Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 17

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 16 July 18 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 delete. Spartaz Humbug! 08:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedure (term)[edit]

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

Per WP:NOT#DICT. I'm leaving the page as-is for now, so others can see its state as I saw it, but if I were to trim this I would remove the "Exemplary procedure" section and trim the "Specific types of procedures" section, which would leave an article that is unsourced and nothing more than an unclear definition. Nole (chat·edits) 23:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Maybe turn it into a disambiguation page. It reads like a very padded dictionary definition and most of the links to this article are arbitrarily split terms (e.g. "electrolysis procedure" vs "electrolysis" "procedure", "medical procedure" vs "medical" "procedure").Citing (talk) 16:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • We already have this and this and this. I'm sure some linguist who's smarter than me could figure out the proper way to have P (term) become a unique point within this maze, but I couldn't figure out a way to make it necessary and I think we lose nothing by deleting. Nole (chat·edits) 23:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Yeah that last one is the final nail in the coffin.Citing (talk) 02:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as meaningless unsourced manky gibberish. --Lockley (talk) 05:09, 23 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! 08:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Index Case (band)[edit]

Index Case (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)

NN band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND. The only sources that turn up are YouTube, social media, and various playing-at-X-venue-this-Friday tidbits; significant coverage from reliable sources is what's missing. Band's website has been "deprecated" (= defunct). Article has been notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 22:53, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Another non-notable band. Couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sites. There are also articles on four of their albums, three of them are unsourced, and the fourth one is sourced solely to a blank Allmusic page. The album review page is blank and the band biography page is blank. As we all know Allmusic is not notable in this case. No reliable sources whatsoever. Also, the "sources" in the article are Youtube, Vimeo, their now defunct official site, a lyrics site and the blank Allmusic page. (Sigh) How this article managed to stay here since 2006 is beyond me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:49, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 08:11, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mukesh Officials[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Mukesh Officials (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 singer. Provided links are PR fluff and blog posts, and I found nothing better. A7 speedy deletion was declined. Article on this subject was previously deleted at AfD under a different title in 2015. --Finngall talk 22:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 22:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. --Finngall talk 22:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - This artist is not notable. The most successful 'hit' the artist has racked up garnered 11K views on YouTube. See channel at Mukesh Officials which has 1.6K subscribers. The numbers are even more dismal on SoundCloud, see here. Mukesh is also a marketing manager at DGitalSeva which offers "likes", "views", "followers" and "subscribers" for sale on platforms such as YouTube, Instagram and TikTok. So the dismal numbers I have presented may actually be inflated if Mukesh made use of his own company's services. There is nothing to suggest Mukesh Officials is anything but an aspiring singer who records at home and "produces" tracks on their laptop. --SVTCobra 01:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note - Mukesh has since been removed from the page DG Team on the DGitalSeva site. --SVTCobra 13:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • DELETE - Fails all inclusion criteria. They have no actual coverage on them and have produced their own music on YouTube which is not enough to meet any criteria. McMatter (talk)/(contrib) 04:18, 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 redirect to Luciano (singer). Vanamonde (Talk) 15:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sweep Over My Soul[edit]

Sweep Over My Soul (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 has been un-referenced since 2009 and the only thing I could find about the album is a single, rather short review in AllMusic. I don't think it's enough to pass WP:NMUSIC though. Adamant1 (talk) 22:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:38, 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 keep. Spartaz Humbug! 09:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Langford Wellman Colley-Priest[edit]

Langford Wellman Colley-Priest (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 as well as WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello 22:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 22:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 22:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 22:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete clearly fails WP:SOLDIER and I'm not convinced that being eaten by a shark meets WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 06:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - meets GNG given there is significant coverage of him in indepedent sources (remembering that he should be assessed on the sources available at the time of his life, not now. Deus et lex (talk) 01:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Three newspaper stories of him being eaten by a shark, one about him being awarded the medal and an account he wrote himself are the sources available at the time of his life, I don't regard that as WP:SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • They are substantively on the subject, are independent and are multiple sources. That's enough to meet the policy. Deus et lex (talk) 04:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There's three stories about his life and his ... death (I was not expecting that last line in the lead). That's easily WP:SIGCOV. This is the sort of article that ends up on the WP:DYK section. Bearian (talk) 01:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This meets WP:GNG requirements. Capt. Milokan (talk) 21:03, 24 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! 09:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish National Bioinformatics Institute[edit]

Spanish National Bioinformatics 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)

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG - it is an institute which conducts research, but not at the necessary level of significance and hasn't attracted sufficient coverage. Boleyn (talk) 15:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "the necessary level of significance"? There seems to be plenty of coverage in Spanish media. Rathfelder (talk) 10:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Rathfelder, thanks for looking at this and commenting. You've mentioned coverage, which reliable refs have you found that establish gng? Thanks, Boleyn (talk) 11:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I dont read Spanish. But a national institute like this is generally presumed to be notable. "Instituto Nacional de Bioinformatica" generates 317 mentions. Rathfelder (talk) 12:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete According to LinkedIn "The Spanish National Bioinformatics Institute ('Instituto Nacional de Bioinformática' - INB), founded in 2003 with a decentralized model, is the bioinformatics technology platform of the Carlos III Health Institute." Going off of that, it sounds like Spanish National Bioinformatics Institute isn't an actual institute itself, but an information technology platform ran by one. Therefore, it's not notable under the guidelines for institutions and there isn't any reliable sources out there about it to make it notable under any other standard (I assume it would be WP:NSOFT). I'm willing to change revisit my vote if it turns out to be an institution after all though. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've tidied up and expanded the stub. I think it already may make it per GNG.--Asqueladd (talk) 15:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. This is actually a small research group, no clear evidence of notability. The leader of the group is notable, but we already have a page about him. My very best wishes (talk) 01:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You should vote delete or merge then. I'm pretty sure you can even though you already voted keep. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh, I would say this is actually delete. I do not think there is anything to merge. My very best wishes (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 22:31, 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 redirect to Luciano (singer). Spartaz Humbug! 09:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moving Up (album)[edit]

Moving Up (album) (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 seems to be a non-notable album. All the sources in the article are in a section about the person that made it and seem to have nothing to do with the album itself. There definitely isn't any in-depth reviews or anything else that would pass WP:NMUSIC. Adamant1 (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum2.0 00:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there IS one in-depth review online, at AllMusic [1]. Given that Luciano is a big name in Jamaican reggae circles, and that this is the album that pretty much started the ball rolling for him, it would not surprise me if there were further reviews of this album in print versions of Jamaican newspapers or music magazines dedicated to world music from 1993, for example. But I can't make a convincing "keep" case based on one online review. Richard3120 (talk) 01:59, 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. Insufficient evidence that the subject meets GNG, and the argument that a director of admissions qualifies for notability under WP:PROF#6 is unpersuasive. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annie Leigh Hobson Broughton[edit]

Annie Leigh Hobson Broughton (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)

She existed, and have some coverage in niche books and articles. She accomplished a lot considering the hurdles in her way at that time. But I cannot establish that she meets WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Can you describe the coverage that you found "in niche books and articles" in your WP:BEFORE search? If you're referring to the Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists currently cited in the article, then I don't think it's appropriate to dismiss a reliable published source as a "niche book", just because you don't happen to have used it before. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The subject of this article is mentioned as the wife of a classicist in that book in literally less than one whole sentence (it lacks a verb so its a sentence fragment - sorry to be a pedant). Coverage in Biographical Dictionary of North American Classicists is therefore irrelevant to meeting GNG because it's trivial (see also WP:NINI). But I agree that Boleyn should share these "niche books and articles" so that other editors can properly assess notability. My search has so far yielded two articles written by Hobson ("Notes on Lucretius" and "The Menologia Rustica") and nothing else. Samsmachado (talk) 21:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 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 19:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 22:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep, The article may lack certain signs of notability, but as described above it does not deserve deletion. Alex-h (talk) 11:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete "highest level academic post" means President of a university (or vice-chancellor in the UK system), It can sometimes mean Dean of a famous medical or law shool. It does not mean one ofthe other directors, deans, administrators, who make up part of the routine administration of any college. It most certainly does not mean Director of Admission, normally just a medium level position, much less Denas of Freshmen, an even less significant position in most colleges. There are many more important women who pioneered in higher education than someone who never attained a doctorate, and apparently never published more than a singlearticle, and has no substantial non-independent references DGG ( talk ) 02:52, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not meeting WP:BIO. If not, one possible merge target is Thomas Robert Shannon Broughton, where she's already mentioned. --Lockley (talk) 19:21, 22 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Susan Madakor[edit]

Susan Madakor (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 hate to send one to AFD so soon, particularly since the article was created in good faith, but this is a classic case of violating WP:BLP1E. It isn't fair to the subject of the BLP, and this gets us into the news business rather than encyclopedia business. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 11:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (author) Question: I thought about the BLP1E concept, and it being 2 decades later, what remains is the question: is there a situation like this in any article,

including that she sued? Agreed she does not deserve to be the sacrifice to illustrate the concept/situation. This situation is about free lunch/unjust enrichment and restitution. There remains the question: where, if OK, should a link to the [https://www.nytimes.com/2000/01/05/nyregion/for-lottery-winner -who-wasn-t-bank-account-remains-frozen.html NYTimes "For Lottery Winner Who Wasn't, Bank Account Remains Frozen"] go (without direct comment or mention of her name)? Pi314m (talk) 17:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That has nothing to do with Susan and doesn't establish her notability. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 22:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 22:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If there is a place where the situation fits, then is a link to the NYTimes a BLP1E, even if her name is not explicitly in Wiki? Pi314m (talk) 23:16, 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 draftify. Nominator withdrew nomination. Article will be moved back to draftspace. (non-admin closure) Schazjmd (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Link prediction[edit]

Link prediction (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)

While the topic is likely to be notable (0.9 probability) the article at time of nomination is devoid of references, though there is a note to a learned paper. One of our major principles is verification, and this is unverified. While acknowledging that AfD is not a cleanup that is often a by-product of AfD. For me references will save the article. Without them I see no way of telling whether it is WP:OR Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 22:17, 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 WP:SNOW keep. It is implausible at this point that a consensus to delete this article will develop. BD2412 T 02:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of rock instrumentals[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of rock instrumentals (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)

Well, for starters, I don't think this qualifies under WP:LISTN; "rock instrumentals" is not a notable group or subject of discussion. But I would probably not give this page a second thought had it stopped at the "Instrumentals which have charted" section… the real problem comes after that, when it begins to (attempt to) list every single instrumental ever released. And I mean every, including whatever interludes, intros or outros a band has ever done, or just including bands where "Most, if not all, of the band's recordings are instrumentals." This is an WP:INDISCRIMINATE collection of information; while rock might not be known for its instrumentals, the sheer size of the page shows that it's not so uncommon as to merit cataloguing all of them. Also, while the chart section is sourced, the big list is not, and has surely been a magnet for WP:OR over the years. If nothing else the page could be moved and reformatted to just the charting ones, but I don't think even that really musters notability, either. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: will have to think on this list. Lightburst (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:LISTPURP as article index and as complement to Category:Rock instrumentals; if we can verify inclusion in that category, then we can verify inclusion in this list. It could obviously be pruned down to just songs with their own articles if that's the consensus. In sum, nothing but fixable issues are raised by the nom. postdlf (talk) 22:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I agree with Postdlf here. I also check Google for "Rock instrumentals" and its used at Billboard.com and elsewhere so its a real thing. A list is always more useful than a category. Dream Focus 23:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes our WP:LISTN meets WP:PURPLIST as it aides in navigation and information for our readers. Lightburst (talk) 23:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per also sprach LISTN. I'm staring at several CD compilations of rock instrumentals right now. AfD is not for cleanup. I also added one notable omission ("List 'em, Danno! Charting 4.") Clarityfiend (talk) 23:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The list is obviously incomplete. There are a lot more Ventures, Booker T & the M.G.'s, etc. hits. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Bando717 (talk) 23:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Obviously this is a snowball, and there's no point in tossing in a Delete, but what are people thinking? Of course rock instrumentals are a thing, but that's not the point: actually listing them all? Damn near every song in the rock era has an instrumental bridge section at the least, not counting instrumental intros, instrumental endings and actual prolonged standalone instrumentals. This is as indiscriminate as it gets. Ravenswing 07:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply. I've removed the odd criteria "including live performances and drum solos". It should be (and probably is, though I haven't checked) 100% instrumentals that have charted (including those with a few words thrown in, like "Wipe Out"). By these standards, the Ventures and Booker T have about 17-18 entries each. If needs be, the list can be split by decade. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Charted or are otherwise notable. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Long article. Plenty of sources. ToBeFree (talk) 03:59, 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) 22:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustafa Yanaz[edit]

Mustafa Yanaz (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 is no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources beyond mere mentions of the kind "Hair: Mustafa Yanaz" in some cases, that is really all there is. Getting credited as a hair stylist in a photo shoot does not establish notability. The lead is a particularly egregious example: "Hair: Mustafa Yanaz at Art & Commerce" becomes: " is a New York-based hairstylist known for creating complex and conceptual hair styles". Vexations (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


Keep Not trying to come off as hostile but I'm just thinking about the words "Getting credited as a hair stylist in a photo shoot does not establish notability" So models can receive all the recognition but the one who is behind the scenes isn't allowed to have notability because "Hairstylist in a photo shoot" = a nobody. A lot of these references involve pictures. If you looks closely at the pictures you can see why the vocab used in the article is accurate. "A picture is worth a thousands words" isn't it? Credit from the new york times, WSJ, Vogue(which just a small credit is what every hairstylist dreams of) Vice, Dazed, Elle and more are not enough notability? If vogue, WSJ, New York times thought he was notable enough to give credit to why should Wikipedia say he isn't notable they don't put credit to people doing hair for prom or regular weddingsDidsomeonesaybacon (talk) 10:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Didsomeonesaybacon, I'd say this isn't about hairdressers per se, it applies to all involved in a photo shoot; the model, the photographer, the stylist, the entire crew. If there is only a credit, that is not significant coverage, which is what establishes notability. Vexations (talk) 12:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blocked UPE spammer. MER-C 16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - confirmed undisclosed paid-for spam. MER-C 16:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt per WP:NOTINHERITED, WP:MILL, WP:SPAM, and WP:OUTCOMES. A person who serves the rich and famous does not automatically become notable, short of serving a head of state. This is a run of the mill hairdresser/hair artist. One of my former students at Bryant and Stratton College used to do the hair dos for the rich and famous jet set in Saratoga Springs, New York; I would not create an article here for her. While we might have let this slide in 2008, everybody knows in Wikipedia that you don't use Wikipedia, a charity, to publicize yourself and your for-profit business. We have consistently deleted articles about producers, makeup artists, and similar behind-the-scenes persons in the modelling and movie businesses, unless they clearly meet WP:CREATIVE, which is far from the case in this instance. Bearian (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete It is obvious that this page is advertisement. The tone feels different. Almost no independent/reliable sources. I don't think this guy is notable by any means. ~Styyx wat is yuo want? 11:03, 23 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 WP:SNOW keep. BD2412 T 02:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Auctioneer (film)[edit]

The Auctioneer (film) (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 only cites a single reference and I couldn't find anything else out about the movie when I did a search for it. It doesn't even seem to mentioned in any other books or anything. There's definitely no in-depth reviews of it from what I can tell or anything that would qualify it to pass WP:NFILM's notability standards. Adamant1 (talk) 21:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Judaism-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep as was reviewed. Film review: THE AUCTIONEER. Mark. Variety. Vol. 86, Iss. 3, (Feb 2, 1927): 19. More to come. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Old Warfield Stage Success Turned Into First Class Film. Tinee, Mae. Chicago Daily Tribune. 24 Jan 1927: 19. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The North Adams Transcript. North Adams, Massachusetts. Thursday, June 02, 1927 - p. 7. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment to summarize findings, a casual look at newspaper databases finds reviews for this film from newspapers all over the United States DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I added some sourcing and expanded the plot a little. If you have access to anything like Newspapers.com, you will find this film was a movie version of a stage play. And it was mentioned in a lot of newspapers when it was first released.— Maile (talk) 23:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Both of you should review WP:NFILM. Paragraph mentions in small town local newspapers don't cut it. There has to be regional/national in-depth sources. Almost all films pre-internet era had mentions or "reviews" in local newspapers to gin up attendance to local theaters and it does't make a film particularly notable just because some local newspaper did a brief overview of it. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't understand that comment. Chicago was, I believe, the second-largest city in the United States at the time. Variety is a national publication, and while LA was a smaller city than it has become since, it was bigger than Hooterville. If you were reading these "local newspaper" reviews, you'd know many of them have reviews as long as the major dailies. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, you should review WP:GNG. The film criteria you point to is "other evidence of notability". The film and the other nominated both meet GNG. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ahem! ... Just to be accurate here, the search pulls up 10,111 matches in Newspapers.com, including, but not limited to, reviews of the film in the Miami Herald, The San Francisco Examiner, the Pittsburgh Post Gazette, the Honolulu Advertiser, the Times of Shreveport, Louisiana, the Washington D. C. Evening Star, the Sacramento Bee, The Edmonton (Alberta, Canada) Journal (multiple reviews in Canadian newspapers), the Philadelphia Inquirer, the Fort Lauderdale News. Newspapers.com usually doesn't have small town local newspapers in its databank. — Maile (talk) 00:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Piping up again here to say that the papers we have access to may possibly depend on the subscription level (I don't access through the Wikipedia library, so I don't know what others here see), but Newspapers.com has thousands of different papers and small towns are represented in that. Abbeville, Alabama is a pretty small town, as is Hurley, Wisconsin. Sikeston, Missouri is arguably a small town (though certainly not as small as they come). And small town paper reviews can contribute to GNG. Anywho, back to our show. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just to echo what DiamondRemley39 said Fort Lauderdale News is a local news source. So is The Edmonton. A lot of other local newspapers where referenced in the other AfD by DiamondRemley39. Including the Rushville Republican, and the San Pedro Daily Plot. Even today the population of Rushville is only 6,000 people. It was probably way less when this film came out. So, I have no clue what your talking about. Maybe it's something to do with subscription levels or something. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The AfD Adamant1 references is for The Last of the Duanes (1924) nominated by them today. Adamant1, if you could discuss each of these discussions you've deleted only in their own discussions, that'd be good. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@DiamondRemley39: My comment didn't have anything to do with the other AfD. It was about sources that are available in Newspaper.com.
That's not an echo, that's you talking on your own. Don't act like we are agreeing on anything here except that, as you say, you don't know what I'm talking about. I never said close to what you're saying about those places. I didn't comment on them. I commented on the holdings of a resource you haven't accessed. Adamant1, where are the goalposts now, exactly? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm guessing the perception is a generation issue (no offense intended). I'm guessing that I'm not the only one here who is old enough to remember first-hand what it was like before the internet. Back in the days when film companies took out paid ads in newspapers, but legitimate show business columnists did the reviews. In the era when this film was released, there was no television, not a lot of radio, and newspapers were serious business. In 1927, they were all located in one city or another. In fact, there was no cable news until the latter decades of the 20th century. Of course, they were LOCAL. But big cities. — Maile (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't really matter anyway. WP:NFILM says capsule reviews, which is what local newspaper reviews are, can't be used to establish notability. Not that people won't ignore it and vote keep anyway. Like the person who disregard it at the same time as citing WP:NFILM as the reason for their keep vote below my message. I'm sure DiamondRemley39 will have some convenient justification for why it should be discarded also. I'd also love to know how you know I haven't accessed newspapers.com. It's not some esoteric website that only the chosen few on here have access to. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (edit conflict) WP:NFILM I am adding refs for WP:N. Notable movie. Lightburst (talk) 00:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added a review from The Film Daily, a national film-industry paper, which can be seen on Internet Archive here. This is an example of the national press that Adamant1 has been waiting for. I would also be willing to testify, if necessary, that Chicago is not a small town. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to know where I said Chicago is a small town. What I did say was that just because Chicago is a bigger town doesn't mean there aren't local newspapers there. Whatever arbitrary line you want to draw between a big town and small one isn't really relevant to what type of source it is or if it's acceptable to notability. That's why notability is about regional and national sources. Neither of those things have anything to do with town size. It's about how much area the newspaper covers. Which should be pretty obvious. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, happy to point you to that, Adamant1. I'd commented with three citations, and you then wrote, "Paragraph mentions in small town local newspapers don't cut it. There has to be regional/national in-depth sources. Almost all films pre-internet era had mentions or "reviews" in local newspapers to gin up attendance to local theaters and it does't make a film particularly notable just because some local newspaper did a brief overview of it.". Two of those small [sic] towns were Chicago and Los Angeles, though I'll give you one pass because my Variety citation didn't say "Los Angeles". DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The citation was for the Chicago Daily Tribune. I must agree with you, Adamant1, that it should be pretty obvious. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
People have provided more then two sources and did I specifically mention either of those sources in my first comment? No I didn't. So good on you for nitpicking the two sources from large towns that I never said anything about and didn't have anything to do with the point I was making. I'm done with this conversation now since it's pretty clear your not going to be reasonable it. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, but nits are picked to make things not lousy. If I may quote Margaret O'Brien, but about Chicago... It isn't a town, Adamant1. It's a city. Finally, when you made your comment, Variety and the Chicago Tribune were 2/3 of the two papers mentioned in the AfD. See the revision here DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So? Chicago Tribune says "It's the most-read daily newspaper of the Chicago metropolitan area." So it's still local paper as far as I'm concerned and like I said if you want to call it a town, or a city, or the damn woods it doesn't matter because that's not what the notability guidelines are about anyway. Your just splitting hairs over semantics that aren't even in the guidelines and being argumentative about it for no reason. Stop the canvasing already. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For the record, I have not canvassed. Second, the source itself does not need to meet a notability guideline; I now understand that that is the source of your confusion. Third, you're the one who seems to have more respect for big city publications over small towns ones, so if you're going to insist upon classifying so, know that I'm paying attention. Next, the classic film community on Wikipedia may address your arguments until the cows come home. So if you're indeed over this, unwatch the page if you haven't already. I won't ping you again, but I will comment more as is necessary until the AfD is closed. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per the expansion work since the nom was made. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-referenced. Yoninah (talk) 18:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - As expanded, the sourcing in the article demonstrates that the notability standard has been satisfied. Alansohn (talk) 04:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as the article has been expanded using multiple reliable sources as per WP:HEY so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:17, 20 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) 00:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Last of the Duanes (1924 film)[edit]

