the same as those given above in the sections on short citation ...

    The sources I listed have been selected especially to demonstrate that the topic passes WP:LISTN which, as explained above, is the key point in this discussion. As they are substantial and cover numerous schools, we should expect them to be used to cite multiple entries and so are best placed together in the references rather than scattered across the entries. We are not required to fully develop the page at this stage because AfD is not cleanup. Andrew🐉(talk) 08:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Books-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:51, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. WP:NOTUSEFUL WP:NOTPAPER etc. Has the topic being discussed as a group in reliable sources? It sure has: Global TV, Bustle, Vulture, The Guardian, Manchester University Press, Journal of Gender and Education. pburka (talk) 22:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per above Keeps.   // Timothy :: talk  23:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per the above arguments. I don't think the nominator makes a strong case here... — Hunter Kahn 23:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Sources already listed on the page — American Boarding School Fiction, 1928-1981, Happiest Days: The Public Schools in English Fiction, "The Secondary School in Post‐war Fiction" — indicate that "schools in fiction" are talked about as a set. I don't know if they specifically discuss "fictional schools" as opposed to "real schools used in fiction" but I think it's likely that coverage exists. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete or Soft redirect to an appropriate category. Schools are so ubiquitous in society that finding them in fiction is unsurprising. Finding sources that discuss fictional schools is unsurprising. That doesn't mean that a list is appropriate. This list collects no information other than simple existence. Moreover, with only 3 exceptions (of highly questionable notability themselves), the articles linked to aren't about the schools, but rather the works that contain them. Most of the category entries are redirects to associated works. Some are hoaxes rather than entities in works of fiction. A category is much more useful than a list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 03:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per Deacon Vorbis. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 03:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • DV's point is that we should be using categories instead – presumably categories like Fictional schools. But the relevant guideline, WP:CLN, makes it quite clear that we don't delete lists to favour categories because lists are superior in some ways. In particular, lists can cite sources whereas categories make no provision for this. Lists are therefore superior when the notability of the topic is in question, as in this case. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep why hasn't arbcon made a topic ban for listing schools at afd? Its been 16 years since the school deletion wars have been running. 2A01:4C8:54:47B6:31F2:7871:7527:B20C (talk) 11:36, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete There are so many fictional schools there is not really any function to this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Proposal While I do find it amusing that two of the most common deletion arguments for lists are that they're too long and too short, having done some cleanup on this particular list, I propose that its real problem is that its content is all duplicated elsewhere:
    I don't think the list we're discussing brings much new to the table. Therefore I propose that we strip out all ten actual entries, leaving only the structure intact, and move the page from List of fictional schools to Lists of fictional schools and universities, neatly converting it into a list of lists, which could certainly help organize this sprawling subject. pburka (talk) 22:51, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Not so fast. The page in question started as a spinoff from military academy and, at its peak, had lots of them. If we wanted a summary page then it might be best to return this one to the military academy aspect and split off the summary level idea. Anyway, this is not a matter for AfD per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 23:28, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wow. I hadn't dug deeply into the history. This page has seen some things. Clearly the page was misnamed at that time, but there might be some salvageable content there. pburka (talk) 23:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It wasn't even misnamed: Page move on 1 December 2016. pburka (talk) 23:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As per available resources and based on Google search.DMySon 06:56, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - hard to imagine how this list could actually help someone. I mean, really. Serves as much purpose as any other List of fictional x articles, which is negligible. These lists just grow indiscriminately and belong on TVTropes or Wikia, not here. I realize this is a losing battle but that's my piece. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 15:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete in agreement with User:El cid, el campeador. These articles are impossible to maintain with any verifiability, and provide very little value that isn't much more reliable in the category system. It would be acceptable to soft redirect to Category:Fictional educational institutions. Jontesta (talk) 18:48, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've got it backwards. Categories are not verifiable because they do not have citations. Lists are verifiable because they can and do. See also WP:CLN which explains that we don't delete one navigational strucrure to favour another. There is therefore no policy basis for the !votes of Jontesta, and El Cid. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:59, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You've got it backwards, if not outright false. This list doesn't have any citations, and most lists like it never do. That's why they feature so many problems with verifiability and original research. It becomes easy to slip in unverified entries, let alone several unverified statements that might be completely false. Without citations or any basic limit to addition, these lists are frequently plagued with problems, if they survive at AFD at all. Such is the case with this heavily unverified list.
    Please do not misstate my or other editors' positions, let alone Wikpiedia policy. The question of having a list or a category are completely independent, and my offering a compromise to work on a comparable category shouldn't be used to then piggyback your "list" argument on my "category" compromise. In practice, the category Category:Fictional schools is full of articles with third party sources, which means there's already more fact-checking than this list to prevent complete falsehoods. Third party sources are the whole basis of Wikipedia, and at least the text and associated categories of those articles can be fact-checked against some reliable expert. Compare that to the complete dearth of experts on "list of fictional school buses", because there's no third party who has covered this subject, and no one who can help us sort fact from fabrication. (There's not even a meticulous editor who has dedicated their original research to knowing all the fictional schools, not that we could use that as a workable standard for Wikipedia anyway.)
    In case the policy basis for deletion isn't clear, look at the lack of sources to meet even just WP:V, let alone WP:OR and WP:GNG. If you sincerely believe this article passes those policies, you'd do a lot more by actually finding third party sources than by arguing with every comment you disagree with. Jontesta (talk) 21:16, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, I don't believe I mentioned categories once in my statement. If I'm wrong please let me know. Cheers ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 20:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You didn't. However your rationale was essentially that it's WP:NOTUSEFUL. pburka (talk) 21:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per pburka et al, as sourcing has been identified. Restructuring/ renaming is routine clean-up. A parent lists of lists might be appropriate as well, but zero reason to delete. Gleeanon409 (talk) 02:46, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. There appears to be a not insignificant amount of fictional schools that have Wikipedia articles, making this list merited as long as it consists only of fully sourced entries/bluelinks.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 15:57, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merge (first choice) or Delete second choice - Regarding comments above about there being extant Wikipedia articles about fictional schools, from the links in this article, I count two: Starfleet Academy and Miskatonic University. The others are redirects or articles about books named after schools (regardless of whether the article talks about the school itself at all), which seems quite different. But there are also the sub-articles to deal with: List of fictional magic schools and List of fictional British and Irish universities. Rather than send both of them to AfD, why not merge the notable entries together? I count about 4 in the first and 1 in the second. Hmmm. Now that I write it out, a list of 7 isn't so exciting, especially considering how much people seem to want to pack these lists with trivia. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 02:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No. You just linked to an article about a TV series and a comic strip series. Neither article is about a fictional school but a work of fiction titled after a school. It's the same as linking to any other fictional work that has a school in it -- just not in the title. By that logic, we could look at the titles of any fiction and come up with lists based on the kind of thing in the title. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 13:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't see any reason to delay our processes on the basis of pl.wiki's; if they do find sources we didn't locate, we can always undelete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 08:02, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Zofia Sapieha[edit]

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

    I see no indication of notability in the form of significant coverage in reliable sources, as required by WP:BASIC notability criteria. The subject appears to have lived a private life of no interest to the media or historians. The article is a mere genealogical entry, yet Wikipedia is not a genealogy website but an encyclopedia. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 14:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. The article has been supported by adequate WP:RS and passes WP:GNG (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 19:19, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    LendUp[edit]

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

    Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. No credible citations are available. Hatchens (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 16:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Is there a reason to discount the three WSJ articles listed as sources where the company is the subject, in my experience the WSJ is reliable? Are they promo pieces I can't see that on the source. PainProf (talk) 17:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In this whole article, Wall Street Journal, VentureBeat and The Christian Science Monitor are seems to be only reliable sources for three-four inline citations which are providing just general news reporting (sometime a passable mention). A good article needs in-depth coverage (as per WP:SIGCOV) from multiple reliable sources as mentioned in this list - Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources. And, currently this entity is lacking such coverage. However, if you can add few relevant sources, then please do feel free to add and update us on this AfD discussion thread. -Hatchens (talk) 02:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Lendup appears to be the subject of the article in the WSJ article[1]. I checked the university library which helpfully keeps a list of PR sources. It looks like many of the sources are simply churnalism. PainProf (talk) 14:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep that was premature based off this in depth criticism in the ft. We need to neutralise this article as COI editors are more likely trying to suppress criticism than promote in this case [2] PainProf (talk) 14:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep All Things D is also a reliable source.[3] As is The Christian Science Monitor.[4] And Marketplace (although it is not exclusively about Lendup). [5] That said, a significant amount of the most credible press is related to the CPB fine (and the text of the article minimized the charges). [6]
    Above added by JSFarman, a major contributor to the article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Oops. I neglected to sign my comment. Is this a bot-activated message? (I reviewed and published the article in August 2013 and edited it a couple of days ago to reflect my comment above.) JSFarman (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The two TechCrunch, VentureBeat, and CSM articles are fairly substantial. While many of the other sources are press releases or churnalism, IMO there's enough to pass the GNG. -M.Nelson (talk) 23:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    References

    1. ^ hollis.harvard.edu https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/search?query=any,contains,Lendup&tab=everything&search_scope=everything&vid=HVD2&lang=en_US&offset=0. Retrieved 2020-07-19. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
    2. ^ "Subscribe to read | Financial Times". www.ft.com. Retrieved 2020-07-19. {{cite web}}: Cite uses generic title (help)
    3. ^ "Kleiner Perkins, Andreessen Horowitz and Google Ventures Fund Payday Loan Alternative LendUp". AllThingsD. Retrieved 2020-07-19.
    4. ^ "Payday loan alternative LendUp to pay $6.3 million for misleading customers". Christian Science Monitor. 2016-09-30. ISSN 0882-7729. Retrieved 2020-07-19.
    5. ^ "The online game of borrowing money". Marketplace. 2012-10-11. Retrieved 2020-07-19.
    6. ^ Koren, James Rufus (2016-09-27). "Google-backed LendUp fined by regulators over payday lending practices". Los Angeles Times. Retrieved 2020-07-19.
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    T. C. West[edit]

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

    Non nontable senator, does not even cite a full name.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 10:03, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    A. D. Duffey[edit]

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

    Non notable legislator, does not even give a full name.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]


    • CommentAdded bio info and additional experience info. Recommend delay until California Blue Book is available online. The Ukulele Dude - Aggie80 (talk)
    • Keep per WP:NPOL: Duffey is presumed notable because [p]oliticians … who have held … state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels are presumed notable. He also got some media coverage due to a disputed election in 1902, which I just added. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I was looking for more information on this Duffey, but got distrated inproving the article on Gordon W. Duffy. I wish people would at least find a little more information before making articles, like at least some dates. People should not feel such a rush to create articles. However i understand the reasons some do, and this person is clearly passing our notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:06, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Member of the California Assembly. Passes WP:NPOL. --Enos733 (talk) 15:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per WP:NPOL. Duffey served as a member of a state legislature. LefcentrerightDiscuss 08:34, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shree Chandulal Nanavati Vinay Mandir[edit]

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

    Non notable school, does not satisfy WP:GNG   Kadzi   (talk) 14:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 03:41, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Agastopia[edit]

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

    Nomination as per WP:NAD. Very strange reading article, both sources appear to be discussions regarding the English language and this topic seems to have no actual bearing to psychology. Statements regarding its rarity are unfounded.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions.   Kadzi   (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete (regrettably) This was previously proposed for speedy deletion on WP:A11 grounds, and it may still satisfy that criterion, the two (dodgy) sources notwithstanding. That said, if there were more demonstrable substance to this, I'd actually want to keep it as a curio, but given that the article consists only of a dictionary definition plus a couple of unsupported claims (and on a quick search I couldn't find anything to support it either), there's nothing there to keep, once you've pared it down; hence fails WP:NAD. Draftifying it seems pretty pointless, too, seeing as it's taken 6+ years to get this far. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 00:06, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I think this is someone's idea of a joke as the only source I looked at seemed to be some kind of joke book. PainProf (talk) 22:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Mz7 (talk) 03:43, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Manuel Mill, California[edit]

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

    Not a community, but a sawmill, according to this source. It's clear from their description that there was nothing particularly notable about it. Mangoe (talk) 14:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete all indications are that this was a sawmill and not a community as claimed. Hut 8.5 15:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It was a sawmill, there is no indication that there was a community. newspapers.com had a couple of trivial references. Google Books mentions a tourist lodge. Cxbrx (talk) 17:28, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:06, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Anjum Farooki[edit]

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

    Some trivial mentions in RS. Fails GNG. She did have a few other television credits but none of them were significant roles. Most notable credit is a role in Balika Vadhu, but that was a small temporary casting. Fails WP:ENT - hako9 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - hako9 (talk) 13:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to Princess Astrid of Belgium#Marriage and issue. There is consensus to not keep the article. However, redirects are cheap and may be created in the normal course of editing so I will go with delete and redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 23:56, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Princess Luisa Maria of Belgium[edit]

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

    The subject is one of the fourteen grandchildren of the former Belgian king and a niece of the present king. She has no official role and the public is generally unaware of her existence. Googling her yields only 64 hits, excluding Wikipedia and Pinterest. These 64 hits consist mainly of blogs and forums. Given the lack of significant coverage in reliable sources, I do not see why Wikipedia should have a biography of this person. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete no significant coverage. She lacks any public role that would actually give her notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom and the other comment above. Smeat75 (talk) 19:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Princess Astrid of Belgium#Marriage and issue or delete unless sources confirming independent notability surface. TJMSmith (talk) 04:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect to mother's article, unless/until it too is deleted. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 09:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect. She is mentioned offhand a couple times in glamor magazines as the daughter of Astrid, but is not the subject of any coverage herself. JoelleJay (talk) 17:46, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 02:03, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No point of this AfD. It was AfDed before. (non-admin closure) Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 12:38, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Alyssa Carson[edit]

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

    Previously deleted self-promotional article which remains self-promotional. To date, her achievements have only been recognized by her and her family, not NASA beyond acknowledging family trips to all NASA visitor centers.

