Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 18

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 17 July 19 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The result was keep, withdrawn by nominator. BD2412 T 02:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Campbell (writer)[edit]

Sam Campbell (writer) (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 author. The only sources in the article are primary and a link to some gaming website. There's nothing about the person that seems to pass WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR from what I can find. Adamant1 (talk) 23:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep--this writer especially was known for high volume productions of children's or adolescent paperbacks of the sort that might be learned in middle or high school. I would be very surprised of there weren't reviews in various educational and parent themed periodicals at the time. But since this was before things were put online you aren't going to find them by searching "Sam Campbell" on google. To properly search for him, you are going to need to use an academic library and look up relevant periodicals to find reviews of his books.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Many of the relevant journals have been digitised so by using a search engine such as Google Scholar reviews can be found online. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I wish I could say that I'm surprised that nobody has mentioned ISBN 9781572582217, a 160-page biography of the subject. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per, as well as the biography mentioned above, the many avaliable sources available simply by searching Google Scholar for the author's name along with a title. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that there's another biography at ISBN 9781597655422. Phil Bridger (talk) 10:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per sources cited above. Would also note that one of Campbell's books was apparently reprinted in the early 2000s—I'd imagine that's rare for a rather obscure mid-20th century writer? Would also love to find backup RS for the rather extravagant claim here that he has delivered "3,000 Nature [sic] talks" on the radio—which surely would count in favour of this already notable author. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Adamant1, don't you think that it would be a good idea to withdraw this nomination in the light of the sources that have been found, rather than have an article about such a notable topic have a deletion template on it for any longer than necessary? Phil Bridger (talk) 18:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I guess that's a possibility. I don't know how to do that though. Plus, I really haven't looked at the sources or read the AfD over. Which I'd like to do if I'm going to withdraw it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    As regards the first point, if you simply say "I withdraw" here then someone who knows the technical details will see to them. And, as for the second point, if you start a discussion then I would have thought it polite to continue discussing. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alright. Thanks for the information. Adamant1 (talk) 20:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Techie3 (talk) 04:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steven Spruill[edit]

Steven Spruill (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 author. The two sources in the article are primary, it seems to have been created and mainly edited by by a COI editor, and I can't find any evidence that he passes the notability guidelines. Adamant1 (talk) 23:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep this article on a notable author who meets WP:AUTHOR #1 and #3. He has had with a long career whose work has seen significant coverage. In addition to the ten or so reviews I found on the open internet when searching his name and "reviews" (which I have linked to the works and will add relevant portions of to a career section), I have citations for the following coverage that exits that I don't have (talking about WP:NEXIST here):
  • Booklist, February 1, 1994, p. 995.
  • Library Journal, January 1994, p. 165
  • Library Journal, July 1995, p. 124.
He's also included in St. James Guide to Science Fiction Writers, St. James Press (Detroit), 1996. While I can't view more than a few lines of it, there is enough mention of it in his coverage in Contemporary Authors that it looks like a weighty source. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 12:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY and DiamondRemley39's excellent addition of sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:48, 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 keep. The article was expanded and improved during the debate, allowing those advocating "keep" to cite WP:HEY, and noted that a single editor having a conflict of interest is not a reason for deletion when that can be fixed by others. While a few comments from those advocating deletion gave a substantial argument, too many were simply vague remarks like "not notable" or "spam". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Katz (author)[edit]

David Katz (author) (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)