The Last of the Duanes (1924 film) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a seemingly non-notable movie. There's only one source in the article. Which is just a basic movie listing and nothing else for it except more of the same comes up in a search. There are some search results for other films made around the same time period that have the same name and the book this was based on, but there's nothing about this except for basic listings of the films name and the year it was released. There's definitely no in-depth reviews or anything that would help it pass WP:NFILM from what I can tell though. Adamant1 (talk) 21:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review: LAST OF THE DUANES. Variety. Vol. 76, Iss. 6, (Sep 24, 1924): 76. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review: Rushville Republican. Rushville, Indiana. Saturday, December 05, 1925 - Page 3. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review: San Pedro Daily Plot. San Pedro, California. Saturday, November 29, 1924 - Page 7. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the references. I'm not sure local small town newspaper reviews cut it though. Even for older films. Do you happen to know how in-depth they are?
  • Keep: I added news articles and reviews from The Casper Star-Tribune, The Muncie Evening Press and The Buffalo Courier. It's not hard to find reviews from old movies at newspapers.com. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Review: Hamilton Evening Journal. Hamilton, Ohio. Tuesday, December 09, 1924 - Page 11. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the single paragraph local newspaper reviews either of you are adding really cut it. They have to be in-depth and in either a regional or national source. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's how long movie reviews were in 1924. The format was different then. This list of reviews demonstrates that the film opened nationally and was covered in every newspaper. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, Variety is and was probably the leading entertainment magazine in the United States. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And some are multiple paragraphs. And if not big city papers all over the country reviewed it, all the better. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I don't think it proves notability. Most movies got a paragraph brief mention in local newspapers up until about the internet to gin up movie theater attendance. So there's nothing particularity notable about it, because it widely applies. I remember reading reviews of movies in my local newspaper in the 90s when I was a teenager. It would be ridiculous to say that local newspapers where the only sources covering movies in the 1920s just because that's the only thing you can find, or to say it's notable simply because of the time period. Just like it would be for me to say the same thing about the movies I read reviews about in 90s. The 20s were practically the height of Hollywood and there was plenty of none local sources covering movies during that period. Just not this one apparently. So, I really don't get what either of you are saying. You can't throw out WP:NFILM guidelines about sourcing just because of the time period or claim that since you only found local sources on this particular movie that they are the only kind of sources that covered movies back then. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh dear. Ok. Where do I start here? Well, not all newspapers are online for searching digitally, so there is a separate assumption that more sources exist for certain topics. Then there's the fact that this is, like, 1920s Brad Pitt level of star starring in a James Patterson author popular of a movie. There's your sign. Let me also explain that different newspaper databases have different collections. Newspapers.com and NewspaperArchive are the most small-towny types, generally, though they do have some major metropolitan areas represented. Proquest is the big player in the U.S. major daily newspapers. It got attention. I was going to search that one last, but now I see you needed it first. Brb. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Western Tale of Zane Grey Filmed Well: Hard Boiled Men and Cuddly Girl Is Idea. Tinee, Mae. Chicago Daily Tribune. 25 Aug 1924: 15. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it wasn't under the radar then where's the regional or national reviews of it? Plenty of regional and national news outlets did movie reviews back then. For instance there was reviews of the 1915 film Birth of a Nation in the New York Times, The New Republica, Los Angeles Times, and the Washington Times. Along with many other non-local news sources. All of them are referenced in the Birth of a Nation article also and that was back in 1915. So you can't claim it only getting local coverage is because regional/national news sources from that time period are just harder to find. -Adamant1 (talk) 23:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I said, I need a minute to find them. You just nominated this article and ToughPigs and I have been sorting through the many sources on it. I never said those sources are harder to find; I said I hadn't searched that database yet. In addition to the Chicago Tribune article I mentioned above that you haven't responded about, and Variety, there is St. Louis Post-Dispatch. 10 Nov 1924: 17. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey, your the one that voted keep before you looked for the sources. That's not on me. This thing is going to be up for a week and you could have chosen to wait to vote until you where sure there was sources out there. All I can comment on is how you voted and your reason for voting. Generally though, it's not a good idea to vote based faulty logic and then work backwards from your own conclusions later. Hold off until you actually have the sources to back the vote up with. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do you really think that's what happened? Bless your heart. See that I voted 15 minutes after I posted the Variety source, and after I posted several others? I'd seen enough sources in Proquest, Newspapers.com, and NewspaperArchive to make a vote it passed on general notability. See, I've got my databases bookmarked on my laptop and on my phone for occasions such as these. Maybe some admin will be merciful and speedy close. Or you could gracefully withdraw the nom, but I'm not forecasting that. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, I just added a review from The Film Daily, which you can see on the Internet Archive here. The Film Daily was a national paper for the film industry, and they gave The Last of the Duanes a full column. I can't imagine why you're trying to browbeat DiamondRemley, instead of recognizing that there are multiple reliable sources, including The Film Daily and Variety. Continuing to argue at this point only demonstrates your WP:ZEAL. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep. there is significant coverage available in newspaper databases online. Also consider that it's a Zane Grey story starring Tom Mix... Two immensely popular figures in the 20th century western. This film was not under the radar at the time. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@DiamondRemley39: WP:NFILM says "Examples of coverage insufficient to fully establish notability include newspaper listings of screening times and venues, "capsule reviews", or plot summaries without critical commentary." According to Capsule review "A capsule review or mini review[1] is a form of appraisal, usually associated with journalism, that offers a relatively short critique of a specified creative work (movie, music album, restaurant, painting, etc.). Capsule reviews generally appear in publications like newspapers and magazines." Which 100% would be what the local newspaper "reviews" you and ToughPigs have cited would qualify as. You can't use the WP:GNG in this case because capsule reviews are something specifically addressed by WP:NFILM as not establishing notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's one little piece meant to indicate some popular/trade coverage. It's not the be-all and end-all of notability, though I see now it was not a smooth move for me to post it here where you'd read it and get distracted by it. You can't see all of what we're seeing because you're not reading these PDFs, so how can you say what level of coverage each is, and that they're all too short, and not from the "right" publications, and not enough, not enough, not enough? If you're wanting me to count the words in them, sorry, not happening. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How do you know what I'm reading or not or what I have access to? I don't need to say how much is enough or what the right sources are anyway, because that's what the notability guidelines are for. You can turn this into a personal thing all you want, and go off about how your right because your seeing special things I'm not like you'd know what I'm looking at or like it even matters, but it's not really relevant to this. Personally, I don't really care what the word count is, because that's not how this works. There is no arbitrary line where if it's 500 words its suddenly in-depth or something. It's about the type of "review" it is. Particularly in this case. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So which ones aren't capsule reviews then? I brought word could because you seem to be caught up on length and depth. Correct that you don't need to say how much is enough. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I said or the guidelines say about capsule reviews have anything to do with length. Like I said, there is no arbitrary line where something magically becomes in-depth. It's on you to make sure the sources you provide meet the notability standards. Which includes making sure they aren't capsule reviews and are in-depth. I don't really give a crap about if it's 400 words or 500 words, because it's not my job to check your sources to make sure they are legitimate. My assumption though is that all or the vast majority of movies "reviews" in local newspapers would be capsule reviews, because it's in their peer view, specialty, or purpose to have in-depth articles about movies. They don't usually employee "movie experts" like national or regional news outlets would either. Which is why WP:NFILM doesn't say specifically, because its not a situation where it needs to. Otherwise, it would. We could sit here all day to and debate the meaning of words, but that's one of the reasons the notability guidelines exist in the first place. So we don't have to. That said, I looked at a few of the newspaper.com sources that have been provided and like I said before they where all a single paragraph or two short ones. Which doesn't count as in-depth, whatever you want to call them. The fact that your unwilling to say if they are in-depth or not makes it clear that either you didn't check them, you just don't care, or that they are all trivial and your deflecting. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Early on in the discussion, I wrote "and some are multiple paragraphs", a comment you have seemingly ignored as this discussion has continued. What would you like? Seriously? Would you like me to directly quote some of these? I can transcribe portions for you since, according to you, "It's on [me] to make sure the source [I] provide..." which brings me to another point: you write "make sure the sources you provide meet the notability standards" and that is incorrect. You have conflated the concepts of reliability and significance with notability. Sources don't need to meet notability; the subject does. There is a distinction. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What you and ToughPigs should have done is to not include the ones that aren't multiple paragraphs in the first place, becuase they can't be used for notability anyway and just convolute things. Which leads to these kinds of disagreements. On your other point, reliability and significance determine notability and you can't seperate them. A topic that only trivial coverage in unreliable sources is by its nature not notable. So, while the subject doesn't have to reliable, its not notable unless the sources are. Agaon, your really just splitting hairs over semantics. Its implied IMO that erything in AfDs is about both. Even if its not explicity stated in the discussion that it is. Otherwise its to easy to get lost in the minutia. Ultimately though AfDs stand on the sourcing. Adamant1 (talk) 02:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment was rediscovered, preserved, and appeared at a film festival. Not sure if it meets the film festival guideline for film notability, but it's there, anyway. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the excellent expansion work by Toughpigs post-nom. Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 07:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Well-referenced. Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sources provided establish notability. And there are probably even more sources out there which have not been digitized. Good work by all to find what there is. Rhino131 (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as per the multiple reviews in reliable sources and other coverage that show a pass of WP:GNG and the article has been substantially improved since nomination as per WP:HEY,imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep at least for historical purposes. Meets the basic WP:GNG demands. Estarosmārṭ (talk) 05:14, 22 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thankam[edit]

Thankam (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 satisfy film notability guidelines. See the guidelines on unreleased films, which are only notable if production has itself been notable. The article does not state whether principal photography has begun, but the start of principal photography only opens a window if it has itself been notable, and that is not mentioned.

The article states that the film is expected to hit the theaters in early 2020. If the Gregorian calendar is used in the normal way, early 2020 is finished, and the film is still described as in the works. Sometimes films remain in the works for a long time; see development limbo.

There are conflict of interest issues about this article and about the article on the production company, Working Class Hero (film production company). They are not in themselves reason to delete, but they are a reason to apply notability guidelines strictly, and there is no notability, so that this looks promotional.

Google search finds this article and IMDB, which says it is in pre-production. We knew that. The Google search doesn't tell us anything new. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 20:58, 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 speedy keep. Agreement that he is a notable academic. Barkeep49 (talk) 00:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David L. Hoffmann[edit]

David L. Hoffmann (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 think this page fails WP:AUTHOR. Yes, he published several books, but are they significant?. Yes, the books were cited, but I doubt he qualify per WP:Author #1. I do not see significant reviews of his books. Were his books favorably reviewed? Did they receive a sufficiently wide recognition? I do not see any links or references currently on the page to justify notability, and the search does not quickly identifies such sources. My very best wishes (talk) 20:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Author-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to his website [2] (is it an RS?), he is a "Distinguished Professor (since 2017) ... in Ohio State University". They do have such position, however, checking the Ohio State University website shows that in 2017 other people, not him received it [3]. Same in 2016, 2018, etc. Wrong info? What am I missing? My very best wishes (talk) 21:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, sure I saw this link on the page. However, according to their web site, other people received this position in 2017 [4]. Something must be wrong. What is it? Regardless, one must have multiple secondary RS about the person or his work written by other people (reviews, articles in newspapers or journals,etc.) rather than a couple of websites to establish notability and create a meaningful page about a person per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 22:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Author The Stalinist Era Cambridge University Press. I will see what else I can find. Lightburst (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yes, he published several books, exactly as I wrote in the AfD nomination. My very best wishes (talk) 23:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep via WP:PROF#C5, also likely WP:AUTHOR. What User:My very best wishes appears to be missing is that at Ohio State, "University Distinguished Professor" (the list they linked) and "Arts and Sciences Distinguished Professor" [5] appear to be two different but similarly-named titles of distinction. He has one but not the other. But either is good enough for our notability criteria. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I can see it here. He was recognized a Distinguished Professor not by his University, but one of the Colleges at the University (Arts and Sciences College). This is probably not the same level of notability as our guideline recommends. I still think we need multiple secondary RS about the person or his work written by other people (reviews, articles in newspapers or journals,etc.) rather than a couple of his official websites on his work place to establish notability and create a meaningful page about a person per WP:BLP. My very best wishes (talk) 23:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found one of his books had been professionally reviewed and to read it I need to pay $34. gulp. I am adding refs now Lightburst (talk) 23:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that resolves it. Let's keep the page. My very best wishes (talk) 23:52, 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 delete. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michai Mathieu Morin[edit]

Michai Mathieu Morin (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 in independent, reliable sources, meets none of the notability criteria for artists per WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. He says he's acclaimed, the title of his online portfolio is "Acclaimed Artist Michai Mathieu Morin describes each of his beautiful artworks for sale - Worlds Highest-Resolution Digital Fine Art" but we see no evidence of that. Vexations (talk) 20:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have removed the failed verification template because in the link you can see the page's statistic's on no. of page views. For the exhibitions, I will try to find better sources to replace the sources already used. Renaglain (talk) 15:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Does not pass WP:NARTIST. Mccapra (talk) 02:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I am unable to find evidence that this person meets WP:NARTIST or WP:GNG. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:25, 25 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. Bearian's argument, while not unreasonable, has not gained consensus here, and isn't codified to the extent that it can override the other arguments. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Price Benowitz[edit]

Price Benowitz (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:ORGCRIT. The RS which mention the firm don't mention it as a subject of their article. One of the partner of the firm being notable doesn't cut it. - Harsh (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. - Harsh (talk) 12:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, no coverage of the firm, just couple lawsuits it has been involved in. Renata (talk) 20:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article does not show enough coverage to pass notability. Nika2020 (talk) 00:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. Its sources are a mixed bad - Avvo is not a reliable source - but on the whole, decent. According to my standards, they are possibly notable based on their cases, but I understand that my opinion on this matter is not necessarily the majority consensus. Bearian (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. None of the reliable secondary sources presented in the article cover the subject in any depth, and a search found nothing of substance further. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:48, 24 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) 00:27, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amplus Energy Solutions[edit]

Amplus Energy Solutions (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. I have reviewed all of the references. Almost all are press releases, with no secondary coverage at all. A couple of the references don't mention Amplus at all. The remainder are references to the company's own website. Appears to have been created by a paid editor. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 15:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:41, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:GNG and promotional article Spiderone 17:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:14, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Thanks for your suggestions. I have reviewed all the references and found that most of the referecences are from top Media houses that are independent and can't be controlled. I editied this article and no paid editor was envolved in same. As I have reviewed, a single reference URL has no Amplus mention but the information was useful for the person who wants to know about it, if you found that link inappropriate, it can be removed from the page. Saurabhews (talk) 11:42, 13 July 2020 (GMT +5:30)
Please note that this vote is from the article creator Spiderone 07:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spiderone for bringing this into everyone's attention. I'm keeping an eye on it. -Hatchens (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please note that this vote has come from an account solely created to vote in this AfD Spiderone 07:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Spiderone for bringing this into everyone's attention. I'm keeping an eye on it. -Hatchens (talk) 04:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Article lists awards. The awards earned by the subject support the notion that it is a leader in the industry. Isn't that what we mean by notable?--Pgapunk (talk) 21:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Depends on the award. In many industry awards, companies nominate themselves and pay an entry fee. There are lots of categories and a high proportion of entries win, so it is a form of paid advertising rather than a genuine competition. Anyway, winning awards doesn't feature in WP:NCORP or WP:GNG - it is the depth of independent, reliable, secondary coverage that counts. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 11:29, 20 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. Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cielo Wind Power[edit]

Cielo Wind Power (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 turnover indicates significance, but although I can find many mentions of it existing, I can't find evidence of WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment: Boleyn, can you describe the "many mentions" that you found during your WP:BEFORE search, so that other editors can benefit from what you've disovered? — Toughpigs (talk) 22:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • user:Toughpigs, it's mainly just websites confirming its existence and with a small amount of info [6] and as for news coverage, the best include a very brief name-check in Jewish Life News [7]. Boleyn (talk) 12:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. More than enough 3rd-party sources to verify its existence. So it comes down to notability, and I'll believe its claims of national significance. --Lockley (talk) 23:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:Lockley, you are right that it definitely exists, and why do you believe its claims of national significance? It may be the case, just I haven't been successful in finding sources that prove it. I'm a bit worried as well as it reads as if it was written for promotion, and when I looked at the creator, he/she is an WP:SPI. Boleyn (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi @Boleyn:. Here's my reasoning, such as it is. Cielo does exist, which sounds dumb to say, but that's compared to many of the articles in the deletion queue, whose subjects hope to substantiate themselves by having a wikipedia page. Not the case here IMO. This article has straight objectively factual content, was never loaded with glorious promotional adjectives and claims, so the fact that the creator was an SPI with a possible COI seems less important to me. So the question narrows to notability. The nature & amount of the independent coverage discovered here and here and here, considered along with the company's own description of its impact on its industry, is convincing enough for a "keep". I wouldn't bet the ranch on it either way. hope that helps --Lockley (talk) 15:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. 18:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Coolabahapple (talk) 04:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)}[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 18:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:21, 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 keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Afric Aviation[edit]

Afric Aviation (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 doesn't seem to be anything notable about this airline. The article only cites three sources. All of which seem to be extremely trivial and nothing came up IMO that would pass WP:CORP when I did a search. Which isn't surprising considering they only flew one plane for a relatively short amount of time. Adamant1 (talk) 06:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 20:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Google news search [8] - mentions include [9] - operating on the Duola - Libreville route, this about the airline ceasing operations, this, which appears to state that it was the busiest airline in Gabon, this report of an interview with its CEO in a Government newspaper, this about its head being sent to jail, this which talks about the airline returning the body of a dead opposition politician back to Gabon. In addition, we have this, already used in the article, from which I found this, [10], [11], [12], together with lots of coverage of it being on the EU's list of banned airlines. From the coverage, which although some is brief, some of the articles are more significant, it is clear that it didn't just operate "one plane for a relatively short period of time". There is actually a fair amount of coverage for the airline, which appears to pass GNG.Nigel Ish (talk) 23:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I commend Nigel for sniping out the comment I was about to make, except with more sources. There seems to be a lot of coverage for this airline, mainly in French. One source even lists it as Gabon's unofficial flag carrier. [13] Acebulf (talk) 23:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note I have added a lot of information to the article, using the sources provided by User:Nigel Ish. Acebulf (talk) 00:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Apart from the sources given by Nigel Ish I also found sources ch-aviation [14]. Bingobro (Chat) 08:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep with Nigel Ish's sources. Vici Vidi (talk) 06:45, 21 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:44, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chris J Handley[edit]

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

NN local theater actor. Fails the GNG, meets none of the criteria for WP:NACTOR. Several hits from local media in Buffalo, where the subject acts, but nothing reaching the threshold of significant coverage for the subject. Notability tagged for over a decade. Article created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this is. Prod removed a month ago with the startling edit summary that the article "has sources." (To wit, the subject's home page, his Facebook page, his scanty IMDB entry, and his CV on a site for resumes for aspiring actors. Eeeeesh.) Ravenswing 20:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actor. Does not meet the inclusion criteria for actors.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. There are amazing claims - performed in Symphony Space! - but that could be the larger theater or the intimate Thalia Theater, which is technically on Broadway, which I used to walk by when I had a teaching assignment nearby, but is actually considered Off Broadway. There's just a general lack of coverage here. Bearian (talk) 01:59, 23 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 Laws of the Game (association football)#Current Laws of the Game. Fenix down (talk) 20:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Start and Restart of Play (association football)[edit]

The Start and Restart of Play (association football) (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)

stub article that seems to have been created due to other sections of the FIFA laws having articles (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. It only has a single reference and doing a cursory Google search doesn't seem to indicate there can be much more added. Prisencolin (talk) 19:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC) (categories)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 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 keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure and proposed page move instead) GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 23:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MRCPsych[edit]

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

Article describes following things:
a) a degree earned at a single institution
b) how many courses you must takes
c) exams details c. 2008 & 2015-onwards
d) syllabus for these courses/exams

Should be deleted per WP:NOTCATALOG and WP:NOTBROCHURE. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 19:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additionally there is scope for expansion as the curriculum is subject to substantial critical analysis due to its role in psychiatric training. Example Sources for expansion.[1][2][3][4] PainProf (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have since improved the article by including further sources, and removing extraneous curricular details, focusing on the core of the qualification PainProf (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, the article is in much better shape now. I'm also inclined to the suggestion by @Tom (LT): below about name change. Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists could be the main name with MRCPsych could be a redirect link. What do you think? Let me know and I will withdraw the deletion nomination to proceed with page move. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 21:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sounds like a good plan to me. --Tom (LT) (talk) 22:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Tyrer, Stephen; Oyebode, Femi (March 2004). "Why does the MRCPsych examination need to change?". The British Journal of Psychiatry. 184 (3): 197–199. doi:10.1192/bjp.184.3.197. ISSN 0007-1250.
  2. ^ Burn, Wendy; Bowie, Peter (October 2015). "The Royal College of Psychiatrists' response". BJPsych Bulletin. 39 (5): 262–263. doi:10.1192/pb.39.5.262a. ISSN 2056-4694. PMC 4706197. PMID 26755977.
  3. ^ Benning, Tony; Broadhurst, Mark (December 2007). "The long case is dead – long live the long case: Loss of the MRCPsych long case and holism in psychiatry". Psychiatric Bulletin. 31 (12): 441–442. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.107.014951. ISSN 0955-6036.
  4. ^ Thompson, Catherine M. (April 2009). "Will the CASC stand the test? A review and critical evaluation of the new MRCPsych clinical examination †". Psychiatric Bulletin. 33 (4): 145–148. doi:10.1192/pb.bp.108.021881. ISSN 0955-6036.
Makes sense to me PainProf (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with PainProf. This is a notable national-level qualification and we have similar articles for other such qualifications. I think this article should however be renamed to Member of the Royal College of Psychiatrists in line with other articles. The problem here is with the article's references, but this is not a reason for deletion. --Tom (LT) (talk) 23:13, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPM Group[edit]

CPM 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)

Doesn’t meet WP:NCORP. Hard to find anything on google relevant to this company. PlunketMcShane (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 19:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)**[reply]
  • Delete non notable, PR --Devokewater @ 15:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Although I don't the article is that much on the PR side, the sources in the article or otherwise just aren't there for it to pass either WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:17, 25 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) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Allen[edit]

Clark Allen (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)

Biography of an artist, musician and actor, not properly referenced as passing our notability standards for any of those endeavours. The notability claims here essentially boil down to the fact that he and his work existed, with no evidence that he achieved the kind of distinctions (e.g. noteworthy awards) needed to make his work encyclopedically noteworthy. And when it comes to the footnotes, one of them is about a completely different person with a coincidentally similar name releasing his debut album a decade after this one died, meaning it's not relevant to establishing this person's notability at all, while the other source just briefly namechecks this Clark Allen's existence in the process of being about something else, which is not enough to get him over the notability bar all by itself. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I removed the link about a different person and have added a few reviews and links. There is a bit more to sort through in newspapers. I think it'll at least be a weak keep because he will just meet WP:GNG, but I won't vote until I've got more. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I do not see much of anything in a web/news/books search. Perhaps there is more in an archival newspaper search.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Does not pass NARTIST that is for certain. The article states he was in Vincent Price's personal collection but that is meaningless. Price owned tens of thousands of works of art and it is not the same as being in major museum collections. Whether his music or acting was notable, I can't find anything online, but maybe as mentioned above something could turn up in newspapers. Netherzone (talk) 00:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets WP:GNG and probably WP:CREATIVE (#3) too. I've added more than ten sources to the article so far. He was a musician (no albums, it would seem) and business owner of some note. There's more in newspaper archives that I haven't examined, and I imagine he may be in some local history books for his co-creation and management of El Cid. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 02:11, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment to the closing admin: there is another keep vote, by an IP editor, on the article talk page.DiamondRemley39 (talk) 16:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY, DiamondRemley39's addition of sources demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. The article has been updated somewhat. His work sells between 17k to 30k per piece, so a collectable artist. I removed that basic Proquest search url in the lede. Never put a raw search url in an article. scope_creepTalk 12:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Great job. Bearian (talk) 02:01, 23 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 Farmers Insurance Group. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