    She has been mentioned or even the subject of many magazine, newspaper, and blog articles, she has also received some attention from TV. But none of these address the topic in detail, instead reprinting a list of firsts published on her website bio or the Mars One bio.

    The claim of notability as an "author" is dubious considering it was a single self-published book. The awards listed are non-notable.

    I hope she achieves all she's been claiming for many years, but until then, her primary claim to notability is shallow media attention. It's still WP:TOOSOON MadeYourReadThis (talk) 13:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Speedy Keep. We just had an AFD for a basically identical version of the article, which closed 20 days ago. Nothing has changed since then.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 13:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep as well. Not cleanup, but the first sentence should be rewritten again as simply American space enthusiast and college student or something... Caro7200 (talk) 14:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Notability cannot be lost. Extensive AfD discussion that closed within a month of this new one decided Carson was notable and that the article should be kept. Nothing has changed since then. All of the nominators reasons for deletion were addressed in the previous AfD. Samsmachado (talk) 16:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment Notability cannot be lost but neither can it be gained through puff-peices in otherwise reputable media sources nor can it be gained through a self-published book. The preivous AFD centered heavily around the number of those sources and their reliability but failed to adequately address the depth of those discussions. The only thing that changed since the AFD prior to that was that self-published book. This young woman continues to receive coverage, most of it incorrect, most of it likely through her own and her father's promotional skill. Wikipedia should think twice before becoming a part of that promotion.--MadeYourReadThis (talk) 21:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There was a very long discussion in the last AfD, a mere 20 or so days ago. There were at least 17 participants. The clear consensus was keep; to quote the closing admin "There is wide agreement here that the subject has sufficient coverage to meet WP:BASIC/WP:GNG." It's a bit of a time-waster to nominate this again.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Has anything changed since last month? pburka (talk) 18:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:SNOW. - hako9 (talk) 18:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Sorry that you missed last month's discussion, but we shouldn't go through the same discussion again. — Toughpigs (talk) 20:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Before taking what has been written about this young woman as gospel, take a look at her Linked In page which coverage has been based on, makes claims such as a masters degree from the International Space University in Strasbourg France, while this article in on the NASM website describes that experience as "auditing classes for two weeks". This subject needs more scrutinay that it was given during the last AFD.— Preceding unsigned comment added by MadeYourReadThis (talk • contribs)
    Sure, we could do background research on what her Linkedin page says, and speculate on whether he father is behind the publicity. Or we could just look at all the published sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep The last AFD just ended and was pretty clear. I'm not sure what User:MadeYourReadThis is thinking here, but the consensus was clear at the last AFD, that this met GNG. One is tempted to IAR and delete it for so many reasons ... how is this not a pointy nomination - particularly without a DRV? Nfitz (talk) 03:24, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to Princess Astrid of Belgium#Marriage and issue. There is consensus to not keep the article. However, redirects are cheap and may be created in the normal course of editing so I will go with delete and redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:01, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Princess Maria Laura of Belgium[edit]

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

    A vast majority of people in Belgium would shrug if asked about a "Maria Laura". She is one of the five children of the sister of the Belgian king. Despite having been granted the title of princess as a child, Maria Laura was raised without expectation of any public role and has never been of much interest to reputable media outlets. Even in Belgian tabloids, she is featured less than the ex-girlfriends of the British Prince Harry. Google search results come almost exclusively from blogs, forums, and image hosting websites. All in all, the subject is a private person of no apparent notability. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to her mother, Princess Astrid of Belgium. This article is pretty much devoid of sources, as neither of the two linked pages actually finds anything, much less anything biographically significant. If she receives more significant coverage in the future, the article can be re-created later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete being a member of a royal family is not in and of itself a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 19:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Princess Astrid of Belgium#Marriage and issue or delete unless sources confirming independent notability surface. TJMSmith (talk) 04:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect to mother's article, unless/until it too is deleted. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 09:36, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect, everything about her can fit in her mother's article. JoelleJay (talk) 18:02, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete and redirect to Princess Astrid of Belgium#Marriage and issue. There is consensus to not keep the article. However, redirects are cheap and may be created in the normal course of editing so I will go with delete and redirect. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Princess Laetitia Maria of Belgium[edit]

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

    Laetitia Maria is the fifth child of the sister of the Belgian king. She has a (rather large) family and a title, and she also goes to school. That is all there is to know about her. While her mother is a full-time royal, none of her siblings have any public role. The coverage of her adult brothers barely meets the minimum of WP:BASIC notability criteria, but in the case of the sisters, especially the minor Laetitia Maria, there is no indication of any notability. Perhaps we ought to let her grow up and figure out what she wants to do with her life and then have a biography of her if there is a significant coverage in reliable sources. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 12:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to her mother, Princess Astrid of Belgium. The only source in this article is an item about her birth 17 years ago. If she receives more significant coverage in the future, the article can be re-created later. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a non-notable teenager.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom.Smeat75 (talk) 19:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to Princess Astrid of Belgium#Marriage and issue or delete unless sources confirming independent notability surface. TJMSmith (talk) 04:39, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete and redirect to mother's article, unless/until it too is deleted. No independent notability, but worth a redirect (plus redirects from other names). PamD 09:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Her notability hinges entirely on royalty fan blogs speculating on the sisters' future dating prospects. JoelleJay (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect as suggested. Bearian (talk) 02:05, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:59, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Miss Crystal Angel International[edit]

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

    Not a notable competition. Don't have any significant coverage or references. Fails WP:GNG and WP:N(E) - The9Man (Talk) 12:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete non-notable pageant.---00:56, 4 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Delete a non-notable beauty pageant.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:01, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Deletethe contest is not remarkable, no reliable sources or significant coverage.---Richie Campbell (talk) 03:32, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Moon landing conspiracy theories. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:39, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Moon hoax[edit]

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

    Moon landing conspiracy theory is WP:PRIMARYTOPIC of "moon hoax" (see Google results). Therefore, this disambiguation page is pointless. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Not necessary per WP:TWODABS. Redirect to the moon landing hoax, and add a hatnote to the other entry. Hog Farm Bacon 14:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per Bacon. Neither entry is an acceptable dab entry anyway. (Everyone knows that the Moon is made of green cheese; if Apollo 11 had actually tried to land, the rocket exhaust would have melted the cheese and the lander would have sunk out of sight. Yeah, that's it.) Clarityfiend (talk) 06:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: It's not causing any harm, only help! Anyone familiar with 19th century American media history would think of Great Moon Hoax when they see "moon hoax." At least I did. Fun to see that this was created as a redirect in 2003.--Milowent • hasspoken 22:30, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We don't have this rule on the moon. We only have WP:IAR. I need to find more moon hoaxes, I may need to invent some.--Milowent • hasspoken 16:19, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I cannot find any reference of the 19th century American media history when searching for "moon hoax". Those who are familiar with still thinks that "moon hoax" is something related to Apollo 11. --Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 11:37, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:42, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Mayra Samaniego[edit]

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

    The subject is a PhD candidate and does not appear to meet WP:NACADEMIC yet. h-index of 7. Her company Harvita appears to be an experimental university student startup company, it hasn't received any coverage and appears not to have gotten any funding. No awards. Only coverage is from the university newsletter [16][17]. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. – Thjarkur (talk) 11:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete it is very rare for someone to be notable as a PhD candidate, and nothing suggests she is an exception to this rule.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. One well-cited paper in a high-citation field is not enough for academic notability and there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails WP:NACADEMIC ~ Amkgp 💬 18:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Publish. External references that support Samaniego's research have been included. References that support that Harvita is not a student startup company have been included. Harvita is a company incorporated in Saskatchewan Canada. The Awards and Honours section has been included. Coverage references outside the university have been included. - —Lukaswarce (talk) 18:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Far WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF. There's no sign that the company is notable, which would require significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. Involvement with a non-notable company doesn't make her notable. No sign of GNG. Comment that she's almost surely not a professor at SP (and the source doesn't support it). Russ Woodroofe (talk) 18:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Publish. In the reference link that supports that she is a professor please search her last name or name and you will see that she is part of the Faculty at Saskatchewan Polytechnic. —Lukaswarce (talk) 19:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please don't !vote twice. Simply being a professor isn't sufficient. See WP:PROF for the guidelines for professors. (Btw, it's conventional to tag a comment like this with "keep" rather than "publish".) pburka (talk) 20:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ...but I'd welcome a new convention of !voting "publish" or "perish" in AFD discussions for professors.pburka (talk) 21:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Humdrum failure to meet the standard for wiki-notability of academics. No sign that the company is notable either. XOR'easter (talk) 20:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:TOOSOON. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:47, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Publish. She is researching technologies to help northern communities of Canada face COVID-19. That is so remarkable!!! She is a young researcher who has accomplished a lot. She is an excellent representation of Latin women in science.allpatech (talk) 19:10, 4 August 2020 (UTC) — allpatech (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Sockpuppet !vote struck[reply]
    • Publish. She represents Latin women in computer science, which is a minority group. What she has done is very notable. Also, getting funding for her research is remarkable. - —Carlosjuliofierro (talk) 15:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC) — Carlosjuliofierro (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
    • delete getting research funded does not meet the noteability criterion for Wikipedia, I think this is simply WP:TOOEARLY. I also doubt that she is a professor while at the same time pursuing her PhD, it seems that somebody exaggerated a bit here. --hroest 18:31, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Comment I've seen no evidence she's a professor - she does seem to be a uni faculty member, but even her own website says she is a Research Assistant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 18:40, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      It doesn't make a difference to whether she is notable in any case. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:00, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG, no evidence they are a prof anyways. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:56, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, seems to fail Wp:NPROF. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:02, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 10:36, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz[edit]

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

    Fails to meet the notability criteria found at WP:NPROF. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Background information: Please search for evidence of notability and !vote before opening this section in order to avoid being influenced by it.

    Valoem strongly disagrees with Wikipedia's guideline at Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Valoem believes that discovering multiple insect species automatically confers notability, a notion that there is a strong consensus against in the Wikipedia community.

    During a discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Günter Bechly Valoem asked:

    "Can you please give examples of scientists with orthodox views who have discovered multiple species and have been deleted?"[18]

    (The "orthodox views" refers to Valoem's position that Günter Bechly's article is being considered for deletion because he is a creationist, and not because he fails WP:NPROF and WP:GNG.)

    I replied with a list of several scientists who have discovered multiple species but do not have a Wikipedia page, including Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz.[19]

    Another editor commented

    "I could demonstrate the problem here in an entirely pointy way: by creating an article each about the three guys I share an office with. They are postdocs at the beginning of their career, they have a dozen papers to their name of which none reaches triple citation digits, and as avid field entomologists they each have between 2 and 5 descriptions of coleoptera, thrips, and similar small fry to their name. These guys are, by any of our criteria, a long way from notable, and their articles would not last a minute here. Them having multiple species descriptions to their name is not an exceptional thing, because describing species is easy when that's your profession."[20]

    At this point, Valoem decided to create a page for Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz to prove a WP:POINT.[21]

    So now we have a page that was created because the topic of the page fails our notability guideline at WP:NPROF.

