Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 11

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 10 July 12 July >

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 redirect to Playrix. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Bukhman[edit]

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

This is an article about a Russian billionaire that seems to be native advertising created by a suspected undisclosed paid editor. The given sources are very promotional, in detail : refs 1, 10 and 12 are database listings; ref 2 is based on a softball interview in ref 9,; ref 3 and 7 are sourced to the Bloomberg interview in ref 8 which has a disclaimer at the top stating that its source is Playrix (the company he co-founded); ref 6 is self-written by Bukhman; refs 5 and 11 are softball interviews; ref 13 is an interview with the company's head of marketing; the remaining refs are either mentions or promotional. A WP:BEFORE found a piece in the Financial Times but that seems mainly reliant on Buhkman and the company. To sum up, the article is mainly sourced to the commentary of the subject himself and is therefore not independently sourced and does not pass WP:Basic, as well as the WP:PROMO issues. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 22:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom. --Devokewater (talk) 07:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I see no in depth coverage on the subject. Less Unless (talk) 09:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not enough third party reliable sources, looks promotional. Alex-h (talk) 08:15, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I do not edit the English Wikipedia, but I am interested in the life of the Bukhman brothers and often play the games created by them. When I surfed the internet and came across the Wikipedia article about Dmitry Bukhman, I was very surprised by the nomination for deletion, assuming that it was nothing else but a misunderstanding. I decided to find out what and why and served to make this conclusion that I could not agree with the arguments of the Atlantic. Source №1.12 is a separate short article about Buchman in Forbes (not just a mention of the name in the list). The arguments regarding the 2nd source do not stand up to criticism, as the quotations in these articles are of complementary value and do not form the basis. Source №7 is a common secondary source, where the author refers to various sources (not only Bloomberg). The №8 source is also a full-fledged article on Bloomberg, and the disclaimer above refers solely to the authorship of the photo used for the article, isn't that obvious? This is common practice.--OmInna (talk) 13:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:35, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Forbes piece is not a real article just a blurb, and the other sources all rely on the commentary of Bukhman himself either directly or from interviews in other sources. This means that the article only covers what Buhkman wants it to cover and is therefore promotional and not independent of the subject so failing WP:BASIC imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, about 7.8bill people in the world, around 2100 billionaires, Bukhman is 1 in 3mill approx, so they're not that common, surprising that there isn't appropriate sources to be found but maybe a merge/redirect to Playrix could be considered? Coolabahapple (talk) 11:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. No consensus to delete; and after sources were added, a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GKS Glinik Gorlice[edit]

GKS Glinik Gorlice (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. Only source is a primary source. Fails WP:NTEAM. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poland-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per sources found and added, seems to be notable. GiantSnowman 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P,TO 19104: It has been on the Polish wiki since 2009 so maybe you should have a look there. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a brand new article and hasn't been given time to develop, they are a team in the fifth level of the Polish league which plays in the Polish Cup, there are plenty of citations online if one wants to use them, except most are in Polish. This can be fixed to pass WP:GNG if one wants to add those sources, AfD is not cleanup. Govvy (talk) 10:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have linked this article with the Polish wiki article if anyone wants to check that on the languages section. Govvy (talk) 10:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Ok I have examined the Polish Wikipedia entry and here's what I have found: 1) Most of the sources are in Polish (no suprise because of WP:SBEXT) 2) There is only one reliable newspaper source listed (WP:GNG requires multiple) 3) The article in Polish is about the length of this article. I think the article article in Polish was honestly created out of systematic bias to create articles about subjects inside of Poland. Also, by WP:3REFS, there should to be at least three reliable indpendent sources to establish notablity. The article in Polish only contains one reliable and independent source. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 13:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The pl:Nowiny (dziennik rzeszowski) which is used on pl wiki is a local newspaper from the town of Rzeszów, if we want to be generous, we could call it maybe provincial (Rzeszów Voivodeship). The weird thing is that most of the headlines seems to talk about hockey? Seems like the club had a hockey section that got written up about more than the soccer one. Anyway, a bit more on the NTEAM: Polish wiki has unreferenced claims that the club was at some point in the III League (see Polish football league system) and at one point earned 1/64 of the "Polish Cup" (but it doesn't specify if it was a soccer cup, or maybe the hokey one?). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The club website has a bunch of info about the history of the club, however its way beyond my translating ability. REDMAN 2019 (talk) 18:38, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 08:21, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment @Alex-h: NFootball is for athletes, not football clubs. Govvy (talk) 08:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Played in the cup, so meets WP:FOOTYN. Would be a clear case of systematic bias to delete an article on a club that has played in the fourth tier. Number 57 10:12, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep Played in the national cup, and in the third tier therefore passes the criteria for WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Abcmaxx (talk) 20:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The team had its glory days long before the internet so it will be much harder to find sources. However, it seems to generate enough interest to have more than routine coverage recently despite its current league pyramid position gol24.pl Gazeta Krakowska Nowiny24 DziennikPolski 24 etc. etc. Whilst these are fairly routine, they from not that long ago, and also national newspapers; I would point out that although Gazeta Krakowska and Nowiny24 have a regional focus, they are different to the local newspapers in the UK or US for example, in that they would still be a source of national news, somewhat more akin to the Metro or Evening Standard in England.Abcmaxx (talk) 20:42, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep, I'm not at all convinced that this pre-war club fails GNG. It's also hinted there that the club might draw notability from other sports. Geschichte (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The club now passes GNG, NFOOTBALL and NTEAM. @Piotrus, Devokewater, GiantSnowman, Alex-h, and P,TO 19104: are you willing to change your minds? REDMAN 2019 (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It cannot pass NFOOTBALL, that applies to people only. However I agree it is likely notable. GiantSnowman 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Govvy, I can change mine,Alex-h (talk) 12:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proper Sport[edit]

Proper Sport (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 podcast network, does not meet the WP:GNG. Raymie (t • c) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 21:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 09:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was I am withdrawing the AfD in favor of a requested merger. Neutralitytalk 20:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Atlanta police sickout[edit]

2020 Atlanta police sickout (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 content in this article can (and has) been easily summarized in three or four sentences at Killing of Rayshard Brooks. It is not necessary to have a separate article, and WP:NOTNEWS implications are present. I redirected the article to Killing of Rayshard Brooks; that was reverted, so I am bringing the article here. Neutralitytalk 21:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC) Tagging @EEng: since he first had the idea.[reply]

  • Merge/redirect to Killing of Rayshard Brooks (as nom)—the relevant conduct is already merged, so this can be affected with a straight redirect. Delete as second choice. Neutralitytalk 21:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Is there an argument for deletion? I don't see one. City-wide police work stoppages are rare and notable, particularly as a coordinated reaction to a police killing. The article is underdeveloped but deserves to stay. --Lockley (talk) 00:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The argument is that it is not independently notable outside the context of the Rayshard Brooks killing, and can be addressed sufficiently in the context of that article, without a standalone article. Neutralitytalk 00:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Then it seems to come down to a single issue, notability. NOTNEWS also mentions a standard of "enduring notability". I'd agree that the article needs improvement. I see that news articles draw a clear cause-effect relationship between the charging of Garrett Rolfe and the sick-out. Public employees in Georgia are forbidden from striking (GA Code Sec. 45-19-2), so the Atlanta police were arguably breaking the law. The head of the local International Brotherhood of Police Officers was careful to characterize it as NOT the blue flu and NOT a strike. None of those points are (yet) explicit in the article as it stands now. More broadly a police strike of any kind is a threat to public order, inherently significant, and worth understanding. --Lockley (talk) 02:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, we need not question the subject's notability in order to question whether it's best presented on a page of its own. See my !vote below. EEng 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a recent event of course, but it is the subject of considerable major media coverage, as is clear from the many sources cited, so I wouldn't be surprised if it achieved long-term attention. We have fulfilled WP:SIGCOV already, so at least for now we ought to keep it. Patiodweller (talk) 01:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Merged Unless Further Developed. Although it appears to be just like two other standalone blue flu articles and it's apparently rare - I don't find that Atlanta has ever had such an occurrence in the past - unlike the other events, although many officers, and three zones, at one time participated, it was not as coordinated as the 1981 Milwaukee Police Strike or the 1971 NYPD Work Stoppage. Also, it appears adequately covered in Killing of Rayshard Brooks. Nonetheless, if it is further developed, then it should be reconsidered as a standalone. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 02:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Keep merged is a somewhat confusing way to put it. EEng 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It has already been merged, so keep it so; see no reason to keep the 2020 article at this time; redirect. Quaerens-veritatem (talk) 10:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge/redirect Notability isn't the issue here. The guideline on point is WP:NOPAGE, which provides
    When creating new content about a notable topic, editors should consider how best to help readers understand it. Sometimes, understanding is best achieved by presenting the material on a dedicated standalone page, but it is not required that we do so. There are other times when it is better to cover notable topics, that clearly should be included in Wikipedia, as part of a larger page about a broader topic, with more context. A decision to cover a notable topic only as part of a broader page does not in any way disparage the importance of the topic.
As Q-v points out, the sickout is adequately covered on the Brooks page. In fact, it's covered better on the Brooks page, because there it's presented in full context. On the separate sickout page, even an abbreviated presentation of the Brooks background takes up, literally, half the page. Plus that background material inevitably gets out of sync with the actual Brooks page. This is a classic application of NOPAGE. EEng 05:16, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Hi @EEng: and @Neutrality:. With no trace of snark -- honestly -- I'm confused now. You've put forth contradictory reasons for this AfD. Do you both agree the topic is notable? Could you please coordinate and clarify, so I can answer appropriately? --Lockley (talk) 06:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't need to worry about whether it's notable, because even if it is it's nonetheless best treated on the main Brooks page. That's what NOPAGE (quoted above) is about. Neutrality seems to be questioning the notability, but he/she also says It is not necessary to have a separate article, which could be seen as a NOPAGE argument as well. EEng 12:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Agree with EEng. I'm saying it's noteworthy in the context of the Brooks article, but that it's not independently notable so as to require a page. Neutralitytalk 14:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well, I'll just say it one more time: bringing notability or independent notability into it makes this much more complicated than it needs to be, because it becomes a tussle over sources. By focusing on how best to present the topic (i.e. on its own page vs. within the Brooks page) makes the question much clearer and avoids the notability fight. EEng 18:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
TOTALLY CONFUSED. If the nom agrees the article is notable, verifiable, etc., and it's only a question of whether the content should be merged or not, then the !votes should come down to Merge or Keep. Is that right? Nobody's talking about deleting the article? ...Then that's not a good fit with an AfD discussion where editors are used to assessing for possible deletion. I'm not complaining, I don't require another explanation, I'm familiar with NOPAGE, and if merged I'll survive just fine. This process just seems sideways to me. --Lockley (talk) 19:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We call it Articles for Deletion as a shorthand because Articles for Deletion and Maybe Merging or Redirecting or I Think Some Other Possibilities I Can't Remember Now would be awkward.
If you'd change your !vote above it would help tip the scales and we can go home sooner. EEng 03:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, @EEng:, since I'm familiar with your stream of sarcasm that always slightly misses the point, I feel comfortably at home. My opinion's clear enough. Hope you're well. --Lockley (talk) 17:48, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It wasn't sarcasm, it was irony. Jeesh! I only meant that since you said you could live with a merge it would speed things up if you made that clear. EEng 20:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@EEng and Hello!:. Sorry, I thought it was sarcasm. Irony would have been something more like this: Articles for Deletion and Maybe Merging or Redirecting or I Think Some Other Possibilities I Can't Remember Now. As to changing my vote, nope. This labor action clearly deserves its own article. Besides, it's changed a lot since the nom, no way it's a clean redirect at this point. Wanna go home early? Let it live. --Lockley (talk) 22:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've learned that an unusually large proportion of editors are anemic so I'm making an effort to add extra irony to my posts. EEng 22:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this has had more than enough coverage to justify an article. Juno (talk) 16:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Although the article needs more information but the topic is encyclopedic. Nika2020 (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment It is indeed distressing to see how many people just drop in to comment without bothering to understand what's being proposed. Whether the topic is encyclopedic, or whether there's sufficient coverage, isn't the question. The question is whether the reader is best served by treating the topic in a four-sentence article vs. those same four sentences in the main Brooks article. EEng 12:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apocrypho[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to be notable Almy (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Almy (talk) 21:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 per WP:SNOW. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 09:04, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glee curse[edit]

Glee curse (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)