21st Century Insurance[edit]

21st Century Insurance (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)

Badly sourced article that mainly seems to be referenced to the company being sold to Farmers Insurance Group. Outside of that, I fail to see anything about it that would pass WP:GNG or WP:NCORP. I guess as an alternative to deletion it can be merged into Farmers Insurance Group. Adamant1 (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:07, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emily Triggs[edit]

Emily Triggs (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:MUSICBIO, WP:SIGCOV. Some minor coverage, but failure to launch. scope_creepTalk 09:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. There's no evidence of significant coverage, and most of the cited refs fail WP:SINGER (Any ... publications where the musician or ensemble talks about themselves). While acknowledging that AfD nominations for musicians in niche genres should be treated with care, there are still genre-specific publications such as fRoots which could be cited to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll keep that in mind for the next time. scope_creepTalk 13:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think this comment should have any weight - looking at JPL's edits, they edited Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donna Briggs simultaneously with this one, and had 25 other edits in the previous 20 minutes. It's inconceivable that they actually had a chance to look at any of the existing references, let alone do any checks to see if they are notable. Nfitz (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This Afd has been opened for 9 hours, so your argument doesn't make kind of sense. scope_creepTalk 10:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
How does the length of time of the AFD have any relation to JPL's hit-and-run AFD contributions, where they make a snap judgment within seconds on dozens of AFDs at once, without any research? Nfitz (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is not evidence of that. He could be looking at each of one them for hours, before they voted. Your argument doesn't make an sense. scope_creepTalk 15:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per WP:GNG. There are multiple sources providing non-trivial coverage of the subject, that are independent of the subject and each other. While I concede the "5 minutes with" interview questions/answers don't count much towards notability, other sources, like the Herald clearly establish notability by the level of coverage of this specific person. The sources go beyond trivial mentions, like "who's playing tonight" stories (I could have added a hundred of those, but didn't). They are discussing the person and their music. --Rob (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no fans on Soundcloud, Apple music, Spotify, Napster. There has be more than that and the Calgary Herald is her home town. If I saw a couple of articles in the UK Times or the Japan Times, then coverage would easily satisfy WP:GNG, but it is not there. scope_creepTalk 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what if there are no fans on Soundcloud? I fully concede she is not famous. I'm saying she has had non-trivial coverage from multiple reliable sources. That's what "GNG" is about. Notability, per GNG means that reliable sources have found her to be notable, by their coverage. BTW, somebody could have a millions fans on various websites (Soundcloud, YouTube, whatever), and still not be notable per GNG, if they haven't been written about by reliable 3rd party sources. You seem to be conflating fame with notability. The two often go together, but are in fact, quite different. Writeups in reliable sources allow us to write a proper encyclopedic article on somebody. Fans/Followers/Friends on Soundcloud, or YouTube, or whatever, do nothing whatsoever, and in fact should never be mentioned here unless they are mentioned first by reliable sources. I missed the guidelines requiring foreign coverage of an artist, please point that out to me. --Rob (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Afd rationale is premised on WP:MUSICBIO which is a much more modern policy. Why would you base on GNG, when the act is only 18 months old? The initial coverage, the reviews didn't even reach as far as the Edmond Journal, the closest newspaper. Even if she was private person, who wanted to stay out the limelight, there would still be fan page on social media, which there is very little. Hence the reason of mentioning plays/fan. It is always a good indication if the person is notable, which I don't see. If there was group producing content about her, she would be notable. It is crystal clear, she is non-notable. Even her album at: [15] is songs by other folk. Possibly in 20 years time, she might be another kind of Nick Drake sort of act; then we can get an article, but I really don't see it. Even them, there would some kind of fan groups during the interim, while she is formulating her masterpieces. It is entirely possible. scope_creepTalk 00:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I base it on GNG, because that's the fundamental underlying guideline to notability that doesn't rely on personal opinion. Every other criterion (like achieving awards, chart success, etc...) is really just an indication that a subject is likely to garner the kind of coverage that the GNG explicitly requires. It's the substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, that makes for a worthy article. I can't prove your opinion is right or wrong, and I don't care about your opinion, and you shouldn't care about mine. I just care what the sources indicate. They seem to indicate notability here. We should never put our opinions ahead of the sources. As for likes/follows/views, you do know those can be purchased, right? Anyhow, could you clarify what you mean by "the act is only 18 months old". --Rob (talk) 00:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - when the deletion argument is that GNG trumps MUSICBIO MUSICBIO trumps GNG (it doesn't), and the proponent admits it meets GNG, then we are done here. I see references to her in multiple publications in ProQuest from 2011 to 2019 and in Google News into 2020. Nfitz (talk) 00:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC) (oops ... got that backwards ...) Nfitz (talk) 16:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The first page of references on Proquest, 20 of them. in fact, all of them are the Galgary Herald or the Calgary Sun, apart of 2 which are obituaries and 1 some academic stuff. Google News is reflecting the same information; info about a local band. Hardly the global coverage that is expected or WP:MUSICBIO or WP:GNG. scope_creepTalk 00:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably depends on your database. The second hit I get (sorted by relevance) is the 2012 magazine article (that's already referenced in the article. Hit 6 and 7 are from the Fort Macleod Gazette - which is hardly local, a hundred miles away. Hit 14 and 17 are from the Lethbridge Sun Times, a similar distance away. Meanwhile the Calgary Herald and Calgary Sun are major daily papers, in a city of over a million people. There's substantial coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. The stuff on Google News looks brief and recent ... including hits from CBC News and Global News. Nfitz (talk) 03:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you please quote the part of GNG that requires "global" coverage, and please explain what you meant by "the act is only 18 months old"? Are we reading different guidelines and articles? --Rob (talk) 04:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fort Macleod Gazette at 100 miles, proverbially speaking, its the same as being in conversation with somebody in the next room. A 1 million person city is small. It doesn't satisfy WP:SIGCOV by a long shot. On WP:NPP every day, as far as I can see, I reckon there is about 50-70 new bands that get new articles. They are on a scale of being extremly recognisable, to fail. to the mediocre. At the one end of the scale, you have bands/singers that are feted, have huge presence on social media, are on all music streaming services like Spotify, Apple music and so on, within weeks or months of forming are generally by that time huge and are visible everywhere. At the other scale you small bands who have been signed and perhaps put out an album, a great album perhaps, they have cultist following or one of two song that get millions of plays. That's is not the case either here, but that would saved it. Further to the end of scale are bands that are signed but fail to launch, or get some local coverage as there a few people who perhaps like the music. That is the case here. If she was so successful, you wouldn't need ProQuest to prove it. scope_creepTalk 08:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You have a set of criterion that completely ignores Wikipedia's guidelines, particularly WP:SIGCOV which you keep linking to, but have not read. You need to actually base your opinions on actual policy and guidelines, as this is NOT a vote. Since you never answered, I'll assume the "18 months old" comment is based on a misreading of the article. --Rob (talk) 11:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Rob: Thanks for spotting that mistake. No I don't ignore policy. I just happen to do a lot of these Afd's, mostly posted from NPP and I review a lot of bands on NPP. Here all you see, is the home town newspapers reporting on the act and nothing else. News of the act couldn't even reach Seattle. For me it is the very definition of non-notable. It is not really 2008 anywhere, when manual searches were the order of the day. Tools like Social Blade, can tell how exactly successful a person is on social media. There is no presence visible. Two albums and no fans?? scope_creepTalk 12:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What does a foreign country have to do with anything? You are making up criteria. There is significant coverage in two major, well-known, daily newspapers. It's not like a few mentions in a community newspaper along-side some local pensioners in a play. Nfitz (talk) 14:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It seems like this a case of WP:TOOSOON. Since while she's garnered some media attention it's mostly minor and in local newspapers. There's no regional or national coverage that would be required for her to be notable. Also, her music hasn't charted anywhere and the article seems like it's relying a little to much on name dropping etc for my taste. So, there's nothing here that passes MUSICBIO or the GNG from my perspective. BTW, I really don't feel like getting into to a nonsensical discussion about how two local newspapers should be combined into a single regional one or anything along those lines. AfDs aren't the place for those types of policy debates. So just save it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I don't really find the sources presented to be satisfactory. She may have regional or local appeal, but typically we expect a group to have an exceptional regional coverage and all but exclude local coverage unless someone points out that the literal wording of the GNG would even cover the local moms' magazine. I don't think having a hyper-literal interpretation of the GNG on this is a good thing, especially as this is a BLP, where we normally have somewhat higher standards. Failing MUSICBIO is additional reason to be suspect of the notability here, and in my view should be seen as stronger evidence in favour of deletion, but even if you want to go by a GNG-alone analysis (which I don't advocate), I think this should be deleted. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:52, 25 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) 19:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adz The Muse[edit]

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

Not a notable person. Google search returns no independent results PlunketMcShane (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 18:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Zimbabwe-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Charitably it is too soon for an article on this singer. The two sources presently used in the article are her Apple Music entry and another streaming site called Triple J Unearthed. Getting your stuff on a streaming service like everyone else is not a sign of notability. She has none of the necessary media coverage and so far is only found in the typical streaming and social media sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 23:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Teraplane (talk) 23:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete fails WP:NMUSICIAN / WP:ANYBIO, lacks significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 09:42, 24 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! 21:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leavitt, California[edit]

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

Here we have a couple of problems, because what the topos show is, yes, yet another siding on the ex-Nevada-California-Oregon Railway line, with a very loose scattering of buildings around it, mostly houses which are still there. The article hints at problem number one, because mostly it's not about Leavitt the place, but about Leavitt the person, and indeed he and his irrigation company so dominate the search results that it is al most impossible to get past them. But banging on it several ways, I did find a few references to Leavitt station in the usual railroad regulatory material. Problem number two, however, is what does not appear in the article, because immediately adjacent to it is a major prison complex; indeed, you pretty much have to drive through this Leavitt to get to the High Desert State Prison. But the entire complex is within the Susanville city limits as a discontinuous piece, and nothing I've seen admits that this Leavitt sits right next to it. So the only solid evidence of Leavitt as a commmunity is me looking down and seeing a loose cluster of houses. Did anyone ever think of this as its own town? I can't tell. Mangoe (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 05:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete For what it's worth, the prison complex opened in 1995 and isn't relevant to any historical settlement that could have existed here. The cited source doesn't support the existence of a town named after B.H. Leavitt; that leaves us with a place that was named after the first postmaster when a post office was established.
The name does appear on the 1954 topo, which also shows a rail siding and a few buildings. Without further evidence of a real settlement, I would chalk this up as another minor rail siding/station where people went to pick up their mail. –dlthewave ☎ 18:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As something of a meta-comment on the above: for a lot of rural rail locations the analysis is easy because there is just nothing at all after the couple of railroad buildings went away, but in cases where there are a few houses beyond just a farm's outbuildings, it's difficult to determine to what extent anyone ever thought of the place as a settlement as opposed to just a general locale that extended beyond the immediate buildings, and for that matter, the degree to which it is still thought of as a place. Semi-rural areas can be especially bad because things tend to blur together without civil boundaries. The phrase "unincorporated community" verges on weasel words, tending to imply a town and the various typical attributes thereof (especially commercial establishments) when it just means a bunch of houses whose occupants may not think of themselves as living in that place.
That's really what it comes down to in this case: there are a bunch of houses there, each with its own driveway down to on or the other main road, which sit around a place where a railroad stop with a name once was, now sitting next to a complex which as single buildings which probably house more residents than all those houses put together, with not a shop or gas station or the like in sight. Is it a "community" now? I can find no evidence of that. Back before the prison, did people living there think of themselves as being in "Leavitt"? I can't tell that either. Perhaps they did, and perhaps they still do; but nobody seems to have talked about it. Mangoe (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This one's a little confusing. The article itself is a bit of a mess (it claims two different origins for the town's name without even trying to reconcile that), and aside from the post office, the place at the coordinates doesn't seem to have much of a history as a community. That being said, if you |look just south of there, there's a community called Leavitt Lake. That community doesn't have its own entry in the GNIS, but it has pretty extensive newspaper coverage (see [16] and [17]). If Leavitt and Leavitt Lake are separate, we probably shouldn't keep the Leavitt article, but if they're the same community by a different name (or at least closely related) then we should keep it. I'd lean toward assuming they're not the same, if only because they have different names and there's no proof they are, but the names are so similar that I don't want to rule it out. TheCatalyst31 Reaction•Creation 01:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leavitt Lake is, not too surprisingly, next to Lake Leavitt, a reservoir established by Guess Who. The local school system has a website with some info on local history, and here is what they say about "Clinton":

In the early 1900's, the town of Clinton existed where the current community of Leavitt Lake is located. It was first called Buggytown, then Riverside, and finally Clinton when the post office was established in 1896. The post office was closed in 1915. It was named for Clinton, Maine, the hometown of Benjamin Hanson Leavitt, the area's prominent citizen. In 1973, the area was renamed Leavitt Lake when construction of the houses there began.

This is not entirely supported by topos or GNIS, neither of which has heard of this Clinton; but the topos show a "Riverside School" at the spot, before the houses appear. So I'm not sure what to think. It's pretty clear that the Leavitt community of the article is not connected to the Leavitt Lake development/neighborhood except through the common name element and a certain degree of proximity. Mangoe (talk) 03:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Appears to be/have been an actual settlement, however small. More than a rail siding, as it had a post office which -in my view -entails legal recognition. ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 02:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Post offices are routine features of railroad stations in the US. It doesn't indicate that the station was part of a larger settlement. Mangoe (talk) 03:21, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP I've added a little history and citation that clears up some of the history; it was a town formed by a person. If not keep, at least Merge with an article on the township where it is located. Goldenrowley (talk) 19:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...which brings us back to Purdy's site and the reliability thereof. I would agree that if we take him as reliable, we've established this as a settlement. Mangoe (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:50, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 21:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Bhattacharya[edit]

Mani Bhattacharya (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 doesn’t satisfy GNG. Following a before search I discovered she does have entries in a few reliable sources but are mere announcements. I can’t also see WP:NACTOR satisfied. Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 18:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-07 ✍️ create
  • Delete due to only having passing mentions in sources and also because they fail WP:NACTOR.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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! 22:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hemant Sharma[edit]

Hemant Sharma (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 coverage; passing mentions on award winners and promotion to positions within corporate media. Fails WP:GNG at the least. A WP:BEFORE search does not produce sufficient coverage in independent secondary sources to pass WP:BASIC for individual notability.TriggerWest (talk) 12:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete seems to fail both WP:GNG and WP:NBIO due to everything about him being only passing mentions. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:36, 25 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) 18:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of television series with Sikh characters[edit]

List of television series with Sikh characters (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 to be a rather arbitrary collection of television series that happen to feature Sikh characters. The topic doesn't appear to have been discussed as a group by reliable sources that I found, fails WP:LISTN Eddie891 Talk Work 17:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. postdlf (talk) 18:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sikh and you shall not find any such lists out there. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:51, 24 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 WP:SNOW delete. BD2412 T 02:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ciaren Jones[edit]

Ciaren Jones (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)

PROD contested by the article's creator. The subject fails WP:NFOOTBALL as they have not played in a competitive match between two clubs from fully professional leagues. WP:GNG is also failed as the subject has not received significant coverage. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. LTFC 95 (talk) 20:47, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment My original view was keep because he has played professionally for Norwich City, however if he has not played any professional games then I will change to delete. Devokewater (talk) 09:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • He has definitely not played professionally. He has only played for Norwich's under 23 team -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 09:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: An early closure by Materialscientist has been overturned at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 8, with consensus to reopen the discussion. Do not close before 24 July 2020.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to not playing professionally and therefore failing the notability guidelines for sports players and also because the COI editing to the article that included adding fake stats to it. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Snow delete. This article has absolutely no prospect whatsoever of surviving AfD, and it's inappropriate and cruel to its subject to draw the process out until 24 July.—S Marshall T/C 17:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 07:39, 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 Anime Limited. The history is preserved under the redirect for any editor who may want to perform a selective merger. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 04:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Partridge[edit]

Andrew Partridge (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 page does not adequately meet WP:N, since the sources used in the article are not primarily about the subject, but rather about Anime Limited, and thus, does not have significant coverage. Furthermore, this person might not be a public figure per WP:NPF, and most secondary sources are about Anime Limited, which is not relevant to the subject. Alex Tenshi (talk|contribs) 17:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:13, 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) 17:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antelope, Lassen County, California[edit]

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

This is yet another spot sourced only to Durham, and frankly I would mass-nominate the lot if it weren't for the certainty that someone would end up disputing at least one of them. Anyway, this might have had a post office, but really, wading through the sea of false hits because naming things "Antelope X" is nearly as popular as "Squaw X", on top of people talking about actual antelopes, I couldn't find anything except Fairchild's history of the county talking about no less than four different locations (a valley, a spring, a "grade", and a ranch), none of which I could identify as having anything to do with a spot on the railroad. So I ahve to say that I don't think this can be verified, and considering all the other issues with interpreting Durham, and the lack of a GNIS entry, I think this should be deleted. Mangoe (talk) 17:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Fails WP:V and WP:N that this is actually a notable community. Reywas92Talk 18:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Can't be verified. No credible source says it's a community and no credible source can even pinpoint it's location. Glendoremus (talk) 16:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator, cannot be verified. Nika2020 (talk) 00:33, 22 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 WP:SNOW delete. There is no reasonable possibility that this will not be deleted. BD2412 T 02:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Most-Liked Movie Trailers on YouTube[edit]

List of Most-Liked Movie Trailers on YouTube (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a list of movie trailers on YouTube with the most 'likes'; its lead asserts that the information about the number of likes has been taken from the videos themselves which, although they aren't cited, would be doing OR using primary sources. The ref list is entirely made up of links to Wikipedia articles about the movies in question, and I don't see any evidence that 'Movie trailers on YouTube that have been given lots of likes' is a notable topic in reliable, independent sources of the sort that would merit an NLIST pass. My apologies to the author, who has obviously put a lot of time and effort into this creation, but it's not suitable for a list on Wikipedia. GirthSummit (blether) 16:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 16:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as not a notable topic, nor a list with meaningful criteria, considering how "likes" and similar actions are easily manipulated online. Erik (talk | contrib) (ping me) 17:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Erik. I cannot find any reliable sources to support that "like"s for a trailer are meaningful, much less notable. Schazjmd (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as OR-fest which is surely inaccurate in many aspects, not to mention being something of a trivia point. I note in particularly all the "fastest to X million views" entries, all for one trailer for an Indian movie, which happened to be released recently. Surely views for the Avengers trailers rose faster, but nobody was keeping track back then, I would guess. Mangoe (talk) 17:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the above. Probably a re-creation too: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of most-viewed and most-liked YouTube trailers Lugnuts Fire Walk with Me 18:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Original Research based on data of dubious quality to begin with. XOR'easter (talk) 20:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The video hits probably do not need individual references, however the process of updating these totals is unwieldy - yet that is not a reason to delete. The list may fulfill WP:LISTN criteria. Unfortunately WP:INTERESTING is not a good reason to keep. I will think this one over for a bit. Lightburst (talk) 20:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with Eric, such lists tend to be rifle with manipulation. Garlicolive (talk) 16:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Obvious original research. Ajf773 (talk) 22:30, 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. Tone 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott Haggerty[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Scott Haggerty (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:NPOL. Article has been nominated and deleted twice. Jamez42 (talk) 16:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. County officials are not automatically notable per WP:NPOL. I'd like to hear from Wikipedians local to the Bay Area, especially Oakland, California. Bearian (talk) 02:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. County supervisor is not a role that confers an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL — it is a level of office where a person gets a Wikipedia article only if he can show a strong claim to being much more nationally significant than the norm for that level of office. But there's no indication of that here, and significant parts of this are written and formatted much more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article. We write about a politician's participation on boards and committees by contextualizing that work in prose, not by just listing the committees in bulletpoint format. Bearcat (talk) 14:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:11, 23 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 Max Planck Society#Open access publishing where the subject is mentioned. The history is preserved under the redirect for any editor who may want to perform a merger. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 16:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Max Planck Digital Library[edit]

Max Planck Digital Library (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)

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Max Planck Society. For some reason we have editors who undo redirects and then do nothing to improve the articles they leave behind. This was a redirect until a few days ago and that’s how it should stay unless someone is satisfied it’s independently notable and willing to do the work to bring the article up to standard. Mccapra (talk) 20:24, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect per the above. It's not likely to be independently wiki-notable apart from the Max Planck Society, but it is a thing that people might search for, due to agreements about paying publication fees and the like [18][19][20][21]. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as others have said. Not enough evidence it's notable for a standalone article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 22:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have updated the article with a few secondary sources. There are many more Secondary Sources. Please let me know if more are needed. -iosifpeterfi (talk) 16:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The sources currently in the article appear to be basically press releases from organizations affiliated with the MPDL, explaining how they have affiliated themselves with the MPDL. Those aren't secondary or independent coverage, really. XOR'easter (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge this three-paragraph stub to Max Planck Society. There's enough room there to add a few lines. At worst, Redirect but in any case, do not delete. Pichpich (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Max Planck Society. Nika2020 (talk) 00:32, 22 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. Fenix down (talk) 17:08, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zamalek SC Honours[edit]

Zamalek SC Honours (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)

Page not needed. Completely duplicates contents already found at Zamalek SC. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Nick Moyes (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom. Not a properly done spinout, and if a spinout were to be done, cut down the content in the original. Besides, why should a list of awards/honors need a separate page? it isn't that large. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:29, 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. Tone 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maltby, California[edit]

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

Another railroad facility incorrectly called a community by GNIS. Durham calls it a locality along the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad. It looks to be located in an industrial section of Martinez Ca. Maltby was a prominent citizen of Martinez and an early promoter of the Oakland, Antioch and Eastern Railroad, so it makes sense there would be a rail facility named after him [[22]]. There never was a community called Maltby. There are no hits when searching for anything indicating a former community. Aerial photos show a rail spur in an industrial area. Glendoremus (talk) 16:15, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Fails WP:V and WP:N that this is actually a notable community. Reywas92Talk 18:28, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete I found a 1950s topo which labels it "Maltby Siding", and that's exactly what all of them show: an isolated siding near a tank farm. Mangoe (talk) 04:48, 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. Tone 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Expleo[edit]

Expleo (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)

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. In the last AFD discussion, there was no consensus. Let's figure it out here. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:22, 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. Tone 17:16, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhattarai Helping Hand Pvt. Ltd[edit]