    Please note that it may turn out that Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz is notable for other reasons --that is why we have AfDs -- but discovering multiple insect species does not confer notability. --Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Guy Macon (talk) 11:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment, When scientists discover species they will receive significant coverage regarding their discovery which is why this article was created. The source provided in the article shows he passes GNG. Also this person does not appear to a professor. Valoem talk contrib 12:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Please list this "significant coverage" that you claim exists on the Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz page. So far your edits to that page completely lack any citations to reliable secondary sources that demonstrate significant coverage. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Significant coverage is not required for NPROF, only evidence of significant impact. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:57, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      User:Go Into The Light has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Details on their talk page. The above comment shows why; it ignores the fact that Valoem appears to accept the fact that d'Acoz fails Wikipedia:Notability (academics) but argues that d'Acoz passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline -- which does require significant coverage -- based upon the coverage cited in the article. He doesn't, of course, as anyone reading those citations can clearly see. In other words. WP:IDHT + WP:IDHT = WP:IDHT2... --Guy Macon (talk) 00:33, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've verified this person is not a professor,but a research scientist therefore the basis of this AfD is invalid. Valoem talk contrib 13:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    So now you think that for some reason we are not allowed to delete pages about non-notable research scientists? You really need to start quoting the exact wording of Wikipedia policies that support your claims. Right now it really looks like you are just making up new rules and ignoring existing ones. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Valoem, there's a little bit of confusion, NPROF applies to all academics. Research scientist is just a type of academic who does research more than teaching and a research assistant is a very low rank of academic (often people are research assistant before they are a PhD student). NProf is just meant to be a more rational way of assessing scientists and other academics because they can get significant press without notability or be notable for their ideas but not have biographical information. PainProf (talk) 14:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Not a good enough publication record, he is listed as a Research Assistant but his claim to notability is the academic sphere. All sources are about his academic work. The sources in the article are traced to press releases. Also science is prone to churnalism so we need to be careful. From my own experience we generally send out a press release and can get some pretty high impact coverage but it's very transient and doesn't add much to notability. @Guy Macon: I'm not sure we need the context for creation on the page as this AfD should stand on its own. Would you consider removing? PainProf (talk) 13:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I would consider it, but 90% of it would have to be repeated in replies to Valoem. I think that it is significant that this page was created specifically because because Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz fails our notability guideline at WP:NPROF. Please note that I just changed the text on the collapsed section. --Guy Macon (talk) 13:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Writing taxonomic papers has never granted immediate wp notability. Cédric fails the basic WP:PROF notability criteria. No Valoem describing a species does not grant notability.--Kevmin § 14:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails PROF and GNG. Hemiauchenia (talk) 14:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete. He has one well-cited single-author monograph, "Inventaire et distribution des crustacés décapodes de l'Atlantique nord-oriental", and a bunch of lesser publications with many coauthors in which he does not appear to have a prominent role. A case could be made for WP:PROF#C1 or maybe WP:AUTHOR but I think it's borderline. What tips the scale for me to weak delete instead of weak keep is that there's so little else to say about him than his publication record — unlike most academics we have little information even about his education, career, awards or other recognition, or anything like that. It might have been a better choice to make an article about the book, which appears more notable than its author, and redirect there per WP:BIO1E. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I would have no objection to a newly created article about the monograph and this BLP being turned into a redirect to that article. We would likely need someone who speaks the language to create the article about the monograph. --Guy Macon (talk) 16:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Francophones should not be difficult to find. And in any case it would be the language of references about the monograph (assuming they exist) that would be more relevant than the language of the monograph itself. The greater difficulty would be finding someone who cares enough about decapod taxonomy to make the effort. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete This is one of those cases where (a) the citation profile looks less impressive the more closely it is examined, and (b) one of the publications is more wiki-notable than the author. Moreover, as noted above, we have even less biographical information available than we normally do for academic bio-stubs. In a sense, there's not an article to write. We could make this article a redirect to Inventaire et distribution des crustacés décapodes de l'Atlantique nord-oriental, once that page is written, but the text in it is churnalism and doesn't need to be preserved. XOR'easter (talk) 17:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The claim "there is a strong consensus against in the Wikipedia community" seems to be directly contradicted by this comment at a concurrent and related debate. Go Into The Light (talk) 19:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Go Into The Light has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Details on their talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Off Topic. The place to propose an exception to WP:NPROF is at Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics), not here.
    The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
    • Comment It should be noted that NPROF is not only a rigid list of criteria that are either passed or not passed. It allows for exceptions based on specific fields, based on precedent/consensus. Which might mean, if there are no other examples to draw from as far as article kept or deleted, or other relevant debates, this might be the very first time Wikipedia makes a judgement on how hard you have to bust your ass doing science in Antarctica of all places, specificually in the field of species discovery, before it will give the recognition the ordinary man in the street probably already thinks you most probably deserve. Wouldn't it be great if Wikipedia could just say, right, there are so few of you, if you do any science at all in extreme environments, you deserve a Wikipedia article. Am I correct in assuming every single scientist that has ever been to space, has a biography here? If not, why not? Go Into The Light (talk) 20:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • User:Go Into The Light has been indefinitely blocked from editing Wikipedia. Details on their talk page. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:17, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, I notice that this person distinctly notable in the discussion of a separate AfD. He passes WP:GNG based on the sources I've listed. He does not pass WP:NPROF has as is he is not professor. The grounds of this AFD is invalid. Valoem talk contrib 22:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • The sources in the article do not provide in-depth coverage of d'Acoz. He is much farther from GNG than from PROF. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I believe it has been pointed out to you already that WP:NPROF is not restricted to professors - that's just a shortcut for Wikipedia:Notability (academics). Read the page yet? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Fails the notability guideline, per others. One cannot just make up notability criteria ("discovering a species equals notability!") and not expect to be called on it. Zaathras (talk) 23:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Guy Macon:Why has Jens Franzen not been nominated as well? He is no more of less notable than Cédric d'Udekem d'Acoz or Gunter Bechly. Valoem talk contrib 04:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This is probably the most stereotypical of the arguments to avoid in deletion discussions. Almost certainly the answer is: because by chance he had not yet come to the attention of people trying to delete articles. However there are also several other plausible avenues to notability for him than through his publications, not the case here. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:01, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not using this as an argument for deletion or inclusion, however Franzen is equally notable as Bechly and d'Udekem d'Acoz. If you look at the further reading section he has publications which pass our guidelines. Valoem talk contrib 06:22, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Valoem created the Jens Franzen page on 04:14, 3 August 2020‎ with zero evidence of notability. I have listed it at AfD. I have something to do this morning, but expect a {{WP:ANI]] report for Valoem's WP:POINTY page creations later today. --Guy Macon (talk) 12:37, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    dave souza (talk · contribs) requested that page be written, I wrote it to improve the encyclopedia and he thanked me for it. That was not a pointy creation. Valoem talk contrib 20:09, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I apologize. I didn't realize that dave souza had requested that page. All I saw was one more page created by you that contained zero evidence of notability and then you waiting 24 hours and using the fact that your newly-created page had not yet been nominated for deletion as an argument for keeping another page with no evidence of notability. Let us hope that some other editor will do the work you failed to do and will add citations to reliable secondary sources that demonstrate Jens Franzen' notability. If I see that I will be happy to withdraw the AfD. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:53, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Wikipedia is a work in progress. I transwikied it from de wikipedia and did add two sources replacing the dead links, no doubt the page can improved I'll ask an editor I work with who is excellent at find sources. I'll improve it when I get a chance. Valoem talk contrib 20:55, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for the alert, I confirm asking for the Franzen page as a longstanding red link on Darwinius, clearly I'm not familiar with the NPROF standards and it was harder to find sources than anticipated. Hopefully the AfD will bring some improvements to the article. . . dave souza, talk 21:00, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: The arguments for deletion listed are persuasive. (That being said, Valoem's creation of the Franzen article may have been legitimate, but bringing it up in this AfD was sure as hell bad faith.) Ravenswing 23:57, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Does his status on Google Scholar indicate notability in anyway? He seems to have many academic publications, is this being overlooked? Valoem talk contrib 00:09, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Perhaps you failed to read earlier comments such as mine in which this was already explicitly addressed? Also, having many publications has never been one of the criteria for academic notability; what is important is how impactful the publications are, not how many of them there are. —David Eppstein (talk) 00:49, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete fails GNG. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 09:01, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    `kkk it probably does pass GNG because of the Readers Digest article, but it certainly meets WP:GNG. I think /my good friend and long time colleage David E, who is accustomed to fields where articles get very high citation figures, is interpreting the google scholar data inocrrectly. Paleontology (and descriptive biology in general) is a field with very low citation density, and high citation counts are not to be expected. But this is enormously better than expected, and I think the very hgihest citation figures I have ever seen for the subject: 419, 219, 126, 91, 88, 59. etc. would be enough a citation record even in a field like biomedicine.

    Anyone who for any reason can find us articles in neglected fields deserves credit for it, even if the motive --I might even say -- especially if the motive-- is to show how neglected the field is here.'
    And I point out to Guy that we do not need secondary sources for notability by WP:PROF--the publications are the secondary sources. If w did want such sources, almost every scientist who had been meaningfully cited more than 2 or 3 times would be notable, and we 'd be havingthesame overinclusion problem as in some fields I will not name. WP:PROF wasmeant to put some reason into the discussions. DGG ( talk ) 05:32, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    One minor correction: I think the citation counts are really 419+219, 126, 91, etc. That is, the 419 and the 219 look like the same publication. It really is heavily cited, and I think it counts for a lot because it's single-authored, but just as one publication. The next few on the list have many authors. That's why I think the book is more notable than its author. If it were 419 and 219 as separate publications I would think the case for notability through #C1 would be considerably stronger, and I already think it's at least borderline. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:47, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was Withdrawn. I appreciate efforts of those to source and expand this beyond its initial form. only (talk) 16:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Katherine B. Hoffman[edit]

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

    Does not appear to be notable. Her "highest" title that I can see was "Dean of Women" at FSU. Nothing provided that suggests she passes WP:GNG or specific guidelines for academic. While her obituary appears in the New York Times, it seems to be more of a "human interest" type piece in a series of NYT articles on people who have died due to COVID-19. only (talk) 10:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 13:25, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per WP:BASIC based on the extensive coverage over decades by the Tallahassee Democrat and the in-depth obituary in the New York Times. Here's a sampling of what I found in a quick search: 1962, 1964, 1970, 2007, 2014. TJMSmith (talk) 13:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per sources identified by TJMSmith. Spicy (talk) 13:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Human interest stories may have lower standards of fact-checking per WP:NEWSORG, but I don't see evidence of that for NYTimes obituaries, even in the COVID era. Another obituary of depth appears in the Tallahassee Democrat [22] and a shorter piece appears on ABC [23]. The coverage of her honorary doctorate is also solid, per the source provided by TJMSmith and also the FSU story on it [24]. She also got some incidental coverage around the 2016 election for this [25], see e.g. [26]. Overall, including the substantial NYTimes obit, this looks like a solid keep. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Seems to have sufficient independant significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy keep flawed nomination. Nothing in GNG says anything about exclusion of human interest stories, it's about coverage only, not about the reason for the coverage. So we have no valid deletion rationale. And an NYT obituary almost always (maybe always) translates into notability by Wikipedia standards. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 15:42, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Sweat Engine[edit]

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

    Appears to be a non-notable band. None of the current sources are reliable or independent of the group. After running a few searches, I could not any significant coverage that can justify their notability for an stand-alone article. Does not seem to even meet any WP:BAND criteria. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:23, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete No coverage, no reliable sources. Couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sites like databases, retail sites and stuff where the words are separated. Never heard of them but I looked them up and this was all I found. Actually most of the results are the words separated, there is very little about the band and they are all unreliable. This was a very underground band which have made no waves when they were active and certainly not now. I said it before and I say it again: it's a shame that so many non-notable bands inhabit Wikipedia (even though this article was created recently). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Accurate coverage by secondary sources.Soul Crusher (talk) 22:18, 1 August 2020 (UTC) --Note: Page creator [reply]
    No not really, none of the current sources are reliable. All four of them are unreliable sources (Allmusic) and fail to demonstrate any significant coverage of the subject, that is they are just mentions in a sea among many others. I can't even access the third source as it warns me that my connection is not private. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 00:53, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you, that's what I meant to say, AllMusic is not a reliable source to establish notability from. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 01:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Let's analyze the sources. As Atlantic306 said, Allmusic is a reliable source indeed when the page of the artist contains a biography or the page of the album contains a review. This time though the biography page is blank and the album page is just a track listing, with no reviews from either the staff or users whatsoever (if users posted a review it wouldn't make the album notable either). So Allmusic is not a reliable source in this case. One of the sources (Sonic Boom) is not even available to me, as the domain has expired. And the last one (Aiding & Abetting) is a really short album review which could be the only halfway acceptable source, although I am not convinced about that either, as this review is just one of multiple similarly short album reviews, on a site whose reliability looks dubious to me at best. And finally we are at the external links which are the official site of the band, Discogs and Musicbrainz. Unreliable sites alright, but they are still good for external links, but for external links only, not main sources. So I still think this band is not notable. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 20:11, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails the GNG and NBAND. Ravenswing 22:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. The opinion of the SPA article creator is substantially discounted. The remaining consensus is clear. BD2412 T 01:26, 15 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Motus One[edit]