Takes an idea from an article and runs with original research to combine various unfortunate events with potential conspiracy theory. The article itself refers to the events as "coincidental". LadyofShalott 20:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. LadyofShalott 20:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Already tagged for speedy as A11 - no credible significance. Kingsif (talk) 20:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You moved faster than I did, but ok. I think the first ref invalidates A11. Otherwise, we agree it should go. LadyofShalott 21:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It would need more than that one source to be credible and significant. Kingsif (talk) 21:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, but not to make a *claim* to such. LadyofShalott 21:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the A11 speedy deletion request from the article. A11 has two pieces and both of them have to be met. This does not meet the first part, It applies to any article that plainly indicates that the subject was invented/coined/discovered by the article's creator or someone the creator personally knows. We would need plain indication in the article or somewhere that Tomipelegrin made this up. There is a source in the article that discusses a "Glee Curse". There are also many reliable sources available that use this exact phrase. ~ GB fan 13:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Whenever we see a "curse" article, it seems like we often see editors shoehorning incidents in to the article no matter how much of a stretch it is to claim those incidents as part of a curse. Among the instances of the curse listed in this article are (a) two cast members divorcing each other; (b) a person who appeared in four episodes having a car accident in which nobody was injured; and (c) a cast member being accused of having been frequently rude to other cast members. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A single periodical using "curse" as a hook for a clickbait article doesn't make this a notable thing. I don't find any other reliable sources using the term. Schazjmd (talk) 21:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There are several WP:BLP concerns in that list alone for me; this is an article WP:COATRACKing as someone both hating the series and wanting to keep this conspiracy nonsense on here. Have a heart and don't do this. Nate • (chatter) 23:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, borderline speedy. WP:NOTTRIVIA. BD2412 T 00:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Glee. Given the couple of decent sources that do mention this, I might be useful to merge rather than outright delete. Patiodweller (talk) 00:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. OR, coatrack, conspiracy nonsense, inconsistent, badly spelled, poor idea from the beginning. --Lockley (talk) 06:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per nom --Devokewater (talk) 08:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete this is the kind of garbage I expect Perez Hilton to blog about. It's nothing but OR and nonsense. Praxidicae (talk) 11:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - When I first stumbled upon this page, I was close to nominating it for AfD but didn't. This AfD solidifies my initial opinion. Non-notable conspiracy triviaesque type information. Meatsgains(talk) 16:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete not appropriate/real ever, but let's not allow this conspiracy to fester when it's current-related. Kingsif (talk) 19:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Nika2020 (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This article is an insult to those mentioned and affected, frankly. – DarkGlow (talk) 17:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per everyone. Beeblebrox (talk) 21:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment pinging @Lee Vilenski:, just as the first admin I thought of, to help wrap this up. Sorry if this seems inappropriate, but when a horse is dead... Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Glee, per @Patiodweller: --Davidsousa1 (talk) 05:17, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 21:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mallori McNeal[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. No ATD I can suggest. Boleyn (talk) 20:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete Not enough reliable sources to be notable. Nika2020 (talk) 12:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) feminist (talk) 03:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madara (manga)[edit]

Madara (manga) (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 couldn't establish that this meets WP:NOTABILITY. I'm aware I may be missing something by not reading Japanese. Possible ATD is to the writer Eiji Ōtsuka. Boleyn (talk) 20:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Delete carries the weight here but a redirect can be created as a normal function of editing If so desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saverio Guerra[edit]

Saverio Guerra (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 meet WP:N, even if it does, I would still blow it all up and start again The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 20:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. The creeper2007Talk! Be well, stay safe 20:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unless notability can be asserted and verified, without prejudice to recreation in the future when the threshold is met. The current revision is a BLP with absolutely no referencing and might just as easily have been speedied as an advert Fiddle Faddle 22:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the redirect to Becker (TV series) where Guerra is mentioned. signed, Rosguill talk 22:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restore the redirect per User:Rosguill. At the current moment, the article is barely a substub, without any claim to notability or references. JIP | Talk 23:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as he has shown up in other shows than Becker, and a redirect to that makes no sense as he is not a character. Looking it up though the news articles only mention the characters with him getting a trivial mention as the one who has played them. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete We cannot have a Wikipedia page sourced only to the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This article has existed since 4 April 2005. That is over 15 years. I am continually shocked at how long some of these under sourced articles have been in existence.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Standards were different then Fiddle Faddle 17:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: The page was actually once changed to a redirect then rewritten. the original version is [[1]] — Preceding unsigned comment added by The creeper2007 (talk • contribs) 22:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Not-Its![edit]

The Not-Its! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:NBAND - most coverage is advertising or primary sources. Boleyn (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AdventHealth Shawnee Mission[edit]

AdventHealth Shawnee Mission (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)

Trivial local hospital. The two sources in the article aren't good and I'm not finding anything else online that passes notability and that would meet the standards of WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I'd be fine with forwarding it to List of Seventh-day Adventist hospitals. That seems to be what was done in other cases. Adamant1 (talk) 11:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - at over 500 beds, this would be considered notable by the consensus by its size. Bearian (talk) 00:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Bearian: I wasn't aware of the number of beds rule. Do you have a link to where it's discussed? Because I'd be interested to read about it. Since I've been involved in a fair number of AfDs involving hospitals and I haven't seen it mentioned. Also, do you happen to know how it works in combination with WP:ORG? According to Wikiproject Hospitals "Hospitals, clinics, and related organizations must comply with the WP:ORG notability standard." So it doesn't sound like this hospital would be notable based solely on the number of beds it has. --Adamant1 (talk) 05:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep not sure how this would be considered a "trivial local" hospital, based on its size I would consider it at least a regional. Seems to pass WP:GNG based on a simple web search.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you provide the non-trivial in-depth secondary reliable sources that you were able to find doing a "simple web search" or should we just take your word for it that they exist? --Adamant1 (talk) 09:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just click on the news link above. Please complete the steps outlined in WP:BEFORE when nominating an article for deletion. in this case, part D applies: "D. Search for additional sources, if the main concern is notability." I agree the article could be improved, but AFD is not cleanup.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did. All the sources were trivial and don't establish notability. Your the one saying they aren't so its on you to prove it. Putting your unwillingness to provide the sources your claiming exist on me not doing a before is kinda BS though. Either provide them or don't make false claims about notability next time. You should retract your vote to if your not going to.

Adamant1 (talk) 15:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, "Liar, Liar, Pants On Fire" isn't really an argument. For clarity, here's a sample from the hundreds of articles in the search: AdventHealth Shawnee Mission makes leadership changes, names Michael Knecht new president (Shawnee Mission Post); AdventHealth Shawnee Mission holds 'Heroes Drive-In' (KSHB-TV_); 14 Leap Day babies born at AdventHealth Shawnee Mission (KSHB-TV); AdventHealth announces KC-area leadership changes as growth picks up (Kansas City Business Journal); 2019 Top Real Estate Deals: AdventHealth's plans for Lenexa City Center (Kansas City Business Journal); Cover Story: The advent of a new health power (Kansas City Business Journal). The sheer volume of coverage overwhelms WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't calling you a lier. Providing the sources your basing your vote on is just part of the process. Since the notability criteria isn't about just "sources." Going off the ones you provided its a good thing I asked to. Since all of them are extremely trivial coverage of topics that could apply to any hospital and don't pass WP:NCORP. Especially the ones from local news sources. Which I think is all of them. There's nothing notable about anything mentioned in any of those articles. You could find local news coverage of any hospital out there for the same things. Adamant1 (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First: Feature articles are not WP:TRIVIAL coverage. Second: many of the articles are regional news sources. But even if they were local, there is no "exclusion" for local coverage in the general notability guideline. Third: There is more than enough information from the third party reliable sources to create the article because the topic "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" and therefore absolutely meets the Wikipedia definition of "notability." Fourth: the primary criteria at WP:NCORP is met "A company, corporation, organization, group, product, or service is notable if it has been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." Summary: it's clear that we have different interpretations of what constitutes issues like "notability" and "trivial" and such. I won't continue this dance and leave it to the AFD closer to sort out. If anyone has in questions, feel free to ping me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 05:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Paulmcdonald:What article was a "feature article" and what does that have to do with anything? Because I don't see anything in WP:GNG about "feature articles" automatically getting a pass on it. While I agree that WP:GNG doesn't explicitly exclude local coverage, WP:AUD says "media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." All of the sources you provided are confined to Kansas City and I wouldn't consider that a "region" in relation to the guidelines. Anymore then I would for any cities local newspaper to be.
For instance the first sources top story is on a community (their words) bookstore re-opening. I wouldn't call that a "regional" story. Nor would I consider said bookstore notable now just because there was a story about it in that news source. The paper would at least have to be for something like the Kansas City metropolitan area to qualify as "regional." Also see Wikipedia's guideline on audience and WP:NOTNEWS. Stories by local news outlets are by their nature news and are meant for a local (not general) audience. No one reading Wikipedia cares that Kansas City's community bookstore is re-opening.
Re WP:NCORP being met, I 100% agree that WP:NCORP should be the standard. It specifically says trivial coverage includes "hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel" and the first source you provided is called "AdventHealth Shawnee Mission makes leadership changes, names Michael Knecht new president." The other sources are exactly the same. If we are going off WP:NCORP like your saying we should. then follow your own standard by considering the article about them hiring a new president trivial since it's what WP:NCORP considers a trivial topic. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These comments have gone past simple discussion and have become downright disruptive. A cover story is not "trivial". Cover Story: The advent of a new health power (Kansas City Business Journal). I don't know if you just failed to read this one and/or the hundreds of articles, if you are being obstinate, if you don't understand them, or if you really believe that a cover story is only a "trivial mention" --and I don't care, because the outcome is the same for all four. The outcome is that someone else will come by to close this discussion and make their own judgment. I believe that person will hold the position of in-depth cover stories are not "trivial". I now modify my statement: if anyone else has a question feel free to ping me.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The problem with you is that your ignoring the topic of the article. The fact that it's a cover story doesn't matter. You can ignore the triviality of the topic and that WP:NCORP specifically calls it trivial all you want, but there isn't a "cover story" clause to the notability guidelines anywhere. Which is why you ignored me when I asked you to provide a link to one. What's disruptive is you posting trivial, non-notable sources and then repeatedly obfuscating that they are. At the same time your disingenuously rattling on about WP:NCORP while ignoring it when it doesn't suit you. If you hadn't of done any of that this conversation wouldn't have even been a thing. It's totally on you that it was. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jweiss11: Hey any chance you could do me a favor and point me to where the number of beds matters to notability if you happen to know it was discussed? Because it's not mentioned anywhere on the Wikiproject Hospitals page that I can find and no one has provided a source for it when I've asked where it comes from. Thanks. Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I argued against keeping a smaller hospital at Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Abdali_Medical_Center_(2nd_nomination), but I was out-argued. The consensus that I see is that hospitals of much less than 200 beds are probably not notable, but one twice that size would be. This debate is only in the past nine months, and I doubt that consensus has changed since then. I would not say there is s bright-line test based solely on the size of hospitals, but I do say that we need to be somewhat consistent. Bearian (talk) 03:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think we need some perspective here. The entire state of Kansas has less than 3 million people, which would put coverage of any history/event/institution in one of its areas, less than news about, say Austin, Texas. Break it down by one area, and the coverage gets even less. But AdventHealth Shawnee Mission has gotten a lot of news coverage during the Coronavirus pandemic. It might be local coverage, but AdventHealth has been a big player in the pandemic in Kansas. The articles could be better, should be more sourced and up to date. But lousy sourcing and incomplete work is not a requisite for deleting articles. And now we have all these articles about AdventHealth and and other Adventist associations at AFD, not just in Kansas. Imperfection is not a reason to delete. — Maile (talk) 20:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Lousy sources is exactly the reason to do an AfD. That's the whole point in them in the first place. So I have zero clue what your talking about. Also, every local hospital in America is getting local news coverage for the Chronovirus pandemic. Including my small town local hospital. It's not a justification for having on article on it though, because Wikipedia isn't a news source and if what your siting applies to everyone it negates the notability of it. Also, the fact that Adventist hospitals are coming up in AfDs should be on the people who created the articles when the subjects weren't notable, not on the people doing the AfDs. There's no rule that if you do an AfD for multiple articles having to do with the same subject it makes them not legitimate somehow and it's totally BS to frame it like there is. You can't claim the article should be kept "because other AfDs." --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love for you to point out where I wasn't listening. Maybe next time you vote leave the personal attack out of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, my intention was not to make a PA but to give you advice on AfD (of which I have a lot of experience, and made many such mistakes). There are many (many) articles in WP that need to through AfD (even if they don't end up getting deleted). The process works efficiently when people listen to each other's !votes and adjust accordingly. You are not listening to several strong arguments above – both the 500-bed and the sources provided. It is a concern for your time and the time of others. Hope you take it in that spirit. Britishfinance (talk) 20:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked for a source to the 500 bed thing a couple of times, mostly because I'm interested in reading about it. It doesn't have anything to do with not listening though. I'm just interested in policy. Despite your claim, I actually have listened because I'm not opening AfDs for hosptials over 500 beds anymore. Even if no one is willing to provide a source for the rule. No offensive, but if anything your the one wasting our time by posting clearly untrue messages that then need to be disputed. Adamant1 (talk) 20:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Bearian's explanation of consensus on hospital size, and Paul's "new health power" coverage. -- Toughpigs (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Toughpigs: Any chance you can point to where the 500 bed thing is discussed? Because I can't find anything about it and people who bring it up can't point to anywhere that talks about it either. At this point I doubt there even is consensus about it. Adamant1 (talk) 20:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No reason to feel bad about it. I wasn't aware of the whole "500 bed rule" thing when I opened the AfD. Although I doubt it's even a thing, the important thing is that people are voting like it is. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Society of Business Leaders[edit]

International Society of Business Leaders (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 organization (appears to be primarily known on message boards for targeting people by email to pay a fee to join). Does not meet general notability guidelines; no coverage in reliable, independent sources. MapleSoy (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 18:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:ORG. Also, I don't know why it's categorized as a reference work/biographical dictionary -- it's a website directory. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:58, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of significant independant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 OfflineTV#LilyPichu. Consensus that this person is not notable. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LilyPichu[edit]