Bhattarai Helping Hand Pvt. Ltd (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 to be an unnotable organisation, a google search returns Wikipedia mirrors and that's about it. A G11 nomination was removed with no explanation by the page creator, who is likely a single purpose coi account. It's possible (though incredibly unlikely) that sourcing exists in Nepali, but this seems a clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete It doesn't exist anywhere in independent sources. A quick google search returns with LinkedIn, Facebook and other similar sites. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:MILL, WP:RS, and W:TNT. It appears to be a run of the mill fraternal/mutual assistance group. There are zero sources in the stub, and it's not worth our time fixing this page. Bearian (talk) 02:29, 23 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 17:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellex Medical Lasers[edit]

Ellex Medical Lasers (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 has been tagged for notability concerns since 2013. Most editing on the article has been performed by now-blocked paid editors - some undeclared, some obviously (by username) representing the company. There's been some recent editing by obviously connected contributors, and is supported only by a single rehashed press release, so I took a look to see whether I could tidy it up a bit, but from what I can find in its history it's never been supported by references that would rise to WP:CORPDEPTH standards, and I can't find anything online other than routine announcements, profiles and the like. From what I can make out, it fails WP:NCORP. GirthSummit (blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 15:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong delete Been meaning to do this myself so thanks for beating me to the punch. Almost every contributor (including the creator) seems to be a SPA who hasn't edited outside this article. The history clearly shows numerous attempts to edit the article by the company itself. I tried to tidy it up myself and searched for any reliable sources I could find but found nothing but recent PR pieces about the sale. I added a prod tag but it was removed by an IP which had only ever made that one single edit. I'm on mobile now so will come back to add more diffs but a quick google search on the most recent contributor Victor Previn shows a clear COI. Quite frankly unsure how it lasted this long. Definitely fails WP:ORG Glen 15:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Thanks for this Glen - reading back again through the page's history, I agree with your assessment - the only edits, aside from RCP reverts and standard gnome stuff, have come from throw-away SPAs. I'm convinced that all of the prose in this article has been written by undeclared paid editors in contravention of our terms of use. GirthSummit (blether) 15:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and salt with extreme prejudice, given the above comments. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to be notable. The only independant coverage of it seems to be regarding their share price, which isn't what I'd call significant coverage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per KJ Cheetham. Deus et lex (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above; also WP:NOTRESUME, WP:SPAM, WP:NCORP, and WP:TNT. It is written as a resume, not an article. The unusual history of SPA editing indicates it might be spam; I can't assume good faith when it's so in your face. Even if we were to overlook that, it just seems not to pass as a notable business. It would need a total laser-focused (pardon the pun) re-do in order to be an article. Bearian (talk) 02:34, 23 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 Dil Bechara (soundtrack). Anything sourced in the history can be merged Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taare Ginn[edit]

Taare Ginn (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, no significant coverage, probably redirect to Dil Bechara (soundtrack). SerChevalerie (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also fails WP:NSONG, almost all the coverage of the song is in context with the movie and the soundtrack. I'd suggest merging and redirecting. SerChevalerie (talk) 11:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. SerChevalerie (talk) 14:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge and Redirect to Dil Bechara (soundtrack). This article's statements on how the song was noticed for its lyrics and beauty etc. are actually verifiable in media sources, so the song really did get some notice of its own in India's music/movie media. However, those mentions are still relatively short and are usually tacked on to larger coverage of the film, so it is sufficient to mention the song's media notice in the article for its parent album. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:27, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 22:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ka-Ha-Si[edit]

Ka-Ha-Si (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 story is most likely taken from Terri Cohlene's children's book Ka-Ha-Si and the Loon, the story of which is unsourced, not found in any reputed collections of Inuit folklore and is probably a telling of the Tlingit-Haida stories of the character Blackskin, which Cohlene conflated with the Inuit. Corsican Warrah (talk to me) 14:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Side note: I did find an Inuit story about a blind boy whose sight is restored by a magical loon - in this version, the boy is blind from birth and in this version, the boy's mother cursed him to be blind. The story, however, is completely different and the boy is unnamed in both versions. --Corsican Warrah (talk to me) 16:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment found in another children's book Caswell, Helen Rayburn (1968). Shadows from the singing house; Eskimo folk tales., but here there is a bibliography, so may be able to find out more. fiveby(zero) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes Tsimshian/Tlingit/Haida Keithahn, Edward L. (1945). "The Story of Duk-Toothl or Ka-Ha-Si". Monuments in cedar. pp. 138–145. Caswell had the story from Keithahn and called it an "Eskimo" tale, Cohlene probably got it from Caswell. fiveby(zero) 22:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Changed article to reflect that this is not Inuit and added some references, but not sure a standalone article is best. There's some good content to be had, but it's going to required a knowledgeable editor to organize it. For instance, can find the story in Tsimshian sources but there the character is unnamed. Probably a redirect to something in Category:Tlingit? fiveby(zero) 14:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Fiveby: Yeah, most probably. Is "Ka-Ha-Si" the most common name for this character? "Blackskin" or the translation thereof is the more common name I've seen. The character isn't enormously significant in the mythos as far as I'm aware, so yeah, probably redirect or include it as a section in an article about Tsimshian/Tlingit mythology?
    Corsicanwarrah The content would probably be best in a section of another article, but i don't see a good merge target. Don't think it's unreasonable that someone would see the children's books and look for more information—and if WP lets them know it is Tlingit and not Inuit that is probably a good thing. Will try to find time to add more content and hopefully some other editors comment here with ideas. fiveby(zero) 13:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's rather confusing why Caswell called a Pacific Northwest story an "Eskimo" story, maybe he just thought "Alaska = cold = Arctic" just like kstrom suggested that Cohlene did? --19:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:44, 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. Its not entirely clear what we should do with this but there is a very weak consensus to delete. If anyone wants it in draft then let me know and I will move it there. The advice to build the articles in the order of network, lines and then stations makes sense. Spartaz Humbug! 22:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cilame railway station[edit]

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

A non-notable railway station, does not meet WP:GNG Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft This has only just been created I would of thought of sending this to draft first and ask the creator and give him/her a chance to expand the article. Govvy (talk) 13:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • comment The whole state of the Javanese railroad articles is pretty poor. One possibility with these station articles is to redirect to articles on lines, but the article on the state rail service is really sketchy and incomplete. Historically there has been wide variation in notability standards for standards by region. Mangoe (talk) 15:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Indonesian Wikipedia have its own standards for Indonesian railway station articles notability guides, dealing with small stations:
    • Must have at least one photograph of the railway station building from any views (remember: building, not its signages). If it is still standing, the image must be free and uploaded on Wikimedia Commons (not local except those made by M. Hanafi and Karyadi Baskoro).
    • Distance from a set point (e.g. km 25+000) and its class (large, medium, small station or halt), must be referenced. Read mop5.dephub.go.id and studiegroep-zwp.nl/halten for more information.
    • If the building is totally demolished with no photographs ever taken before, the article will be deleted. If it is partially demolished, the photograph should be provided, see this example.
    • As of 2017, new railway line-related article must be provided first before creating station-related articles. Alqhaderi Aliffianiko (talk) 02:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC) RaFaDa20631 (talk) 03:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Many issues here. The English-language guidelines on railway station notability doesn't set out any special standards of size or status or traffic levels. The result of an RFC was a long discussion ending with fundamental uncertainty about the definition of a train station to begin with. So that's little help. While acknowledging the work of @Alqhaderi Aliffianiko: and @Budi2darmawan: and others in building up content about the Indonesia rail system, have a look at the template {{Train Stations in Indonesia}} with its hundreds of redlinks. Redirecting this article to the rail line it serves is a logical idea, but that points to Cikampek–Padalarang, which doesn't exist yet. This particular station is three very modest one-story concrete-block buildings in a rural setting, adequately covered in the Indonesian-language version. Respect and encouragement to editors interested in developing Indonesian rail articles goes with a suggestion that posting solid articles on the entire rail system first, then the carriers, then the lines, then the stations, would tend to prevent wasted effort. That was @Mangoe:'s point too, I believe. --Lockley (talk) 20:54, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep. The standards set out by Alqhaderi Aliffianiko (talk · contribs) are pretty solid and we would do well to consider adopting them here (bad news for countries that lack freedom of panorama). The article is a stub, yes, but there's room for expansion. The topic has received some coverage in reliable sources and we generally assume with railway stations that there's more out there. I do have some concerns about systemic bias; we have plenty of similar stubs about stations in Europe and India without about the same level of sourcing. The absence of an article about the line is a real problem. I'd be fine with drafting this until an article about the line had been created or translated. Without the line there's a real lack of context. Mackensen (talk) 11:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. We have always kept articles on all railway stations. Longstanding consensus. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is not true. American stations are almost never kept unless the building itself is notable, except in the case of subway stops. Mangoe (talk) 12:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Almost never kept? That doesn't accord with my experience at all; I'm having trouble remembering a heavy rail station that got deleted at AfD. Do you have links to those discussions handy? Mackensen (talk) 13:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That exact question was an unresolved controversy as of August 2019 with a long discussion and strong opinions on both sides. --Lockley (talk) 17:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the US the issue has tended to revolve around geography stubs which turned out to be isolated stations without associated towns. Even when there was a town around them, the station itself is unlikely to have an article unless it is NHRP-listed or was ever an Amtrak station, but stubs on town-less isolated stations have routinely been deleted as lacking notability; and if there is a town, it'll just say "was served by XX Railroad." Mangoe (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, sure, but those stations are inactive and (usually) demolished. This is neither. Mackensen (talk) 23:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The AfDs referred to by Mangoe are relating to the alleged surrounding settlements (which are often claimed not to exist), not to the stations themselves, so are irrelevant to this discussion. If an article was created on the station itself then that would almost certainly be kept. The fact it no longer exists is utterly irrelevant to its notability. The fact that an article has not been created yet does not mean that the station is not notable. Wikipedia is a work in progress. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete or Draft with covet of needing a review before being recreated. Because it seems like the sourcing for it to be notable is currently lacking and there isn't even an article about the railway line it's attached to. Plus it sounds like it's covered fine in the Indonesian-language version anyway and I think scope applies here. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Completely irrelevant. Each Wikipedia is independent of the others. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I mean it was relevant to how I voted. That aside, depending on the subject and how "minor" it, is I feel slightly better voting deleting if the topic isn't being completely wiped off the face of Wikipedia. It's totally a personal preference, but last time I checked we can have those. Also, it wasn't the main reason I voted deleted anyway. So, by bringing it up your really needlessly nitpicking. Stick to what matters, the lack of notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:40, 22 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. Seems no real argument this passes NFILMS and that is the standard we apply. if you think my reading of this in the discussion raise a thread on my talkpage. Spartaz Humbug! 22:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girl2K[edit]

Girl2K (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)

too soon, short article and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 21:46, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 05:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: It was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area that nobody actually knows the premiere date for this show, or the others nominated with the same rationale. The only real rationale given is TOOSOON, but the nominator doesn't know how soon it will actually be. "Short article" and "Not notability" are not acceptable rationales. Keep on all of these thoughtless nominations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Toughpigs (talk • contribs) 14:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per the lack of sourcing. Which I think is 100% valid because the notability guidelines for films requires in-depth reviews. Which this doesn't have and there's no telling that it will. My is it won't because it like a run of the mill film.It's not like the article can't be recreated later when or if it has them though. I don't think "other AfDs exist" by the keep voter is valid either. Especially when that AfD isn't done yet. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as what I already mentioned in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area previously. — Emperork (talk) 19:32, 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. Tone 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Addington, California[edit]

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

Yet another post office-not-a-town entry scraped from Durham's book of California place names. I verified that it was a post office, and that's as much as I could find; I have to guess that the local farmers after who it was named owned the house that people came to when picking up their mail, but whether it was actually at the coordinates given (unsourced) is anyone's guess. Mangoe (talk) 12:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Fails WP:V and WP:N that this is actually a notable community. Fourth-class post offices were just mail delivery points in a home or business, often named after the owner, not an indicator that this was the name of a cohesive settlement. Reywas92Talk 18:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete The article establishes no notability whatsoever for this former rural post office location.TH1980 (talk) 23:11, 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 delete. Tone 17:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hopeton Eric Brown[edit]

Hopeton Eric Brown (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)

Un-sourced, non notable fugitive, poorly worded, only one page links here. Inexpiable (talk) 12:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 12:33, 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. Tone 17:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derrick Wayne Frazier[edit]

Derrick Wayne Frazier (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 murderer, poorly worded article, little information provided, no sources or references and very few pages linking here. Inexpiable (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Inexpiable (talk) 12:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This article is a relic of our unregulated article creation process in the 2000s when we lacked any control or oversight and let people abuse Wikipedia to turn it into a directory to highlight some particular issues they wanted to create activism on but creating huge conclomerations of directory level articles covering hundreds of non-notable people.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:32, 22 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) YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 20:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Special purpose UK railway stations[edit]

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

Previously WP:PRODded. As the article states: "This is a list of UK railway stations that have been constructed or used for a special, notable or unusual purpose." But this is very much subjectively defined, and so inherently fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Examples of special purposes include:

You may ask: why don't I just add the things I said were missing? Precisely because it's not clear whether they count as "Special purpose". Does the fact that Wembley Stadium station have non-matchday service exclude it, for instance? Since that seems subjective, the article can't help but reflect a particular editor's WP:POV.

I don't see that this can be fixed without splitting the list into more-specific categories (e.g. "UK railway stations built to serve a workplace" or "UK railway stations with limited service"), but it seems that's better-served by categories rather than lists. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC) Withdrawn by nominator; a definition of what this list is meant to contain seems to exist. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 20:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Categories are inferior to lists as, for one thing, they don't provide for citation and verification. In any case, we don't delete one for the sake of the other – see WP:CLN. Special purpose stations are discussed by this title in works such as Railway Stations: Planning, Design and Management and so the topic passes WP:LISTN. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, Could you provide the text of how it defines them? If there's a clear definition (that therefore allows other people to add or remove stations from the list based on something other than their POV) I'll happily withdraw my nomination. (As it happens, in its current form this list is poorly cited, though I agree that's not a reason for deletion.)
    I should say I'm not suggesting that we should delete this article because I think we should create categories instead: my argument is a stand-alone one that the list shouldn't exist, but that creating categories might be possible if one wanted to retain the information somehow. So I don't think the guideline in WP:NOTDUP applies to the case I'm trying to make. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 11:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Per WP:BEFORE, researching the topic is the nominator's job. I have notified another editor who is more familiar with such topics and I trust he will have more to say. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Andrew Davidson, a WP:BEFORE search with things I have access to (I don't own that book) reveals nothing but this article and mirrors (and unrelated topics, like special-purpose radio stations). I really did try to search for it; I just thought you might be able to help where I'd failed, though of course you are free to decline. I'll await the other Wikipedian's comments. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep That an article is incomplete is a reason to improve it, not to destroy it. Many articles start out subjective, but the community usually solved that issue in good enough time. Fiddle Faddle 12:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, My contention was that it was inherently subjective, not just that it was subjective. Seems I may have been wrong on that, based on a source I had no access to, and I'll happily withdraw if so. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 12:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    YorkshireLad, Your free choice to withdraw or persevere. Withdrawal does not prevent a future nomination by you or others. Fiddle Faddle 12:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Timtrent, I'm just waiting for Redrose64, who I believe is the editor Andrew tagged above, and who apparently may have a useful contribution. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 13:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep We can have an article and a category with the same topic, but I would suggest adding more detailed criteria for inclusion in the first paragraph. BlacknoseDace (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; I intend to address some of the points raised above over the course of several edits, beginning with the nomination itself.
    Manchester United Football Ground serves only the football ground, and is only open when there are matches being played there, and the trains run a shuttle between there and Oxford Road, serving only Deansgate in between; they run at times that suit the start and end of matches. In contrast, Wembley Stadium serves a number of facilities in the area (including Wembley Arena) as well as the Wembley Park area in general, and has a frequent service (at least 1 per hour) from several stations, some as far away as Aylesbury.
    IBM served only the factory, but Morris Cowley served the general area.
    Newhaven Marine served only the port, but Teesside Airport serves the general area (although there isn't much there that isn't within walking distance of Dinsdale). Also, the trains at Newhaven Marine were timed to meet the boats; Teesside Airport has the same times week on week.
    Smallbrook Junction exists to provide interchange between two separate railways a few yards apart. It has no pedestrian access.
    It can be said that a station is special purpose if either (i) the trains do not appear in the public timetable, stopping only when additional arrangements are made; or (ii) it has no access to the general public (such as having the only access to its entrance being across private land). --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 20:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Sounds like a potential useful thing to have, as long as the type of stations that are meant to be listed on it are clearly defined. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Apologies for wasting anyone's time; it really did seem to me, based on all the information I had available (and since no definition was given in the article) that this was just a subjective list of weird stations. Withdrawn; I will speedy keep close in my next edit. YorkshireLad  ✿  (talk) 20:47, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:12, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amma Gyampo[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO. Some minor coverage including forbes by coi editor. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 15:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 15:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - coverage in BBC, Forbes, Entrepreneur suggests notability to me. Balle010 (talk) 16:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  *Comment - Entrepreneur article is a Q&A article (despite being attributed to their Staff Writer), Forbes article is written by a Contributor, so that leaves the BBC article to help perhaps help establish the subject's significance. — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

  • Delete There's no acceptable sourcing to establish notability. There would be with the BBC "article." Except it is a 3 minute long audio piece called "Ghanaian businesswoman Amma Gyampo offers advice on setting up business in Africa." Unfortunately whatever source it might be from, a persons advice on setting up a business doesn't really work toward their notability. So, from what I'm seeing there's nothing out there to establish hers. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Now that you've pointed that out (tbh, I haven't watched the video), I'm certainly voting Delete as a self-initiated interview about a topic that's pretty standard and nothing outstanding that would warrant notability. For the two other publications, those don't count as reliable sources either as those are done by a contributor and the one by their staff writer is a self-initiated Q&A. The subject's career does not indicate in any way any outstanding award or recognition, but that of someone an overview of someone simply doing her job. — Infogapp1 (talk) 23:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:22, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note - She has in-depth coverage here[23] in Ayiba Magazine. I also added 2 more sources[24], [25]. People like her has been covered in many national conferences in Ghana[26]. She might not be notable in the USA but she is notable in Ghana. Kaihsnual (talk) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
These are not in-depth. The first ref is a q&a and looks like PR, the second is her blog, the third is a profile of a conference, the fourth is a YouTube video with 249 views. She is entirely non-notable. scope_creepTalk 21:51, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please see this[27] which was published on Entrepreneur (magazine) by the Editor-in-Chief of South Africa edition. This is another significant coverage in independent reliable media. The youtube link I posted just to show her presence in national level conferences not any business conference and she is not a youtube personality that you will expect huge views for it. Kaihsnual (talk) 06:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The YouTube video is not notable. The entrepreneur reference is another q&a interview as a PR exercise for her company. It pretty standard stuff that you see with all entrepreneurs but that doesn't make her notable. So far I've not see any independent, in-depth coverage. scope_creepTalk 07:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please check this[28] which is another independent coverage about her. Kaihsnual (talk) 08:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 02:23, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 11:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Ref 6 is 4 lines comment by her, in an investment report and the comment is specific to her company position, that support another point. Hardly in-depth coverage, that is independent and reliable coverage.scope_creepTalk 22:50, 20 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 17:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blair Jacobs[edit]

Blair Jacobs (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)

Moderately successful local radio presenter, with some local coverage. I don't think it is enough to push it over WP:GNG and definitely not WP:BIO.

No suitable WP:ATDs I could find. This has been waiting in CAT:NN for over 11 years, so hopefully we can now get it resolved one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:51, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:14, 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. Tone 17:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aapne Toh Chhie Bindaas[edit]

Aapne Toh Chhie Bindaas (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 evidence of any notability. The briefest of mentions by Times of India plus many social media and promotional links (Apple music, Google etc.) but no evidence that this has ever been discussed in reliable independent sources. Searches reveal just more of the same. Appears to be just another "B" movie. Fails WP:GNG  Velella  Velella Talk   13:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions.  Velella  Velella Talk   13:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Article was created by a newbie so he probably wasn't aware of WP:RS. Is it possible if we can notify a person who is familiar with Gujarati language so he can check for the sources? There is a strong possibility that the movie is notable but sources exist in a different language. Harmanprtjhj (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete A simple google search does not give any reliable sources as per WP:ICTFSOURCES; May have reliable non-English sources as said above but given that nearly all cast and crew are non-notable, I doubt if that's the case -- Ab207 (talk) 18:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • information Note: This is a second nomination; see Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aapne toh chhie Bindaas, a speedy keep for reasons not immediately apparent to me. Miniapolis 23:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 11:04, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leregogy[edit]

Leregogy (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 term appears to be a neologism coined by D. Rehorick, whose publications make up 90% of all that can be found about it. Although that was 25 years ago, there seems to have been minimal uptake outside the originators and their immediate workgroup members. I don't believe there's sufficient notability here for an article. Suggestions for redirect targets welcome - it's not really my subject area. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC) Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP: The article has been significantly updated for notability with support through broader references
POLICY: The article is still being developed and should not be deleted.
The presence of “leregogy” in Wikipedia makes this new conception visible to readers who access “andragogy” and “Malcolm Knowles” as central to the rise of adult learning theory. The initial entry is an abbreviated statement, and as a work in progress we will encourage other researchers to expand the posting. The link to “pedagogy” provides another connection to the broader notion of learning methods and learning theory.
  • While the neologism was coined some time ago at a Canadian university, interest and application has accelerated over the past eight to ten years at an American institution, The Fielding Graduate University. Usage is increasingly visible in doctoral dissertation research, and subsequent publications. The article has been updated to describe this usage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Salish Seas (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC) Salish Seas (talk) 02:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Subject meets the sourcing requirements for notability of Wikipedia. REF: Category:Neologisms articles with topics of unclear notability "Please improve an article by adding references to reliable sources that verify content within the article, and add extra referenced content if appropriate. Once the article has references to at least two reliable sources that have significant coverage about the subject the Notability tag can be removed." The article was improved to present 18 principal and secondary references supporting notability.Salish Seas (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Article meets wiki notability critieria see REF Category:Neologisms articles with topics of unclear notability .."improve an article by adding references to reliable sources that verify content within the article, and add extra referenced content if appropriate. Once the article has references to at least two reliable sources that have significant coverage about the subject the Notability tag can be removed" Article references have been expanded to include > 15 principal and secodary references - peer reviewed and books ... refer to the article.Salish Seas (talk) 00:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leregogy: this is not original research; this is not an academic argument; neologism has broader reference in literature. Article has been updated to reflect broader use through extended references.Salish Seas (talk) 04:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Subject would require a lot better sourcing for a neologism than what one can see here. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 10:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • COMMENT: The Wikipedia entry on “neologism” accurately captures the intent of generating new words from previous ideas. When the limits of one area of inquiry are reached, knowledge development calls for a new orientation, one that encourages a fresh and new approach. In this regard, “leregogy” can be considered a “coined term” or “neologism”. It advances thinking beyond traditional limits of andragogy. This is how concepts evolve.