Contested PROD. This WP:PROMO article appears to be about a subject who is not independently notable. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:16, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 22:18, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the only source is the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • This is a legacy article from 2005 which means it pre-dates te establishment of much of our notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Non-notable. The links that have been provided are either from Amazon or links to the authors writings. None of them are in-depth or show significant coverage. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 22:45, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article now includes cites to significant reviews of Katz's work from Publisher's Weekly, With Guitars, and Record Collector Magazine. All of these are independent and reliable sources. I believe these also establish that Katz passes WP:NAUTHOR. Several of these were added by 1dubwize today, and I think they constitute an example of WP:HEY. If those expressing views above did so before these cites were added, then I urge them to recheck this and reconsider. None of them addressed any of these sources. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 01:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, you mean this, this, and this? And you mean point 4c of NAUTHOR, suggesting that this is "significant critical attention"? My "reconsideration" is that if that's enough to pass NAUTHOR, then NAUTHOR is too weak for me to take seriously. The subject doesn't meet GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Yes that is exactly what I mean, Muboshgu. Multiple multi-paragraph reviews, from separate independent reliable sources, meets both the GNG and NAUTHOR 4c. Do you deny that these are independent? Do you deny that they are RSs? If that is not enough for you, what level of crtitical attention do you want? The point of NAUTHOIR is that coverage of creative work is coverage of the creator. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, Publishers Weekly may be RS, but I've never heard of With Guitars or Record Collector Magazine (edit: I see that it has an article at Record Collector) and their lack of Wiki articles suggests they may not be RS. Further, what biographical information are we getting about Katz from those reviews? Nothing, other than that he is an author who has written on subjects. This is not coverage of the creator, so I don't see this as "significant critical attention". I'd be thinking a NYT book review or some such publication might be "significant". – Mu*:boshgu (talk) 02:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    That you have not heard of a source, Muboshgu does not make it non-RS. And there whole point of NAUTHOR is that critical attention to the work makes the author notable, the presence or absence of biographical information is irrelevant (nice to have, but in no way required). There are additional reviews out there, and i will be adding some. Requiring NYT-level reviews, particularly for specialized works, is way too high a bar. Computer books get reviewed by computer publications, jazz books by jazz publications, etc. That is ample. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 02:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, I just don't agree with that sort of "critical attention" making the author notable. We're not going to agree on that point. – Muboshgu (talk) 03:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • An effort has been made to add references that better meet the criteria. There has been coverage of the author and his work in newspapers including The Times (UK), The Independent, The Glasgow Sunday Herald, NME, Q, Mojo and many other recognized publications but most of that material is not online, since the book he is most famous for was first published in 2000. The article should be kept.1dubwize (talk) 14:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    1dubwize offline sources can be quoted, and cited, in and article, and can count toward notability, if they otherwise would. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC) @1dubwize: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:GNG; clear promo material. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 18:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I see lots of mentions in the news, fair number of hits in a google search, the article needs work, but he looks like a notable author. --evrik (talk)
  • undisclosed COI - according to his recent post at Wikipedia:Requests for undeletion, User:1dubwize is David Katz. Interesting, no? --Orange Mike | Talk 15:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- per WP:NOTINHERITED, being the author of a notable work does not make the author notable. There are many obscure authors of notable works, where the work has drawn attention but the author (as in this case) fails GNG, and fails it big-time. --Orange Mike | Talk 15:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Orangemike, I think you and Muboshgu are both misunderstanding NAUTHOR. WP:NAUTHOR point 3 says The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work or collective body of work. In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of an independent and notable work (for example, a book, film, or television series, but usually not a single episode of a television series) or of multiple independent periodical articles or reviews. and point 4 says The person's work (or works) has: ... (c) won significant critical attention. As I understand the above, those points, and particularly point three, mean that if there are multiple critical reviews of an authors work or works in independent reliable sources, that establishes the notability of the author as having created such works, even if those sources mention nothing about the author except that s/he created the work. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, belatedly replying, I don't think I'm "misunderstanding" NAUTHOR #3 or #4. I am questioning its interpretation if it leads to this article getting kept. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Muboshgu If you look into the history of the debates over NAUTHOR (in the archives of its talk page) that in general both those who favored it and those who did not saw it as I have been suggesting here. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep per DES who is correct about WP:AUTHOR. Hobit (talk) 06:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note I have just added a "Critical reactions" section to the article, with quotyes from several reviews, some of which were not previously cited in the article or mentioned here. I believe this makes the case for NAUTHOR even stronger than it was. Closer please not additional info added t this point. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 20:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Self-admitted autobiography, perilously close to a G11 speedy. Nuke this spam. Guy (help!) 09:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Do note that being an autobiography is in no sense a reason for deletion. Promotional content that is short of a G11 can be and should be corrected by editing, not by deletion. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:07, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, this is spam. Created by a spammer to promote his product. That's a great reason for deletion. I am also entirely unpersuaded of the purported sources for notability. Guy (help!) 21:22, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I m afraid I cannot agree that this is spam, JzG. Apparently several experienced editors do not agree either. I cannot be sure of the subject's motivations, of course, but the fact that an editor here is also the subject (or says that he is at least) was openly admitted, and there seems to have been no effort to conceal it, although the form and placement of the declaration was not ideal. But as for promotion, would you care to identify those parts you find promotional? Perhaps I or others will be convinced, or perhaps they can be improved. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 00:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, you don't have to agree. The creator admitted it though. Guy (help!) 09:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    JzG I suppose you refer to this edit where 1dubwize wrote I am the author of three books about the music and culture of Jamaica and the wider Caribbean, ... The wikipedia page I set up ... is valid and in regular use, please undelete the page now. The article was actually created by an IP editor back in 2011, and Katz (assuming that 1dubwize is indeed Katz) has elsewhere said he was not the original creator of the article. In any case 1dubwize has clearly said that he is Katz, and may have meant that he created the article, or just that he had it deproded. But I do not see any admission or statement that it was spam or promotion, here or in any of the talk page messages that 1dubwize has posted about the article. But whether it is promotion on not stands or falls by the co0ntent of the article, not what anyone has admitted. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC) @JzG: DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:52, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the RS called out by DES. WP:AFDNOTCLEANUP. WP:NAUTHOR was reviewed. Des has done some work to the article to show notability. Lightburst (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep per WP:HEY. It has been fixed up a lot, especially in the reviews, but could use more work. Bearian (talk) 03:49, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article is good enough to pass WP:NAUTHOR. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 18:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Today I added some additional reviews to the "Critical reactions" section, which in my view further show that this passes NAUTHOR. As they include negative as well as positive comments, they help show this is not spam. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 23:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep DES' interpretation of NAUTHOR matches my longtime understanding and is backed up, by people who like and didn't like the criteria, at the SNG talk page. The coverage here is enough to suggest notability. However, the revised critical reception makes it MORE spammy than before. If I saw that outside of this discussion I would take a chainsaw to it - we should be summarizing what critical sources say not just quoting them at length. But AfD isn't cleanup so for these purposes keep. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete for failing all four criteria for WP:JOURNALIST. I've clicked through all 20 citations and I see industry book reviews, event calendars, list of participants, and news/magazine columns. Very promotional and reads like a professional resume. To say that one "contributed" to a BBC production can mean anything that gets a screen credit. Policy does say that a subject can be "..notably influential in the world of ideas without their biographies being the subject of secondary sources." He appears to be a regular music contributor to the UK Guardian and did author a cover story for Mojo magazine but I don't see anything he has done to reach a level of encyclopedic notability. Blue Riband► 13:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Notability isn't asserted under WP:JOURNALIST but under the rather different WP:NAUTHOR, quoted above, where the reviews are key. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete sources simply do not prove notability. (I am AlejandroLeloirRey, I can't log in here). --79.35.212.95 (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – bradv🍁 23:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete doing a glance over of the sources and the AfD discussion it does not seem that the person is notable enough for an article. Mainly it comes down to the quality of sources. Which mostly seem to be extremely trivial. Include a few of the reviews of the authors books. I don't think notability is automatically inherited when it comes to an author who's books have reviews either. Unless there is something specific about the author in relation to their work that the reviews cite that makes them notable on their own. For instance with an author like Stephen King or someone similar. Otherwise, any author with a few book reviews would have an article in Wikipedia about them. No matter how obscure or non-notable otherwise they are. Which clearly isn't the standard. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Did you read through the guideline WP:NAUTHOR, Adamant1? The relevant parts are quoted in this AfD, It says, in effect, that when there are multiple independent sources that have discussed an author's works, the author is notable. Now maybe you think that should be changed, but that is what the guideline currently says. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: There are sources that describe him as "one of the world's foremost authorities on reggae, dub, and dancehall" (Afropop Worldwide, 2013) who has "contributed significantly to documenting the history of Jamaican music" (Jamaicans Music, 2013). There is a profile of Katz in The Gleaner, a mainstream newspaper in Kingston, Jamaica ("David Katz Pens the Lives of Two Outstanding Jamaicans"). I think some of the deletion arguments have a degree of snobbery in them (aka IDONTLIKEIT), especially "I've never heard of" a given source. Personally, I've heard of The New York Times and I've never heard of The Gleaner before, but that says more about me and my limited experience of the world than it does about the quality of the Jamaican press. I would encourage folks to reflect on your own perspective as well. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since when does Wikipedia take claims of notability from anonomous authors of interviews and the websites of digital marketing firms? Adamant1 (talk) 02:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia often uses news articles without bylines (therefore anonomous) as evidence for notability, provided that they are published in reliable sources. which of the sources cited in the article do you believe are the websites of digital marketing firms? Do you think any of the sources cited in the "Critical Reactions" section is not an RS? If so, which? DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 17:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a reason your canvasing? --Adamant1 (talk) 17:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am not in any way canvassing, Adamant1. Pinging editors who have already commented in a discussion (and so obviously are aware of it) to notify them that I have responded to a comment of theirs is not canvassing. Canvassing is notifying editors who do not already know of a discussion when I expect such editors to support one side or view rather than another. Neutral notifications to editors not selected for their views on the topic (such as editors who participated in a previous discussion of the issue) is not canvassing either, but I haven't done that either. I ask that you retract the accusation or support it with diffs. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If my math is correct you've posted 17 messages in this AfD. Which is 1 more then the number of all the votes combined. I'd call that canvasing. I might be using the wrong word though. Maybe what I mean is campaigning. Whatever you want to call it, it should really stop. There's zero legitimate reason to post more messages then there are votes. Especially this far into the proccess. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adamant1, you're thinking of WP:BLUDGEON. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes Wikipedia allows for anonomous sources in articles if discretion is used, but that doesn't count when it comes to product reviews and in relation to AfDs because there's no way to determine "reliability." The news outlet otherwise being reliable doesn't have anything to do with it. The article being cited has to be reliable and it can't be if it's anonymous. Otherwise, we could use the New York Times letters to the editor section to establish a topics notability, because "hey it's the New York Times!!". Which would be completely ridiculous. Re marketing firm, "David Katz unfolds the Solid Foundation of Reggae Music". Jamaicans Music." Jamaicansmusic.com is "managed" by Esirom. A self described "DIGITAL MARKETING AGENCY" (caps are theirs). I can assume what they are marketing is the Jamaican music they are supposedly reviewing. Since the website is a music platform. I'd call that a pretty clear non-neutral source. Much of the article is an interview anyway and everyone know's they aren't usable for establishing notability. You could have easily figured that out though by looking at the sources before you posted them instead of putting it on voters to figure out if they were reliable or not, because it's not our job. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I believe that you are misunderstanding the guidelines and practice on sourcing. I am not aware of any guideline or policy that says that product reviews must have named authors. If you know of such a guideline, please link to it. Many articles cite product reviews (and literary reviews, which are not the same thing) that do not have bylines, and use them tom help demonstrate notability. The reliability of the publication is usually the key to the reliability of such reviews (even ones that are signed) because a reliable source exercises editorial control over its contents, and will not publish a review without reason to trust it. Staff-written reviews are completely distinct from user-generated content such as letters to the editor. The latter is not suitable for use as a source. It is not uncommon for an article to include both an interview and analysis and commentary by the reporter. In such cases, the analysis, if independent and not simply repeating publicity, is a valid source and may be used as such. It is definitely not the case that because an articel includes some interview content, the entire article is useless as a source. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 18:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know. Both Reliable Sources and WP:NCORP talk about authors of reviews as much as they do the source the review is being published in. I don't really think you can separate them or say that authors don't matter simply because of the source. For instance it's agreed that Forbes is generally reliable, unless the article being cited is by a guest writer. "Forbes and Forbes.com include articles written by their staff, which are written with editorial oversight, and are generally reliable", but also "Most content on Forbes.com is written by contributors with minimal editorial oversight, and is generally unreliable." So the author and the context does matter. WP:RSP says "Context matters tremendously, and some sources may or may not be suitable for certain uses depending on the situation." It also says "Even considering content published by a single source, some may represent high-quality professional journalism, while other content may be merely opinion pieces and depend on the author's personal reliability as a source." That pretty clearly says the author's reliability matters irrespective of what they are being published in. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several RS for literary reviews do not carry bylines - e.g. Kirkus Reviews. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete non notable promotional article. Nika2020 (talk) 05:28, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater @ 13:32, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. World-recognized expert on Jamaican music, and his books have received plenty of coverage, e.g. [1], [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. COI is not a valid reason for deletion. --Michig (talk) 15:17, 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 delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalil and Majnun[edit]