LilyPichu (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 proposed this article for merging earlier as it did not seem to pass WP:SIGCOV or the BLP WP:GNG and failed to warrant a standalone article, the article comprises of many YouTube links. I noticed a couple of odd things regarding this article, after the merge consensus was met and the discussion was closed, (apart from new additions) I discovered that most, if not all the information on this subject was copied and pasted from the subject's subsection on another page OfflineTV#LilyPichu, making it impossible to move information to complete the merge as the information is already there. I also noticed that there's no history I could find regarding the article passing or being put up for the AFC to be reviewed, nor is there any article information on the talk page regarding the class or level of importance the article conveys. I hope we could come to a consensus on this topic and put these contradictions to rest. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 17:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment I understand, but what I'm trying to convey is that the information presented on this article's page is already on the page that it was to be merged with. I made a mistake in not realizing it earlier but all the information had been lifted from the page that was to receive the merge information. Just to summarize, there's no point having this page around and going ahead with the merge as the article that was to receive the merge information, already has all of it because the editor copied the information form that page itself. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 18:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to OfflineTV#LilyPichu as suggested by the nominator. I would not be opposed to deleting it altogether, but this is turning into a bit of a procedural mess. In any case, LilyPichu has some minor media notice in her line of work and that is sufficient for a mention over at the OfflineTV article. This separate article tries to flesh things out with unreliable video links and information about her personal life, which is not only non-notable but also comes with a "who cares?" quality. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:06, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Aside from the fact of supporting deletion, can someone explain how this page made it to the main space in the first place, I can't find any history of an AFC review, nor any information on the talk page, is there another way? by moving perhaps?. Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 16:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Any confirmed user can create pages in main space: it's how most pages are created. Why do you oppose redirecting? It seems like a useful search term at the very least. pburka (talk) 17:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think you've misunderstood what I've said, I understand the first bit 100 percent, but I was always under the impression that in order to publish a page you need to pass the AFC, where reviewers would undertake the vetted process of identifying if the article meets general notability guidelines or if not, this was my first time coming across an article without any information regarding the article class or level of importance on the talk page nor any log of a AFC review being done. Also I'm keen on the deletion of this page because the information regarding the individual is already covered extensively here OfflineTV#LilyPichu and here OfflineTV#SleightlyMusical thus I feel it's pointless just conveying the same information again, aside from that her work isn't notable in terms of what she has accomplished, these accomplishments have also been met by others in that space, who don't warrant their own article. I feel whatever is in here OfflineTV#LilyPichu is more than enough, the rest are just passing mentions, at least until she does something more notable of course
  • WP:AFC is not mandatory: the process is "intended to assist editors who cannot (e.g. non-registered or non-autoconfirmed users) or should not (e.g. people with a conflict of interest), create new articles directly into mainspace." Usually, when we merge one page into another, we leave the old page as a WP:REDIRECT to the new one. This does not require deleting the old page. The old one acts as a hint to search engines (including the built-in one) that searches for, e.g. "LilyPichu", should be directed to, e.g. OfflineTV#LilyPichu. The redirect page can also be included in categories, e.g. Category:Twitch (service) streamers. That's why I'm recommending that the page not be deleted. pburka (talk) 18:05, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oh I see, thank you for explaining and addressing the confusion I had, I actually wasn't aware of these factors including the doubts I had regarding the AFC, I'm comfortable with this redirect, now that I'm aware and understand what it's all about. Thank you! Delta fiver (talk) (UTC) 18:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to OfflineTV#LilyPichu: Per nominator. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Argo AI[edit]

Argo AI (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. Poor refs. Note: Forbes.com is not a reliable source: see WP:FORBESCON. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose/Keep I have edited the page. Added 30 secondary references including Reuters, NYTimes, Techcrunch, CBS, Wired, etc. Removed all primary sources. Fact checked information. I do not believe this article should be deleted as it meets GNG for a company and has more than enough press to support the information. Please let me know if there is anything else I need to do to get the page in shape or to respond to this nomination in an appropriate way. Thank you. Drsammyjohnson (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson[reply]
  • Objecting to AfD - After a cursory search for this company it is evident that there are plenty of refs to support WP:GNG. Amongst them are Techcrunch, TheVerge, CBS, AutoNews, CNet, etc. Most Self Driving Car companies have pages especially the current leaders in the field. I object to the deletion of this page - looking through Wikiguides to better understand how to properly Object to this AfD and I am going to draft a longer page so it is not a stub with relevant sources for. It may be better to move this page into a draft space to get it cleaned up before considering it for deletion Drsammyjohnson (talk) 16:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)DrSammyJohnson[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wilhelm, Landgrave of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wilhelm, Landgrave of Hesse-Philippsthal-Barchfeld (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 has been in question for 8 years, with no inline citations provided in that time. Article attributes a living person with styles and a title that were dissolved in 1866, and most of the text is either the history of this landgrave/the House of Hesse, or unsourced details on his marriage and descendants (I just removed 650 bytes of the names and birthdates of his minor grandchildren). JoelleJay (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. JoelleJay (talk) 17:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - when you strip away all the historical context, all we have is the naming of his parents, the details of his marriage, the names of his children, and the attribution to him of an obscure title, itself non-notable, that hasn't existed in the real world for 150 year. This is just a genealogical entry. He exists. Good for him, but WP:GNG requires a great deal more than mere existence. Agricolae (talk) 17:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep: the Hesse family are as intermarried with the reigning and defunct royalty of Europe as the Windsors (e.g. Prince Philip's sister married into the Hesses'; last Empress of Russia was Alex of Hesse, etc etc), and sorting out who is who can be a nightmare, so having an article like this for a current member is valuable. Hesse family members rock up at British royal occasions, and their marriages and funerals are still covered in the tabloid press, so this helps provide background information. Wishing its deletion isn't aiding Wikipedia: it's an insidious, informationally-destructive, 'chippy' form of cancel culture. ClearBreeze (talk) 12:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The request for sources has been around for 8 years; if this particular member of the Hesse family is as notable as you say, why haven't the editors who voted keep in the first AfD added in RS? Passing mention in genealogy books and hypothetical tabloid articles are hallmarks of WP:PSEUDO (In general, creating a pseudo-biography (on an individual who is only notable because of their participation in a single event) will mean that an editor creating the article will try to "pad out" the piece by including extraneous biographical material, e.g. their date and place of birth, family background, hobbies and employment, etc. Such information, in many cases, will fail the inclusion test, as it is unlikely to have been widely publicised in the media.). See also: WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIOFAMILY, WP:INVALIDBIO. All of the information on his page could be merged with House of Hesse, although proper sources would still need to be found. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Those are reasons why the House of Hesse is notable, but not why the subject of this article is notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:E9F2:DB80:8689:5D3C (talk) 04:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:NOTINHERITEDis an ill-framed article and always has been. In the real world notability is commonly inherited, and an encyclopedia that aims to be comprehensive should reflect that. Secondly, informationally useful articles on minor royals and aristocrats are being deleted due to a cancel culture stemming from personal politics and/or resentment. It needs to be strongly resisted as it's utterly corrosive to Wikipedia. ClearBreeze (talk) 11:28, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, if you want to change things like WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTEVERYTHING you can take it to the Village Pump. Minor royals and aristocrats are being deleted because they lack coverage in reliable sources that demonstrate notability. If you are so invested in keeping such pages around, find RS for them rather than casting aspersions about the intents of other editors. JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ClearBreeze has now been blocked indefinitely for their behavior on this and other pages. I don't know if it's appropriate to strike their !vote/comments myself. JoelleJay (talk) 03:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Like it or not, senior members of notable royal and aristocratic families are themselves notable. This is just common sense. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia strongly disagrees: WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:BIOFAMILY, WP:INVALIDBIO. JoelleJay (talk) 19:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't aware I said he was notable because he was related to someone else. I said he was notable because of who he is. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So how is he notable outside of his family history? JoelleJay (talk) 17:19, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't have much information on the individual himself. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:B610:2484:F653:CB12:53FE (talk) 23:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per WP:NOTGENEALOGY. This article essentially functions as an Unreferenced list of members of the House of Hesse, there is no indication this person passes WP:GNG. There is literally no information that does not relate to this articles purpose as a genealogy listing, there is nothing about this guy besides the fact that he was born, got married and had kids, and none of those events seems to have gotten any coverage. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Devonian Wombat, and also per WP:TNT: once you strip away the genealogical cruft, there is nothing left. --JBL (talk) 01:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete because there is nothing about him online, not even in German. It is a clear case of failing WP:GNG. If being head of a noble family meant being notable, then surely there would be sources demonstrating that notability beyond genealogy. If genealogy is all there is to it, then we need an article about the family rather than individuals. Surtsicna (talk) 08:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avian phenomena and incidents[edit]

Avian phenomena and incidents (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 meet Standalone lists ~ Lists that are too general or too broad in scope have little value ~ in that it is enormously broad, not specific enough, and fairly incapable of completeness. A realistic argument could be made for including both wings and foreign object damage, which don't really have enough of a link; happy days, LindsayHello 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. happy days, LindsayHello 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. happy days, LindsayHello 16:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Per nom. Was expecting a little more than this junk when I clicked on it... Reywas92Talk 17:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete definitely per nom. Talk about overly broad and vague (plus a search term no one in their right mind would ever use). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Way to broad of a list to the point of being meaningless. I also agree it's a wack search term that no one is going to use. Maybe if it was based on some academic thing or something, but it isn't. I totally thought it would be though. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this seems unessescary. --TheImaCow (talk • contribs) 22:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, the current collection is wacky and implausible. A full list of avian related phenomena and incidents would be overly broad.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 13:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Perhaps there is special providence in the fall of a sparrow, but this list just can't take flight. XOR'easter (talk) 06:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For now. If there is any potential to create this in future then it can go through draft. Orientls (talk) 18:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gambling.com[edit]

Gambling.com (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 meet company notability. While doing the WP:BEFORE, I can say they definitely have a lot of "sources", but not any that I've seen that are significant and can be counted towards organization notability. All of the sources I've seen are press releases, routine announcements, or trivial coverage, none of which meet WP:ORGDEPTH - all the others are not independent. An IP comment on the talk page and editing patterns of the creator also makes this seem like this could be an undisclosed paid editing situation, or at the least, conflict of interest editing. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Whisperjanes (talk) 16:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bunkunmi Oluwasina[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence fails to satisfy WP:GNG. She is also & actor & singer but falls short of both WP:NACTOR & WP:SINGER. A before search shows 0 evidence of notability. This promo article may also have been created by an UPE editor.Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 16:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — So you have provided us with three sources in this AFD
So let’s get to analyzing look at the table below
Source assessment table:
Source Independent? Reliable? Significant coverage? Count source toward GNG?
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/255388-top-five-yoruba-movie-stars-watch-2018.html No sponsored post No obviously not reliable as the source merely promotes the upcoming entertainers who are clearly not notable enough No Source doesn’t discuss subject of article with significant coverage she is discussed very briefly. ✘ No
https://www.premiumtimesng.com/entertainment/nollywood/371150-10-nollywood-starlets-to-watch-out-for-in-2020.html No sponsored post No The same as my rationale in the first source. No Just as the first source analyzed by same media above this article still doesn’t discuss her with in-depth significant coverage as required to satisfy WP:GNG as Subject isn’t the focus of the article but included in a list article ✘ No
http://www.citypeopleonline.com/30-hot-yoruba-young-actresses-to-watch-in-2020 No sponsored post No No Just like the aforementioned analyzed sources, here again we have a list of 30 “young hot actresses to watch out for in 2020”. giving us next to no significant coverage as required by WP:GNG ✘ 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}}.