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

    No significant coverage outside of PR pieces and reprints. Fails WP:NCORP and does not otherwise meet WP:GNG. Jack Frost (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep:- As per news articles by The Statesman, International Business Times, The Economic Times and Indian Transport & Logistics News it meets WP:CORPDEPTH.GonefoTea (talk) 08:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as is the case with a lot of the named sources, when self promotion is involved they cannot be trusted. The Statesmen in particular is notorious for guest posting without identifying it as such. The rest of the sources are crap for lack of a better word. Praxidicae (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That isn't even about Motus One, it's primarily an announcement of executive leadership changes so press release adjacent. Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, per nom, for failing WP:NCORP. There is not one independent, reliable source. Everything seems promotional/paid for. Ifnord (talk) 20:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 07:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Kaarthik Shankar[edit]

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

    Fails WP:GNG, non notable and lacks significant coverage in reliable independent sources. Zoodino (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:50, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment:The page creator (Padmajanashok) removed the afd template from the article and blanked the discussion page. They may be having some significant personal incentive in the article or the article's subject. Zoodino (talk) 10:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: I dont have any personel incentiv about this person. I just create this article for public audiences who believes wikipedia is a trusted source. And am adding trusted refrences. Zoodino do you have any personal issues with Kaarthik Shankar — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmajanashok (talk • contribs)
    • Delete. Non-notable subject. --Gpkp [u • t • c] 14:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep : This person is a popular youtuber in Kerala. Moreover there are enough and more featured articles about him in many leading dailies. I have checked and found few more articles and will be adding as well. Definetly not WP:GNG — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jehowahyereh (talk • contribs) Jehowahyereh (talk) 15:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep : I removed some external links like youtube, instagram from the article page... now i think encyclopedia content only about him... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Padmajanashok (talk • contribs) 04:15, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment : you have done terrible eding in the page ! you cannot remove afd tags until the discussion is over. Jehowahyereh (talk) 09:29, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - non-notable YouTuber Spiderone 13:17, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, qedk (t 愛 c) 08:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete since subject fails WP:GNG. Arbitrary claims without substantiation that our subject "is notable" won't do. This is a moving effort to assert worthiness but it ultimately proves fruitless, e.g. this report in Mathrubhumi is supposed to impress but it's actually about a covid fund-raising effort and our subject is name dropped. WP:YTN has this to say: A frequent argument put forward for keeping an article is that a subject is notable because of their number of YouTube subscribers or the number of times their videos have been viewed. Consensus however is that this is an insufficient basis by which to establish notability. -The Gnome (talk) 11:04, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. This may be a case of WP: Too soon.TamilMirchi (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The coverage isn't significant. The Hindu article just has a para about him. Other sources are also trivial coverage. - hako9 (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:30, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Katie McGlynn[edit]

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

    CSS garbage Fizz fam (talk) 08:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep. There was indeed garbage on the page due to an IP editor breaking the infobox (+ adding BLP violating material), however IP vandalism breaking an infobox is not a valid deletion rationale. Katie McGlynn herself is notable even in a cursory check.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 08:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete a non-substantive body of the article suggests there is little to say about her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Being a star of Corrie for 7 years (+bagging a national award [27]) means there is quite a bit that is said of her, granted much of it is stuff like: [28] and [29], however she is easily notable (e.g. [30], [31]).--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 14:42, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: the pre/post IP vandalism version of the article shows clear notability - longstanding Corrie role, award, etc. Was there any WP:BEFORE, even a quick look at the article history? PamD 09:29, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Major role on a major TV series for seven years = clear notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:07, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I am not convinced that the existence of general reviews of a commercial product he participated in designing are sufficient to qualify for WP:NARTIST, especially in the apparent absence of coverage of him. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:58, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Klaus Zyciora[edit]

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

    Notability is contested Pieceofmetalwork (talk) 16:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete there is no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are primary, passing mention and/or unreliable. GSS 💬 16:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 16:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 16:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:26, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Landel MailBug[edit]

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

    Non-notable. The page was deleted in 2006 but appears to have been restored? WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 07:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - it attracted attention when it debuted but has attracted no notice since then. I found [32], [33], [34], and [35], which are all from 1999. There is no sustained coverage. This essentially made the news when first shown and that's it. -- Whpq (talk) 17:51, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Consensus is narrow and the call, as one participant noted, is tough, but it is correctly argued that there is no allowance under WP:NSEASONS for an article on a season for a team playing at a league of this level, locally reported and sparsely sourced. Per WP:PRESERVE, I am redirecting the title to Newport County A.F.C.#Reformation and exile. BD2412 T 20:32, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    1989–90 Newport A.F.C. season[edit]

    1989–90 Newport A.F.C. season (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Largely unsourced ninth tier English league club season that fails WP:NSEASONS. There are books covering Newport's history (Amber in the blood, Newport County AFC The First 100 Years) but I'm not sure if they are enough to make this season pass WP:GNG. Dougal18 (talk) 18:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 18:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - no evidence of notability. GiantSnowman 11:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Govvy (talk) 16:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Clear WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 57 12:27, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom. Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Essential in retaining the full history of a current (fourth tier) Football League club online, this is the reformation season for Newport (County) AFC, notable and clearly significant under WP:NSEASONS. All of the other non-league seasons leading back to the regaining of league status are also important to clarify both the time and duration of the Exile and the location of the club through history - two separate spells playing in Exile and a High Court case are all interwoven into the early years of Newport (County) AFC and the court case in particular needs the context of the club's experiences. All information is sourced from the relatively sparse information still available or online (there is a huge archive of club history through South Wales Argus but not online) - unsure why there would be any reason to delete. Sjg99 (talk • 13:02, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This page should be kept as this was the first season of the reformation of what was then a new club, after the previous Newport County went out of business in March 1989. This was the start, that eventually lead them back into the Football League, and in the last few seasons become internationally known due to their runs in the FA Cup in both 2017-18 and 2018-19. There must have been pages in the past that would have confirmed this, but the pages are no longer in existence Darrin01 14:24, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep This season is famous throughout football, with the then-rare reformation in a much lower league, and the exile to play in England - the source (according to one 2013 article I added) of their well-known nickname 'The Exiles'. You still see frequent references to this season in current media, and I've added some to the article - including recent celebrations of the 30th anniversary of this season. Hard to find contemporary sources, but I added one very good in-depth detailed 1989 article from The Guardian. The season meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 19:56, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment A sudden influx of Keeps forces this Afd into a second week. Newport's non league years are dealt with on the club article. There is no notability for those seasons just because they later regain League status, have FA Cup runs, the local newspaper/Guardian wrote about them or the season being referenced in articles about a friendly. Dougal18 (talk) 17:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You'll find that the The Guardian is not a local paper - a full-half page in The Guardian easily passes muster. And if I could find archives contemporary articles for other major UK papers other than Guardian (or Observer), there'd easily be more. There's continuing coverage of this season decades later - and not just local or on the 30th anniversary, as other references added show. The season easily passes GNG - which trumps NSEASON. Nfitz (talk) 20:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete You cannot seriously be trying to keep a season article for a team that was playing in the 9th 8th tier of English football that season. If you want more info about this season then maybe add a section to the club's article at Newport County A.F.C.. But do not keep a whole article about it, which is basically what this is. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:56, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Actually now that I think about it. All Newport County season articles up to 2013 should be deleted as they are all non-league seasons to. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:59, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I think the Hellenic was seventh-tier at the time. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:16, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sorry, it was the eighth tier of English football at the time, prior to the creation of the National League N/S in 2004. Microwave Anarchist (talk) 21:21, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yep, exactly, create a History of Newport A.F.C. which covers full history, including non-league times - does not need a separate article(s). GiantSnowman 11:01, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Pinging @Nfitz: to see what they think about it. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:31, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm surprised there isn't a history of Newport page ... and were there, it might be a suitable redirect and merge target, with a paragraph for each seaason. But there isn't, and meanwhile the season easily meets GNG - with more prose and referencing than many an article for top-tier season. Nfitz (talk) 23:16, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    By all means create a page about the club's history. But the season articles should go. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    You are the one unnecessarily proposing deletion. By all means go create a page! Nfitz (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Nfitz: I don't know much about the club's history and would not be of much use making a page about it, I was suggesting you make it because you seem to know a lot about the club's history and would probably be better then me at making said article. And what would be the point of creating the page if this kind of stuff was kept? By the way it was Dougal18 who AFD'ed this article. Not me. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 11:59, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - fails NSEASONS Spiderone 22:16, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As it documents an important part of the history of a club that has spent 68 seasons in the Football League. Owain (talk) 16:40, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Essential in retaining the full history of a current (fourth tier) Football League club online, this is the reformation season for Newport (County) AFC, notable and clearly significant under WP:NSEASONS.Pwimageglow (talk) 10:51, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep As it documents an important part of the history of a club that has spent 68 seasons in the Football League.10:54, 10 August 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment The last two !votes (including one by an editor absent for over a month) appear to be as a result of this off-wiki canvassing by Owain. I presume they will be discarded and Owain sanctioned. Cheers, Number 57 20:23, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I can confirm that no-one canvassed me, nor would I be influenced (or concerned) if anyone did. Wiki is only maintained and valuable because of the goodwill and consensus of contributors. Your silly bullying in order to force your view on others is despicable and against the spirit of wiki collaboration. I presume your vote will be discarded and you will be sanctioned for your insulting and childish accusations.Zebroski (talk) 13:33, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      So it's just a coincidence that after over a month with no activity and within a day of the post being made on the Newport forum, your first edits happen to be comments on the two AfDs highlighted? Number 57 13:51, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Yes. I edited a number of pages on 10&11Aug, 6July and 17-23June. So what? In your mind how many wiki updates and when entitle a contributor to have an opinion? Have you checked the update history of those that agree with your biased opinion? No. Not that it's any of your business... I browsed many wiki pages between updates but I was rather busy working on a covid ward in July. If you want to waste your life deleting perfectly acceptable content and picking silly online fights that's your choice. You are a rather petty bully. Please Don't waste more of my time.Zebroski (talk) 18:10, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Hold your horses there. Absolutely, Owain's vote should be struck and a stern lecture delivered. But Pwimageglow has an extensive recent history of editing football articles, including Newport AFC-related articles (including season articles). In like fashion, Zebroski's recent edit history is almost entirely football-related, with numerous edits to Newport AFC-related articles (including season articles). By the bye, your own edit history shows a break of over a year. Would you have cared for charges that your "sudden" return was suspiciously timed? Your accusations against them show poor faith, and you owe them apologies. Ravenswing 22:53, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      My vote should be struck? Why? I created the article and I was NOT notified about its deletion. How many other people would object to deletion and were not notified? People do not spend their whole lives refreshing Wikipedia pages waiting for notification. We have other things to do with our lives! How exactly are people supposed to find out about AfDs? Frankly, the whole process is a shambles. I too have a history of editing Newport County articles, like Zebroski and Pwimageglow, so why should my vote not count, but some random person with no interest in the club's will? Owain (talk) 18:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - This article fails WP:NSEASONS as they wasn't in a professional league at the time they played in this season. The best solution for this would probably be to put it under the History of Newport A.F.C. section which people have suggested. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: A lot of muddled thinking all around. On the one hand, that this season is allegedly crucial to Newport AFC's history is all well and good, but that rationale forms no part of any notability criteria on Wikipedia, and it is unsupported by any reliable source cited. On the other, NSEASONS does not require that such seasons be top-flight, and indeed the lengthy discussion of American (decidedly not-professional) college sport in the guideline confirms that.