The Wikipedia entry reads: “Neologisms may take decades to become “old”, however. Opinions differ on exactly how old a word must be to lose its status as a neologism”. The concept of leregogy has been referenced increasingly over the past eight years. Having it stand as a Wikipedia entry will serve to draw more attention to the idea, especially from readers interested in andragogy, adult learning theory, and Malcolm Knowles, and pedagogy.

Editors have noted the need for “at least two reliable sources”. Are the references in the article “not reliable”? Human Studies: A Journal for Philosophy and the Social Sciences is a referred journal which has been in existence for 43 years. Publishing houses such as Routledge, and Lexington Books (a division of Rowman & Littlefield publishers) are well-known and reliable sources of knowledge and information. The Fielding University Press, more recently established, is anchored in a university with 45 years of history.Salish Seas (talk) 14:52, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of what else happens with this article, it will require a thorough cleanup after the hectic name-dropping campaign waged by the author. Half of it currently consists of an extended plea of "look, our term totally is being used by people!", couched in plenty of sociological waffle. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 15:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT: Unfortunately the moderator's feedback" "Hectic name dropping", "plea", "sociological waffle" is not neutral and is not constructive. Wikki permits the development of articles while being considered for deletion ... if the term is being used by people then it is in use.

  • Delete. With good faith towards the author, from its very first sentence this reads as an attempt to promote the use of the neologism "leregogy", not document its use. It's not a term in wide use. Every Ghit seems to lead back to Rehorick in Vancouver, as do the cited sources here. A search in newspapers.com comes up with absolutely nothing. The page Andragogy has a more useful explanation of why new words might be helpful in describing peer-to-peer relationships in adult education. --Lockley (talk) 18:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

COMMENT Wikki guidelines for neologisms cautions that usage does not necessarily have to have global use, but use within a community is acceptable. Academic terms might not appear in newspapers. Leregogy is a not andragogy or pedagogy as indicated in the article, thus its significance. In contrast to the feedback, the use of the term is identified through multiple references in the "Development and Application Section" of the article.Salish Seas (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC) Delete Looking it over this seems a lot like WP:OR and WP:TOOSOON. Especially the "Development and applications section." Which discusses original research done by teachers who use the term themselves. Which isn't peer reviewed secondary coverage of research on the concept. I don't feel that merging or redirecting would be appropriate though because the possible targets are different concepts. So, deleting it until a time when there is in secondary coverage to warrant the article seems like the best route to go with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:11, 25 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) 11:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SmilingStart[edit]

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

Largely unsourced article with no credible evidence of notability. The references in the article are about surveys unrelated to the venture. The article is not written in an encyclopedic tone and seems to have been created by the organization's founder. M4DU7 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Looks like a promotional article. Indeed it was created by the founder, there are no IRS with significant coverage. Moreover the webpage looks half-done, half-abandoned. Less Unless (talk) 18:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 09:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about the social venture. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 20 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 The Great Annihilator. Tone 17:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Celebrity Lifestyle[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Celebrity Lifestyle (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)

What makes this song pass WP:Notability (songs)? Few mentions but generally in passing in sources discussing the album it appeared it. I don't see why this shouldn't be redirected to the album, but maybe some music expert can save this? Note: Previous AfD ended with verdict redirect but this was recreated, so if we redirect it again maybe salt/protect the redirect? Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:20, 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 merge to IEEE Computer Society. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Committee on Visualization and Graphics[edit]

Technical Committee on Visualization and Graphics (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)

What makes this committee pass WP:NORG? Ping Fayenatic london who PRODDED it (only for the prod to be removed with no rationale by another editor). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:48, 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 merge to IEEE Computer Society. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Technical Committee on VLSI[edit]

Technical Committee on VLSI (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)

What makes this committee pass WP:NORG? Ping Fayenatic london who PRODDED it (only for the prod to be removed with no rationale by another editor). Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 10:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Andrew🐉(talk) 12:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge There needs to be more independant reliable sources to show coverage of this to warrant a standalone article. Most of the sources don't seem to be independant. -Kj cheetham (talk) 21:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. For a discussion following the PROD in April, see User_talk:Fayenatic_london/Archive23#ieee_societies_proposed_for_deletion. In April 2020‎ I improved the page somewhat but tagged it for notability, as the article fails to assert compliance with WP:ORG. In May, Quick2011wiki (talk · contribs) removed the tag, stating "This wikipage page presents information of a sub-unit of IEEE Computer Society that sponsors 10 IEEE-CS conferences. This is one stop information page for VLSI/hardware researchers." That does not address WP:ORG; what he wrote is true, but that's the function of TC VLSI's own website, not a general purpose encyclopaedia. – Fayenatic London 09:27, 22 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) 11:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satish Ganjoo[edit]

Satish Ganjoo (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 academic. WP:BEFORE shows that primary sources exist but no reviews or independent analysis found. Google Scholar shows that papers have been cited very few times. Single-purpose account made large number of edits with possibility of WP:COI Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 09:50, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:Speedy keep#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akron Ice House[edit]

Akron Ice House (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)

While this building or company (hard to make the topic out, the name suggests a building, the first paragraph describe a company, the name of the article is not repeated anywhere in it outside the title) may be notable (but even that is not clear), this article is a de-facto unreferenced mess with major style issues and possible copyvio issues that should get WP:TNT treatment, with no prejudices if anyone wants to recreate this in a proper form. PS. Ping User:The Fuzz Bucket who proposed the deletion and whose PROD was removed with no rationale. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 09:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:TNT is neither policy nor guideline. The actual policies and guidelines applicable include WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST and WP:PRESERVE. The main topic here is the Klages Coal and Ice Company which was established in Akron in 1879 and operated a variety of related businesses including the Iceland skating rink, the Royal Crown Bottling plant, and their main ice-making plant. These are covered in detail in books such as Lost Akron and Fifty Years and Over of Akron and Summit County and in journals such as Cold Storage and Ice Trade Journal and Industrial Refrigeration. The topic is therefore notable per the WP:GNG. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There's a possible copyvio issue with maybe 75% of this material and this source from 2012. All but the top paragraph actually. I haven't further marked the article or removed the material yet. We might resolve both AfD and Copyvio: is this a candidate for speedy deletion under G12, "where there is no non-infringing content on the page worth saving." --Lockley (talk) 11:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Lockley: CSD makes sense, with no prejudice if someone wants to write about this topic from scratch. As I said, the topic may be notable but the execution is a disaster. But once an article is at AfD I don't know if CSD is allowed? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 11:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Hello @Piotrus:. I hate to leave a copyvio in place even temporarily. It feels like walking away from a fire in a trashcan. I'm going to remove the material although it leaves very little to discuss here. --Lockley (talk) 15:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Did Dr. Armin Sicherman commenting on this ice house get wide spread media coverage and did any politicians pass laws based on what he said? Dream Focus 14:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If he did, there's no evidence of any such campaign on newspapers.com, not in the Akron paper or elsewhere. His obit in 1927 is fairly extensive and doesn't mention it. Dr. Sicherman appears to have been on the local board of health so that might have been the context. --Lockley (talk) 15:52, 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 delete. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clone Systems, Inc.[edit]

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

Article about a seemingly none notable security firm. The only sources in the article are primary or dead links. I can't find anything about them that would pass WP:NCORP in a search either. Adamant1 (talk) 07:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 09:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: An article on an IT security provider / consultancy company, consisting largely of a list of their CloneGuard's features. The article does have an independent review of that tool, albeit archived, which arguably might help underpin an article on that tool. However my searches are not finding the level of coverage needed to demonstrate that this is more than a company going about its business; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 11:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 07:42, 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 redirect to Adventist Health. Merge can take place from history if needed. TonyBallioni (talk) 20:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adventist Health White Memorial[edit]

Adventist Health White Memorial (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 is only one primary source in the article and the only thing that I was able to find with a search was brief mentions in run of the mill Covid-19 related articles. Which probably most hospitals have at this point. Also, the article is seriously written like an advert. Nothing about the topic seems to pass WP:NORG. Adamant1 (talk) 06:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 07:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Against merging would water down the article Adventist Health. To look for information you have to look up the former name and the current name.Catfurball (talk) 19:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect would be the best thing to do for this hospital, it could become notable in the future being over 300 plus beds. Catfurball (talk) 23:14, 23 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 Thunderbolts (comics). Tone 17:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redeemers (comics)[edit]

Redeemers (comics) (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 coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PROD was removed with no rationale despite my request to provide one. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:22, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Thunderbolts (comics), where the team is covered in some detail. Argento Surfer (talk) 12:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - As I mentioned in the AFD for one of the individual members, this team is not particularly notable - they only appeared in one storyline in another teams book. The other team mentioned in the article is completely unrelated to the main topic, aside from sharing a name, and are similarly unnotable. The article uses no reliable sources, and searching for additional searches does not turn up much. In fact, most results when trying to find information on a Marvel group named the "Redeemers" turns up more information on the Darkhold Redeemers, another completely unrelated, and largely non-notable group. While Redirecting to Thunderbolts (comics) as suggested by Argento Surfer would not be terrible, I think the fact that they have such a large, detailed section in that article is rather undue weight, considering that they were ultimately a fairly minor element of the Thunderbolts' overall mythos. Even the Marvel Encylopedia doesn't appear to give either versions of the group their own entry, only very briefly mentioning them in a couple other of its entries. Rorshacma (talk) 14:58, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Thunderbolts (comics). BOZ (talk) 15:02, 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 speedy keep. Per WP:SK#1, the nominator has withdrawn their nomination and there are no other arguments for deletion. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:02, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tietgenbyen[edit]

Tietgenbyen (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)

What makes this area/company/project notable? My BEFORE did not find anything but few mentions in passing, although maybe there is something in Danish? If you think there are good sources, please add them to the article or list on talk. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 07:03, 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) 07:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All call[edit]

All call (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:NEO, as well as the GNG; the only reference is from a particular school, and none others are in evidence, never mind any significant coverage of the term. (I make no doubt that the term is in use at that high school.) Notability tagged for over a decade, orphaned nearly as long. Ravenswing 07:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. I know from personal experience that the term is used in a similar context by emergency service dispatchers, and I'd imagine it's quite a common telecommunications term in other situations. However, none of this is likely to be verifiable, and in any case, it would belong at Wiktionary per WP:DICDEF. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - or selective merge with Notification system - this is essentially just a word that -some- use for a phone notification system. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia talk 12:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the reasoning of Dom Kaos. If this phrase deserves any coverage, it would be as a dict def. --Lockley (talk) 19:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: And, obviously, anyone who wants to transwiki the term's free to do so! Ravenswing 01:05, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 07:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How to Buy, Sell, and Profit on eBay[edit]

AfDs for this article:
How to Buy, Sell, and Profit on eBay (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 reviews DGG ( talk ) 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as meets WP:BOOKCRIT #1: "The book has been the subject[1] of two or more non-trivial[2] published works appearing in sources that are independent of the book itself.[3] This can include published works in all forms, such as newspaper articles, other books, television documentaries, bestseller lists,[4] and reviews." The reviews in The Boston Globe and Booklist, the book reviewing arm of the American Library Association, could hardly be called trivial. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 13:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete - I agree that the reviews aren't trivial--or, at least, they're from RS. A how to guide on eBay from 2005 that is most likely very outdated? This may be most notable as a relic from the mainstreaming of eBay in the early and mid- 2000s. Caro7200 (talk) 20:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Caro7200: Can you align your weak delete vote with anything in a notability policy? A book being niche and outdated is not grounds for deletion. Thanks, DiamondRemley39 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sure, to the "Coverage notes" aspect: this book most closely resembles an instruction manual. It's not strictly a memoir. It's not a business history of eBay. It's closer to For Dummies, The Idiot's Guide to, or guides about old versions of Windows, etc. Caro7200 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just as when DGG nominated it last time, I find this to be a weak keep. The Boston Globe and Booklist reviews (which I accessed through ebsco) feel substantial enough to meet NBOOK. However, if this book were deleted it would not trouble me in the least - it lacks the sort of WP:SUSTAINED coverage notable topics should have and is a pretty clear "no" for me when answering the question posed by the 10 year test. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Reviews in multiple reliable sources are sufficient to satisfy WP:BOOKCRIT. Caro7200's argument that that guideline doesn't apply (I think that's what's being argued) is confusing – if WP:BOOKCRIT didn't apply, WP:GNG would, and this meets that too. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 17:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added a link to the Miami Herald review. I think the three reviews are enough to satisfy WP:BOOKCRIT. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:51, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Regis School[edit]

The Regis School (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 contains no indication of notability and the subject fails WP:GNG. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 12:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Normal rule is that schools are merged with their location per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES so merge with Bognor Regis? Crouch, Swale (talk) 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I can't recall a British state secondary school ever being deleted at AfD. No reason to make an exception for this one. There's always plenty of coverage for such schools. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: If, indeed, there is "plenty of coverage," the onus is on any keep advocate to produce it. The GNG is explicitly clear that schools are not exempted from its requirements. Ravenswing 07:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Some coverage (for construction of new school): [29][30] also [31] mentioning Bognor Regis Comprehensive School which it replaced (probably the same as "Bognor Regis School"). From https://www.old-maps.co.uk/ it looks like Bognor Regis School took over the buildings of Bognor Regis Grammar School and William Fletcher County Secondary School (and possibly also Bognor Regis Technical Institute); there would be coverage of this in newspapers and there could also be mentions in books. Peter James (talk) 14:42, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Doesn't meet the criteria for G11 but certainly needs to be improved. Deb (talk) 12:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This school doesn't seem notable enough to pass either WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Sources by local outlets on trivial topics like school reunions as provided above don't really cut it for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:19, 25 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! 22:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Banaszak[edit]

Stephen Banaszak (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 sourcing on this article is way below the very minimum level to meet the general notability guidelines John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This is an interesting case. He clearly meets WP:NMMA with 5 top tier fights with Bellator when it was a top tier MMA organization. On the other hand, my search didn't find what I believe to be the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:GNG. I found lots of what I'd call routine sports reporting and listings in databases, but that doesn't prove notability. WP:NSPORT says meeting an SNG carries the "presumption" of notability, but it's not a guarantee. That's a factor in this case since we're not talking about someone whose notability claims are from decades before the internet, but rather someone who met the SNG in 2015. Perhaps others can show significant coverage. Papaursa (talk) 03:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to lacking the in-depth reliable sources that are needed for notability. Which is odd considering his career and it being fairly recent, but whatever. There's no point in having a badly referenced article. Especially since it can be recreated when or if the sources are good enough for it to be. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:17, 25 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. GNG appears to be met, and doesn't state that local coverage is automatically insignificant; that would present huge issues with the definition of the word "local", apart from anything else. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:20, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alan Gooch[edit]

Alan Gooch (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)

Gooch served as a long-time assistant coach at the University of Central Florida, but only served as head coach for two games in an interim capacity, replacing the dismissal of the prior head coach at the end of the season.

Since leaving his coaching position, he has served as ED of a non-notable Florida sports organization.

The only citation on the page (added by me today) is the reference to the organization's leadership page confirming him as their ED. I have been able to find any significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 18:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lack of sourcing and only playing two games as a head coach due to a staffing issue doesn't really make him notable enough for an article IMO. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Devokewater (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete He was never the regular head coach, interim appointments are not the same as permanent ones.John Pack Lambert (talk) 01:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. There is some coverage, see here, here, here, here, and here. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment All of these are from Orlando or Tampa Bay papers, which amounts to local coverage, not significant coverage. WikiDan61ChatMe!ReadMe!! 11:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. WIKI would not want to exclude coverage from a regional source, it's important to the narrative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Poshable (talk • contribs) 16:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly notable subject. Passes GNG per Ejgreen77's sources among others. Jweiss11 (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep aside from the coverage that passes WP:GNG, we typically keep articles about Division I head football coaches regardless of their term. Even an interim coach normally generates enough press to surpass the general notability guideline and I see no reason to make an exception here.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, Gooch won a major national award as an assistant at the I-A/FBS level. I believe the argument has been made that winning such an award should confer notability in the the case that the recipient was never a head coach, interim or permanent. Jweiss11 (talk) 16:50, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Meets WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. There is no prohibition on the use of local coverage to establish notability for biography articles under GNG, despite the best efforts of deletionists to gaslight us all into believing otherwise. All that is required is that the coverage be significant (not passing mentions or namedrops), the sources be reliable and independent of the subject, and that there be multiple examples of such coverage (i.e., more than one). Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, per WP:GNG, and Ejgreen77.-UCO2009bluejay (talk) 16:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:06, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 07:41, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karin Lee[edit]

Karin Lee (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 does not appear to meet WP:GNG. The article has many references but they boil down to her university's website, her personal website, a blog post, websites for various local awards she has won, and a distribution website for her films, which in sum do not establish notability. Iafisher (talk) 18:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Devokewater (talk) 21:04, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Keep The Gemini award for Made in China appears to be the Canadian equivalent of a BAFTA at the time. It is possible the award may be enough. It did validate at their website. PainProf (talk) 00:56, 10 July 2020 (UTC) Amend comment to Keep, the substantial improvements to the article and the apparent consensus that a Gemini is a notable award mean this artist passes WP:GNG. PainProf (talk) 23:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not notable as a filmmaker or an academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Gemini is a notable Canadian award, but she hasn't really done much else, it would be better to create an article on the film that won the award and mention her there. Oaktree b (talk) 02:58, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I've attempted a major overhaul of the article, with reliable sources. - MapleSoy (talk) 06:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. With the additional details and sources, the article now meets basic notability.--Ipigott (talk) 09:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. WP:ARTIST 4c reads :"The person's work ... has ... won significant critical attention". The Gemini award seems to me to have the qualities of significant critical attention. I would expect to be able to read about Bafta winners in an encyclopedia. I think Canadians (and indeed the curious rest of us) would expect to be able to read about Gemini Awards winners in an encyclopedia. It's a pity that, having honed an articulation of notability requirements over the years, we find AfDs where the thrust of the exercise appears to be finding reasons why we are not willing to adhere to those articulated requirements. --Tagishsimon (talk) 12:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. If I understand WP:WDAFD correctly I can't withdraw the nomination as there have been several Delete votes. However I'm convinced by the argument that winning a 2001 Gemini Award is sufficient to meet WP:GNG. --Iafisher (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: This discussion page has been semi-protected for two weeks. ~ ToBeFree (talk) 14:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Gemini Award alone is enough. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep based on the Gemini Award. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1. I echo the comments of Tagishsimon regarding AfD discussions. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 11:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I'm not sure why this was relisted; the nominator agreed that the nomination was incorrect, and the Delete votes have no real content (per nom, non notable). — Toughpigs (talk) 16:52, 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 redirect to Rugrats#Revival. Tone 17:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rugrats (2021 TV series)[edit]

Rugrats (2021 TV series) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NTV, the only two sources used are entirely WP:NOTRS. The series has only been announced so far, and saying that the series was delayed to 2021 due to COVID-19 is entirely speculation (Some other speculation such as the movie being scrapped). Article should be moved to draftspace until further information is released. Magitroopa (talk) 19:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but it's draftified in case consensus to delete. Buiiytd (talk) 08:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rugrats#Revival. Right now everything is still up in the air, so it seems like it's somewhat uncertain if the show will progress as stated or if it will be pushed further back. At this point in time the main Rugrats article has a fairly good overview of the revival history and can serve as a good landing space. This could be draftified as well, but until something more concrete is known or more substantial work is done on the series this can be adequately covered in the main article. ReaderofthePack(formerly Tokyogirl79) (｡◕‿◕｡) 12:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Rugrats#Revival - When the most you can say about a series aside from its announcement is "not much else information is known about the reboot at this moment", its probably WP:TOOSOON for an independent article. Once more information is published in reliable sources, it can be spun back out. Rorshacma (talk) 15:03, 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. Tone 17:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Belarussian Relief Organization[edit]

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

NN organization, fails the GNG going away and WP:ORG. Unsourced for over a decade, and reliable sources don't seem to exist at all. Ravenswing 20:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Good catch, I don't see significant coverage. Geschichte (talk) 21:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Heh, I can't take too much credit here. Boleyn dropped an alert on a couple of the WP:N talk pages about the ghastly backlog at CAT:NN, which holds the backlog of notability tagged articles. It's nearly sixty-five thousand, and a few thousand have been tagged for over a decade. I just lent my paltry efforts in pitching in, but the more the merrier. Ravenswing 21:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:05, 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 Redirect to Goede tijden, slechte tijden. Consensus that this fictional character is not notable, redirecting per ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Sanders[edit]

Nina Sanders (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)

Poor refs -- no reliable or independent sources. All sources are fancruft. Fails WP:GNG. Article contains only fancruft. This character also does not deserve an article because of the TV show that it is apart of it is not large enough (see WP:BKD). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:43, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:03, 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. Tone 14:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unknown Component[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Unknown Component (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
NN "music project" that seems to just be the efforts of a NN musician. No reliable sources discussing either one in the "significant detail" the GNG requires. Fails WP:BAND going away. Notability tagged for nearly eleven years

A previous AfD, back then, resulted in a botched close; it was relisted, and after the relisting had two Delete proponents (where, prior to the relist, one of the two keep proponents was the article creator, an SPA for whom this article is his sole Wikipedia activity); it *still* was closed no consensus. Ravenswing 00:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iowa-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable music project. I also looked at the previous AfD and I saw the article was kept on the basis of "it has an Allmusic page (with no written content)". That's exactly when Allmusic is unreliable. Just being listed there with the biography page being blank does not indicate any notability. I also looked this project up and couldn't find anything besides the standard unreliable sources, and of course the rest of the results were stuff where the words "unknown" and "component" appear separately. And I say it again: We really need to stop single-purpose accounts. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No real way to do so that doesn't cost more than it's worth, really. What gums up the process considerably more are the deprodders and keep proponents who toss spanners into the works, without troubling themselves to find the reliable sources they claim really most sincerely must exist, possibly, kinda, maybe. A rant for another venue, though. Ravenswing 08:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the points made in this and the previous AfD discussion. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:34, 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 redirect to Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China. Spartaz Humbug! 22:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Security Work Bulletin[edit]

Public Security Work Bulletin (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 periodical. Article has only one sentence after a decade. I have also imported its main content to Ministry of Public Security. Seloloving (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:02, 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 redirect to Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China. Spartaz Humbug! 22:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Public Security Construction[edit]

Public Security Construction (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 periodical. Article has only one sentence after a decade. I have also imported its main content to Ministry of Public Security. Seloloving (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:01, 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 redirect to Ministry of Public Security of the People's Republic of China. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:06, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People's Public Security[edit]

People's Public Security (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 periodical. Article has only two sentences after a decade. I have also imported its main content to Ministry of Public Security. Seloloving (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:01, 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 redirect to River rapids ride. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grizzly Run[edit]