Asides the faulty sources used throughout the article, coupled with the undisclosed Paid/COI editing occurring in the article itself, You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact) & you also imply that they have enough google hits to qualify at the very least per BASIC. The problem is BASIC requires multiple reliable sources, the aforementioned sources are not reliable in this context as they all are literally PR sponsored. Furthermore on “winning awards”, the problem is winning an award in a non-notable category doesn’t count & furthermore even winning a “notable”” award doesn’t necessarily translate to automatic notability. An analogy would be me creating a Wikipedia article for myself as I have won a notable award for playing basketball whilst at college. Judging from what we have learnt thus far & our experience wouldn’t that be an uniformed bizarre action on my part? Celestina007 (talk) 21:57, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celestina007, you're even missing the point, the few sources I provided that you analyzed, reveals that she might be notable. Go through the current version of the article here. I believe you're not really following the extensive cleanup and major additions I did today on the article. Go through it and reply me, I'm waiting. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here on Wikipedia, we're trying to keep notable articles and not necessarily nominating them for deletion for the fun of it. I don't really think that you performed a WP:BEFORE search before nominating this particular article for deletion. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If an article is a bit promotional, but the subject of the article is notable, we as New Page Reviewers shouldn't rush into nominating it for deletion, that's what cleanup is for. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nnadigoodluck, Could you at least read before replying me & not purposefully go off topic? The article isn’t blatantly promotional & never have I said so. The article in itself is not promotional but the problem is the sourcing, The ones in the article are not reliable. The three you just provided us with are blatant PR sponsored sources. & No I’m not missing any point, you mentioned three PR sponsored posts which automatically makes the sources unreliable, What am I missing here? & when has being listed in online sources(even reliable ones) that state “X People Are The People To Watch Out For in 2020”(any year) being a yardstick for notability? If anything it means they are up & coming, right? Or is there something blatantly glaring ongoing I’m not seeing? & What’s with the ref bombing? Celestina007 (talk) 22:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With this your comment here, You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact), it reveals that you didn't even perform a WP:BEFORE search before nominating this article for deletion. The subject of our discussion has been nominated in 7 different notable awards, where she won three. You just added a UPE tag on the article that I've spent the whole day cleaning up and you're saying that you don't say that it's promotional. Just nominating an article for deletion doesn't qualify it for deletion instantly. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 22:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quit with the aspersions. A before was conducted, & all i saw & I’m still seeing is subject of article being included in list articles, PR sponsored posts, Mere announcements, brief mentions in trivial things & the lot. Furthermore, ref bombing the article with other mirror articles to create a facade/illusion of “ocean of sources” doesn’t do anything to prove she is notable per WP:GNG it’s indicative of the inverse like I said. Bring your best three sources to this AFD & let us analyze it. Celestina007 (talk) 22:52, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
After going through the current state of the article and seeing notable awards that the subject of our discussion won, thus passing WP:ANYBIO, do you still own up to this statement that you made above, You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact)? —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:03, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I’ve told you winning an award or multiple awards doesn’t auto confer notability, especially for non relevant categories. When you are ready to bring your best three sources, give me a ping. Celestina007 (talk) 23:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And also, I don't think that the creator of the article User:Oluwaseun1111, created this article to receive payments or compensation, just like you said above This promo article may also have been created by an UPE editor. Per the discussion I had with them on their talk page, I think they're trying to contribute to the project in good faith, but maybe creating poorly sourced articles. Let's not drive good faith editors away from the project, because we can't do all the work alone, we need more editors on the project, especially Nigerian editors like us. Nigerian topics is really lacking on Wikipedia and we need more hands and editors willing to stay on the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 23:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended discussion more about editors than AfD topic
your reverse psychology would undoubtedly affect the unassuming passer by editor. I may be poking at a beehive with nominating this article for AFD & won’t be surprised when the ((Keep)) army start popping up. But I beg you, can you just stay on topic? (sourcing) & not purposefully go off topic? But before we commence on discussing sourcing, what did you just say? That you had what discussion with whom? The creator of this article? this shabby, shady dubious looking one right here? I’ve been involved with nabbing Nigerian UPE editors & those involved in sockpuppetry too long to tell when something isn’t right, we both know no matter how much I try to show you this is a case of WP:TOOSOON you’d never be objective so let’s stay on topic & try to stop digressing. I’ve done a before & ive come up empty so please provide to this AFD three reliable sources per WP:GNG. I personally couldn’t find any. Thank you for your time. Celestina007 (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't do any WP:BEFORE search before you nominated this particular article for deletion. You nominated this article for deletion almost the same time it was created. When did you then conduct the search you're claiming that you did? The mistake that you're making is thinking that every article nominated for deletion must be deleted. Cleanup is required in some cases, when the subject of the article is truly notable. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yet again you purposefully digress. Per your comments above “You nominated this article for deletion almost the same time it was created. When did you then conduct the search you're claiming that you did?” The article was created on the 11th of July at exactly 14:44(2:44) as seen here & was nominated for deletion by me at exactly 17:16(5:16) as seen here which is almost 3 hours later so what are you talking about???? How is approximately a three hour difference “nominating an article almost immediately it was created” ? In any case I guess it’s safe to say we aren’t getting the three reliable sources we need to substantiate true notability. That’s fine, it’s non existent is why you cannot get them & without WP:RS, verifiability is impossible. Subject also has no WP:SIGCOV so how can we then ascertain notability? Celestina007 (talk) 00:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't be the reason why we don't have too many Nigerian editors that wish to stay back on the project. Nominating every poorly written article for deletion is not the way forward. When the subject of an article is probably notable through a thoroughly WP:BEFORE search, cleanup is really required, I'll keep on telling you this, I don't think that you conducted any before search before nominating this article for deletion. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 00:53, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don’t make this about me, rather make this about the sourcing & notability of the article. I’ve asked you more than once now to bring your three best sources to prove subject is notable but you always circumnavigate that. If my fighting UPE/COI editing amongst Nigerian editors would keep bad faith editors then fine by me. Now let us analyze something else, this time let’s analyze the awards she has won.
  • Yoruba Fast Rising Actress of the Year (The Yoruba movie industry isn’t one & the same as the Nigerian Nollywood movie industry, thus winning Yoruba Fast Rising Actress does nothing for WP:ANYBIO as it isn’t fantastic nor prestigious and at best is a nod at this being a case of WP:TOOSOON seeing as subject fails to satisfy WP:GNG.) Celestina007 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yoruba Best Actress in Leading Role (Probably the only award worth considering but isn’t sufficient to demonstrate notability as winning awards like I said doesn’t confer automatic notability. Per WP:GNG, in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources independent of subject is used to demonstrate notability.)
  • Best use of Nigerian Food in a Movie (Premier example of a blatant non notable category) Celestina007 (talk) 07:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This your award analysis, including the ones about the sourcing is very funny, I just had a great laugh. I thought you said the subject of our discussion didn't win any award per this You also mention that subject of the article has won awards(although I haven’t seen any single source that outrightly states for a fact). It's good that this discussion is finally going somewhere. A subject that was nominated in 7 different awards and won three wholly passes WP:ANYBIO, let me remind you that WP:ANYBIO says that article should be kept if the The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. Your cheap attempt to defend this wrongful AfD nomination of yours is not really yielding any fruit, if you had performed a before search, we won't be here wasting our time. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 09:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this AFD here:Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Onyeka Nnadozie Eze you tried to use the same WP:ANYBIO defense for an article you created (UPE) but it was ultimately proved to be a flawed rationale. Look If you are ready to bring any three reliable sources that prove subject is notable do let me know & no! the real reason for the back & forth is editors engaging in UPE having a vested interest in ensuring this article is retained at all cost. We know it when we see it. That aside as said earlier stated all I seek are three reliable sources that satisfy WP:GNG. The three you provided above have been analyzed & are very much flawed. Celestina007 (talk) 10:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now I truly understand your problem, you think that any editor that challenges you on an AfD has an interest on a particular topic. I'm really disappointed in you for thinking such. I'll keep on saying it, I don't think that you truly performed a WP:BEFORE search before nominating this article for deletion. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did perform a 'before' & No, I never think so(I only fight against Nigerian UPE/COI editors and the articles they create) If good faith editors come & !vote a keep I’d assume utmost good faith. So please for the umpteenth time are you providing to this AFD, any three reliable sources that prove subject of article is truly notable? As the first 3 you provided(that I have analyzed above) are clearly unreliable as they are blatant PR sponsored posts or are you going to keep on evading a very simple request? Thank you for your time I think I am done here for now. Celestina007 (talk) 11:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If Barkeep49 will have this to say last month about your inability to consistently assess sources accurately after you spent 6 months on his NPP school, while also noting that you're not fit for the NPP permissions, I don't think you're still qualified to analyze sources at this time. You're really making a mess of it, how can someone claiming they know what they're doing fail to perform a thorough WP:BEFORE search, before nominating an article for deletion and thus driving good faith editors away from the project, especially well meaning Nigerian editors. Now, I've to say that your actions are now getting more disruptive on the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You even went to the extent of accusing a well established editor like Danidamiobi who has spent 5 years on the project of sockpuppetery and UPE related activities, per this SPI case. I have no other thing to say, but your recent activities is becoming more disruptive on the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Classic deflection tactics by mudding the water, poisoning the well & attacking my character. Let’s stay on topic at hand here. Thank you. Furthermore @Nnadigoodluck, my knowledge on sourcing really greatly improved hence me getting the NPR flag & a view of my AFD log shows I definitely know what I’m doing, you on the other hand have been caught advertising your services on social media hence Yunshui taking away your Autopatrolled right. Hence I am justified to say you are a/anUPE editor. Thanks again.Celestina007 (talk) 12:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your character on Wikipedia has nothing to write home about, your recent actions are very much disruptive on the project and you're forcing well meaning editors, especially Nigerian editors to exit the project. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:15, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you quit with personal attacks. Celestina007 (talk) 12:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Only if you had conducted a WP:BEFORE before nominating this article for deletion, we won't be here wasting our time. Stop driving away well meaning editors, especially Nigerians editors away from the project. Not every Nigerian editor is engaging in UPE related activities or having a COI with the articles they write about. We still have good and well meaning editors. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Its not a good thing we are becoming petty about this. I don’t appreciate the mud slinging come from you & of course I myself have hit you hard which isn’t proper but if only you can provide me with three reliable sources we won’t be dragging this. How else can I request that you provide us with three reliable sources to substantiate nor prove their notability? That’s all I require & no I’m not driving away good faith editors, the only ones leaving are the ones who I nabbed engaging in UPE & have no other choice to leave since they clearly weren’t here to build an encyclopedia. Celestina007 (talk) 12:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You can't be telling me to provide you with three sources when Barkeep49 said that “It also makes writing the rest of this difficult. I do not think you are a good fit for the New Page Reviewer permission at this time. I think you have good instincts about notability. However, your ability to consistently assess sources accurately is not there.” You're not yet qualified to accurately access sources at this time. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 12:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And my knowledge on sourcing have greatly improved as my AFD log show. But if you continue to muddy the water & poison the well & aren’t going to provide us cogent three reliable sources for me to analyze i hereby rest my case & wait for community consensus. Furthermore like I said if my sourcing knowledge & analysis hadn’t significantly improved I won’t get the NPR flag but my exponential improvement was what eventually granted me that. Attack me all you want but your ineptitude at identifying reliable sources & inability to provide to this AFD reliable sources, it shows you have nothing to offer other than your attempt to assassinate my character is quite indicative of the obvious (non notability of subject of our discussion) & speaks volume of your person/character. Furthermore what do you intend to achieve by using my teacher’s (Barkeep49) constructive criticism against me? Which aided me a lot in my knowledge on sourcing as my AFD log easily shows. That’s classic poisoning the well. I hereby rest my case.Celestina007 (talk) 13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You haven't improved in assessing sources, it's very clear through this ongoing discussion. Your ability to consistently assess sources accurately is still not there. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The ones I analyzed above shows my analyzing sourcing ability is very much apt. Point to me which analysis is wrong? You can’t, because I’m very much correct as all are blatant sponsored posts.Celestina007 (talk) 13:30, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your analysis is not “very much apt”. Stop praising yourself for the hoax you did up there. Please, don't tell me that you spent a whole 6 months on NPP school learning nothing in general. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
quit with the personal attacks & try to stay on point. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep on saying it, your assessment of sources is equal to zero. For someone that has stayed a whole four years on the project, I really expect much better, but, instead, you're proving me wrong. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 13:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My AFD Log shows my veracity when it comes to sourcing, so like I said stop attacking me by using Barkeep49’s constructive criticism against me. My AFD Log is open for all to see. So Quit with the Personal attacks & provide us with three reliable sources that prove subject of article is notable if you can’t just say so, if you have a COI/or have been WP:PAID to ensure the article is retained at all cost(Per your usual advertising of your Wikipedia service on social as Yunshi once nabbed you & removed your Autopatrolled rights just endeavor to disclose it & quit badgering this AFD with your personal attacks against me. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's obvious that we can never get anywhere through this AfD discussion, but, I'll still tell you to stop driving good faith editors away from the project, especially good faith Nigerian editors, not everyone is PAID or has a COI with an article they create. And mind you, when someone is challenging your hoax AfD nomination, that doesn't mean they must have a COI with the subject. I thought you know better? Please, don't tell me that you've wasted your whole four years here on the project, learning nothing. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 14:08, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Since I've been pinged to this discussion twice, I'm collapsing this discussion. Most of it is not about Oluwasina. If there are concerns about editor behavior take it up on their talk page or an appropriate conduct forum. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment — It should be noted that subject of article is supposed to be an actress & singer but doesn’t fulfill any single criterion from WP:NACTOR & WP:SINGER. Celestina007 (talk) 00:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think it would be best if editors discussed whether or not the awards she has won gets her a pass via WP:ANYBIO #1. I think this is plausible. It might also be useful if User:Nnadigoodluck is interested in keeping the page that he looks for some Nigerian sources. If this person has won the Nigerian equivalent of an Oscar this shouldn't be difficult. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 00:18, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@AlessandroTiandelli333, thank you for your input. The AMVCA(of which subject of our article has never won) would be the African equivalent to the Oscars. My issue had always been with the sources used which are mostly unreliable as they are blatant sponsored posts. Subject at best possesses bare notability & this is a classic case of WP:TOOSOON it’s a shame myself & Nnadigoodluck were not civil in our discussion above, I also share responsibility in how our conversation degenerated in the manner in which it did. Celestina007 (talk) 09:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Shame on you Celestina007. On 24 December 2019, Scope creep removed the awards you added to the Liz Anjorin article you created yourself as can be seen here, citing “non-notable awards”. You approached them on their talk page as can be seen here, saying “Hey do you think the Special Recoginntion Award by City People Entertainment Awards is not notable enough? Come on discuss with me”., they didn't answer you and on 17 January 2020, you reverted them as can be seen here. This is the same award the subject of our discussion has won which you yourself clarified that they're notable enough last year. How are we now going to take you by your words in this your dubious AfD nomination? Even though we are all aware that you spammed the Autopatrolled user rights by creating 25 articles only in December 2019, as can be seen here, just like you've been collecting other hats to oppress good faith new editors and boost your ego. What has happened since then, why haven't you created any new article since obtaining the user rights in January?? I could go on and on, but, let me stop here for now. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 11:40, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nnadigoodluck, Quit with the Personal attacks & aspersions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:37, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Celestina007, Nnadigoodluck, it would be best for you to both step away from this AfD. Perhaps unwatch it. You've both stated your position and now it's time to let others comment. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 13:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Barkeep49, You couldn’t be more correct. I’d so & only make further replies or comments if they are going to be constructive ones coming from Nnadigoodluck or constructive inputs from third party colleagues like I replied @AlessandroTiandelli333 above. I should also say for all to observe that my last 3 comments have been constructive & neutral. I already have taken my share of responsibility for the bloodbath this has turn out to be. Furthermore I’ve only requested for three reliable sources be presented for analysis to this AFD as the first three he provided were unreliable sources but have gotten nothing from Nnadigoodluck other than vehement personal attacks. I have no vested interest(and have never had) in the creation nor deletion of this article or any other article hence I’m never afraid to do what is right. Thank you for the mediation captain. Celestina007 (talk) 13:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yeah, I see passing mentions, I see some pretty dodgy sourcing. Can't say the same wrt third-party, in-depth secondary sources though. ——Serial 16:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, per nom, for failing notability guidelines for various entertainer categories and above all WP:GNG. Ifnord (talk) 18:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Traeger Grills[edit]