      But all that being said, no reasonable case for this subject's notability has been established. This season is crucial in the team's history? Fair enough, I'll buy that. Why look, it's not only discussed in the main article, but in the article's lead as well, which for a team with over a hundred years of history is pretty thorough. And look, all the prose from the season article's also in the main article. So what we are doing here, essentially, is debating the notability of match results from a ninth tier club with fewer than 400 fans a game. That would take a powerful lot to overcome, and that burden of proof has not been met. Ravenswing 22:40, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I don't see how, User:Ravenswing how all the prose here could be in that article, given that I added new prose and references to this article after the AFD, and I've barely read or edited the main article. Also, we do have articles from reliable sources - such as the comprehensive piece in FourFourTwo. The season itself certainly had significant contemporary coverage, such as the Guardian reference. Nfitz (talk) 04:17, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Due to the club being unable to secure the lease on Somerton Park the season was spent ground sharing at Moreton-in-Marsh in Gloucestershire, England. They spent the season playing at London Road, earning their enduring nickname, The Exiles." / "The club took on the name "Newport A.F.C." and adopted the nickname The Exiles, as a result of having to play home matches for the 1989–90 season at the London Road ground in the north Gloucestershire town of Moreton-in-Marsh, 80 miles (130 km) north-east of Newport."

    "Newport finished the season as cup winners and league champions of the Hellenic League Premier Division with promotion to the Southern League." / "Newport won the Hellenic double, gaining promotion to the Southern League."

    That's how. Ravenswing 05:30, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    That's literally different text. With different references. It's not the same prose! Nor is any of the text about the 30th anniversary of the season in the main article. Nfitz (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Wikipedia is not a sports almanac. Stifle (talk) 15:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete It's a tough call, but I'm not seeing that GNG is met here. I can see plenty on the club's liquidation but this can be adequately covered in the main club article or even a History of Newport County A.F.C. page. I'm not seeing significant coverage of the actual season itself. The Guardian article is something, but one newspaper piece isn't enough. Kosack (talk) 09:08, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As I pointed out above, other than the Observer, the Guardian was the only major paper from 1990 I could access an archive. Do you really suggest User:Kosack that there wasn't similar coverage in the other papers? Should I fill the entire page with references to the Guardian and Observer from that year? I believe GNG has been met. Nfitz (talk) 11:01, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not suggesting there was no other coverage but, if it can't be provided, how are we supposed to know it does? If the Guardian or Observer have more in-depth coverage then by all means include it, they are national newspapers so sustained coverage from them would go a long way to proving notability. Right now, the AfD is 3 weeks in and there is still only one substantial source on the page. WP:NSEASONS doesn't allow the presumption of notability for non-league seasons either. Kosack (talk) 11:21, 14 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Pretty clear consensus to delete both until closer to. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    2023 Pakistan Super League[edit]

    2023 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    WP:CRYSTAL here as it's way too far out in the future to be certain of this.

    I am also nominating the following related page because of the same reason

    2022 Pakistan Super League (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep the nom cited WP:Crystal as the reason for deletion. I just want to state that WP:Crystal states that "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." This article meets all the conditions in this clause. Pakistan Super League is a notable tournament. The fact that ICC has moved 2023 Cricket Worldcup for this iteration of event also lends it notability. Policy also states that everything must be "verifiable, and the subject matter must be of sufficiently wide interest that it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." Everything in the articles is well cited with appropriate WP:RS, and I think we all agree that that this article meets second part of this sentence which states "it would merit an article if the event had already occurred." The policy also emphasizes that "It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced." (with emphasis on is!) As you can see WP:Crystal overwhelmingly supports inclusion of this article. So I must say that this is a Strong keep as per WP:Crystal. KSAWikipedian (talk) 06:58, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:CRYSTAL, specifically "Dates are not definite until the event actually takes place, as even notable events can be cancelled or postponed at the last minute by a major incident." As an aside, I'm not sure how reliable the sources are for the suggestion that the World Cup was moved to accommodate the PSL; the high-quality reliable sources that I can find make no mention of it, just saying that it was basically due to COVID. Harrias talk 07:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Harrias, You are taking that sentence out of context. That the sentence you quoted is NOT a criteria for exclusion. If it was, it would make 2020 Summer Olympics would be excluded. As far as you being "not sure how reliable the sources," You can refer to WP:RS and you can see they are considered reliable per the WP:RS policy. KSAWikipedian (talk) 08:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @KSAWikipedian: That's a fair point, but it still is too far off into the future to be certain, per WP:CRYSTAL (especially in a part of the world which has been a bit volatile for cricket in the recent past. We all hope it remains steady, and as we get closer, this article can then be created.) Harrias talk 08:36, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Sahiwal.tv does not look like an RS to me. It claims Sahiwal is one of the fastest growing online publication in the industry. We cover the latest news on Blockchain technology, Cryptocurrency. It was started in Nov 2019 with the aim of providing the latest, accurate and most unbiased news. and looks more like a blog than a genuine news source. Spike 'em (talk) 08:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Harrias, being "certain" is very subjective and open to opinion. WP:V is a Wikipedia policy. Per that policy, only info in article the stuff that can be verified. AS far as being too far in the future. WP:Crystal states that If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented. AS you can tell that even if I give you the whole uncertainty in that part of the world argument. It still warrants inclusion given at least speculation about it must well documented part. Spike 'em, if you have a question about Sahiwal.tv, we can discuss that but one questionable reference does not warrant a deletion about the whole article. There are other references that meet WP:RS including references from India Today and The News International Which I know we both will agree meet WP:RS. KSAWikipedian (talk) 09:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To be clear : my !vote below is not based on the reliability of these sources, this is all an aside. Spike 'em (talk) 11:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Spike 'em Then what was it based on? KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Also, Harrias Give me one article that says that 2023 worldcup was moved because of COVID, you made a claim without an WP:RS, everything I wrote in those articles is based on WP:RS There are at least 3 sources from India, Pakistan, and Bangladesh that I have cited that state that WorldCup was moved for PSL.KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @KSAWikipedian: Stop BLUDGEONing, all it is going to do is piss people off. Harrias talk 15:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I am not BLUDGEONing anyone. I am just asking people to give a policy or consensus behind their POV. Isn't that the purpose of this discussion to have a open discussion based on policy and facts and not just attach WP behind you opinion. I am just saying that your believing that it is too soon is not the same as WP:TooSoon, etc. I am just asking people to read what they are tagging.KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:11, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It comes across as bludgeoning to me too. I am comfortable with my !vote reasons stated: they are used frequently in similar AfDs and I have yet to see a closer discount them. Spike 'em (talk) 15:24, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    From the cited India Today article "The ICC said the decision to delay the 2023 World Cup to October-November is taken to ensure a fair qualification process, taking into account the matches cancelled or postponed due to the Covid-19 pandemic" – cites COVID, no mention of the PCL. Those that do mention the PCL are reports based on "sources within the PCB". wjematherplease leave a message... 15:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete WP:CRYSTAL / WP:TOOSOON. Spike 'em (talk) 08:13, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete way too soon for an event like this in both cases. Next year, yes, OK, if you really must, but given the nature of cricket events and the history of the establishment of the PSL, anything more is clearly far too soon - especially just now. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Heading toward delete, per WP:TOOSOON. Domestic tournaments can change all the time, whereas the World Cup is a planned certainity (albeit a boring 10 team one!). StickyWicket (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete both. Per WP:OUTCOMES, this is way WP:TOOSOON; also has WP:CRYSTAL issues and some sources are of questionable reliability. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems history is repeating itself; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2018 Pakistan Super League from four and a half years ago. wjematherplease leave a message... 10:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Wjemather ntohing in WP:TOOSOONWP:CRYSTAL Supports deletion. KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:16, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Also, WP:OUTCOME is not a policy. KSAWikipedian (talk) 14:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • There is entirely insufficient verifiable detail (or coverage) to warrant creation of these articles (no dates/scheduling window – just a nod to when past seasons have been played, no fixture list, no teams, no players, etc.). Future seasons that are over a year away almost always fail GNG/NSPORT & these are no different. Even if any of the details listed were available/verifiable, at this point they could (and should) easily be noted within the main article in a future seasons section (per WP:MERGEREASON). wjematherplease leave a message... 14:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Almost always fail is not a reason to delete article without discussion. The point of this discussion is: should these articles be deleted? Again, there is enough coverage that these season meat WP:NSEASONS which states Articles can be created on individual seasons of teams in top professional leagues, as these articles almost always meet the notability requirements. and furthermore suggests that season articles should consist mainly of well-sourced prose. As for WP:GNG, that requires, independent, reliable and significant coverage. I am sure we will agree that Major news outlets from three countries are considered independent, reliable and significant. We don't need exact dates, but the PSL window mentioned in multiple articles mentions the windodw being cleared for PSL.KSAWikipedian (talk) 15:01, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, we are having a discussion, it just happens that no-one else agrees with you. You mention "multiple sources" but there seems to be one original report (in "The News") which is then repeated in the others (with a mention of that report), so this does not count as "independent". Spike 'em (talk) 15:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • For 2022, the only content that could be considered directly relevant to the season is this solitary sentence: "starting in 2021 PSL will have a dedicated window in the International Cricket Council's future tours program". However this is of more relevance to the 2021 season and the PSL in general, and is certainly not enough to support a full season article.
      For 2023, we have this: "2023 Cricket World Cup was scheduled to be held in the same window. However, International Cricket Council has moved the worldcup to October-November. This move was to allow for the eigth edition of PSL. Given this dedicated window, It will allow PSL to secure more lucrative sponsorship deals, given lack of competition.". This is substantially the same detail as 2022, just noting the WC rescheduling with added PCB propaganda/claims supported by sources of questionable reliability – other (more reliable) sources do not seem to substantiate these claims, quoting the ICC as giving WC qualifying as the reason for rescheduling. In any case, not enough to support a full season article. wjematherplease leave a message... 15:51, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thank you wjemather. Than you for this response. You are obviously making a contributions through a well-informed and researched data behind you. I made 2022 after making 2023. 2022 was only made since I had already created one for 2023. That is my only reason for 2022. If the consensus is that bridge season is not reason enough to include this articles (or that if 2023 needs to be deleted), then I will have not recreate it until after 2021 season. Again, It is clear you understood my claim for WP:Notability and thank you for addressing it directly. I see you claim of ICC's quote of PSL vs Fair qualification process. Let me do some research to see if I can respond to that. If I cannot I will change my vote to delete. Fair enough? Again, thank you for actually keeping the D in AfD, and actually discussing. KSAWikipedian (talk) 16:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per all the above. The 2020 hasn't offically concluded yet (probably) wont. The 2021 hasn't started, and that might not happen either. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 06:43, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per nom. Also see Talk:2020 Asia Cup#Postponed. Human (talk) 08:31, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as per the nom, way too soon. For the 2022 article, it'll be 12-18 months until you get meaningful content for it, and another year for the 2023 article. Joseph2302 (talk) 19:36, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:32, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Juli Berwald[edit]

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

    Article does not appear to meet WP:BIO and is heavily edited by only a few users. Djrfid (talk) 05:47, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:55, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Appears to be widely covered. Spineless certainly passes NBOOK with reviews ([36][37][38]), and together with Berwald's work in journalism appears to plausibly meet WP:AUTHOR.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 06:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I'ma say keep too, it's well-sourced. WikiMacaroonsCinnamon? 07:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Needs tidying, but certainly has merit and some sources. Don't see why "heavily edited by only a few users" matters at all. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:29, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Without a Box[edit]

    Without a Box (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Non-notable college club. I was unable to locate coverage outside of a trivial mention in Pomona's administration-run magazine[39] and occasional coverage in the campus newspaper. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 05:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:30, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I am unable to find significant coverage of any kind. Most of the information available seems to come from the college itself. Scorpions13256 (talk) 22:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete - lacks the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources to establish notability -- Whpq (talk) 17:23, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:16, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Nigina Amonqulova[edit]

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

    No real claim to notability other than "gaining popularity" and being a singer, the only coverage is one Russian article about her. Zoozaz1 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Zoozaz1 (talk) 05:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Alternative spelling Nigina Amonkulova with a K produces more ghits, but still all just listings. PamD 10:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete, reluctantly, as although she's got articles in 6 wikipedias there don't seem to be any sources (various broken links, so perhaps there are inaccessible-from-UK sources). PamD 10:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete not enough sourcing to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I think the outcome is now inevitable Spartaz Humbug! 11:59, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Yoast SEO[edit]