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

Article was created prematurely. A standalone article for this attraction is unnecessary. Other than announcing the opening and closure, there's nothing else of value here. These are minor details that are already covered in the main amusement park articles. GoneIn60 (talk) 02:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. GoneIn60 (talk) 02:37, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at those sources. One is a newspaper advertisement announcing that the park is open. That confirms the opening date and nothing else. The second is a Facebook post by an account named "Geauga Lake". That account is some enthusiast or fan hiding behind what looks like an official name. Not reliable and should be removed. The 3rd and 4th sources have nothing to do with the ride specifically, other than to say Geauga Lake was sold to Cedar Fair and was eventually closed. I'm not seeing any material that can be added, and certainly not enough to justify an entire article. --GoneIn60 (talk) 06:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to River rapids ride since the sourcing isn't there to support an article, but it's mentioned in the one. So, I see no reason to not redirect it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 25 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! 22:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bloodfist 2050[edit]

Bloodfist 2050 (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 seem to be notable. I found a review at "vocal.media", but I am unfamiliar if this source is reliable or not. Otherwise, I'm finding blogs, user-generated databases, and listings in online library catalogs. Appears to be a one-off from the end of a film series based on Bloodfist, but I'm really doubting the notability of this one. Hog Farm Bacon 04:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm Bacon 04:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are several reviews linked off IMDb. Also, the final part of the world's longest martial arts film series makes it notable to me. Udar55 (talk) 05:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reviews on IMDb are all either user-generated, or are external reviews on bloggish-looking sites. This film can't inherit notability from the series, see WP:NOTINHERITED. Hog Farm Bacon 15:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lacks the coverage needed to pass WP:GNG or WP:NFILM. Since only a few reviews are out there about it and they are in sketchy sources. The fact that's connected to an otherwise notable film series doesn't really matter either. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:58, 25 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spectron Glass and Electronics Inc.[edit]

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

NN company, fails the GNG and WP:ORG. No reliable sources presented or found. Article notability tagged for over a decade, and wholly unimproved in that time. Created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this was, and blatantly promotional in tone. Ravenswing 05:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 05:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 05:25, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:26, 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. Spartaz Humbug! 22:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NewStar Financial[edit]

NewStar Financial (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 financial company. GNews hits (String: "NewStar financial") are, without exception, either press releases or routine business news, and the article at present is wholly unsourced and, as far as I can tell from its very, very short history, always has been. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 04:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The company lacks the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources need to pass WP:NCORP. There was one source provided above, but it's a local outlet to the Boston area where this company is located. So, it doesn't count for notability on it's own. Merging might be an option, but the merge targets sourcing is also extremely suspect and I'm not a fan of merging one badly sourced article into another one. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 21:13, 25 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) 03:57, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandi Borr[edit]

Brandi Borr (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:CREATIVE. The obituary in the Chicago Tribune appears to be a paid ad. Clarityfiend (talk) 03:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Entertainment-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 04:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete unless the person went by another name, there doesn't appear to be any other news articles about this figure. Nearly all of the other web hits are from social media or just forks of the Chicago Tribune obit.--Prisencolin (talk) 05:23, 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 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camero, California[edit]

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

Except ofr a lot of false hits on names, streets, and people who can't spell "Camaro" (or computers who can't read it correctly), I get exactly nothing except Durham. Curiously, the locale described is maybe just north of Reno Junction, and GMaps shows what looks like a recently removed siding there. But I can find nothing that says this is the place, and I'm just not willing to take someone's interpretation of what Durham said at face value. There have been too many problems. Mangoe (talk) 03:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:35, 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. Tone 14:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Payam Zamani[edit]

Payam Zamani (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 about the article Payam Zamani. I saw that he had been hastily added to an article mentioning prominent Iranian-Americans, in the same sentence as the CEO of YouTube and Exec Chairman of Twitter. I clicked to read about this individual.

The references are all passing mentions, paid promotions/announcements about his company, and sites with personal connections to the subject (e.g. things written by himself). The more you dig, the more you see it's a fairly simple history of paid promotion (e.g. paid postings about his businesses e.g. exactly of the type covered in https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Examples_of_dependent_coverage, or from his own company/sources related to him e.g. not https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(organizations_and_companies)#Primary_criteria https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability_(people) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Notability#Self-promotion_and_publicity It seems like a fairly sophisticated self-promoter. e.g. pass the first page of google results (which a lot of it is also paid or self-created content) or use an alternate search engine (e.g. DuckDuckGo or Yahoo) and it looks even worse. He does not meet any of these criteria: notability (WP:N), reliable sources (WP:RS), and what Wikipedia is not (WP:NOT)

This page was created by an individual "JasonSpark". Seems related to the company Spark Public Relations (check the edit history). All content of the page was added by three users whose only contributions seems to have been to this page. See users: User:LeighMartinez, User:Drevia, User:CatrinaRae57

As the Wikimedia resolution goes "Many people create articles that are overly promotional in tone: about themselves, people they admire, or those they are paid to represent. These are not neutral, and have no place in our projects" I do not have a wikipedia account (and probably won't make one, I'm a student procrastinating studying for a final) so I can not create the AFD myself. -76.109.102.245 (talk) 02:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment Completing nomination on behalf of IP editor--above text is copied from WT:AFD. I have not yet formed an opinion of my own at this time. --Finngall talk 03:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (if my voice counts as part of the consensus!) - I originally wrote the above (which Finngall kindly posted). The "sources" are all exactly of the kind covered in the notability guidelines linked above (e.g. paid posts) and looking at the only three article contributors I listed above confirms -76.109.102.245 (talk) 21:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:09, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Disagree I am one of the editors of Payam Zamani's page. I have edited other articles besides the Payam Zamani article. I initially edited this page after seeing a banner announcing that the article was incomplete. The information is well sourced and includes articles from Bloomberg, ZDNet, KTVU, Business Insider and Forbes. Payam Zamani is a well-known Baha'i. In the past, there have been attempts by the Iranian government to silence his online presence, because of his public discussions on the treatment of minorities in Iran.LeighMartinez (talk) 21:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I have to respond to this because I was absolutely gobstruck by the dishonesty being exhibited here. Hate to pick nits, but your only other edit was an advertisement for a book by a very good friend of the guy engaged on his social media, which was deleted. You also haven't explained your relation to the other accounts. Re: these articles that you reference: please familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's notability guidelines which I linked above (especially under primary sources and dependent coverage). These articles fall pretty specifically under Wikipedia's guidelines on this sort of stuff -76.109.102.245 (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I noticed your very recent edits turning down the purple prose you had yourself written.
    • You also comment "In the past, there have been attempts by the Iranian government to silence his online presence, because of his public discussions on the treatment of minorities in Iran" - You seem to know a lot about this guy personally, because a Google/Yahoo/Bing/DuckDuckGo search for "Payam Zamani Iran Criticism" or "Iran retaliation" turns up absolutely nothing. The article you wrote doesn't mention anything either. Even among the Baha'i community, where everyone has a background of being persecuted in Iran, I'm not seeing anything that distinguishes him from other Baha'i business owners with stories of persecution. I'm not seeing any credible evidence either that a foreign government is going after this guy particularly. This guy has zero prominence as a critic of Iran on an academic/national/international level. -76.109.102.245 (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Admins: For any admins reading the discussion: https://imgur.com/a/GZvCHeF According to the article, "One Planet" is his company. Take a look at the username above.
    • This is the other user, User Catrina Rae I mentioned above. I looked up the username and found her name here - look at username and listen to name at end of the report. Compare to public linkedin profile I linked before.
    • Here's an interesting one for user Drevia. Background search Linkedin

All content of the page has been literally from his paid people who work for his company of <150 people.

    • Admins, please note zero objections/interest on this for practically a whole week, until it seems his marketing employee noticed today during the workday. Dollars to donuts we see professional-PR-firm-like activity and/or a sudden appearance of previously unseen people engaged tomorrow on this page -76.109.102.245 (talk) 04:11, 24 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 14:32, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sheepshead, California[edit]

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

Searching for this is really a pain because of all the deep sea fishing hits, but what I see on the topos is a pair of springs, and on the aerials, nothing except the intersection of some dirt roads. I cannot find anyting out about this as a possible town whatsoever. Mangoe (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions.  Bait30  Talk 2 me pls? 01:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:20, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to indicate that this was ever a community. Possibly an old ranch or a mislabeled spring. Not notable. Glendoremus (talk) 20:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 02:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A place that cannot be verified. Nika2020 (talk) 00:34, 22 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 14:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wish (charity)[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Wish (charity) (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 consensus over a year ago at AfD - hopefully we can now get a consensus, as this has been waiting for one in CAT:NN for over 11 years. It is a worthy organisation, but I can see no way it meets WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 18:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. It’s difficult to search for! I found some RIS here and [32] and I also see other scholarly articles citing their reports so their work has standing in the research community. Mccapra (talk) 04:45, 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 05:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:34, 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. Also taking account of previous discussion and absence of a keep argument now. Spartaz Humbug! 22:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Van Annan[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Minor coverage. scope_creepTalk 21:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 03:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Previous discussions: 2016-06 ✗ delete
Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create, 2016-06 ✗ deleted
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:25, 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 no consensus. Spartaz Humbug! 22:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elecom[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Elecom (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)

Nowhere near a consensus at 2017 AfD, and has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. I've removed notability tag now, as if it survives a 2nd AfD, even with no consensus, there is nothing to be gained from keeping it in CAT:NN.

I'm aware that I may be missing points as I cannot read Japanese, but I can't find anything to show the level of in-depth coverage or significance that I would look for to meet WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:32, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I had a brief look at some of the sources on the list indicated above. They all fail WP:CORP big time. #1 is a review of one of the ompany's products, not about the company itself, #2 and #3 are Japanese Yahoo, #4 is a routine dividend announcement. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage in reliable, independent secondary sources" as required by the new guidelines. SpinningSpark 18:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You seem unfamiliar with Japanese news, based on your comments here. NHK OhaBiz is a highly-regarded morning business show. The equivalent would be something like Nightly Business Report (link). The news of Elecom winning their lawsuit against Epson was quite big, and ITMedia News is considered reliable (link). Winning all of the BCN Awards for four years running in the categories mentioned in the articles is certainly notable, as is winning the Good Design Awards. All of that, taken together, more than meets WP:GNG, let alone WP:CORP. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Also, the only "Japanese Yahoo" (which is quite different than Yahoo over here, BTW) is the news about Elecom sponsoring the charity golf tournament. I'm not sure where you're seeing a second one from Yahoo, as there isn't one. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • From your comment it seems you are unfamiliar with the relatively new requirements for corporations. WP:CORP has been deliberately made a more onerous requirment than GNG. GNG is no longer enough. Please read the requirement carefully to make sure you understand it. The first link you gave is an interview. Interviews are explicitly stated to be primary sources and thus fail SIRS for notability which requires secondary sources. The patent dispute with Epson is more about the ink cartridge product than the company. CORP has this to say for example, an article on a product recall...is a significant coverage for the Wikipedia article on the product...but not a significant coverage on the company (unless the article...devotes significant attention to the company itself). Maybe we can give that one some points towards notability, but more than that is needed directly on the company itself. SpinningSpark 15:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm familiar with it. The link has interview segments, but the coverage is more than just the interview. The patent dispute article was about the company, as Epson sued the company, not their ink cartridges. The article covers the settlement of the suit. Additionally, the company has won the multiple awards for product design across multiple years in multiple categories, which also confers notability. Taken all together, they more than meet CORP and GNG, and a specific notability guideline cannot override a company meeting GNG. If any topic (including a company) can meet the GNG, it is considered notable, regardless of anything else. See WP:SNG for more details. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think we should introduce "hard" notabilty to NCORP (as per NPROF) for certain attributes. Certainly a quoted stock with a capitalisation over USD1bn, and employees over 500, should be automatically considered notable. It would save a lot of time imho. Britishfinance (talk) 15:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Britishfinance: I would support that as it would make things easier when trying to figure out notability. A smaller company could certainly still be notable, but this would set some clear thresholds beyond which a company is always notable. You should start up a discussion. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 22:04, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • @Britishfinance: I would support hard criteria too. In fact, I would go further and say we should have hard criteria for everything that does not meet the Fifty year rule, especially organisations, people and products. At the same time, subjects within that ambit and failing to meet the hard rules should be subject to enhanced GNG a la WP:CORP. But the bottom line is Wikipedia standards do not always match my (or your) personal standards and that's what we have to go with in the meantime. SpinningSpark 13:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • @Spinningspark: But right now, there is no such thing as "enhanced GNG" (whatever you mean by that). The specific guidelines such as WP:CORP are only there as an alternate way to meet WP:N. If any topic meets GNG, it passes WP:N, regardless of anything else. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Didn't I just say we don't have it already. Why do you find it necessary to tell me what I have already said (and whatever do you mean by "whatever you mean by that" – didn't you read the linked essay explaining what I mean). As for GNG v SNG, no. NCORP was rewritten explicitly to put stronger requirements on company articles: These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules... There was a massive RFC about this rewrite in 2018. SpinningSpark 19:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                  • A more specific guideline for meeting notability cannot override GNG. If any topic meets GNG, it doesn't have to meet a more specific guideline. NCORP cannot be more restrictive than GNG. It can only provide an alternate to GNG. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 21:18, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY by Nihonjoe. It would be hard to argue now that this company is not notable in Japan, and should be deleted. Note that Elecom is a quoted stock in Japan (No. 6750, with its own news feed on Bloomberg) and with a USD$2bn market cap [33] Britishfinance (talk) 15:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Can anybody find some analyst reports that cover the company? Analyst reports meet the criteria for establishing notability and quoted companies on important stock exchanges are usually covered. HighKing++ 15:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @HighKing: Not sure what they are supposed to look like, but I found this and this. I'm not sure where to even look for anything else. This isn't my area of expertise. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 16:50, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Unfortunately most major analyst reports are not publicaly availalbe (you can't even pay for them). Elecom have some analyst reports on their own IR site here, and they appear in IR Street lists here. They are also covered by one of the big credit analysts, Dun and Bradstreet (these are the most comprehensive analyst reports), and their DNB page is here. There are four Japanese analysts currently covering the company (see here), although I cannot see their names. Britishfinance (talk) 18:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • HighKing, per the conversation above the re-list, should we have some kind of WP:LISTEDCORP that clarifies these rules (like NPROF) that would guarantee notability (not just imply). E.g. quoted market cap above $USD1bn (at some time), and covered by at least one analyst (or do we have this already). Britishfinance (talk) 18:10, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • I think your suggestion would certainly streamline a lot of discussions that take place on the notability of listed companies. I've checked the links posted above in relation to analyst reports but none meet the criteria - I'll explain why. The reason why analyst reports are usually good for notability is that the analyst will provide in-depth information *and* their own opinion. The reports linked above are simple directory listings. The analyst reports linked to from here are also simply regurgitating company announcements (e.g. this) and do not contain Independent Content as per WP:ORGIND. So on the basis of finding an analyst report, so far I've drawn a blank. But given that the company generates nearly USD $1Bn annually in revenues and has assets of over USD $80bn (see here) is does seem that [WP:NCORP|our guidelines] need to provide for these companies. HighKing++ 19:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • I agree with you HK. Those IR reports looked odd to me too. I think the Morningstar (who are an analyst, although not an i-bank anlyst), and DNB (who are obviously doing reports on their credit – although behind a paywall), would be the best candidates. I can see a 10-page 2011 analyst repot from Morgan Stanley MUFG on them on the bloomberg feed, but the link to the document is empty? At least Morningstar and DNB allow one to be aware of the existance of reports on companies, however, it is pretty rare to find good quality analyst (e.g. investment bank) material freely downloadable on the web (even for USD 100bn companies)? Britishfinance (talk) 20:55, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 16:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meddy Ford[edit]

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

NN actor, fails the GNG and WP:BIO going away. Only six screen roles (all but one along the lines of "Pole Dancer (uncredited)"). Article has been notability tagged for over a decade. Created by a SPA whose sole Wikipedia activity this article is. Ravenswing 01:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:55, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. I can't find any real evidence that the subject meets the notability guidelines; the one RS cited seems to indicate that it's at most a WP:BLP1E. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:15, 24 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. Consensus is clearly for the deletion of the article, at this stage, I think we're going round in circles with increasingly poor quality sources being bludgeoned into the discussion to argue for the retention of the article. Nick (talk) 11:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shamsher Singh (journalist)[edit]

Shamsher Singh (journalist) (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 coverage; passing mentions on a list of award winners and promotion to positions within corporate media. The award nor position constitute inherent notability and much of the sourcing is gathered from non-independent primary or unreliable advertorial sources, neither of which can be used to establish notability. A WP:BEFORE search does not produce sufficient coverage in independent secondary sources to pass WP:BASIC for individual notability. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Tayi Arajakate Talk 07:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 17:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content. ——Serial 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The Ramnath Goenka Award is a highly notable award given by the President of India. The subject launched the channel Zee Hindustan and has worked as senior editors in most of the important Indian news channels. The references are also from highly trustworthy news websites.
I was also planning to mention in the article that he was one of the few people from India to be invited to speak at the BRICS Media Summit 2015 at Russia[1][2] in which selected people from 5 major emerging countries are invited based on their contributions in journalism.SinghPurnima72 (talk) 07:48, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.iol.co.za/business-report/international/brics-media-houses-to-form-wire-service-1927153
  2. ^ http://infobrics.org/post/6804/
@SinghPurnima72: Please review WP:NOTINHERITED, a person can not inherit his or her notability from either Zee Media, Ramnath Goenka Award or a BRICS summit. All the coverage you have provided in the article are passing mentions and/or mentions from the news media they have been affiliated to which makes them a primary source and can not used to establish notability, unless someone can qualify for at least the recruitment of WP:BASIC an article on wikipedia is not merited for them. Tayi Arajakate Talk 09:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I wrote this article in the same way in which articles like Hemant Sharma ,Punya Prasun Bajpai and Ajit Anjum were written. If you think that this article is not notable then I dont know how the mentioned three articles are in the mainspace. The subject has also covered the Japan Tsunami which was a big news event[1] and was the first journalist to be there on the spot from IndiaSinghPurnima72 (talk) 09:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://aajtak.intoday.in/story/Japan-Blast-in-Fukushima-Reactor-No.-3--1-52486.html

Hemant Sharma is probably another possible AfD candidate from the looks of it, I'll likely put it up for that soon after doing a WP:BEFORE search. Ajit Anjum and Punya Prasun Bajpai on the other just about goes through the WP:GNG criteria due to this article and this article which specifically covers the person, which should give you an idea of what kind of coverage is required. In any case all the three the articles are quite under-developed and non-notable ones sometimes go unnoticed, if you want good templates for articles about journalists then articles on Arnab Goswami, Siddharth Varadarajan and Nidhi Razdan are much more well developed for that purpose. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But my article also has similar sources and has more refrences than the given articles. My article has literally one reference for each sentence and also his contributions are extremely similar to Prasoon Bajpai and Ajit Anjum. I am also planning to provide a reference and mention in my article that Shamsher Singh recieved the Chinta O Chetana Award in 2001 for Journalism.
And also he was the host of the special show Jai Hind on Zee Hindustan [1]SinghPurnima72 (talk) 10:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.tvguide.com/tvshows/jai-hind-shamsher-ke-sath/cast/1068327/
The primary issue with your article is that the coverage the person has received has come from the same news media he had been working in. In addition things like Linkedin or TVGuides are not useful for ascertaining notability. The number of references used in an article itself do not imply notability if all of them are passing mentions or if whether they have "comparative achievements" with someone else who's notability, and is instead solely derived from the notability criteria, which is primarily based on overall coverage in reliable secondary sources (please carefully read WP:BIO). Note that most of the references even in those other articles don't help establish their individual notability. In any case, you're free to expand the article since this AfD will be open for at least 7 days while other editors can look into the merit of this nomination. Tayi Arajakate Talk 10:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what do you suggest I should do now. Chinta O Chetana is also a national award which he received in Odisha and since it was 2001, when internet wasn't used much, we are contacting the Award foundation to give us a digital proof as I already have a photograph and the award itself at my home. If they give the proof then the subject will be entitled to two national awards. Will it be allowed on Wikipedia then?SinghPurnima72 (talk) 10:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I suppose one can possibly argue for establishing notability if they have coverage through being recipients of multiple prestigious awards since the foundations or committees presenting them are in effect secondary sources, it is also not necessary that only online source must be used as long as it can be verifiably cited to a reliable source (see WP:OFFLINE). That said from what I understand, you seem to have a conflict of interest with the subject of the article, it is compulsory to disclose that conflict of interest (note that this does not in any circumstance mean that you need to divulge your identity just that you must declare that you have a COI; see WP:DISCLOSE for instructions). In such a case, it is strongly discouraged to edit article about the person or any related article and to just wait for an unrelated editor to create or edit that article (someone will eventually do that if they are or become notable enough). You are however still free to provide publicly available sources or to make available images on the subject or any related subject. Tayi Arajakate Talk 12:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So can the original photo of him receiving the award be used as a source?And if I provide the source, can you allow the article on Wikipedia and remove the article from deletion request? SinghPurnima72 (talk) 12:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And COI is clearly declared on the talk page of the articleSinghPurnima72 (talk) 12:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
COI with a subject should at least be declared on your userpage if you have worked in articles on the subject, if not then whenever you are discussing it. Sources should also be secondary which would mean the foundation/association or any registry although ideally it should be a third party newspaper article (need not be available online). Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So that means, I cant use the photo but , if I get a valid source for that award, can you approve my article and remove it from deletion requests?SinghPurnima72 (talk) 13:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'll leave that to other editors to decide. I'm just the nominator of this AfD and the result depends on whatever consensus is established. I must also say that a reliable source for the award still isn't a guarantee though it would improve the case for non-deletion. Tayi Arajakate Talk 13:32, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended cotent (cont.) ——Serial 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
So I talked to the Chinta O Chetana Award foundation and they told me that they would put up the proof of Shamsher Singh receiving the award by Thursday 9th July. So will the article be deleted by that date or do I still have a chance for non deletion of the article?SinghPurnima72 (talk) 14:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since the AfD was opened on 5 July, it will most likely last till 12 July if not longer. Tayi Arajakate Talk 15:45, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And can I mention the BRICS Summit 2015 in the article with the 2 references as it was also a major event in the career of the subject? SinghPurnima72 (talk) 16:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Tayi Arajkate , after 2 days of discussing with the Chinta O Chetna Awards foundation , they said that they do not post articles of past awardees on their website but they sent me an official email to be used as a proof and a reference for Wikipedia. The award is a national award and played an important role in the subjects career. So, can I please use that source along with a photograph for mentioning the award in the article

Please help me as I don't want my article to be deleted. It took a lot of effort in making the article compatible for review and adding the references. And just after a few days of being reviewed, it was nominated for deletion.