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

Fails WP:NCORP. Brochure article. scope_creepTalk 16:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this company. A few mentions in a local newspaper about lawsuits and a passing connection to Skullcandy doesn't do it and that's all there seems to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vumile Msweli[edit]

Vumile Msweli (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)

Spam and notability tagged. Fails WP:BIO. Lots of coverage but much of it self-generated. scope_creepTalk 15:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Africa-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 18:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete 'Edit: She has about 10 reported mentions, but they are largely simply that: mentions. I could find little of any substance. Fails BIO.' Original: I'm looking into this, but access to African news sources shows some stuff. A quick search revealed multiple mentions in South African publications. I have her quoted as an expert on an article in 2019 in City Press, 2018 in City Press, coverage of her Elle award from 2016, and coverage from 2002 about high school achievements in the Sunday Times (biggest paper in SA). These alone do not add up to notability, but I have a couple other South African publications come up and I'm looking into those. Please don't close until I can remove the placeholder--it is closer than the current content makes it seem. AbstractIllusions (talk) 18:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businesswoman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GroupM[edit]

GroupM (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)

Promo. We have WPP Group, we don't need an article for each division of their company (WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NOTYELLOWPAGES). The given sources focus on WPP, the parent co, not GroupM. At a glance, I only see GroupM coverage in unreliable sources. There's nothing really salvageable here (which isn't already in WPP Group) so should just be deleted. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I totally agree with the nominators reason for why there shouldn't be an article on this. Plus, the sources in the article are extremely trivial and don't pass WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:41, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per all. -Hatchens (talk) 04:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Happy to temp undelete somewhere if someone is prepared to create some categories or more manageable lists that could be maintainable Spartaz Humbug! 21:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of politicians convicted of crimes[edit]

List of politicians convicted of crimes (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 would guess the number of entries possible here would be somewhere in the millions. This list is unmanageable and fairly indiscriminate aside from "convicted of a crime" and is a BLP nightmare waiting to happen. Praxidicae (talk) 14:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (I was writing this as the nomination statement, so apologies if it's a little less like a normal comment) This risks becoming something akin to List of people who have ever lived - attempting to list every politician who has ever committed a crime is going to become an indiscriminate mess of notable and non-notable persons, so we'll then have the usual fights over notable and non-notable politicians. There will be the obligatory BLP violations. The edit warring over convictions which have been appealed, overturned, dismissed, pardoned etc. We don't have any indication of the inclusion criteria, will parking tickets or trivial criminal code violations warrant inclusion on the list, and if so, we're then back to BLP violations once again. What about those politicians convicted more than once of the same offence, or of difference offences, on different dates. I will support the creation of a couple of very specific lists - List of politicians convicted of treason would potentially be worth pursuing, as would List of politicians convicted by the International Criminal Court. I'd maybe even accept List of politicians convicted of murder, but if we're including general crimes, most of which will have been committed outwith public office, I can't see how it's notable or will ever be anything other than an indiscriminate collection of data. Nick (talk) 14:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. I agree that this is overbroad as structured; note that it's a new creation by a new editor. But that just means this would be best served as a list of lists. The nominator and commenter above are off base in thinking that this is something that can't or shouldn't be listed, as it is something that we categorize (and "it's too hard" is not a deletion argument). Category:Politicians convicted of crimes has a very well developed subcategory structure that sublists could parallel, such as by nationality, or by particular crime such as corruption, etc. We do have some more targeted lists existing here and there, such as List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes. postdlf (talk) 15:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This should be reconfigured as a list of lists as we have numerous pages for this already, including:
  1. Category:British politicians convicted of crimes
  2. Category:Politicians convicted of crimes
  3. List of American federal politicians convicted of crimes
  4. Category:Politicians convicted of crimes by nationality
  5. List of American state and local politicians convicted of crimes
  6. Category:English politicians convicted of crimes
  7. Category:American politicians convicted of crimes
  8. Category:Irish politicians convicted of crimes
  9. Category:Indian politicians convicted of crimes
  10. Category:Politicians convicted of corruption
See also WP:CLN which explains that we maintain a variety of methods of navigation, as they complement each other.
Andrew🐉(talk) 18:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. This is an indiscriminate list topic, but in agreement with some of the other contributors to this discussion I would prefer to split this into sub-lists based on either nationality or type of crime. This could be a discussion after AfD. Ajf773 (talk) 02:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep agree with comments of Ajf773.Shyamsunder (talk) 06:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or split. To be effective, such list should be organized by country, e.g. List of British politicians convicted of crimes. I think it should not exist in present state. The lists can be incomplete, but not that much. Lists covering less than 0.0001% of subjects/objects which need to be included are misleading. My very best wishes (talk) 00:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On balance, Keep. I don't think the criteria is necessarily vague given the word "convicted". In accordance with WP:NLIST, this list could aide Wikipedia readers for navigation and information. There are plenty of blue links and notable politicians here. We could potentially consider it a dynamic list. Patiodweller (talk) 21:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Split into sublists, as it would be ginormously humungous otherwise. In fact, as Andrew has already demonstrated, there are already sublists out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP Category:Politicians convicted of crimes exist, so no sense not having a list also that shows more information. Split into separate list if it gets too long. Dream Focus 01:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Split, indiscriminate list. Splitting might be worth it, but it would take someone willing to do it. People tend not to follow through on promises made in AfDs about improving articles. Also, it seems kind of pointless to have lists for topics that already have categories. Which are basically lists. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Vague, potentially enormous, better handled as categories. And why is it particularly interesting if someone who was a governor or a state senator is convicted of some minor offense unrelated to their political career?Brianyoumans (talk) 16:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Such a large list, it really will neither ever be complete nor focused enough to be useful. You might as well have a list of politicians who wore ties. A more focused list, capital crimes or a specific category of crime, may be useful; this list is not that. Ifnord (talk) 16:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this list does not comply with two of our most fundamental policies: WP:BLP and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. A list of historical politicians would be fine, and a list with absolutely clear criteria for inclusion (which respect BLPCRIME, not just V) but LISTN is a guideline which itself states it must comply with BLP/INDISCRIMINATE. So delete, and consider a new form of list which is policy-compliant. ——Serial 16:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:SALAT, WP:BLP, etc. Way too vague/problematic/indiscriminate. If someone wants to create a list of lists, that's fine, but that's not remotely what this page is, nor the title a list of lists would exist at, so there's no point keeping. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 16:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 15:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Xaxis (business)[edit]

Xaxis (business) (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)

Pure promo. The product of undisclosed paid editing (see talk notice I added and history). The given sources are not independent or reliable. Even if the company is notable it'd require a fundamental rewrite with different sources, so at minimum WP:TNT applies. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 15:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:26, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Sourcing is extremely horrible and it's doubtful there is anything better out there or the paid editor would have use it. I think WP:TNT applies also, but everything in the article is extremely trivial and I don't see a re-rewrite changing that. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Yip. Brochure article. scope_creepTalk 22:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete under G11 unalloyed promotional material. No difference between this and a press release. Check it out at its most expansive. The original author had 100% Xaxis-related edits. --Lockley (talk) 20:36, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn, no arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Foxwoods Resort Casino 301[edit]

2020 Foxwoods Resort Casino 301 (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 following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

This article is about an event that has not occurred as of yet i.e. a future event. However, sections of the article have been written as if the event have already been completed.

E.g. Commentators who have called the race.

In addition, the page also has empty tables e.g. starting grid, finishing results etc.

Recommending that this article be deleted / moved to draft and reintroduced once the event is over. Alternately, this article should be rewritten as an upcoming event with all future dependent actions modified accordingly and the tables removed.

These can be added after the event, of course.

Kaisertalk (talk) 04:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy Keep based on the fixes implemented by PCN02WPS below. Thanks .Kaisertalk (talk) 05:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per deletion rationale. "article should be rewritten as an upcoming event with all future dependent actions modified accordingly and the tables removed." I see no reason why a copyedit cannot be done on the page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as I have made simple copyedits to fix tense problems. This addresses the nominator's concerns and I would urge Kaisertalk to see point C1 of WP:BEFORE (If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD) and the lead of WP:BOLD (Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint.) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:29, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @PCN02WPS:. Acknowledged. Agree with the Speedy Keep. Let me know if something else is required from me.Kaisertalk (talk) 05:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 started this discussion, then the WP:INDIA thread, and the points made there are reasonable enough that I might not agree with the creation of such a page but can see how it's worth including. Primefac (talk) 21:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bijli Pasi[edit]

Bijli Pasi (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 tone of this article implies that this is nothing but revisionist/whitewashed Indian historical fiction; in the last decade or so there has been a major push to imply that the so-called "untouchable" lower castes just happened to historically contain famous kings and great individuals and so of course they should ignore all that time where they were the lowest of the low because of society/government policies. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Primefac (talk) 12:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Of course it's revisionist; most folk histories of Indian castes seem to be completely made up. But the figure is clearly notable, as a simple Google search shows. Sitush has stated the same: if it's covered by reliable sources, we also have to cover it. (What I don't understand is why they see this as a "difficulty" that "we" have.) This isn't some devious plan by upper castes to deny centuries of oppression by claiming that some Dalits were king: the article creator's surname is also Pasi, it just seems to be run of the mill upward social mobility/Sanskritization stuff. Regards, TryKid [dubious – discuss] 14:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Uttarbanger Gramunnayan[edit]

Uttarbanger Gramunnayan (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 newspaper. Zero coverage in third-party souces. Article created by the newspaper owner/publisher/editor ([2]).—J. M. (talk) 11:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and possibly SALT. I had moved this article to draft space where I thought it needed to be incubated. However the creator 01prasantaubg moved it back into main space. Sounds like this is a WP:COI along with failing WP:GNG. Seems a google search only provides two pages. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability, not opposed to SALT as well Spiderone 07:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Merhi[edit]

Joseph Merhi (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)

Minimally-sourced BLP—the only citation is a now-dead link to a New York Times database of films. WP:BEFORE reveals only similar sources (e.g. a BFI database of people credited on films) and mirrors of Wikipedia, suggesting the subject does not meet WP:NBIO. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete we need way better sourcing than this to demonstrate that a filmmaker is notable. Films, filmmakers, actors and actresses have had articles kept for far too long with no justification of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Star Wars fandom. Tone 16:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Fandom Menace[edit]

The Fandom Menace (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 fan group Praxidicae (talk) 11:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 13:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is probably an A7, and I speedied an earlier, even worse version. None of the cited sources are about this specific group; they're just using the obvious pun, and would be suited for Star Wars sequel trilogy#Reception if we didn't already have better sources there. —Cryptic 14:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The cited sources are misleading, since with a quick look, they appear to be about the subject. However, as explained by Cryptic above, they are not - they are simply using the same pun to refer to angry/abusive fans, and not talking about the specific group that this article is about. We already have several different articles where explanations of the fandom and the reception to the sequel trilogy are already present, as well, making this redundant as well as unnotable. Rorshacma (talk) 14:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or redirect to Star Wars fandom. Looking at the restoring editor's work re-creating this content, it's possible they'll massage some of the phrasing around cited sources in such a way as they might be worth merging to the fandom article and we'd want the revision history. However, the article is misleading in asserting that this is a "group"; it instead seems to be a catch-all pun for various disgruntled fans. As a neologism, Wikipedia frowns on setting up an article on this kind of termphrase. And as an aspect of fandom, this is better addressed at the basic fandom article (and isn't so notable or massive in content/coverage as to warrant a content fork). --EEMIV (talk) 18:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep or redirect to Star Wars fandom. --Fadesga (talk) 21:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per Nom. I already moved it to the draft. DMySon 04:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hybridmaster[edit]

Hybridmaster (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)

Zero evidence of existance as a breed or notability. Charles (talk) 10:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. One verifiable mention in Gbooks (this book), but no information about it. No relevant hit on Scholar. Not mentioned in standard reference sources for cattle breeds including:
  • Valerie Porter, Lawrence Alderson, Stephen J.G. Hall, D. Phillip Sponenberg (2016). Mason's World Encyclopedia of Livestock Breeds and Breeding (sixth edition). Wallingford: CABI. ISBN 9781780647944.
  • Marleen Felius (1995). Cattle Breeds: An Encyclopedia. Doetinchem, Netherlands: Misset. ISBN 9789054390176.
  • DAD-IS (http://www.fao.org/dad-is/browse-by-country-and-species/en/)
Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 14:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. While the supposed breeder seems to exist (Joe Grose is mentioned in a few papers involving cattle found during a quick google search), none of these indicate he bred such a cow at any point.