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

    Non notable SEO company that makes WordPress plugins. All used sources are unreliable. Fails WP:NCORP. A previous AfD was closed as "keep but repurpose" but my understanding is that many !votes in that were not based on policies. A better AfD is needed. I'm ready to post an analysis of the sources, like I did in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ahrefs, if a keep !voter thinks my understanding is wrong and the current sources have merit. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 17:36, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Delete Another ridiculous marketing company which knows how to make wiki article. :) No surprise this made into wikipedia. definite purpose is promotional only, written by some professionals who knows how to trick wiki policies and make an article. similar to other non-notable tech startups. Light2021 (talk) 21:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The consensus on the previous AfD was that the company fails NCORP and the article should be repurposed to be about the product. My understanding is that the arguments for notability of the product were based on faulty assumptions such the product being covered in Forbes. Forbes has never actually covered Yoast. The Forbes links were actually to Forbes Contributers (forbes.com/site/ addresses) which is basically a blog hosting service. See the RSP listing just below WP:FORBES. Jimbo's !vote claims multiple reliable sources but as I've said before, reliable sources don't actually exist. As demonstrated in the Ahrefs AfD, SEOs use a number of techniques similar to Forbes Contributers to give an illusion of sources where non exist. All keep !votes were along the the lines of Jimbo's non existent "reliable sources" and Dream Focus' faulty Forbes argument. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 00:39, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I hear you, I was there; I voted delete and I complained about the Forbes/sites reference. Regardless, the previous AfD discussion should be visible to participants here, ideally in the top right where previous deletion discussions customarily reside. Pegnawl (talk) 15:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I've attempted to manually insert the box. It is usually inserted automatically but looks like the title change threw it off. I hope I didn't break anything. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 08:47, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete doesn't meet GNG. Der Wohltemperierte Fuchs talk 19:49, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per WP:TOOSOON, WP:MILL, WP:NCORP, and WP:RS. This just released its software two weeks ago. As I've written in another AFD, literally any Internet rando can get "certificated" in SEO on LinkedIn. The sourcing is terrible - social media, blogs, and its own website. I would go along with userfication, if someone wants to adopt this page. Bearian (talk) 20:16, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment If you mean the date in the infobox, that's just the latest version; the plugin itself was released several years ago, as it says in the History section. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:52, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In a strictly non-Wikipedia sense, the plugin is quite notable (!) in that it's probably the most commonly used SEO plugin for Wordpress, with millions of installations. But I fully accept that, as it stands, the references in this article are rubbish, and nowhere near enough to establish notability; I'll see if I can find better ones. (Also, the article fails to distinguish between the plugin itself and the developers behind it.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:47, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I haven't looked for RSs on this, but I also participated in the last AfD. The plugin is popular, and the company is big enough. I don't know how that translates into media coverage, but for me that seems sufficient to think someone may benefit from having a Wikipedia page about this. There's also Jimbo's vote on the last RfC too... Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 09:07, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment I tried looking for RS references, and it soon became clear we won't exactly find something hefty by The Guardian or WaPo. The closest thing to proper sources (as opposed to blogs, comparison sites, etc., not to mention the countless companies selling SEO services) that I could find are these; I'm listing them here rather than in the article, for now, in case anyone wants to comment on whether they're good enough: Irish Tech News / Social Media Today / Practical Ecommerce / Entrepreneur -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 09:38, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • All four of these seem to be SEO blackhattery in my opinion. If an article starts with a number (specially a number divisible by five), that's an immediate red flag. The other two start with "best"; another red flag. Only Entrepreneur (magazine) seems to have any kind of reputation; largely negative: it's mentioned in an NYT story for pushing pop-up advertisements that look like news articles. So, this Entrepreneur "article"'s title starts with "Best", it's a BuzzFeed style list, and the byline contains a generic "opinions expressed" statement below the byline. All this does not inspire confidence. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 11:59, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay, fair enough, I suppose. That's the best I could come up with, though, so I reckon that's me done trying! :) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Having said what I've said in my earlier comments, I'll register the lone keep vote, even if just for the record. The plugin (not the company behind it, necessarily — and yes, I do think the article should very clearly be about the product and not the company) is notable, outwith the Wikipedia meaning of the word at least, and IMO it would be a pity to delete this article just because we can't establish WP:GNG notability. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 16:22, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment The Wordpress for dummies book has a decent section on them specifically a manual by an independent source describing them goes to notability. PainProf (talk) 18:02, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. There's unanimity that the article doesn't meet WP:GNG, even from the lone opposition !vote. Ifnord (talk) 19:39, 1 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I closed as delete but relisting following two reasonable requests on my talkpage.

    Hello, I want to ask if you will consider backing out the closing of this AfD and relist? The article was a strong keep as (Yoast) in August 2919. User High King then gave the article a name change, and the original participants did not know that the article was up for deletion. In the Yoast AfD even JW !voted to keep. Keep - 100 employees, multiple reliable sources, notable product.--Jimbo Wales. I want to be clear that I am not accusing you of a bad close of the Yoast SEO AfD. I am just asking for a relist. Lightburst (talk) 23:14, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I'm surprised at the outcome as well; Yoast SEO is probably the gold-standard for that type of functionality on WordPress, itself the most widely-used CMS on the internet. At least one person favoring delete didn't realize that (thinking the product was two weeks old), and the comments in general didn't really engage with the topic. I realize that this doesn't translate into passing the GNG, but I would be shocked if sources didn't exist and the article deserves a better debate than what it got so far. Mackensen (talk) 00:12, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz Humbug! 04:49, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment: pinging previous participants who haven't participated in this AfD: @MER-C, Jimbo Wales, Utopes, HighKing, Dream Focus, Ravensfire, Cullen328, Prodego, and Kashmiri:. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 05:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I advocating keeping the previous version in August 2019 and support keeping this article as well. I explained my reasoning in detail in several comments back then, and do not feel obligated to cut and paste those comments here. To summarize briefly, this very widely used software ought to have a neutral, verifiable article in a vast encyclopedia of well over six million articles. Cullen328 Let's discuss it 06:15, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete unless better sourcing is forthcoming. Above, people are talking about WP:GNG, but the notability guideline we should be discussing is WP:NCORP, per the first sentence of that guideline, and the first sentence at WP:ORGCRIT - this is a commercial product, NCORP applies. If we don't have significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject, we should delete this article. None of the sources currently in the article tick all the boxes. Looking through the sources mentioned in the comments above, I see entries in '10 great ways to...' type listicles, which fail WP:CORPDEPTH, and a piece by a non-staff contributor on Enterpreneur.com (such articles are specifically listed as failing WP:ORGIND), so they don't help. I am interested by PainProf's note about it being covered in depth by the book WordPress for Dummies - I don't have a copy of the book, but assuming it gives significant coverage I'd agree that goes one step of the way towards establishing notability. If anyone can put forward a couple of other sources of that sort of quality, I'd be happy to change my vote - but if the article is kept, it definitely needs a thorough reworking, it really does read like an advert. GirthSummit (blether) 08:52, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep but needs improvement Andrew Davidson is correct - Google Books finds a number of 'how to' books, which appear to be independent of the subject and give it significant coverage - I'm satisfied that these could be used to write a decent article, so am changing my !vote as promised. The article needs attention for tone - a lot of the prose seems to be attempting to impress the reader with how many downloads it has had, how many sites it runs on, and how generally great it is. GirthSummit (blether) 10:21, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Looking through the books, it seems easy to find coverage such as "Yoast SEO is the granddaddy of all SEO plugins. With nearly 21 million downloads, it's easily the most widely used SEO plugin. We've discussed it throughout this book.";"One of the best is WordPress SEO by Yoast"; "This particular plugin is designed by WordPress SEO consultant/designer Joost de Valk (whose first name is pronounced “Yoast”). "; "If you're using Wordpress, we highly recommend the free Wordpress SEO plugin by Yoast.". Just needs improvement not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST;WP:IGNORINGATD; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. There seems to be some misunderstanding above as to what exactly this plugin is. Per my comment on Spartaz's talk page, it is literally one of the most widely-used plugins in the WordPress ecosystem and of long-standing. I really have to question whether some of the delete !voters even glanced at the article to dismiss it as something "released two weeks ago" or made by "Another ridiculous marketing company". Naturally, it's going to be more difficult than otherwise to write an article about an SEO product, but the product is legitimate and I have no doubt that there are reasonable sources available. Mackensen (talk) 11:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. For the same reasons I stated at the first Yoast articles for deletion discussion. Article and company did not become less notable in the interim. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:04, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep, this seems like a notable plug-in but the article needs work, which most do. On balance I think it needs basic improvements not deletion. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:40, 3 August 2020 our (UTC)
    • Leaning Delete for now - Probably doesn't need to be said (except it seems like it might) but a number of downloads, just like a number of youtube subscribers or twitter followers or position on the Steam sales chart, is not a great reason for keeping. Likewise the "on its merits" arguments about being important or well-known really needs to be backed up with sourcing. And for a topic about SEO, our standard needs to be pretty high. I'm concerned about relying on marketing/SEO how-to books and tech blogs for a marketing/SEO subject. The SEO community is famously self-promotional, shadily cross-promotional, and prolific. When I search for sources I see SEO publications, SEO how-to books, tech blogs, and wordpress how-to websites/books. I'm wary of building an article on how-to material in general, which takes book form but are often pumped out en masse without a great deal of quality control, aren't always independent, etc. Granted, a search for this subject is difficult because of the subject. Can someone point me to the few best sources you've found (no hand waves to a google books search please)? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 14:44, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Rhododendrites: I can't give you a source, but I can tell you that I work in an industry (not SEO) that uses this plugin and that it's widely used and well thought of. I realize how people react when they see "SEO" in the name and I would encourage you to overcome that gut reaction. I realize that asking you to take my word for it isn't very helpful. In general, I don't edit in this area so I can't speak to what kind of sourcing is available. Where I'm coming from is this: if our sourcing policy makes it difficult or impossible to write about a widely-used piece of technology, then that's an outcome I wouldn't expect and may be undesirable. Conversely, it's possible that WordPress plugins simply aren't notable, but I don't think that should be the case either. Mackensen (talk) 15:07, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Ok, but we have these discussions not to say "it's widely used" or "it has lots of downloads" or "it's popular" but to see if that popularity translates to Wikipedia notability via the sourcing. Whether a plugin, app, game, extension, song, website, ad, or whatever, just having lots of downloads/views/listens/hits/subscribers doesn't always translate to notability. That's not a defect of our sourcing requirements. Changing sourcing requirements so we can use lower quality sources for well marketed subjects (or because "it's widely used" or "I know it's important") is putting the cart before the horse. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 15:50, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep WP:N I was a keep !vote at the first AfD. I did some more research this time and I find that the app is recommended as an essential plugin by nearly every list of essential WordPress apps. I also looked at books as AD has done, and I added a Blogging sub heading, a further reading, and external links section, and some references. I did add one blog, so you can tsk tsk me for that. I think the article belongs in our encyclopedia. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep Per 7&6=thirteen; the article did not become less notable since the last AfD. I understand why there may be some bias against SEO tools in Wikipedia, but that doesn't mean that some of our readers wouldn't benefit from such an article. Stefka Bulgaria (talk) 15:46, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP https://www.techrepublic.com/article/hed-the-best-wordpress-plugins-a-guide-for-businesses/ A reliable source put it on its top list, and mentioned that in 2018 it had "Active installations: 5+ million". And more recent how to books covering it, as Andrew found read: "With nearly 21 million downloads, it's easily the most widely used SEO plugin". We probably need to have a subject specific guideline for software that says its notable if millions of people use it, just as an album is notable if it sales above a certain amount. But if its that popular then "how to" books will cover it and notable sites will list it on their top software for this purpose lists. Dream Focus 16:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Just highlighting that the first source to be linked in this influx of keep !votes is a tech blog listicle... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:28, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • It is not a blog, its a professional paid writer working for a legitimate news site. Dream Focus 16:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - clearly passes GNG but the writing could be improved. Atsme Talk 📧 17:10, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep The topic is the wordpress plug-in, not the company. The last AfD determined that the company failed to meet the criteria, hence the article was refocussed to the software. There are sufficient references that meet the criteria for establishing the notability of the product, meets WP:NCORP. HighKing++ 21:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Question - what are these compelling sources that people are now seeing that I do not see. Certainly the references currently in the article are pretty terrible:
    • Wordpress.org and yoast.com are not independent
    • Builtwith.com is just data
    • Yourmoneygeek.com's "How to Start a Blog in 10 Easy Steps" which mentions Yoast in a list.
    • Incomediary.com, wpbeginner, wordpress tavern, 1stwebdesigner, wpbeginner again ... seriously? Dime-a-dozen low quality blogs/listicles.
    • Techrepublic and Techradar are marginally better, but they're listicle entries with brief summary of the software.
    • a how-to book with a single paragraph in a list of plugins.
    • Couldn't tell you what clickz.com is because apparently my browser is set to filter it out ... typical of the highest quality sources, of course.
    • The only decent source is the bunch is de Gelderlander, but that says almost nothing about the plugin. As HighKing says just above, the topic is not the company. Still, it's better than the others.
    • What are the other sources people are seeing that makes this such a home-run? — Rhododendrites talk \\ 22:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, I think they are out there. Like PC Tech Magazine and Forbes calls Yoast the industry standard. i got sidetracked with other articles so will try to get back to this later. Lightburst (talk) 22:34, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That's not Forbes. It's the "Forbes Agency Council", where PR firms and advertising agencies can post to Forbes.com if they join the club. And is "PC Tech" a reliable source? I haven't seen it before, and a glowing feature-packed review in a not-so-popular tech website I've not heard of is at least cause for initial skepticism. Would be curious about editorial oversight, reputation for independence in reviews, native advertising, etc... — Rhododendrites talk \\ 23:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks, Forbes is Certainly not what it used to be. contributors, and this term Forbes Agency Council, was new to me. That one is just a passing mention anyway. Here is a PC World article. Lightburst (talk) 23:31, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Rhododendrites, I changed my vote after a Google Books search after finding things like this, this and this. They're by several different publishers (rather than self-published puff), you can buy print copies of them on Amazon (not free-to-download rubbish), and there were various others. I have access to none of them, so I can't really comment on their quality or the depth of coverage they give to this subject. It's not an area I'm very familiar with, I'd be interested to know more about your views on these. GirthSummit (blether) 11:19, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    ^Girth, I will check those out. As an aside...does anyone else think it is amusing that we cannot use any blog refs, for an article about an app which is most useful for bloggers, created by a guy who started with a blog. I understand why - but it is still amusing to me. Lightburst (talk) 14:28, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lightburst: It's the nature of SEO. You might think something like SEO would be extremely competitive. It might be that way at the ground level but at the SEO bloggers, agencies and gurus level, it's a massive circlejerk. They constantly promote not only themselves but each other, it benefits them because it gives an aura of professionalism to what is basically glorified spamming (the truly "white hat" stuff is something webmasters do to make the website more usable/crawlable). Anyone familiar with SEO might remember the "guest posting" stuff, where they would constantly quote, promote and link to each other to increase "backlinks". (See [40] recent Vice article for an explanation of this "symbiotic relationship" between SEOs). The massive promotion makes it look like they are notable, but when you scratch the surface just a little bit, you find out how much bullshit there is. In conclusion: never trust anything of an SEO related blog. It's a circlejerk. TryKid [dubious – discuss] 15:13, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, anything promotional sould be removed. However, with the sources indicated in this AfD, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 08:20, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • What sources? This avalanche of keep votes is based on run of the mill blackhattery from sites like Forbes Contributers and Tech Republic and some 2-3 pages worth of mentions in "how to" books about blogs. Tech blog posts are explicitly mentioned in WP:ORGCRIT as being unreliable. I have faith that the closer will look at the quality of the !votes instead of the number. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 09:00, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Eh. The sourcing is crappy but this is an extremely widely used plugin (I used it myself because it was the highest rated plugin to do this job). I think in the end we have to keep it, but prune the fluff. Guy (help! - typo?) 10:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:35, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Patrick Nagel (disambiguation)[edit]