It is really heartbreaking for me to see all my efforts go waste just because Wikipedia only takes sources from websites and news sites and refuses to treat an orignal photograph and an official email from an award foundation as an unreliable source. I appreciate editors like you who use their time to help new editors like me, but, I want to you to know that I have never used unrelaible references in my article. But this photo and the email are far more reliable than a local news site or website. I hope you understand my situation and I would like your support in making Wikipedia a more informative place :) . SinghPurnima72 (talk) 07:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SinghPurnima72: Your statement that "Wikipedia only takes sources from websites and news sites" is not true. Tayi Arajakate suggested you read Wikipedia:Offline sources. The policy Wikipedia:Verifiability goes into more detail. GoingBatty (talk) 14:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Extended content. ——Serial 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
But the subject is notable without the Chinta O Chetna award also. I will not use it in the article until I find a reliable reference. It was just an added award for expanding the article. Without it also the subject is notable and the article shouldn't be deleted.SinghPurnima72 (talk) 07:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just saying the subject is notable means absolutely nothing, especially as the nominator did their homework and you've done a poor job rebutting him. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 08:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please have a look at the page once again now.SinghPurnima72 (talk) 11:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghPurnima72: Since you have a conflict of interest, you should not be directly editing the article - see WP:Plain and simple conflict of interest guide. You may provide additional sources here. If the article is not deleted, you may provide future suggestions on the article talk page using Template:Request edit. GoingBatty (talk) 14:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks GoingBatty for your suggestion. I know that due to COI I cannot directly edit the article. But, I need to edit the page so that I can defend it on the basis of the merits of the page and prevent it from being deleted. I have made some improvements to the article and I hope A little blue Bori and Tayi Arajakate will take a look at the page again and help me in saving the page.SinghPurnima72 (talk) 15:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghPurnima72: Instead of editing the article, please provide the additional sources here for review. GoingBatty (talk) 15:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty, I will never edit the article on my own in the future, but for the sake of non-deletion, I had to take some action now that the article is almost fully complete(except the Chinta O Chetna National Award, for which I am looking for reliable sources). But given the condition of the article now, I really think that me and many other editors feel that the article should be kept. And that it why it was approved by Jack Frost and Amkgp. I also want your precious opinion on this AFD. Hope that you understand my concern. SinghPurnima72 (talk) 15:56, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghPurnima72: I understand that you are concerned about the article you have written about your husband. I don't disagree with the concerns that Tayi Arajakate has raised. Amkgp approved the draft, and I don't see that Jack Frost edited the draft or article. Who are the "many other editors" who feel that the article should be kept? GoingBatty (talk) 16:05, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty:,@Jéské Couriano: and @Tayi Arajakate:, I just want to know what else is missing in the article. I have made the article with a lot of effort and I have tried to keep it strictly neutral. I also adhered to the above mentioned editor′s remarks and I am constantly worried about this AFD. This was my first experience with Wikipedia, and I am really shocked that how you editors give so much to the society voluntarily, but for new editors like me, it seems very difficult to write an article about a notable subject even if I wrote the article in a neutral way. You don′t know how seriously I take all your comments and make changes according to them, but, I am really sad and lost faith in editing as I see all my efforts go down. I have also earlier compared this article to other articles like Hemant Sharma , Punya Prasun Bajpai and Ajit Anjum and my article is much more sourced, elaborate and is more compliant to Wikipedia′s criteria. I am really disappointed, but even without a glimmer of hope, I am still trying to improve the article so that it is not deleted. SinghPurnima72 (talk) 16:25, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SinghPurnima72: Creating a new article is one of the hardest things to do on Wikipedia, especially for a new editor with a conflict of interest. In regards to the other articles, please read the essay Wikipedia:Other stuff exists. Courtesy pings for @Jéské Couriano and Tayi Arajakate: - the notifications only work when you sign your post in the same edit. GoingBatty (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoingBatty But you still didn′t tell me about the things lacking in my article. SinghPurnima72 (talk) 16:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GoingBatty: and @Tayi Arajakate: both have, repeatedly. That you're claiming this suggests you never bothered to read their criticisms. GoingBatty even asked you if you had any additional sources, a question which you've left him hanging on. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 18:46, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Accounts can't be deleted for technical and legal reasons. And situations like this is precisely why WP:Conflict of interest exists and is enforced. The way you went about this is completely backwards - You assumed he was notable and tried to justify that assumption, rather than look for sources first and base your conclusion off of that. This is very common for users who have a conflict of interest with regards to a given subject. —A little blue Bori v^_^v 2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete with alternate of USERFY. @SinghPurnima72:. I am going to go the simple route. I have not looked at the history but I would suggest this article be moved to your user page. Edits can then be made to ready an article for review to be published. Submit via AFC when you feel the concerns of editors weighing in above have been addressed. Editing a published article, as a defense to save, is NOT a good defense for COI editing. The AFC process can be slow and a good recommendation would be to edit other areas so as not to be deemed a single purpose account. -- Otr500 (talk) 01:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Otr500 The article was created by me through AFC only.SinghPurnima72 (talk) 05:35, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Just reading this article as presented I don't see the subject meeting any of the four criteria for WP:JOURNALIST. It reads more like a professional resume. While the Ramnath Goenka award is a major journalistic award in India the subject's body of work does not have significant attention or coverage in reliable sources. The page creating editor also appears to be a WP:SPA created solely to create this biography. This suggests major WP:COI of paid editing or promotion of a colleague or friend. Blue Riband► 20:13, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A Ramnath Goenka Excellence in Journalism Award is not, in my evaluation, a "well-known and significant award" for the purposes of the first point of WP:ANYBIO. It is some indication that he is "regarded as an important figure" for the purposes of the first point of WP:JOURNALIST, although the category in which he won, On-the-spot-Reporting (Broadcast), is one of almost 30, and not a marquee one. The only other reliable independent coverage of him is trivial, mentions of his hiring for Republic Bharat.
The "early life" section fails verification. "In July 2015, he was one of the few ... for his contributions to journalism" also fails verification in part, and the remainder is of dubious relevance to an encyclopedia. The rest of the "career" section is essentially his resume, based on non-independent sources, his employers. The first two paragraphs of the "reporting" section are promotional. Presumably there are many other important events from which he reported; that's what journalists do.
Considering the shaky notability and the problems with almost every other part of the draft, it would be better to apply WP:TNT and start over. Rather than a second trip through AfC, I recommend requesting at WP:RA that an uninvolved editor write a biography, but only request it after notability becomes clearer. --Worldbruce (talk) 06:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has a lot of references from top media sources and also the subject is notable for meeting the Wikipedia criteria for notability. The subject has been in various news websites like Aaj Tak, The Indian Express and many more. Not only from Indian news sites but those from abroad also which covered the BRICS Summit where the subject′s quotation was mentioned.SinghPurnima72 (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article makes bold claims, few if any of which are supported by strong secondary sources that are independent of the subject. I see WP:MILL, I see PR, I see those which are effectively self-published; above all, I see an article in breach of policy from beginning to end. ——Serial 15:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worldbruce, Blue Riband and Serial If the article does not meet the requirements for WP Journalism , then I agree to remove it from that but still it meets the criteria for WP Bio. SinghPurnima72 (talk) 03:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Check these references about the subject:

[1] [2]SinghPurnima72 (talk) 10:19, 20 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) 11:21, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antonio Jerkovic[edit]

Antonio Jerkovic (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)

While I cannot speak croatian, a google search provides exactly no coverage of him outside of Wikipedia mirrors and the like, and the only one of three links in the article that works only substantiates that he's won a BRIO award, given by the Bronx Council on the Arts. While that's surely very nice, I don't believe it establishes notability on its own. Seems to be a clear fail of WP:GNG and WP:NCREATIVE, but has survived since '09 so perhaps I'm missing something. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Croatia-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 Talk Work 01:14, 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) 02:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Swabian nationalism[edit]

Swabian nationalism (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)

Why the page should be deleted TizStriz (talk) 00:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC) That page mention as sources only James Minahan books, nowadays i have not heard about any Swabian nationalist party or movement such as Bavarian party, only a reference of a "online poll by the South German Südkurier newspaper found that almost 70% of respondents replied "yes, the Swiss are closer to us in outlook" to a question whether the state of Baden-Württemberg should join Switzerland" in the page of Territorial evolution of Switzerland TizStriz (talk) 02:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Reference to one source (James Minahan. Encyclopedia of the stateless nations) does not establish notability and I have not found any others online. Alemannic separatism covers the same ground, apart from the (unspecified) present day Swabian nationalists. TSventon (talk) 00:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Minahan's encyclopedia is not a reliable source. ImTheIP (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article lacks enough reliable sources. Nika2020 (talk) 00:35, 22 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 14:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Antônio de Orléans e Bragança[edit]

Antônio de Orléans e Bragança (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 person is not notable. This person is a minor member of an imperial house which was deposed some time ago. Notability is not inherited. PatGallacher (talk) 00:20, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yet there are several articles on books or newspaper citing him, used as sources for the article and many more to be added. If this isn't notability, I don't know what it is. Besides, as a member of a deposed royal house, it is matter of curiosity for many who may search on the subject, either monarchism or connections to other royalty, or Brazilian history, history of the Orléans-Braganza, etc. To suggest the article is irrelevant claiming lack of notability for being of a deposed royal house, it implies that we should exclude tons of articles on members of deposed and even reigning royal houses who aren't the monarchs, pretenders or heirs, and for what purpose? Cartoon Fantasy World (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a geneaological database. We do not keep articles just because someone is descended from people who help royal power.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There isn't much here on the subject himself--just a blurb about his paintings. The other sources are difficult to examine as they are either PDFs in Portuguese or paper-only books. JoelleJay (talk) 21:44, 23 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. A consensus has developed that this is essentially a POVFORK article that can be easily summarized in Biden's main article in a couple of sentences, for example. Tone 17:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Joe Biden[edit]