Further investigation show that it was apparently on the site for Embryo Plus at one point. I strongly advise talking to them about this.

http://www.embryoplus.com/

http://web.archive.org/web/20030121152439/http://www.embryoplus.com/cattle_hybrid.html

Nungimelheshin (talk) 00:29, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rulers of the Planet[edit]

Rulers of the Planet (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 band. I happened upon this article in my patrol of Category:Ireland articles needing attention. Per the concerns raised in a previous SPEEDY request (and the tags on the talkpage/etc), there is zero indication that this band meets the relevant notability criteria. In terms of WP:NBAND, the band doesn't appear to have charted anywhere. Ever. (Certainly there is no record of any chart placement in Ireland, or any awards or similar). In terms of WP:SIGCOV, the single Irish Examiner article (the ONLY ref in the article) was the first and ONLY time that the subject was covered in any depth by that newspaper. And, any coverage in the (other) Irish newspapers of record, like the Irish Times or Irish Independent are trivial passing mentions. And barely even that to be honest. As clear a case of why we have WP:TOOSOON guidelines as any I've seen. (The COI/SPA/PROMO overtones in the article's creation are also concerning). Guliolopez (talk) 20:14, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Is this notable? It's not that long, but it's still an album review. But aside from this, I did not found anything reliable other than the standard unreliable sites like Discogs, Facebook, Amazon, the site of their record label and stuff where the words appear separately. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 14:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aditya Raut[edit]

Aditya Raut (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. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the coverage is not enough to pass the general notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Article is currently badly sourced, but the subject may have some notability. "However, the youngest person to swim the Cook Strait is Aditya Raut, from India, who was 11 at the time of his swim in 2005.", as per 1, [2], [3] — Infogapp1 (talk) 23:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Need more investigation into sources provided by Infogapp1
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:12, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't think that being the youngest person to swim the Cook Strait is a sufficient accomplishment to grant automatic WP notability. The coverage in the article seems fall under WP:NOTNEWS. The first two sources mentioned by Infogapp1 mention Aditya Raut only in passing and I don't see his name in the third source at all (which is only about a school swimming competition). Papaursa (talk) 13:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Spartaz Humbug! 21:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twenty Twenty (group)[edit]

Twenty Twenty (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)

This article may be a case of WP:TOOSOON. No charting musical releases, and sources are either mostly from primary sources. Article lists TokyoHive and Arama! Japan as sources which may be unreliable, as Arama! Japan is a gossip blog and TokyoHive translates but does not credit their sources. lullabying (talk) 00:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I agree with the nominator on WP:TOOSOON. The group has only been covered in gossip sites and industry press releases. The fact that they were intended to be "temporary" by design, and then got "delayed" by the pandemic, indicates that anything this group happens to accomplish is still in the vague future. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This group has been covered in other sites. The ones added are in English, but there are plenty of sites in Japanese (including Tower Records, Yahoo News, Oricon) that have covered them. The group was created to mainly sing the song "Smile", which has been recently released digitally, to gather funds to help out on the COVID-19 case. It is still to release a CD (in August). It may still chart on that one. I am getting more links to the information, so it is more credible than those cited here.SugaShikaoFans (talk) 01:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @SugaShikaoFans: It would be better to create an article for "Smile", then, if it charts. Yahoo! News is a news aggregator that archives articles from other websites, so I don't think it would count as a reliable source. Tower Records is a retailer that obviously would write articles to promote an artist/song. As of thus far, it doesn't pass WP:NMUSIC and the body text has some WP:ORIGINAL. lullabying (talk) 02:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lullabying: I have the info. It is not only for the single, but also for the group. Sure, Tower Records would write about the promotion, but there are more articles out there than just those.SugaShikaoFans (talk) 02:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You would need to share sources about the group. As of now, the sources in the article are either from press releases or unreliable sources. They also do not pass WP:NMUSIC. Furthermore, there's a lot of WP:FAN in regards to the members -- it is not necessary to list who is on hiatus, etc. lullabying (talk) 02:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I am. I am gathering as many sites as I can with info on the group, as well as the single. I am currently editing the page adding those links.SugaShikaoFans (talk) 02:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Oh, and regarding the members, at least one of them, Yuya Tegoshi, is very relevant since the news hit very recently about his failure to "obey" the rules about going out in the restricted time. Since the group was formed with the pandemic in mind, both as a way to help gather funds to help the medical community, and as a way to amuse fans who had to stay home during the restriction period, his activities during this period put the others at risk. His choices had him banned of the group / unit, and eventually, out of the company, for being a bad influence. As for the others, their condition didn't allow them to participate in the project.SugaShikaoFans (talk) 02:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is just a temporary group without much attention yet.Resowithrae (talk) 16:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as TOOSOON: even a rudimentry understanding of the language indicates the paucity of the sourcing: as noted, it's a concoction of WP:MILL, WP:SPS and generally fluffy press-releases, all of which are insufficient to pass WP:BASIC, and especially not in an article with BLP considerations. ——Serial 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Johnny & Associates sounds reasonable as the group appears to fail WP:BAND. Ifnord (talk) 19:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) - Flori4nK t • c 14:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zee Live[edit]

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

The article relates to a subsidiary of Zee Entertainment; per WP:NOTINHERITED and lack of any substantial coverage of this subsidiary it does not seem to satisfy the notability criteria. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 16:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep just enough coverage from sources to have an article.CreativeNorth (talk) 12:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)CreativeNorth[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 10:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It has enough sources for verifiable notability. Other problems with page, but on an up-or-down AfD decision, keep. --Lockley (talk) 19:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not the best article but certainly notable (WP:GNG). Pratyush (talk) 13:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Arlington Institute[edit]

The Arlington Institute (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)

It exists, it does interesting research...but there is no coverage to indicate it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DJ Godfather[edit]

DJ Godfather (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)

Unreferenced stub, fails WP:MUSICBIO Hiddenstranger (talk) 09:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) U1 quattro TALK 09:47, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Ruf RK Coupe[edit]

Ruf RK Coupe (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)

Only one source is cited and that is too the manufacturer source which is not a criteria for a good article. Also, there is too little of information about this car to merit its own article. It is better off as a section at the Ruf automobile page. U1 quattro TALK 09:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The source part I get, and I can add some more sources for sure, as well more info on the car, but I will say the info is no worse than the thousands of other small or stub automotive articles on here. But yeah I can definitely bring this article up to par without too much trouble. TKOIII (talk) 00:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That would be very helpful TKOIII. The reason why I nominated this article is because of how poorly it is drafted and sourced. Wiki can do better with less articles like these.U1 quattro TALK 04:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. U1 quattro TALK 09:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Habibur Rahman Misbah[edit]

Habibur Rahman Misbah (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 are sources in the article. These made the article WP:REFBOMB. The article is full of references from unreliable sources, The article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG Arif (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Arif (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Arif (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Arif (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Arif (talk) 07:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Why is the delete tag added to this article?

He is famous in Bangladesh. So I try to Add Some Bangladeshi national news portal. For All types- For All types For images - Images For videos - Videos For news search in Bangla - news Owais Bin Elias (talk) 09:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Northamerica1000: Verify the article. Owais Bin Elias (talk) 10:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Owais Bin Elias: My sole involvement thus far has been to restore the Articles for deletion (AfD) template to the article after it was inappropriately removed (diff). Once an article is being discussed at AfD, the template should not be removed until the dicussion is closed. I may not become further involved in matters regarding the article or at this deletion discussion. North America1000 17:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He is an editor of 👉 Editorial Owais Bin Elias (talk) 10:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Izno: verify the article. Owais Bin Elias (talk) 10:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For books - Books Owais Bin Elias (talk) 10:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For newspaper authenticity. See - List of newspapers in Bangladesh Owais Bin Elias (talk) 10:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NahidSultan, আফতাবুজ্জামান, DelwarHossain brother, I hope your comment, after deleting the Article on Bengali Wikipedia, he is also creating the Article in Urdu, Arabic and English.

Owais Bin Elias Brother Wikipedia adheres the rules, although Habibur Rahman Mesbah is popular in Bangladesh and the references given by the Article for verification are unreliable. Doing news in a national newspaper is not enough to Article .Arif (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Delete A terrible case of WP:REFBOMB. The article is full of references from unreliable sources and the sources don’t even support the claims attributed to them. The article fails WP:ANYBIO, WP:AUTHOR , and WP:GNG. George Custer's Sabre (talk) 17:53, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs named after dates[edit]

List of songs named after dates (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 talk page calls this a listified version of a deleted category, but I can't find any evidence of that. Anyway, fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE; it's hard to see any encyclopedic value to a selection of songs united by nothing more than happening to have numbers in the title. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Also, these aren't all songs named after dates. Many just have dates as part of the title. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Hekerui (talk) 07:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all above, plus, there are things that might connect songs, but having a word or a date in the title is not one of them. Lists like this are plumbing the depths of triviality. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:TRIVIA. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 13:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of songs named after people[edit]

List of songs named after people (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)

Listified version of a deleted category (see Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2019 May 9#Category:Songs named after people). Unfortunately, there is no real encyclopedic value to this collection as a list, either. The issue is that songs named after people are extraordinarily common (as you can see by the sheer size of the list) and cover a wide range of situations: songs about some random person the singer knows like "Angie", tributes to public figures like "Andy Warhol", offhand references to cultural figures like "Be My Yoko Ono", protest songs like "George Bush Doesn't Care About Black People", or propaganda like "Chiang Kai-shek Memorial Song"— a smorgasbord of different sorts of songs that it's unlikely for a person to want to navigate between. In short, this is nothing more than an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information. If this is deemed noteworthy, then the content should at least be split up by topic. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 06:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Clarityfiend You mean like List of songs about cities and similar categories? --Richhoncho (talk) 08:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's a list of songs by subject ("songs about..."), which is a substantive and appropriate way to index cultural works. postdlf (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Hekerui (talk) 07:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above. While somebody might want to find songs about Andy Warhol (which are easily found with the search facilities already in place) why would that same person want to see a list that includes a plea to 'Be My Yoko Ono?' --Richhoncho (talk) 08:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:TRIVIA. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as trivial and superficial way to index songs; a song's name is not determinative of what it is actually about and so this is not a list of songs by subject (even if it were, "songs about people" would still be too broad and vague). In addition to the nom's examples above of how little this shared fact of "named after people" is evidence of anything in common about these songs, there are plenty of songs about people that aren't named after them and other songs named after people that aren't about them. postdlf (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as an indiscriminate list of things. --Lockley (talk) 06:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Rlendog (talk) 13:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the above. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 13:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:TRIVIAShrikanthv (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 23:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 O'Reilly Auto Parts 500[edit]

2020 O'Reilly Auto Parts 500 (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 is about an event that has not occurred as of yet i.e. a future event. However, sections of the article have been written as if the event have already been completed.

E.g. Commentators who have called the race.

In addition, the page also has empty tables e.g. starting grid, finishing results etc.

Recommending that this article be deleted / moved to draft and reintroduced once the event is over. Alternately, this article should be rewritten as an upcoming event with all future dependent actions modified accordingly and the tables removed. Kaisertalk (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy Keep. Updating nomination to Speedy Keep and closing this discussion based on the edits made by PCN02WPS. Thanks. Kaisertalk (talk) 05:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Kaisertalk (talk) 05:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Procedural keep The race is less than 10 days out. Is there a standard in WP:NASCAR for when these articles get created? Raymie (t • c) 08:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 08:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep Well within the NASCAR project's article creation guidelines; we know the commentators because NASCAR on NBC and the Performance Racing Network can't just throw any random Joe off the street to commentate a race; these things are known. I've reverted the past-tensing (and a redirect during this discussion). Nate • (chatter) 09:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep per above. We're gonna draft an event that happens in *8 days*? Throw a copyedit tag on it instead and call it good. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I'm more concerned that the article is without any meaningful references. The citations are to the NASCAR website with a broken link from 2013 (not sure how that works for an article so recently made) and to what appears to be another NASCAR website only showing date/time and broadcaster, not anything about the broadcast personnel. A7V2 (talk) 13:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I see that the language around commentators has been changed to future tense. That is good. Can we remove the empty tables for starting grid, finishing board etc.? Those tables can be introduced after the race is completed. Alternately, I also liked A.lanzetta's action of introducing a redirect to the generic higher level race article e.g. here. Kaisertalk. (talk) 15:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Be bold and remove the tables and change the tense. Nothing is stopping you from doing that. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 15:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep per improvements made above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:21, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thanks @PCN02WPS:. Agree with the speedy keep. Also, saw your post on the other article. Acknowledged. Let me know if anything else is required from my end. Appreciate it. Kaisertalk (talk) 05:31, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Kaisertalk: I am going through each of the 2020 NASCAR race articles that you have AfD'd and making copyedits to address your concerns; if that is all you were worried about you could consider withdrawing the AfDs. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Vox[edit]

Dylan Vox (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)

despite the many claims of notability in the article the sources do not prove any notability. 1)IMDB is not reliable, 2) its an advertise, 3) is a passing mention, 4) is an article he wrote (primary source), 5) and 6) are winners of porn prize, which do not count anymore to prove notability since pornbio was deprecated. further researches did not show any significant coverage. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment There are some sources out there. 1, 2 plus some book mentions. Since he has done mainstream acting as well (in television, film and theatre), producing, and directing, he could possibly meet some of the other notability guidelines like WP:ENT. Going to review his filmography and search for more sources before placing a vote. Leaning towards a keep, though since some from first glance look notable like The Lair and Debbie Does Dallas: The Musical. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 20:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep I feel lik there is enough coverage to pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 10:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
which coverage do you refer to exactly? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The only sources that exist about the person aren't reliable or trivial, and award nominations/wins don't work for notability. So, I'm not seeing why there should be an article about this person. --Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are indeed three directing credits in IMDB -- all for low-budget films beneath attention. The editing history on this page is long and curious, including an attempt by an editor claiming to be his manager to scrub porn-related content. I see a busy career but no notable projects or accomplishments. --Lockley (talk) 23:30, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Emmerich[edit]