Khalil and Majnun (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 wanted this subject to be notable. I could not find RS for this book about sexuality - just blogs and book sellers. The book fails WP:N and WP:SNG Lightburst (talk) 23:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I expect we could just have had the prod play out, but eh, whatever. As the prodder, I agree. Ravenswing 00:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Anaglyphic (talk) 21:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:17, 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) 23:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fritz Guy[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable academic. Nothing about his academic career seems to pass WP:NPROF. He does have some written works, as can be seem by the long list in the article, but there's no evidence from what I could find that any of what he's wrote had any major impact in academia or religion outside of Seventh-Adventist circles. It seems like Seventh-day Adventist sources are the only things he's been published in. So he fails the notability standards for authors. The article doesn't even cite any references and it seems to mainly serve the purpose of being a glorified listing of his published works and links to other articles related to Adventistism. Adamant1 (talk) 23:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:16, 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) 23:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junaid Shah[edit]

Junaid Shah (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 indication of WP:GNG. While there are media reports of his death, they all seem to stem from the same source and read like press release. Had a brief news exposure a few years ago when an actor he looked like tweeted a picture of him. At best WP:1E. All but one of the references are about his death and lots of them refer to being sourced from one of the other refs. One ref includes him in a list of several look-a-likes. Claims of his being an actor not referenced - aspiring actor is mentioned in some of the obits but no detail to back that up. noq (talk) 22:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: This article passes WP: THREE and include a much needed information which an article required which shows its notability as per WP:GNG. Also its views (search rank) is also good.
Comment WP:THREE is an editors essay, not a policy. WHat is the "much needed information"? noq (talk) 06:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Noq: I means to say that the information which is required in an article.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️)
trivial celebrity material about someone who is only a celebrity because he resembles an actual notable person. The multiple references read as if they had been copied from the same press release. I do not consider them multiple independent sources. DGG ( talk ) 00:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: There is not only single event coverage. Every reference have additional information. Like Mid Day have two different articles from 2015 and 2017, which tells about this model. Also same press coverage claim is somehow true but all the reference added additional information.— The Chunky urf Al Kashmiri (Speak🗣️ or Write✍️) 19:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete the nomination, and DGG explain the reasoning in a policy based manner. —usernamekiran (talk) 16:12, 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) 23:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kelvin Inkoom[edit]