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

    per WP:ONEOTHER. A hatnote atop the artist's entry pointing to the one-sentence stub delineating the footballer would be sufficient. The hatnote can also point to the similarly-named goaltender Pat Nagle. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguation-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep I de-prodded this disambiguation page because it Fulfills WP:D - It is necessary to provide links and disambiguation pages so that readers typing in a reasonably likely topic name for more than one Wikipedia topic can quickly navigate to the article they seek. FYI: there are three similar names listed on the page, two names are spelled Patrick Nagel and a third name is spelled Patrick Nagle. The similar spelling of the third tells us that readers could easily confuse Nagel and Nagle - the main purpose of a disambiguation page is to assist readers...and this one does. Lightburst (talk) 03:25, 3 August 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 August 3. —cyberbot ITalk to my owner:Online 03:26, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It may be noted that anyone typing Patrick Nagel, or its redirect Pat Nagel, will arrive at the page for artist Patrick Nagel where a hatnote should inform of the existence of the stub for Patrick Nagel (footballer) and about the differently-surnamed ice hockey goaltender Pat Nagle. Alternatively, if one types Pat Nagle, or its redirect Patrick Nagle, those links flow to the goaltender's page where a hatnote should inform of the existence of the entries for the artist as well as the footballer, both of whose surnames are spelled "Nagel". Either way, there is no need for the dab page. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 04:48, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. Disambiguation can be accomplished with a hatnote. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 14:12, 6 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • keep this is a 2other situation and breaks no guidelines. Boleyn (talk) 05:46, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Typing "Nagel" instead of "Nagle" is quite a reasonable expectation and so this page will help the reader reach the appropriate article when searching for the hockey player if they type the name with the incorrect spelling. -- Whpq (talk) 13:28, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was keep. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    iGoodbye[edit]

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

    Non-notable television series finale, But nothing that indicates notability. While iCarly is a notable children’s show from the late 2000s and early 2010s, the made-for-TV specials this series had do not deserve their own articles as they are better suited for the wikis on Fandom. Pahiy (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 00:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do not consider that a non RFC discussion involving 7 project members is adequate to overrule WP:GNG which this passes imv, Atlantic306 (talk)
    And that is your opinion, thank you for it. This is mine, and the discussion and resultant consensus has been used to redirect multiple failed episode articles in the past. Remember, GNG is only a guideline, not policy. Also, please sign your posts properly. -- /Alex/21 00:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 02:38, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. withdrawn (non-admin closure) Vexations (talk) 13:46, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Muti Randolph[edit]

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

    The only thing Randolph appears to be noted for is his work for Melissa Shoes, and even that is fairly thin coverage. I cannot find any significant coverage for else or anything he has done since (2017). Vexations (talk) 20:16, 26 July 2020 (UTC) 01:29, 28 July 2020 (UTC)~*[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:43, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 01:03, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep - Per WP:CREATIVE point 3, this designer has created works that have attracted critical coverage. Galeria Melissa and the Rio Olympics work have both attracted coverage and there is the Globo profile piece noted abve which is quite substantial coverage. -- Whpq (talk) 13:01, 8 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:10, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Shaahin Cheyene[edit]

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

    Notability - he wrote and directed a non-notable film - that won awards from non-notable film festivals. He is the founder and CEO of a non-notable supplement company, and non-notable film production company. He was the founder of a non-notable company. And his claim to fame seems to be selling alt-med products that are themselves non-notable. Explain to me why this person has a Wikipedia page? Tag from 2011 claims that someone in close contact with Cheyene wrote the page, and the most notable citation that is a RS is "People" and that doesn't mention Cheyene at all. Unless I'm missing something - this needs to go. Sgerbic (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 00:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:32, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:33, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete because I cannot find a version that is free of promotional editing, so this would qualify for WP:TNT even if he did meet WP:GNG (which my searches suggest he does not, despite his diligent self-promotion). Guy (help! - typo?) 22:56, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as advertorial fluff. XOR'easter (talk) 16:20, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete "Sean Shayan" in [41] would be the same? It appears to include some biographical information. It would seem to be the only apparent independent reliable source in the article that discusses the subject itself. I'm still not voting a weak keep as one source may not be enough and the whole article would have to be rewritten mostly based on this single independent source. —PaleoNeonate – 21:06, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 03:09, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    William A. Barton[edit]

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

    Fails WP:GNG. Despite his success as a lawyer and role in Doe v. Holy See, very little coverage of this person exists. KidAd (💬💬) 21:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete the case may be notable, but that does not make Barton notable as a person.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:40, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:00, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    London Buses route 371[edit]

    London Buses route 371 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Somehow this slipped through the AfC process however there is notable about this route. Routine coverage about tender results and self published sources from bus fansites are are not independent secondary sources. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 21:20, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment @Robert McClenon: What were your reasons for accepting? Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 08:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as not notable. Not sure how this was created, did this override what was previously here? Nightfury 09:17, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep London bus routes are usually notable as there is an extensive literature about them. This one is no exception as there are already plenty of sources and there's plenty more to be found including London's Buses: The Colourful Era 1985-2005; London Buses in the 1970s, 1970–1974; London Bus Liveries: A Miscellany; The London LS: The Leyland National Bus In London Service; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No they aren't, see WP:BUSOUTCOMES. Approximately 10% of them are notable because they have a long history that dates back almost a century. A route created in the 1990's and with barely any coverage other than tenders and one single incident doesn't make the cut. The route that it was carved out of (71) is also non notable. Ajf773 (talk) 20:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I compared this to other London bus routes, all listed, that have articles and that do not have articles. This seemed comparable to other London bus routes that have articles. I concede that I wasn't following general notability guidelines, because if I did, very few of the bus routes would survive AFD. I concede that I was treating this as a case where there is apparently either a guideline or an unpublished guideline that normally applies to London bus routes. I also noted that there is a redirect category for London bus routes, which seems to imply that someone thinks that London bus routes are worth keeping track of, and they can't be kept tracked of unless they are in the encyclopedia. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - As to overriding what was previously there, what was previously there was a redirect to the list of London bus routes, which is what is there for all London bus routes that don't have articles. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - I know that it is very much the Wikipedia way to select a group of volunteers to whom one does not belong and dump on them for not doing enough or for making mistakes. It is very popular for non-AFC volunteers to dump on AFC. We get dumped on for not accepting things that could be fixed in article space. We get dumped on for accepting things. So sometimes a reviewer has to be be bold and decide that an article might survive AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - "This seems to be comparable to other articles on London bus routes. It should probably be accepted." I answered your question before you asked it. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep I support the comment from Andrew Olaf Kosinsky (talk) 09:03, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • So you support a source without demonstrating that the works provide any significant notability for this individual route? Ajf773 (talk) 09:07, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:39, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete per nom's arguments. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 20:04, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. As the nominator indicates, there isn't actual coverage on which to build an article; it's all routine. While some routes may be notable, nothing in the sources suggests this particular one is. --Kinu t/c 01:18, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete- As Ajf773 points out, London bus routes are only notable a small proportion of the time. There's no such thing as inherent or automatic notability. This topic needs specific and substantial coverage, but it just hasn't got it. Reyk YO! 10:52, 11 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:08, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    List of leaders visited Pakistan during the Imran Khan government[edit]

    List of leaders visited Pakistan during the Imran Khan government (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Fails WP:LISTN. Delete per WP:LISTCRUFT. Störm (talk) 00:35, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:53, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. After extensive cleanup by User:Nick-D and the consensus reached. I'm closing as keep. (non-admin closure) —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 10:00, 10 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Xero (company)[edit]