Kurt Emmerich (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 borderline, hence sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. It is an unreferenced biography of a recently deceased person, which is a concern in itself. There are some refs available (see German article) but not enough to meet WP:GNG. I can't find any evidence of meeting WP:BIO, though tricky as no specific guidelines for sports announcers. Did have a minor access road named after him, which implies he was considered of significance locally. Boleyn (talk) 08:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete per WP:MILL. There were many sports reporters in the 20th century. Bearian (talk) 22:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 12:39, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. The German-language version provides no evidence of the need for an English-language version. --Lockley (talk) 07:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inga Brooksby[edit]

Inga Brooksby (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 per WP:ENT. She had one significant television series role, four minor television roles, and she was in a television advertisement. SL93 (talk) 05:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete the sourcing is not there to establish that she is in fact a notable entertainer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:56, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 16:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scapegoat (band)[edit]

Scapegoat (band) (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:BAND. The group may be notable in the Charlotte, North Carolina post-hardcore community, but they fail notability standards with scant sourcing. KidAd (talk) 22:25, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I think the editor who created this thinks its meets WP:BAND 5.Has released two or more albums on a major record label or on one of the more important indie labels (i.e., an independent label with a history of more than a few years, and with a roster of performers, many of whom are independently notable) as they have released two albums on Tragic Hero Records. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just done a gsearch and there is major problem trying to find any refs for this band - There is 4 bands with this name - 1 from Japan, 1 from Germany, 1 from Bulgaria and this one.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 01:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Not eligible for soft delete due to previous PROD. Suggestion in the history to merge to KIT Walters - is that plausible?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep At a basic minimum, they meet WP:MUSIC bullet 5. A thorough search for sources should include contemporaneous potential coverage from outlets like Alternative Press and Absolute Punk, which are going to be difficult to surface through casual Googling. Chubbles (talk) 13:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: a search specific to certain events and geographical region where the band exists indicate some sources. Maco Paco (talk) 11:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 23:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Super Start Batteries 400[edit]

2020 Super Start Batteries 400 (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 is about an event that has not occurred as of yet i.e. a future event. However, sections of the article have been written as if the event have already been completed.

E.g. Commentators who have called the race.

In addition, the page also has empty tables e.g. starting grid, finishing results etc.

Recommending that this article be deleted / moved to draft and reintroduced once the event is over. Alternately, this article should be rewritten as an upcoming event with all future dependent actions modified accordingly and the tables removed.

Kaisertalk (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep. Changing nomination to a speedy keep based on the fixes by PCN02WPS. Kaisertalk (talk) 05:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 05:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, mostly procedural This is now a redirect (and it was a double redirect). I'm not sure how much you know about NASCAR, but the race was only confirmed this week (they have been setting their schedule in chunks post-pandemic). Also, the race is less than two weeks away, so it's not unreasonable. Raymie (t • c) 08:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsport-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 08:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I reverted the redirect because it removed the AfD notice from the page. Well within the WikiProject NASCAR notability scope, and there's already a keep rationale in the deletion nomination. AfD is not a fancy {{copyedit}} tag. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This seems a sufficiently likely and well sourced future event to pass WP:CRYSTAL. If parts are improperly written as if it had already occurred, that is an editing issue, not a deletion issue, and would probably have taken less effort to fix than just listing the AfD did. AfD is not cleanup. No valid reason for deletion mentioned, no WP:BEFORE search mentioned in the nom statement. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 16:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Event is scheduled and press exists, passes WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 23:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Create a redirect to a a non date specific article. Or attempt a WP:HEY and change it into an upcoming event with article written in future tense, and starting grid / finishing board cleared.Kaisertalk (talk) 00:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kaisertalk, do you have any notability concerns about the article? Because if not, it really should not be an AfD matter. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 06:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Willsome429 No concerns about notability, as noted in my comment above WP:GNG. Also, articles going through WP:XFD and the WP:AFDMERGE can do so for reasons beyond WP:GNG. You would agree that an article for a future date, written as if it has been completed, is misleading to say the least. But, I defer to the WP:AFD process and am respectful of the decision by that process. Good Day. Kaisertalk (talk) 16:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kaisertalk, I have participated in over 500 Articles for Deletion discussions and cannot off the top of my head remember one that was not about notability. Your rationale for this (and others) does not seem to fit any of the descriptors is Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process#When to use the deletion process? and actually seems to fit more in the Wikipedia:Introduction to deletion process#When to not use deletion process?, specifically the first bullet point: "Articles that are in bad shape – these can be tagged for cleanup or attention, or improved through editing." Please clarify if I am missing something, but it seems like this batch of NASCAR-related AfDs really just should've been cleanup tags. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:27, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Willsome429. Well, I have not participated in over 500 Articles for Deletion discussions, so you have this one. :) But, to say that off the top of the head, you are unable to think of one that was not about notability, might speak about frequency bias. Per the same link that you point out, i.e. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#When_to_use_the_deletion_process? of the four reasons mentioned there, at least three of them (if not all four) are not about Notability. Further more, at this link https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Introduction_to_deletion_process#Deletion_discussions , one of the six reasons is notability.
Passing off a race that has not occurred, as something that has been completed e.g. commentators calling the race, empty tables, etc. is outright inaccurate, and inaccurate at scale (considering that this has been done for more than one race).
Really, there are three outcomes that I see here, each one is as good as the other, and I will lean on the AfD process to accordingly make a call.
Outcome 1: Delete the article and re-introduce once the race is completed, and the article is rewritten in the past perfect tense.
Outcome 2: Move to Draft WP:DRAFTIFY continue to revise the article, and once the race is completed, the article is introduced back into the mainspace.
Outcome 3: Keep the article as-is and have topically knowledgeable editors attempt an WP:HEY and rewrite the article to remove the future dependent elements, and write the article as an upcoming event.
I also agree with the viewpoint that many folks are expressing that Outcomes 2 and 3 do not require the AfD process. But, these are legitimate outcomes of the AfD process, and that is where we are now.
Good luck, and please let me know if I can help in anyway. Kaisertalk (talk) 21:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would like one more piece of help - I looked through all ten reasons that you linked and cannot find any that fit this scenario. If you could point me to the reason that this went to AfD, that would be appreciated. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 04:08, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as I have made simple copyedits to fix tense problems. This addresses the nominator's concerns and I would urge Kaisertalk to see point C1 of WP:BEFORE (If the article can be fixed through normal editing, then it is not a candidate for AfD) and the lead of WP:BOLD (Fix it yourself instead of just talking about it. If you notice an unambiguous error or problem that any reasonable person would recommend fixing, the best course of action may be to be bold and fix it yourself rather than bringing it to someone's attention in the form of a comment or complaint.) PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 05:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

South West Kolkata[edit]

South West Kolkata (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 neighbourhood/locality of Kolkata. Not supported in the city municipality website also. More like original reearch. Delete or merge with Kolkata/South Kolkata. Titodutta (talk) 04:59, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - original research Spiderone 12:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No potential sources could be found. Seems like a WP:OR compilation of localities in the southwesternish Kolkata area. The first part of the article reads like a horribly written summary of Behala. --Danre98(talk^contribs) 00:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) Jack Frost (talk) 04:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amy Kennedy[edit]

Amy Kennedy (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 should be reviewed by the community, as an article whose subject does not pass political notability as a candidate, and the subject did not have an article prior to becoming a candidate for Congress. A notability policy issue that needs to be addressed has to do with persons whose biographical notability is the result of the campaign. (It is also the result of her membership in the Kennedy family, but notability is not inherited.) A recent close remarked that political candidates are usually redirected if they are known only for their campaigns: See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annamie Paul. Is this a typical case or an exception? Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 04:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Obvious keep, and if nominator is just generally curious about whether "this is a typical case or an exception", they could have asked on the talk page rather than gone to AFD. Yes, many mere candidates for office aren't notable. Nowhere is it claimed that all candidates for office aren't notable, however. As ProcrastinatingReader in the linked Annamie Paul deletion discussion mentioned, life is not consistent here: one failed candidate might have a ton of media references, and another might have very little. There's a reason for this: most non-notable candidates are nobodies running for the wrong party in "safe" districts where everyone knows they will lose. Kennedy won a hotly contested primary in a rare swing district that both already has and will be the focus of a lot of attention due to Jeff Van Drew's party switch, making NJ-2 one of the most media-followed House districts, and likely a campaign target for both parties in November. Even if she isn't ultimately elected, she may well be a "notable loser" a la Christine O'Donnell-in-2008. Also, yes, notability is not inherited, but marrying into the Kennedy clan does guarantee a certain amount of news coverage. Passes WP:GNG in spades, per sources in article, and even if you thought it was borderline, WP:BEFORE C2 would indicate giving the article more time would be advised. As a final note, the previous status quo for Ms. Kennedy was to redirect the title to her husband's article and cover her campaign there - despite the fact that she's the one running in the race, not her husband. It's not 1930 anymore, we should cover Ms. Kennedy on her own merits. SnowFire (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • To go into a bit more detail: Annamie Paul was effectively a third-party candidate (The Greens do win the very occasional election in Canada, but she wasn't competitive in her own district, garnering a mere 7% of the vote). Kennedy is a major party candidate, and not a "sacrificial lamb" candidate per above (e.g. a Democrat in a deep-red district or a Republican in a deep-blue district, which is most House districts these days, only ~100 of the 435 are really in contention). Better examples would be other upset major-party primary winners, who do generally have articles (even if they eventually lose). SnowFire (talk) 14:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep More than meets WP:GNG as a political candidate. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 07:18, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep In light of the keep arguments for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angela Stanton-King the things such as Kennedy family, mental health advocate, and primary of national importance warrant a keep. At least, this should have been discussed as a proposed delete or a talk page before AfD per SnowFire's comment above. The fact that I was on the side of the Angela Stanton-King argument that "lost" does not change that consensus.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep on grounds that there are articles entirely about Kennedy in multiple national outlets, including The New York Times and The Washington Post. -- Cloud atlas (talk) 02:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - While SnowFire has been far more eloquent on the topic, the scope and breadth of national coverage that is undoubtedly about Kennedy clearly surpasses the Notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject(GNG) plus above statements.Djflem (talk) 06:40, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep due to sufficient coverage in independant sources to pass WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected candidates for public office are not notable, and coverage just about being an candidate is not enough to establish notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Merge to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in New Jersey or Patrick J. Kennedy. Robert McClenon is absolutely right on this one, though there are much better case studies for notability (or lack thereof) of candidates. Being married to a Kennedy and running for office are not enough to meet notability. Additionally, as Johnpacklambert mentioned, the sources used to try and prove GNG are routine campaign coverage that any candidate would receive, including information from the subject's campaign website. The article is almost solely about her campaign, despite others suggesting that the subject is notable for her mental health advocacy, which gets one passing mention in the article. Definitely some WP:UNDUE concerns. If she wins in November, we can re-assess. Bkissin (talk) 19:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Does the subject of this article not have "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject" - and therefore has general notability?! steinwinde (talk) 12:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regional and national. Djflem (talk) 15:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Can someone point to a similar case where a major party candidate (as in nominee) in a competitive congressional election had a BLP merged/deleted? jps (talk) 11:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Scott Wallace (politician)? He was technically a major party candidate and it was a district that "should" have been competitive, but he was an awful candidate (in a boring way, not a scandals way) and nobody cared about him. No Afd just noncontroversially redirected. Per above, the media isn't "fair" sometimes. Kennedy's gotten 100x the attention Wallace did. (And User:Muboshgu , who redirected Wallace, is the creator of the Kennedy article, so it's not a radical inclusionist vs. radical deletionist thing.) SnowFire (talk) 15:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, when the media pay attention, it seems understandable when Wikipedia does as well. Thanks for the example as I think it serves as an exception that proves the rule. In general major party nominees in competitive districts are going to end up being notable enough for a bio... and that should be discoverable through press coverage. jps (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 12:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bluegrass Motorsports Club & Road Course[edit]

Bluegrass Motorsports Club & Road Course (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 about a non-notable (defunct?) business. Cannot find in searches (other than to discuss its incomplete construction), and the only reference does not support the claims made in this stub. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 04:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. North America1000 09:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexander D. Henderson III[edit]

Alexander D. Henderson III (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)

GNG fail. This was prodded, but the tag was removed by the same user who created it: the article subject's son. COI aside, I do not see what is notable about this guy. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of meeting notability criteria, article created by family member and reads as a memorial-type page, not an encyclopedia article. Melcous (talk) 04:25, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing notable about him, fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No evidence of notability, fails GNG. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 08:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article does not pass WP criteria for notability. Fails GNG, SOLDIER and BASIC. There is no significant coverage WP:SIGCOV of this individual. The references are to wedding announcement, memorial announcement and other trivial coverage. The creator has produced numerous COI articles about family members, their businesses, etc. Wikipedia is not a genealogical site WP:NOTGENEALOGY to memorialize one's family tree, there are numerous websites such as Ancestry where this can be done as well as free sites, or if they want a more "official" repository of family history online, they should invest in their own domain name and learn Wordpress or hire someone to make a nice website on their family tree and associated stories of one's ancestor's lives. Wikipedia is not a web hosting service WP:NOTWEBHOST or a memorial service WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Netherzone (talk) 10:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable Devokewater (talk) 12:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - non notable. Created by someone in the family. Graywalls (talk) 15:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NOTGENEALOGY and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:58, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per Hawkeye7. Non-notable biography. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Lesingham House. (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 04:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Padmaloka Buddhist Retreat Centre[edit]