Racial views of Joe Biden (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:SIGCOV and WP:POVFORK. This stub consists almost entirely of awkward quotes and cherry picked items from Biden's legislative career, pieced together to make him seem racist. - MrX 🖋 00:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Rusf10 (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTICE Please evaluate this article by its previous version; another editor who wants the article deleted anyway removed massive amounts of content and now the article is locked.--Rusf10 (talk) 02:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Not enough substance to be the subject of an article. I guess that's another way of saying, this is not a notable subject. The author of this article managed to come up with six instances of comments or actions that could be considered racial in nature, with six references. (To come up with six they had to name-drop Jesse Helms, as if voting the same way as Jesse Helms is automatically racist). In contrast, the article Racial views of Donald Trump cites 393 references. One of these things is not like the other: The Donald Trump article has enough substance for an article. This article does not. The Joe Biden article is enough; it already covers some of this material, such as Biden's opposition to busing. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Delete. Fails WP:NPOV "All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic." Everything is taken out of context to portray Biden as a racist. By Wikipedia standards this is an attack page. WP:NOTADVOCACY (1) Advocacy, propaganda, or recruitment; (2) Opinion pieces. This reads like a Trump campaign list of Tweeting points. — Maile (talk) 02:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:SIGCOV. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 02:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maile66, What are you taking about? No idea what happened here, but it was an edit conflict. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 02:38, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If that's what happened, then my apologies to you. But the diff sure looks like you did it. Oh, well, water under the bridge. Not that big of a deal in the long run. — Maile (talk) 02:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies as well. If I did alter your comment in any way, I assure that it was accidental. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 02:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stranger accidents have happened in editing Wikipedia. No harm, no foul. — Maile (talk) 02:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete--someone actually made this? Per nom. This is pretty sad. I don't even believe the racial views of DT should exist as an article, but at least that has some grounding, and decent sourcing. Drmies (talk) 02:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh. I see now who created it. Ah well. We have a couple of juicy ANI threads in the archives about how problematic this editor's work can be. Drmies (talk) 02:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • You believe the Trump article shouldn't exist, yet you didn't vote against it (despite participating in the discussion), that's interesting...--Rusf10 (talk) 07:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, everyone should judge that version. It's a pure case of throwing the WP:KITCHENSINK at Biden based on a number of tangentially related things throughout his career, which says nothing about his actual "racial views". – Muboshgu (talk) 17:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination. The rationale for creating the page appears to be WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 09:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom - classic WP:POVFORK, synthesis of sources that are not treated as a set. Neutralitytalk 15:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - For a fork like this, the subject's racial views would have to be one of their defining characteristics. Clearly that is not the case, so this is just a WP:POVFORK created for reasons other than the improvement of the project. -- Scjessey (talk) 16:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per pretty much every argument above. This article was made in bad faith, and the fact it lacks substance shows its existence isn't justified. — Czello 16:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Expand. - the topic clearly passes SIGCOV, just too new and short as yet, and I do not see that significant TALK or time has passed to go for deletion as yet, nor evidence shown that it was in another article and split as POVFORK. For SIGCOV I see google hits for the title of over 100 million. This article has only has a small amount of that, a few negative items in content, which is a tiny amount of the overall or even of the negative coverage. But it seems actual items duly cited — so complaints that it is limited seems best fixable by expansion. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 17:47, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • LOL! Most of the 100 million Google hits for "Racial views of Joe Biden" are because Trump features in almost all of them. -- Scjessey (talk) 17:52, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The issue with arguing WP:SIGCOV is that you have to prove it, @Markbassett:. The article isn't close to proving it at the moment, and as Scjessey says -- it seems that most coverage is via Trump. — Czello 18:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I see 5.6 million google hits excluding Trump entirely, but also note that Biden articles mentioning Trump and vice-versa should be expected as part of such pieces, and is not discountable. If 95 million articles compare racial views of Candidate Biden to those of President Trump, it all shows SIGCOV of Joe Bidens racial views (or gaffes or claims about...) and this just isn’t a trivial topic. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Guess what! Wikipedia is not Google! Big announcement - we don't answer to Google stats. Our "hit counter" is the page views. Guess what! This article got a whopping 20 views yesterday! It was a landslide ... considering that until this was nominated at AFD, the article got Zero (goose egg ... Zero) "hits", i.e. Page Views. — Maile (talk) 18:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • As to specific items - while noting that the Joe Biden discussion re Ain’t Black mentioned several and possibility of separate page by several editors... a small set of what I find excluding Trump and opinion pieces shows like this (in appearance order)
I think SIGCOV should be obvious. I can give another dozen or more if folks insist - but the search engines have no trouble finding millions of them and I should hope folks would not be obstinate over that is simply an obvious fact. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 18:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Joe Biden's racial views are not a defining characteristic of the person, Mark. Ergo, it's a POV fork. -- Scjessey (talk) 19:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Mark, of course you are free to improve the article by adding more information and more references to it. Improving an article is always the best way to prevent it from being deleted. But you do realize, don’t you, that the NAACP statement praises Biden and does not impute any racial views to him? And that the others you listed here are mostly just further commentary on the already-covered subjects of 1) he opposed busing and 2) he was sometimes nice to segregationist senators? -- MelanieN (talk) 23:49, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Melanie yes, NAACP said they were encouraged by his efforts, not literally saying “views”, as other cites spoke on what he said or did in his record. The history of speech and actions is taken as an expression of “views” - it seems the only way they can be captured. And as I said, this was the fairly straight google results, showing enormous SIGCOV of racial pieces involving Biden. One can select as appropriate for subtopics. That some pieces praise his racial views or others compare him favorably to President Trump is within the SIGCOV of the topic, since it says “racial” views it is not limited to “racist” views. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 00:49, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Plenty of material to support and expand this article, WP:SIGCOV is satisfied.--Rusf10 (talk) 07:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh please. None of these sources are actually about “Racial views of Joe Biden”. These are all “a politician said something about race” sources. To try to use this to write a politician BLP violating hit piece is over the top WP:TEND and should in fact be sanctionable. Volunteer Marek 16:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's actual, stated views are irrelevant on Wikipedia. What we follow is RS, who tells us what that person's views are. Even if we don't like the article. Mr Ernie (talk) 16:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Seeing as these articles aren’t actually about Biden’s racial views, I’m not sure what your point is. You just CANT cobble together your own personal analysis of what somebody’s “racial views” are by collecting some instances where they said something race related. That’s classic WP:SYNTH. And you know what the “big tell” is that this article has nothing to do with Biden’s “racial views” and is just a politically motivated BLP violating hit piece? Because the article doesn’t actually discuss Biden’s racial views . I mean, for fuck’s sake, if I was creating this hit piece I would at least include some discussion of Biden’s political platform and official stance on issues related to race, just for appearance sake. But the creator of this article didn’t even bother to do that. Volunteer Marek 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This list of sources does not establish WP:SIGCOV by any reasonable interpretation of the policy. The guideline states ""Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." The article in all of its reversion is a collection of loosely related comments, gaffes, and legislative action over his nearly 50 year career, synthesized so that it appears that Biden's has notable racial views.
Analysis of specific sources in this 'keep' !vote
1. An opinion piece. The author seems to have a pro-Sanders/anti-Biden bias: [34][35][36] ← ETA: This refers to the first source in Markbassett's list. - MrX 🖋 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2. A valid source, albeit biased.
3. Poorly written article in a questionable source that attempts to portray Biden as racist by indiscriminately collecting his gaffes, most of which show that Biden actually cares about racial disparity. It's a low quality source that talks about controversial remarks, not racial views.
4. Business Insider is not a high quality source. The article purports to be about Biden's "record on busing and racial issues" while acting a representative of his constituents. It is not about Biden's racial views.
5. Snopes is not a high quality source and the article is not about Biden's racial views anyway.
6. This was awkwardly worded endorsement of a black person. Biden was obviously not expressing a racial view.
7. Same as #6. This source is about Biden putting his foot in his mouth. It is not remotely related to his racial views. "Immediately the conservative media establishment -- Rush Limbaugh, the Drudge Report, bloggers -- publicly pounced." I mean, C'mon man!
8. Snopes is not a high quality source and the article only mentions "racial pandering", a political tactic, not a racial view. - MrX 🖋 12:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That the worst analysis of sources I have ever seen
1. It is written by Eric Levitiz, not Ryan Cooper, so I don't know what you are talking about
2. Your personal opinion of the source is irrelevant
3. Not poorly written. And since when does Biden's remarks not reflect his views. You and the rest of his supporters seem to give him a pass to say anything he wants by saying it just a gaffee, he didn't mean it.
4. I think you're still talking about the third source
5. Snopes is not high-quality? That's not the consensus of the community (see WP:RSP)
6. That's just your personal opinion, is there anything Biden could say that you wouldn't defend?
7. I know this is just a hit piece written by ultra-conservative Jake Tapper (he works for CNN now) at ABC News! I guess you didn't bother to read the whole article, which says "But it wasn't just conservatives", the article also quotes Donna Brazile and Jesse Jackson.
8. Again, you are disparaging a source that the community considers reliable.--Rusf10 (talk) 16:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And you are obstinately refusing to acknowledge the point that none of these sources - and yes, several of them are garbage, rest are borderline - are actually about “Biden’s racial views”. They’re about some statements Biden made, sometimes very long time ago, about issues related to race. EVERY American politician at some point in their life has made statements related to race. So what? We’re not going to have an article for every one of them unless there are actual dedicated sources about their “racial views”. Volunteer Marek 17:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stop making excuses for Biden's behavior. Yes, it does matter what he said a "very long time ago", especially considering the fact he was a United States Senator at the time. The man is running for president of the United States, I do not know of any other candidate ever that got a pass because of something he said or did was a very long time ago. Furthermore as an encyclopedia, we document historical events, opposition to desegregation was a major part of Biden's early senate career as per reliable sources including the New York Times. Fox News aside (I know you still refuse to accept consensus on that, perhaps are just in denial), you continue to disparage other reliable sources just because they are reporting on something that is unfavorable to Biden. When did CNN and ABC become "borderline" sources?--Rusf10 (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andddddddddd once more you are completely evading the fact that none of the sources are about Biden’s racial views, while at the same time making up false accusation that someone is trying to “make excuses”. Volunteer Marek 23:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Andddddddddd (Kind of obnoxious isn't it?) you're completely refusing to acknowledge that I am using sources that the community considers reliable. When someone says, for example "Unless we do something about this, my children are going to grow up in a jungle, the jungle being a racial jungle with tensions having built so high that it is going to explode at some point." that represents a racial view. He even uses the word racial. And please don't tell me (again) that it happened a long time ago, that is an excuse.--Rusf10 (talk) 23:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, What are you talking about, if anything there is an over abundance of secondary sources that do this.[37] [38] So, now I present to you the same exact Google search with Joe Biden instead of Trump [39], 71,700,000 results, looks good to me.--Rusf10 (talk) 00:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One. More. Freaking. Time: the problem is is not whether these sources are reliable (some may be, others are garbage). The problem is that none of them are actually about “Biden’s racial views”. This has been said like half a dozen times now. You keep pretending that it hasn’t and keep bringing up irrelevant stuff up. That’s textbook WP:TENDENTIOUS behavior. Volunteer Marek 04:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Always with a attitude, but that's okay. What is not okay is you have now accused me for a second time of Tendentious editing (read WP:AOTE and then please strike that) Still you refuse to accept that all sources I've used are reliable (and none are garbage, you own personal non-consensus view of Fox News notwithstanding), I just gave you one specific example covered in some of those sources is clearly a racial view. When Biden uses the term "racial jungle" how can it possibly be anything but him expressing a racial view?--Rusf10 (talk) 04:56, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand by my analysis, with the correction that the first item refers to the first item in Markbassett's list of sources. - MrX 🖋 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Per WP:HEY and WP:SIGCOV. I moved this into mainspace a few days ago as the request had no opposing comments after 5 days. I somewhat regret this as it is clear the article was poor and unfinished. However, I think the users have shown that there are a decent number of sources to write about. However, in its current form, the article seems unjustifiable other than to talk about a few minor comments. Plus there is already unhelpful edit warring on the page. But I think if we find consensus and get some more references then this could be a viable article. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 13:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I have added content and additional sources to the article. It still needs improvement, but considering how many references there are (including those that I have not added, but are listed here) WP:SIGCOV should not even be a concern. Please consider the article as a WP:HEY.--Rusf10 (talk) 18:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This is a POVFORK. There is not substantial enough coverage of Biden on race to justify a single article on the topic. This is unlike Donald Trump[40] who has an extensive track record on the issue and who has been the subject of academic scholarship (e.g. as the leader of the birther movement, and his race-baiting campaign in 2016). Biden's views on race can easily be covered in his 'political positions' article, and possibly concisely summarized in his main bio. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is that a merge vote? because I don't see this currently being mentioned in either of those articles.--Rusf10 (talk) 19:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose a neutrally written subsection on Biden's positions on race-related issues in his pol positions article. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 19:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about this article? The situation with Donald Trump is irrelevant unless his racial views have been documented by RS's to be the same as Bidens. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 19:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure what you're saying. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 20:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An article is not a POVFORK just because Donald Trump happens to have one or not. We should look at the RSs talking about Bidens racial views to decide whether to keep this article or not. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clearly say that the RS coverage does not justify a whole article on the subject. I compare the page to the Trump page because the proposer argues that "well, if Trump has one, then Biden must also have one". I explained that the sourcing justifies one page but not the other. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 22:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Agree with the hypothesis. Flirts with WP:NOTADVOCACY. Rklahn (talk) 21:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A clear instance of an unwarranted POV fork. RedHotPear (talk) 00:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I agree with Rusf10 about that there is a massive double-standard if we delete such a page for one presidental candidate but keep the other. David A (talk) 07:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just because one politician has an article like this, does not mean that every politician warrants one. Your argument is pure WP:OTHER and should be disregarded as a result. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. This has signficant coverage in reliable sources (Joe Biden and desegregation busing, Joe Biden and BLM, Joe Biden and "if you don't vote for me you're not black", etc.) -- Tobby72 (talk) 10:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand - This article is of high importance to our readers, especially in light of the BLM movement, and clearly passes notability for a stand alone article. There is significant coverage in high quality sources, and it's inclusion is consistent with WP's articles about the racial views of politicians, such as Racial views of Winston Churchill, Racial views of Donald Trump, and Racial views of Joe Biden. In fact, there should be many more, including Racial views of Robert Byrd, Racial views of Harry F. Byrd, Racial views of Strom Thurmond, and Racial views of Woodrow Wilson per The Atlantic: Students at Princeton University are protesting the ways it honors the former president, who once threw a civil-rights leader out of the White House. Biden is highly notable for his racist views, and it would be noncompliant with our PAGs to scrub it in light of the material published in the following RS: NBC News Joe Biden helped give America the language that is still used to oppose school integration today, legislative and education history experts say., NYTimes How Joe Biden Became the Democrats’ Anti-Busing Crusader,Time Magazine, Kamala Harris Hit Joe Biden on His Civil Rights Record. Here's What to Know About Biden's History With Busing, etc. We should be expanding this article for the benefit of our readers. Atsme Talk 📧 13:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 2018, you vociferously opposed the creation of Racial Views of Donald Trump, going so far as to argue it justified "speedy delete" and that the existence of the article was "embarrassing".[41] For some reason, you also ranted about Russian collusion. Have you changed your opinion? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you change your opinion? "Long-term encyclopedic value, as this is a subject of interest and scholarship for future generations." Mr Ernie (talk) 17:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have not. As I said in my vote[42], Trump's views on race was the subject of extensive RS coverage (no one in their right mind could plausibly argue that Biden's views on race have in any way come close to the same RS coverage), as well as academic scholarship. I'm not aware of any scholarship about Biden in the context of race whereas scholarship in top outlets attribute great importance to race relations and race-baiting in Trump's ascendancy in politics[43][44][45][46][47]. In my vote, I even said that the scholarship was so extensive on the subject that it could only be incorporated in a standalone article. Try again. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 17:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (edit conflict) Snoogans, you vociferously supported keeping it stating: "Extensive RS coverage. Long-term encyclopedic value, as this is a subject of interest and scholarship for future generations." The same applies here but with a much stronger argument for keep because Biden had far more influence over the lives of Black Americans as a US Senator than did Trump, an (BLP violation removed) <--Time, Rolling Stone, UUNL are RS that support removed comment. 19:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC) real estate developer who hosted beauty pageants and reality TV shows. We should create more articles that shine a bright light on the dark political history of racism in both parties over the past century. Let's start right now. Atsme Talk 📧 17:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    "Biden had far more influence over the lives of Black Americans" When you argued for the deletion of the corresponding Trump article, Trump held the most powerful political office in the US. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Well you are not arguing about that so it is not really relevant is it. You seem to be trying to make a WP:POINT, instead of looking at whether this article should be kept or deleted in line with the policies of Wikipedia. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete – I was against such an article for Trump originally. But, eventually there was so much material it was clearly significant. If after a half century of public service, this is all that can be found for this article, we have clear POV pushing. WP:POVFORK WP:SIGCOV O3000 (talk) 13:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and expand. The number of RS shared above by Rusf10 shows this topic is notable and DUE. Biden's been in public office for many years, and his views and comments on race throughout his tenure is well documented. Mr Ernie (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Too bad none of these “RS” are actually on the topic of “Racial views of Joe Biden”. Stop doing original research and synthesis to cobble together a BLP violating attack article. Volunteer Marek 17:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There are single paragraphs on Wikipedia that have more RS than the RS listed by Rusf10. It confuses me why a standalone article is warranted because seven sources have covered something. A couple of days ago, you opposed the addition of three sentences to the body of an article[48][49], even though far more reliable sources existed on the subject than exists on this particular subject (which you want a standalone article on). It does not sound particularly principled. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 16:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Please see WP:OTHERSTUFF. Someone holding a can of beans for a photograph is very different than a lifetime of racially insensitive comments. Mr Ernie (talk) 17:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Considering that Biden first took public office 47 years ago, the few gaffes and legislative actions he has taken with regard to racial issues are shatteringly minuscule compared with everything else he has done while under public scrutiny. - MrX 🖋 18:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Quote of the Day- "it's a POV violation" is not valid reason for deletion- Volunteer Marek [50]--Rusf10 (talk) 00:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
”POV” isn’t, but “POVFORK” most certainly is. Come on, this isn’t that hard. Volunteer Marek 04:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now, you're just splitting hairs.--Rusf10 (talk) 04:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete disruptive WP:POVFORM and WP:POINTY article that appears to me to only exist due to the WP:OTHERSTUFF justification via Racial views of Donald Trump and a WP:NOTADVOCACY fail on part of anti-Biden partisanship. Trump's racial views have gotten significant attention. Biden's haven't. This article is currently comprised only of his opposition to integrated busing (which says nothing about his actual racial views, but would require a much more nuanced discussion of government in general to accurately convey) and the one "articulate" comment about Obama that also says nothing about Biden's racial views. This article I imagine would soon be expanded to include the "you ain't black" comment, which also is not reflective of anything other than Joe putting his foot in his mouth, which also has nothing to do with racial views. Rusf10's justififaction that the community demanded that we have such an article about Trump, so how can we not also have one about Biden is pure OTHERSTUFF bunk. The "Other incidents" section that Rusf10 just restored content to is a pure WP:KITCHENSINK of any racially-based gaffe that can be found, without actually suggesting anything about what Biden's racial views are. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Joe Biden is too long already and this content won't fit well there (UNDUE problems), or in his political positions sub-article (his personal views on race haven't necessarily translated into political positions). I admit I'm laughing at those of my colleagues that are claiming this isn't well covered by reliable sources: hello, New York Times, Washington Post, ABC, CNN...? There's plenty of RSes to justify a stand-alone, way more than enough to meet GNG (we only need two, under that guideline). Also hilarious, here's what I think: (1) Donald Trump's racist views should go in a separate article, (2) Ronald Reagan's racist views should go in a separate article, (3) Joe Biden's racist views should go in a separate article. So, I feel comfortable with my principled consistency... how about the rest of you? Levivich [dubious – discuss] 17:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That’s the thing though. Most of this junk is even UNDUE for Biden’s regular article, much less a stand alone article. Trump makes like 20 goofy statements a day. Just earlier today he said that “we’ve had TWO BEAUTIFUL WORLD WARS” (!!!). Shall we start an article on Donald Trump’s historical views and pack it full of such nonsense? Because there’s certainty enough of it. Seriously, if we applied the same standards to Trump that you guys are trying to apply to Biden, we’d have scores of articles like Donald a Trump’s xyz views. Volunteer Marek 21:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Levivich, reliable sources do cover his gaffes. What, exactly, do they say about his "racial views"? – Muboshgu (talk) 17:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do you think this should be renamed Gaffes of Joe Biden? Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 18:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That can be another stand alone, Emir. The racial views is worthy of a standalone. Start with the June 2019 NBC News article which gives him pretty hefty credit that serves as a debit: Joe Biden helped give America the language that is still used to oppose school integration today, legislative and education history experts say. Then there's the September 2019 article in The Intercept headline: Joe Biden’s Stunningly Racist Answer on the Legacy of Slavery Has Been Overlooked. Google it, you'll find plenty of RS. I added some in my iVote above. Atsme Talk 📧 18:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There are very few articles about Biden's supposed racial views. What we know if that Biden is known for his occasional gaffes; that he may take black voters for granted (as with the Democratic party in general); and that mainstream sources do not evaluate him as racist in contrast to Donald Trump whom they routinely regard as racist. - MrX 🖋 18:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu, I wouldn't use the word "gaffe" to describe Reagan referring to a Tanzanian delegation as "monkeys...still uncomfortable in shoes". Similarly, I wouldn't use the word "gaffe" to describe Biden's statement referring to Obama as a "clean" African American. I don't perceive a meaningful difference in those two statements (they both reveal racist views), and I think both belong in a sub-article and not in the main biography articles. The consistent application of the principles laid out in NPOV lead me to the same result in both cases. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Levivich, I wasn't talking about Reagan, this AfD had nothing to do with Reagan. If you're gonna bring it up though, calling a black man clean and articulate is not at all the same as calling black people monkeys. You're making an OTHERSTUFF argument. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Seriously you're gonna split hairs that suggesting black people are dirty or inarticulate is not as bad as suggesting they're monkeys? Sorry I don't subcategorize or rank racist bullshit. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whatever it is, you’re making a straight up WP:OTHERSTUFF argument. This has been pointed out to you several times and you have not actually addressed that. Instead brought up some shit about a Reagan, deflecting and derailing the conversation. You’ve been around for awhile, hang around various policy and drama boards, RfA etc. so you know very well that OTHERSTUFF exists is not a valid argument in deletion discussions. So please just drop it because this line of argument is starting to look increasingly bad faithed. Volunteer Marek 21:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There's plenty of RSes to justify a stand-alone" We do not create a standalone article on every topic that has received coverage by more than two sources. If that's the case, why shouldn't we create standalone articles for "Joe Biden and criminal justice reform", "Donald Trump's views on trade", "Joe Biden's role in the Clarence Thomas confirmation hearing", "Hillary Clinton's views on TPP", "Donald Trump's views on manufacturing" and every other well-sourced issue from main articles and 'political positions' articles. Why shouldn't such content be kept as sub-sections within larger and general 'political positions' articles? The insistence that Trump and Reagan's views on race and race relations, which have been the subject of extensive peer-reviewed scholarship (which emphasize the importance of these issues for these politicians), are the same as Joe Biden's views on race (which have been subject of zero academic coverage and to as much RS coverage as every other issue in his 'political positions' article) is pure WP:FALSEBALANCE. It's ludicrous to see you argue that it's an example of principled consistency. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Reagan and Trump are presidents. Biden isn't. That's why there's more scholarship about the former than the latter. Anyway, you're straw manning. I never insisted that their views are the same, please strike that. I compared a Reagan quote and a Biden quote and said those two quotes are the same. I didn't say their views are the same and I made no comparison about Trump's views and the other two. I think in all three cases, and in the case of almost all biographies, a detailed examination of the subjects views on race will be undue in the main biography article, and, if there is enough RS coverage to support the content, it should be in a sub-article. That consistent application of NPOV has nothing to do with "who is more racist" or "who is equally racist". It's not about evaluating the man's views, it's about evaluating the article and the sourcing. Duh. Levivich [dubious – discuss] 18:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Every other sub-section in Joe Biden's 'political positions' article has as much as RS coverage as his "racial views". Should they all have standalone articles? Or does it only apply to the content which can be written up like an attack on him, and which can be used to draw a false equivalence between him and the leader of the birther movement? Snooganssnoogans (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm not sure if all, but at least some. Social issues and foreign policy should be spun out. It's funny you complain about a false equivalency no one is making while simultaneously employing the rhetorical trick of false dichotomy. (Should they all have standalone articles or only the ones that attack him being a false choice, of course.) Levivich [dubious – discuss] 19:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per everyone else. The important difference between this article and the Racial views of Donald Trump article is that there's such a PLETHORA of examples in the latter that it clearly warranted its own individual topic. This article, on the other hand, is woefully short and has very few examples to support its notability, with only one such example having a semblance of substantial development. If anyone can find more examples of racial controversies involving Biden, then I'm willing to change my vote, but if not, a merge of relevant content to the main Biden article and/or Political positions of Joe Biden is the best way to go. Love of Corey (talk) 21:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Love of Corey. Robby.is.on (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - per Robby.is.on analysis - Sun loves to love.GizzyCatBella🍁 23:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Levivich and Atsme. Throughout his tenure there is significant coverage of his views on this subject to warrant an article. There is no reason other than bias to delete this article. Sir Joseph (talk) 02:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stringing together various gaffes and cherry-picked Senate actions in this way, alongside ominous prose (some of which has been reduced), constitutes implicit editorializing. To me, that is where the bias lies. RedHotPear (talk) 03:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. The closer may be interested in the 2016 AfD for "Donald Trump email controversy"[51], an obvious POVFORK which only existed because some editors wanted to draw a false equivalence between Donald Trump's email controversies and those of Hillary Clinton. The similarities between that AfD and this one are stark: (i) the article was created as POVFORK, (ii) while there was RS coverage of Trump's email controversy, it paled in comparison to the enormity of coverage of Clinton's email controversy, and (iii) there were larger, more general articles which could easily accommodate the content (just as Biden's views on busing, the 1990s crime bill etc can easily be put in his 'pol positions' article) whereas the enormity of Clinton's email controversy and Trump's race relations could not be adequately covered within pre-existing articles. The AfD discussion ended with overwhelming support to "merge" that article's content with the larger, more Legal affairs of Donald Trump where the content rightfully belonged. Several editors in this AfD participated in that one. As Mr Ernie wrote, "All of the material covered on this page can easily be covered elsewhere. This article title appears to try to mirror the one about Clinton". AlessandroTiandelli333 (who had been an editor for one day[52]) cited a rationale which said, "The Legal affairs article isn't too long and can easily accommodate this content, which appears designed as a pointy response to Hillary Clinton email controversy and in contrast doesn't have much of a life of its own." Both those rationales apply to this AfD. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 04:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^!!!!! Volunteer Marek 04:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ha this is getting funny. Calling out an OTHERSTUFF above but endorsing this one? Mr Ernie (talk) 07:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Um, “this one” (the comment above) is a thorough explanation WHY the OTHERSTUFF argument comparing Trump and Biden article is bunk. Not sure how you’re not getting that. Volunteer Marek 17:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Per the arguments that this is a pretty clear POVFORK. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 18:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Obvious POVFORK, a standalone article is not warranted here.-- P-K3 (talk) 18:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Clear POVFORK. Beyond My Ken (talk) 18:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Not only per WP:POVFORK and WP:SIGCOV (as no reliable source seems to suggest that Biden's racial views are notable), but also because this is a shoddily-sourced violation of WP:NPOV and WP:BLP: this article only contains criticism of Biden's positions on race issues. It does not even pretend to paint a full picture. --WMSR (talk) 19:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I believe Joe Biden is a racist, for what it's worth. However, the few sources in the article and this discussion which discuss Joe Biden's racial views holistically, which we need for a standalone topic, do not convince me that this warrants its own article rather than, say, a section in Political positions of Joe Biden or piecemeal coverage across Biden-related articles. If such coverage begins to bloat, then a standalone article may be right. The "whataboutTrump" comments we see above are disingenuous acts of desperation. — Bilorv (talk) 20:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How many sources do you think we need? More than twelve? Mulitple RS can be 3, 5, 7...whatever - 3 high quality sources do the job well. Conglomerates and republished news wires do not count as more than 1 source anyway. If 5+ high quality sources publish their own news based on what their own journalists have acquired, that's all notability requires. Atsme Talk 📧 23:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Some RS per the request by Muboshgu in his comment below this one:
  1. NBC News
  2. The Intercept
  3. WaPo
  4. NY Mag
  5. Politico
  6. Fox News
  7. CBS News
  8. Wisconsin News
  9. Aim
  10. Snopes
  11. CNN 2020
  12. CNN 2007
  13. Mother Jones
  14. NPR
  15. Paste
  16. Business Insider
  17. USA Today
  18. Dallas News
  19. Huff Po
  20. Washington Times
  21. BBC
  22. Philly Mag
  • There are more, but the above abrogates the argument not enough sources. Atsme Talk 📧 03:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    How about some sources that actually address the subject at hand? What are Joe Biden's "racial views"? We know he makes gaffes. We know he opposed busing integration and supported the crime bill during the Clinton administration. But what are his "racial views"? I haven't seen any of these sources say anything about it. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I'm glad you asked that question, Mu. That same question came up with the Trump racial views article, and our readers have been left primarily with the views of his opponents, per this discussion which ends with the summary: (my bold underline) ...the section is poorly sourced, one-sided and does not reflect Trump's views. In fact, his views were totally omitted. I think we should keep this article and include Biden's views and his responses to the allegations. We didn't give Trump much of a chance, so maybe we can make-up for it with Biden, and hopefully set a precedent for consistency in how we treat this topic. Atsme Talk 📧 23:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Think back at the number of times in various articles that you have used WP:OTHERCONTENT as a rationale. It is not. You are trying to right great rights. O3000 (talk) 01:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Focus on content, not on editors. This discussion is about WP:RS and WP:V, not some irrelevant essay you keep disruptively bringing up. Atsme Talk 📧 01:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most high quality reliable sources regard Trump as racist. He routinely uses racist and white supremacy rhetoric to appeal to his base, and takes up racist causes that are only popular with his base. Even if that weren't true, we don't compose articles based on WP:OTHERSTUFF. I do appreciate that most of the editors who support keeping this article have revealed their true intent. - MrX 🖋 11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The following sources in this throw-everything-at-the-wall list are not about Joe Biden's racial (sic) views: 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 20, and 21. None of the following source contribute to WP:SIGCOV because they are low quality sources unsuitable for BLP content per WP:BLPSOURCES: 6, 9, 10, 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, and 22. That leaves us with 3 and 4 as usable sources. For something as controversial as racial views, we would never write an article based on only two sources. - MrX 🖋 11:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and Edit this vote is more of a lean keep if Im honest because the page has some narrative issues which is obvious. If it does stay it should be edited to reflect his answers to the accusations and updated to include more recent remarks. Also linked into the other Biden pages since I have not seen this one until today. Overall page the page needs fixing but it should exist if done correctly. Bgrus22 (talk) 23:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I count five posts referring to Google hits as an indication of significance. Please, Google hits are completely useless for our purposes and should never be mentioned. O3000 (talk) 00:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Objective3000 ??? Google seems VERY useful as an objective indicator or neutral way to demonstrate quantitatively the SIGCOV, and to if that includes many of the major RS. If you have something else you feel is another means, then please do show it ... otherwise this seems the best tool in the toolbox. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 01:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, Google searches are based on your past Google searches. That is, there is a built in bias reflecting your own bias. Besides that, one must be very careful in phrasing and in quote marks. Also, you need to be aware of the echo chamber, which exists on the left and right but is vastly more apparent on Google searches on the right. That is, certain phrases, word pairings, etc are repeated on and on and on. Next, Google picks up the numerous sites that copy Wikipedia text. (Someone remind me of the word for that.) Google searches are not indications of significant coverage. I'm sure there must be an essay that says this better. EDIT: Ahh, Citogenesis: [53] O3000 (talk) 01:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lack of significant coverage that addresses the topic directly and in detail. This also gives an impression of a WP:POVFORK; the material is already sufficiently covered in the main article. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: lots of WP:POINT and WP:SYNTH in that article as elements of a WP:POVFORK--Maleschreiber (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete absolutely a case of WP:WHATABOUT. Sources have been specifically augmented to make a point. Glen 14:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is about Vice President Biden's policy positions (or gaffes) on a handful of political issues that does not appear to be comprehensive nor his actual views on race. --Enos733 (talk) 15:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Certainly Biden has talked about race over the years and has supported legislation and executive action that have affected people of different races. But in order to meet notability, we would need a body of reliable sources that discuss Biden's racial views, not just articles about these incidents. Despite the name of the article, it doesn't explain what Biden's racial views are. It merely lists a number of incidents and invites (or leads) readers to draw their own conclusions. TFD (talk) 15:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete His views could be neutrally elaborated on elsewhere, like somewhere on the Joe Biden article itself. This seems to be an attack page with a motivation linked to the current political situation in the US. Ktrimi991 (talk)−
  • Keep It is an encyclopedic topic and the NYT piece on the "you ain't black" gaffe recognized Biden's efforts to win over black voters as a key matter. Though this could probably be named better if it was "racial policies of Joe Biden" or something which would make it clear that it isn't just about personal views, but his past and current policies. The WSJ just published an article called Biden Offers Big Government Plan to Address Racial Inequality. So, I would personally adjust the scope a bit but let it be a WP:SUBARTICLE of Political positions of Joe Biden because racial positions are a major and a decisive matter in the elections and the current article is a good start. --Pudeo (talk) 17:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - If it's WP:UNDUE for the main article, it's undue for a separate article, making it a textbook WP:POVFORK. Also applying are WP:NOTNEWS and WP:NOTABILITY (it's not a prominent aspect of the BLP). —PaleoNeonate – 18:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the many good arguments which cite WP:POVFORK and the rampant whataboutism that is being used to try and justify the article's existence. Grandpallama (talk) 19:42, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as a POVFORK and due to a lack of significant coverage that directly address the article topic. Aoi (青い) (talk) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- obvious POVfork, a serious misuse of the encyclopedia. Nomoskedasticity (talk) 11:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (doesn't speak to his views/OR) or possible partial merge/consolidtion of content to Political positions of Joe Biden adding subsection about racial issues in the USA, a topic about which polticians do or should have a position. (Even if some maerial is aleady covered in bio, it is appropriately, or better covered, in position/tenure article.)Djflem (talk) 10:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable enough to justify a stand alone article. These political positions can (and do) easily fit in Political positions of Joe Biden. Should reliable sources focus on and analyze Biden's racial views at some point in the future, I have no objection to such material being split off from the main article. - LuckyLouie (talk) 16:59, 23 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 Daly City, California#Culture. Tone 17:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Boxes: The Architecture of a Classic Midcentury Suburb[edit]

Little Boxes: The Architecture of a Classic Midcentury Suburb (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, and the sources are problematic. The two Examiner cites are just passing references, and I'm not actually sure that the Examiner actually meets our criteria for a WP:reliable source. The San Mateo paper is fine, but the link is to the wrong article.

I don't beleieve this passes either WP:NBOOK or WP:GNG Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:17, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:34, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 17:06, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zamil (rigger)[edit]

Zamil (rigger) (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 reliable significant coverage per WP:BIO. SL93 (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom. Buiiytd (talk) 09:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC) - sockpuppet SL93 (talk) 17:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. A search revealed no reliable secondary sources covering the subject of the article. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 20:42, 24 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 14:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

YXA[edit]

YXA (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 found no significant coverage. This software fails WP:N. SL93 (talk) 00:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No reliable sources. Buiiytd (talk) 09:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC) - sockpuppet SL93 (talk) 17:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete its an unnecessary article to be here except as per link - it is written by Ericsson (significant company) YXA is SIP software written in Erlang (Erlang is a programming language written by Ericsson). Light2021 (talk) 22:59, 21 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.
  1. ^ https://www.bhadas4media.com/shamsher-singh-republic-tv-hindi-editor/
  2. ^ https://www.bhadas4media.com/shamsher-ne-zee-hindustan-chhoda/
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_July_17&oldid=969515904"