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

    This is essentially an advertisement for a dubiously notable firm. The references are almost all press releases, notices of funding, notices of new products, notices of trivial awards, and promotional interviews DGG ( talk ) 00:27, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I've started a source assessment table. Anyone may edit it. Dear admins: The accuracy of the table is disputed; it may not reflect consensus here. —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC); edited 21:45, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Source assessment table:
    Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
    New Zealand Listener article: Xero aims for the data revolution (Tina Morrison; 21 May 2015) Yes Yes Yes Very detailed article about the company. ✔ Yes
    New Zealand Listener article: From Xero a hero (Ruth Laugesen; 16 Oct 2013) Yes Yes Yes While the article is mostly about Xero's founder, Rod Drury, there is a lot of detail about the company itself present. ✔ Yes
    WSJ article: "Is Xero the Hero for New Zealand Stocks?" Accessible using ProQuest on the Wikipedia Library Card platform. Yes Yes ? hako9 says it passes WP:CORPDEPTH. Unforgettableid says maybe not. ? Unknown
    New Zealand Listener article: 80 years of technological innovation in New Zealand (Peter Griffin; 13 Aug 2019) Yes Yes ? Not a very long write up. The value of the article is that it lists the most significant innovations in New Zealand over the last 80 years. Hence, Xero is in rather good company. ? Unknown
    https://www.nytimes.com/2016/04/11/technology/intuit-sheds-its-pc-roots-and-rises-as-a-cloud-software-company.html Yes Yes ? Please see WP:CORPDEPTH. ? Unknown
    This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.
    • Comment: Why don't you plaster that decorative table all across this afd. One at the bottom too perhaps? Subsequent comments go to the bottom, by convention, you should know. I'll just leave a note for the closing admin to decide whether or not, both those nyt and wsj articles (and others like forbes, smh, stuff, techcrunch cited in the article currently), are so trivial that they fail corpdepth. A superficial reading like you may have likely done can give an impression of trivial coverage. But it doesn't take a lot to comprehend that the articles include commentary, analysis and overview of the business environment in which it operates along with the news of capital raises (not expansion, as you write) done by the company. In case someone has access to credit suisse plus, they can check the analyst reports for Xero. Thankfully the policy allows analyst reports WP:LISTED. - hako9 (talk) 08:52, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear hako9: I've left the decorative table at the top, but moved my !vote towards the bottom of the discussion. If you wish, feel free to move the table to a new section at the very bottom of the discussion. Optionally, you may move my comments as well. I've edited the WSJ table row to mention raised capital too. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 20:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Unforgettableid: Without being too verbose, and I don't feel I need to tell you this, dear sir, but the source assessment table is "your" assessment. It should form part of your own !vote. Don't try to use it as a collaborative tool to imply that everyone here has reached a consensus in that assessment, or impose that assessment on others. Would it not be disingenuous dear sir, if I changed the wsj, nyt entries to indicate it passes sigcov and gave my own reason? You have messed up this discussion by placing that table at the top, like you are superseding other votes, and by commenting all over the place, you have forced me to do the same. - hako9 (talk) 20:59, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Dear hako9: You've made good points which I didn't think of. (I've never used a source assessment table before this AfD.) I've now tried to edit the table to reflect our differences, but I dunno what to do about the table now. We could move it to the middle or bottom of the discussion, or collapse it by default. Whatever you want. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 21:48, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. i have seen ads for this company but other than that..... literally nothing. Clone commando sev (talk) 01:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. The company is quite large and well known in Australasia. However, parts may need to be rewritten especially the History section which has too much emotion. For example: "Xero was founded in a Wellington studio apartment in 2006 by Rod Drury and his personal accountant Hamish Edwards when they felt that traditional desktop accounting software had become outdated and decided to create a modern cloud-based product." Khronos1 ( talk ) 08:14, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:08, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. This is a well known + notable company, this article needs tidying up --Devokewater @ 11:09, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. One of the more notable companies to come out of NZ. Operates around the world. Very surprising nomination; I really suggest this should be withdrawn. Schwede66 15:41, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. agree with Schwede66 surprising nomination --Devokewater @ 15:54, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. Tho I think notability is borderline, as least judged by WP:NCORP (and notable ≠ well-known), the primary problem with the article is the pervasive promotionalism. That would justify removal no matter how notable. DGG ( talk ) 17:20, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Borderline notability is simply not true. Not by a long shot. The guy who founded the company is now a billionaire; he came from a middle class background. A self-made billionaire through a company founded in 2006. Those companies don't come with "borderline notability". Schwede66 06:44, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment. this company has come from nowhere over the recent years + has taken the accounting industry by storm, outdoing the erstwhile market leader Sage. --Devokewater @ 17:45, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. Per WP:LISTED. Editors coming across an article on such a company without such references are encouraged to search (or request that others search) prior to nominating for deletion, given the very high (but not certain) likelihood that a publicly traded company is actually notable according to the primary criterion. The nomination would have atleast made some sense if somehow this listed co. had no reliable sources before nomination. But the sources were already present in the article before. Citations include significant independent coverage from SMH, Forbes, Business Insider, Stuff, WSJ, among others. It's apparent that the nominator has not followed WP:BEFORE and, from the edit history of the article, the first two steps of WP:ADPROMO too. - hako9 (talk) 18:05, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Let's delete or draftify the article, unless we find three sources which pass WP:CORPDEPTH.
      • Hako9: You linked to one source. I don't have WSJ access, so I can't check for WP:CORPDEPTH, but we'd need more sources anyway. Could you please give us links to exactly three more sources — preferably which I can easily view?
      • Khronos1, Devokewater, and Schwede66 claim that Xero is large, well-known, and notable, which is sort of like claiming that there WP:MUSTBESOURCES. Please support your claim: please show us your WP:THREE best sources only, so that we can assess them.
    Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 08:54, 6 August 2020 (UTC); edited 20:23, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's a reasonable amount of coverage of this company in this NY Times story, though it's focused on another company. More usefully, the NZ Herald's awful search tool also returns lots of coverage of this firm: [42] and the NZ 'Stuff' news website's much better search tool returns heaps of coverage [43]. Nick-D (talk) 09:51, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear Nick-D: The NYT story looks good. Please don't ask us to sort through heaps of additional stories: please give us links to two more stories which you think pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • but we'd need more sources anyway. Hahaha. Says who? You? According to me, coverage in SMH, Forbes, Business Insider, Stuff, TechCrunch, WSJ (not my concern if you don't have access to it) is more than enough to pass ncorp. The burden of proof is on you if you take the position of dismissing all these sources. Please show us how each of the sources fail either independence, reliable source or sigcov. - hako9 (talk) 16:26, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Dear hako9: I got access to the WSJ story using the Wikipedia Library Card platform; I added a link in the table above. The story probably fails WP:CORPDEPTH as "routine coverage, such as ... of the expansions ... of the business". I'm not sure which SMH, Forbes, Business Insider, Stuff, and/or TechCrunch stories you're referring to. Please give us direct links to exactly two stories which you think pass WP:CORPDEPTH. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 06:47, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep. I've just edited the article to remove large amounts of spam and claims referenced only to the company. I've also blocked an editor with a partially disclosed COI with the company who seems to have added much of this rubbish. While many of the sources remaining in the article are not of high quality, with some probably being unreliable and/or recycled media releases, this firm seems to have received sufficiently significant and sustained coverage in genuine reliable sources to meet our notability guidelines. As Schwede66 and others note, this is also a fairly large and moderately well known firm, especially for a company based in NZ so I think it's reasonable to assume that there's more coverage in RS which can be drawn on here. Nick-D (talk) 07:54, 7 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong keep. Clearly notable – market capitalisation exceeded NZ$10 billion in September 2019, giving it a rank of third in the list of most valuable New Zealand publicly listed companies, as reported by Stuff. Moreover, the book Xero for Dummies, published by Wiley, is in its 4th edition, and per WP:CORPDEPTH, "an extensive how-to guide written by people wholly independent of the company or product (e.g. For Dummies)" is an example of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet notability. Paora (talk) 10:30, 9 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Salvio 15:46, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    EuroLeague clubs performance comparison[edit]

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

    clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:
    WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.
    MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.
    WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.
    WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.
    WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines.
    Jopal22 (talk) 15:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Comment This page fails a fundamental part of WP:NOTSTATS: ... articles with statistics should include explanatory text providing context.. There is no text here, just a massive table.—Bagumba (talk) 15:37, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop Can we please wait until a consensus is reached here? Mainly because it is about a similar list and has more discussing going on. Also not everyone wants to discuss the same thing 7 times in a day. The nominator should've thought about this before nominating. ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 09:07, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In line with the decision at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison manipulating sports data like this obviously crosses the line into OR and SYNTH, unless the charts themselves can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party. How could I even verify the accuracy of these charts? That's a lot of homework. That makes the presented data sort of opaque to any critical analysis. Also, despite claims above about sources, no data within the chart is sourced at all. (Yes, there are six more of these -- see this discussion) --Lockley (talk) 00:16, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:19, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:22, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:23, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Completely WP:OR. The only reference is to a non-existent blog page. If WP is the source then WP:NOTSOURCE. WP:OSE is not an valid reason to keep.   // Timothy :: talk  15:36, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Article fails WP:GNG for having only one citation, Issues with WP:OR, WP:ACCESS with mini browsers and Accessibility browsers. It's weird to say that this is MOS:COLOR and ACCESS enabled when it clearly is not. WP:NOSTATS is a major concern with these type of articles. Govvy (talk) 19:19, 5 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Whilst I am conscious there has been a number of similar discussions and thee is an accusation of revenge-nomination, there is strong consensus that this article is not appropriate. Stifle (talk) 15:40, 13 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Euro Hockey League clubs performance comparison[edit]

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

    clubs performance comparison are not notable according: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison Malo95 (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Malo95 (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Strong Keep - The deletion request seems to be based purely on WP:IDONTLIKEIT, with several Wikipedia policies linked often without a coherent narrative as to why it should be deleted. This leaves the onus on those wishing to keep the article without having a clear objection to discuss. This article, and similar articles should remain. Wikipedia policy cited included:
    WP:SYNTH - This is totally inapplicable here. The page does not reach any conclusion of any kind, and just summarises facts.
    MOS:COLOR, WP:ACCESS - This is not a reason for deletion and any access issues (which seem minor), can easily be addressed.
    WP:GNG - The information set out in the page is covered in multiple reliable sources in multiple countries.
    WP:OR - The information is factual and direct from sources. There is nothing resembling WP:OR here.
    WP:NOSTATS - This aligns directly with NOSTATS which says statistics should be placed in tables to enhance readability (exactly what this does). It also says where statistics are so lengthy as to impede the readability of the article, the statistics can be split into a separate article and summarized in the main article (which is exactly the point of pages like this). This presentation of results is common among many sports as it is seen as a good way to present results e.g. Roger Federer career statistics#Performance timelines.
    Jopal22 (talk) 15:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The nominator put forth a perfectly clear deletion ground. WP:IDONTLIKEIT ≠ "you don't like the nom's reasoning. Ravenswing 22:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Stop Can we please wait until a consensus is reached here? Mainly because it is about a similar list and has more discussing going on. Also not everyone wants to discuss the same thing 7 times in a day. The nominator should've thought about this before nominating. ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 09:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. In line with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/EHF Champions League clubs performance comparison, manipulating, "re-reporting," "summarizing," or "collating" data like this crosses the line into OR and SYNTH, unless the charts can be sourced to a reliable 3rd party. How could I even check the accuracy of these charts? Rework the entire chart from scratch? Speaking of sources, when you click on the single link provided here, it wants to save a pdf locally. Despite the "factual and direct" "multiple reliable sources in multiple countries" language above, no data within the chart is sourced. To any country. (There are six more of these -- see this discussion) --Lockley (talk) 00:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:18, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete, a comparison is not in accordance with what a Wikipedia article should be. Geschichte (talk) 06:52, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: Fails the GNG -- this is almost entirely unsourced -- OR, SYNTH and WP:NOTSTATS. Ravenswing 22:28, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Styyx has clearly spent time researching this topic, and I would like to begin by thanking him for this work. Unfortunately, other participants within this discussion were not convinced that the sources provided were sufficient to confer notability onto this subject. Because of this, the general agreement appears to be in favor of deleting this article. Mz7 (talk) 03:22, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Cem Özüduru[edit]

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

    I don't read Turkish, but I couldn't find anything to establish that he meets WP:BIO or WP:GNG. There was some coverage of his book, but the ref given seems to be the only one that would meet criteria to count towards notability. Boleyn (talk) 15:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete I can’t find coverage in any RIS to support this.Mccapra (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment I found one more source about him: https://www.filmloverss.com/39-istanbul-film-festivalinin-cem-ozuduru-imzali-afisi-yayinlandi/ the article includes some information about him. Will look more into it tomorrow. ~Styyx (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment It seems there's a Cem Özüduru who has written graphic novels and a couple of books c. 2009-2015 or so. And there's a Cem Özüduru listed on IMDB credited with a few film and TV series directs and writes, from about 2016 onwards. Whether they are the same Cem Özüduru, I don't know; I've tried to do some digging, but can't conclusively prove it either way. If they are the same person, this article sure is badly out of date! If they aren't, we need to be careful not to confuse the two. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Comment No I dont think they are the same. In sources about his comics, none of them say that he is also a director. Not sure though, might need more investigating. Turns out it is actually the same person [44] ~Styyx (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    I found a source of NTV written about his comic Zombistan being translated into French after its success in USA. The article is from 2011, but NTV is well known and a reliable source for Turkish news. I think we can Keep this. [45] ~Styyx (talk) 12:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment I have expanded the article to include more of his comics and the movies he has written and directed. If you have already voted I ask you to check the article again. ~Styyx (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Good work finding these sources! I’ve struck my delete vote. I’m not sure there’s enough here by way of sourcing so I’m not recording a new !vote. Mccapra (talk) 20:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Tone 19:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete: I actually looked at the new sources posted here. The first's a namedrop. The second is a casual mention (the article being about someone else). The third is a press release, most of it quoted in the subject's own words. None would satisfy the GNG as to the notability of the subject. Ravenswing 17:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Ravenswing I don't really know what you are talking about. [46] is about his comic getting translated into French, [47] is an interview with him about the background of the comic and [48] is an article by Istanbul Foundation for Culture and Arts about his poster being released. So all of the articles are about him or his works, no "casual" mentions or articles being about someone else. ~Styyx Hi! ^-^ 11:38, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment So I did a little bit of research and looked at the sources that Styyx has provided. The truth is that there is very little independent coverage of him. Aside from the subject's notability, the notability of his works must also be taken into consideration. It's important to remember that having one or two works translated into a foreign language doesn't necessarily grant you notability. There are thousands, if not millions, of such artists out there, but only those that become prominent in their native country or around the world meet the criteria for a standalone article. Keivan.fTalk 06:15, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ad Orientem (talk) 00:17, 3 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_August_3&oldid=977175726"