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

Exists, but doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. AfD was no consensus in 2006, when our standards were dramatically lower. Boleyn (talk) 13:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Buddhism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 01:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Lesingham House. The merge target proposed above, Triratna Buddhist Community, has many centres and does not provide detail on any of them, so this (unexceptional) one would look weird if merged there. I suggest instead therefore we merge to Lesingham House which houses the retreat centre, and could quite logically house a paragraph on the subject. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Looks like this’ll be a merge, but more discussion is needed for the possible target
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 03:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Tone 16:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bibrod Tirth[edit]

Bibrod Tirth (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 idol may be notable, but the building is not, and we would need clear, reliable refs to establish the notability for an article on the idol. Boleyn (talk) 20:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Ineligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 03:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 02:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of autobiographical songs[edit]

List of autobiographical songs (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)

For starters, the page is almost entirely unsourced and surely a WP:OR magnet. But fundamentally, I don't think this page is the proper way to include this information. Virtually all musicians take inspiration from their own lives at least once in their career— "autobiographical songs" are so commonplace, so standard, so unremarkable that a list is unnecessary, in the same way that List of people with blue eyes is unnecessary. While a song's inspiration is noteworthy, that info is best included on the song in question's own page (or, if it doesn't have one, then the album it's from), not simply dumped in a big, WP:INDISCRIMINATE list. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 02:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - WP:SALAT problem here, and per nom. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 03:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. In addition, the criteria for inclusion are not well-defined. "Howard Hughes" by Rasputina is indeed about Howard Hughes, but that makes it biographical, not autobiographical; Hughes was obviously not a member of the band which formed long after he died. "How Do You Sleep?" presents John Lennon's opinion about Paul McCartney, but it's not about Lennon; it's about McCartney. "Hey Jude" is commonly said to be about Julian Lennon, but it wasn't written by Julian nor does it even contain any biographical information about him; the lyrics are structured as advice to the addressee rather than describing the life of "Jude". If this article winds up being kept, I recommend reorganizing it as a table rather than having separate lists by title and by artist. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 04:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete When I woke up this morning/You were on my mind/And you were on my mind/I got troubles, whoa-oh..." That's an autobiographical song because it is about *I* - whether it is factual is another issue. Also, per above nominations. Pointlessness at it's finest. --Richhoncho (talk) 08:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Per WP:TRIVIA. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 09:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not enough sources to actually establish this is a thing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and suggested Snowball. I very much like @Richhoncho:'s comment "pointlessness at its finest" and their suggestion that literally dozens or hundreds of blues songs that start "I woke up this morning..." could qualify here, if there were any sensible criteria for inclusion here, which there ain't. --Lockley (talk) 18:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 10:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am a little on the fence here because I could see a list of autobiographical songs being a meaningful category, similar to autobiographical books, but this list is nowhere near that so if such a list were to be created it would need to start from scratch. For example, "Ballad in Plain D" narrates real life events and so could legitimately considered autobiographical. Metropolitan90 brought up John Lennon, which got me thinking of some of his songs. "Ballad of John and Yoko" and "New York City" both relate real life events using real names and places and so could legitimately be part of a list of autobiographical songs. So too could "Mother," since we know it refers to real life events involving his own real life parents. But there are other of his songs that name names that are more generic in expressing emotions to a son or wife, like "Beautiful Boy (Darling Boy)" or "Oh Yoko!" which are hardly "autobiographical" in the sense of an autobiographical book. Similarly, we know "Woman" and many of his other songs are directed towards Yoko Ono, but are no more autobiographical than many, many other songs. Or "Norwegian Wood (This Bird Has Flown)," which we know was based on a real life event but was fictionalized so it doesn't really fit an autobiographical song list. Or "Help!", which apparently reflects his real life emotions but again, is hardly more autobiographical than many songs that reflect the singer's or writer's own emotions. Or moving off Lennon a bit, I am sure that Paul McCartney saw a 17 year old he wanted to dance with at some point in his life but that doesn't make "I Saw Her Standing There" an autobiographical song in any meaningful sense. So while I can see creating very tight guidelines for such a list, this list is nothing like that and is either trivia or indiscriminate (or really both). Rlendog (talk) 16:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Christopher Evans (author). North America1000 09:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hood's Army Trilogy[edit]

The Hood's Army Trilogy (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 book series. I can find an entry on the Internet Speculative Fiction Database, an open wiki, as well as a few blogs. This topic is so obscure that I'm getting mostly hits for John Bell Hood's Army of Tennessee. Hog Farm Bacon 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect to the list of works on the author's bio at Christopher Evans (author). --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Piotrus: - I oppose a merger in the current state, given that as of this comment, most of the content is unsourced, and that which is sourced is sourced to a wiki. I don't like the idea of merging content that isn't reliably sourced. Hog Farm Bacon 05:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • While in principle I totally agree, and I often view merged of unsourced material as uncontroversial, pretty much everything in that substub seems like non-controversial obvious information and a one-line plot summary; the official blurb is likely longer. Since most of the times plot sections are uncited anyway, merging this is not really likely to be a major issue. Not that deleting this would be any major loss either, but in this case I don't see a merge as a particularly objectionable course of action. But as long as we are discussing this, I'll note that the current bio of the author needs improvement. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 08:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and redirect as Piotrus suggests. The plot summary does not require inline citation, and the rest of the information is supported by this source. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 05:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge' the two or three sentences per above. It's not sourced enough to create a new article, but it's at least verifiable to include in part of the author's list of works. Archrogue (talk) 18:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 01:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Billy Dugan[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:NGRIDIRON. The article is very out of date, but based on ESPN's profile of him, he doesn't seem to have gone far after Youngstown State. [3]. A Google search brings up that basically blank ESPN entry, a few hits published by the university he played football for talking about him signing for football, some college football blogs, and that's about it. Appears to be an incredibly obscure college football player at a non-prominent school that didn't go on to the NFL after graduating 10 years ago. Hog Farm Bacon 01:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 01:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The fact that the "source" used links to an archived website tells you he isn't notable Oaktree b (talk) 01:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 12:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I am not even sure he ever played at Youngstown State (not one of the major powerhouses in football), he was a redshirt in 2008. Clearly we need to inprove our process on the creation of articles. We need to make every new articles go through AfC, an article should not be able to sit for 12 years covering a person who has not even started college football.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 2020 California Proposition 16#Opposition. (non-admin closure) -- Dane talk 04:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Californians for Equal Rights[edit]

Californians for Equal Rights (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)

Blatantly promotional, no sources Jac16888 Talk 00:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Updated based on the actions from PCN02WPS Thanks, and good luck at the races. (non-admin closure) Kaisertalk (talk) 06:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Drydene 311 (Sunday)[edit]

2020 Drydene 311 (Sunday) (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)

Seems like a future event - August 23rd, 2020. Also has empty tables for starting grid, finishing grid etc. Should either move it to the user's sandbox, or to a draft space until the event is over. Kaisertalk (talk) 02:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this is well within WikiProject NASCAR's notability standards. If a user wants to remove empty tables that's fine but I see no notability issue here. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Updated based on the actions from PCN02WPS Thanks, and good luck at the races. (non-admin closure) Kaisertalk (talk) 06:34, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Drydene 311 (Saturday)[edit]

2020 Drydene 311 (Saturday) (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 is about a future event. I understand that it has been announced. However, parts of the article have been written as if the event is completed. E.g. the commentators who called the race.

In addition, the article has empty tables for starting grid, finishing grid etc. (as you can imagine, for a future event).

Article should either be deleted, moved to the draft space and published after the event is over. Alternately, if this is truly a "coming soon" article, it needs to be rewritten as such.

Good luck,

Kaisertalk (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Move to draft space. When the event happens, rename the article to exclude Saturday, and then move it to the mainspace again. The draft will also help develop it while the event is happening, and when the event is done, the article will be done as well. --Guitarist28 (talk) 22:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The Saturday part is a necessary disambiguation of the title due to multiple events of the same name. Per the deletion rationale, I see no reason why a bold copyedit of the page cannot be done to clean up grammatical issues that do not affect notability. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Updating nomination based on actions by PCN02WPS. Thanks and good luck at the races. (non-admin closure) Kaisertalk (talk) 06:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Consumers Energy 500[edit]

2020 Consumers Energy 500 (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 is about an event that has not occurred as of yet i.e. a future event. However, sections of the article have been written as if the event have already been completed.

E.g. Commentators who have called the race.

In addition, the page also has empty tables e.g. starting grid, finishing results etc.

Recommending that this article be deleted / moved to draft and reintroduced once the event is over. Alternately, this article should be rewritten as an upcoming event with all future dependent actions modified accordingly and the tables removed.

Good luck,

Kaisertalk (talk) 04:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Motorsports-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep AfD is not cleanup. No valid reason for deletion has been suggested. If the article needs to be rewritten, that is an editing issue. Seems to be sufficiently sourced and likely to occur that there is no WP:CRYSTAL issue. No discussion of WP:BEFORE. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DESiegel (talk • contribs)
  • Keep WP:TNT is not even close to applying; AfD is one heck of a fancy way to write {{copyedit}} at the top of a page. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Updated nomination based on edits by PCN02WPS. (non-admin closure) Kaisertalk (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

2020 FireKeepers Casino 500[edit]

2020 FireKeepers Casino 500 (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 is about an event that has not occurred as of yet i.e. a future event. However, sections of the article have been written as if the event have already been completed.

E.g. Commentators who have called the race.

In addition, the page also has empty tables e.g. starting grid, finishing results etc.

Recommending that this article be deleted / moved to draft and reintroduced once the event is over. Alternately, this article should be rewritten as an upcoming event with all future dependent actions modified accordingly and the tables removed.

Good luck, Kaisertalk (talk) 04:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Speedy Keep. Updating nomination to a speedy keep based on the updates from PCN02WPS. Thanks. Good luck at the races. Kaisertalk (talk) 06:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Speedy keep AfD is not cleanup. No valid reason for deletion has been suggested. If the article needs to be rewritten, that is an editing issue. Seems to be sufficiently sourced and likely to occur that there is no WP:CRYSTAL issue. No discussion of WP:BEFORE. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a date agnostic page or attempt a WP:HEY and rewrite this article as a future event (future tense) with unknowns removed, including starting grid, ending leaderboard etc.

Also, in somewhat of a light vein, with due respect to @DESiegel:, and acknowledging the immense experience @DESiegel: brings along, suggesting that this page needs to exist because the event is likely to occur is akin to suggesting that every living personality on wikipedia should have a "Death of <personality name>" page done and ready. Because like the famous quote goes -- only death and taxes are certain events. Cheers, and I defer to the larger guidance of this AFD group. Kaisertalk (talk) 01:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaisertalk I didn't say that the articel needed to exist because the event was likely to occur. What I said, or at least intended to say was that, since the event was likely to occur, it being in the future is not a reason to delete it. The reason for it to exist is that it has gotten enough coverage to demonstrate notability, which your examples would not have. In any case the person nominating an article for deletion should show policy-based reasons why the article should not exist. Problems which can be fixed by simply editing the article are not reasons to delete. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good deal @DESiegel:. I definitely do not want to misinterpret what you have stated. In the same vein, I will also add a minor clarification that I didn't recommend that this needs to be deleted because it is a future event. My concern is that this page is / was written as a future event that has already been completed. E.g. Commentators X and Y called the race. Also, empty tables for the leaderboard, starting grid etc.
Also, I see your point -- you are saying that all of the above quality issues should be corrected by editing the article.
My thinking is that this should be in the draft space and should not come into mainspace until it is fixed and or the event is over. Alternately, a redirect to a higher level page.
Now, the irony is that this style of article build out has been done for more than one of these races. Funnily, the author has been removing the delete boxes, or recommendations even while the conversation is occurring.
But, all these aside -- if the outcome of the AFD process is a redirect or a move to draft that would be the best outcome to ensure that a Wikipage doesn't appear online with such glaring lapses.
In closing note, like I mentioned earlier, I defer to your good judgement. You have been extremely kind and patient with me on WP:TEAHOUSE when I (or others like me) would ask questions, and I truly believe that you are a great ambassador for Wikipedia. Please recommend as you deem fit (from a decision standpoint), and I will follow your lead. Good Evening. :)
Kaisertalk (talk) 01:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for those kind words, Kaisertalk. I do my best at the Teahouse and elsewhere to help out. But I am still only one editor, more experienced than some, less so than some others. Since this discussion has been opened, it should proceed until closed by an uninvolved admin or experienced editor. As I have expressed a view here, i will not be that person. You have corectly understood the basic thrust of my argument, that since ordinary editing can fix this, deletion is not needed. Please note for the future that a move to draft does not require an AfD to authorize it. See WP:DRAFTIFY. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand DESiegel. Thanks much again. Have a good evening. I will read-up on those links.Kaisertalk (talk) 02:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't see the point of bringing something like this through the (potentially) drawn-out AfC process when the event itself is less than a month away. The topic is clearly within WikiProject NASCAR's standards. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the 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_July_11&oldid=968470305"