Kelvin Inkoom (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)

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. No appearances in fully-pro leagues. PROD removed claiming that Kyrgyzstan league is fully-pto (it's not). BlameRuiner (talk) 22:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:15, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamid Shabbir Azar[edit]

Hamid Shabbir Azar (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:GNG failure by editor who has created numerous similar articles. Guy (help!) 22:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not LinkedIn. Mccapra (talk) 05:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, non notable lawyer. Alex-h (talk) 09:05, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:23, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails WP:GNG. -- Dane talk 18:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:GNG, WP:NOTRESUME, and WP:TNT. While his activity in the bar association counts IMHO towards his notability, he just hasn't done anything obviously notable. This is a resume, not an article. It's so poorly coded (for example, appearing to claim via a hyperlink that he is the father of Mohammed the prophet), that a major re-write and re-coding of the whole page is necessary to prevent his execution as a heretic. Bearian (talk) 02:47, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dopeman Twizzy[edit]

Dopeman Twizzy (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)

Ref bombing in order to create a false sense of notability whereas in actuality & having performed a before search I observed almost all sources are mere announcements on his release of a new music or sponsored posts. Subject doesn’t satisfy either WP:GNG or any criterion from WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: According to WP:GNG "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list". A meticulous review of the sources will show that the subject has received massive coverage from almost all national dallies in Nigeria and the subject discussed in-depth. It is also worthy to note that when Nigerian musicians release new songs media houses publish same without remuneration.
Also going by WP:MUSICBIO guidelines that "Musicians or ensembles (this category includes bands, singers, rappers, orchestras, DJs, musical theatre groups, instrumentalists, etc.)" maybe notable if they Have had a single or album on any country's national music chart. The subject's single "For the Gram" made top 10 Alternative Nigerian Chart by OlisaTV, one of the leading media houses in Nigeria.Chimaezeogoegbunam (talk) 10:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Chimaezeogoegbunam, so could you be so kind as to provide to this AFD the reliable sources you say shows subject satisfy WP:GNG? & furthermore what exactly are you talking about? What criterion exactly from WP:MUSICBIO does subject of article satisfy? Celestina007 (talk) 14:27, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to failing to pass WP:MUSICBIO since all the sources are trivial passing mentions. I'm not sure if charting on OlsiaTV would qualify for WP:MUSICBIO, but my instinct says it wouldn't. Although, maybe it's something that be brought up at Wikiproject music or something. In the meantime, this is a clear delete IMO though. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I concur with nom. Article does not give any claim of significance and the sources are all either announcements or based around quotes from the subject. Does not satisfy WP:MUSICBIO or WP:NBIO. -Lopifalko (talk) 20:44, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philanthropy Kids[edit]

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

Appears to be about an organization that does not meet general notability guidelines. Most of the references included here are from the organization's own website. A search suggests there is a lack of coverage in independent, reliable sources. MapleSoy (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 18:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. MapleSoy (talk) 18:09, 11 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) 21:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: tried searching under both "Philanthropy Kids" and "Philanthropy and Volunteerism in Entrepreneurship" but the only non-trivial mention in a reliable source I can find is the one Dallas Morning News article cited, which isn't sufficient to show notability. — Bilorv (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not pass WP:NORG, or WP:NONPROFIT. The article's creator is a single purpose account that has not touched anything else and this is very much likely a promotional intended article. Graywalls (talk) 05:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 13:35, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeem Askar[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. The only web sources I could find are mostly focussed on this movement PTM. I cant find many reliable sources that are independent of this subject. The coverage that exists for this person consist mostly of routine coverage of the movement and a few articles regarding his arrest. But certainly "significant coverage" does not exist, which is a key requirement in meeting WP:GNG Kami2018 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Kami2018 (talk) 16:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. North America1000 17:18, 11 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) 21:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the subject is covered by the news media, but with "trival mentions". No independent source(s) found. At present, it doesn't pass general notability guideline. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I do not see evidence that the subject is notable; the coverage in the sources provided is trivial, meaning they do not meet GNG, and leading a political party is insufficient for meeting NPOL; that requires either holding elected office, or having substantive press coverage. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject is not notable enough for an independent, stand-alone article. Otherwise, Merge to the article on the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement, of which he is a promiment member, per sources. A case of WP:TOOSOON, possibly. -The Gnome (talk) 08:40, 26 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 Music of Los Angeles. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:48, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Los Angeles Women's Music Festival[edit]

Los Angeles Women's Music Festival (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

It existed, but didn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 20:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 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) 21:35, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Gayle Day. Since it's badly sourced and already mentioned in that article. Although, the sources in that article are pretty mediocre and I'm usually not a fan of merging to badly sourced articles, but whatever. I'll make an exception this time.. Maybe someone can do an AfD for that article at some point also. Along with the other people who started this, Miria (singer) and Gilli Moon. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge I was at this (memorable hippie fest) and I hate to see anything from Los Angeles deleted, but the article does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NEVENTS. I think a good target to merge a summary of the event into would be Music of Los Angeles in the After 2000 history section.   // Timothy :: talk  00:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into Music of Los Angeles, since, per WP:NEVENTS, subject lacks independent notability. -The Gnome (talk) 08:43, 26 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) 23:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luiz Caracol[edit]

Luiz Caracol (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 WP:GNG. A before search also reveals no evidence of notability. Fails to satisfy WP:SINGER also. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:27, 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) 23:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Percival Schofield[edit]

Albert Percival Schofield (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 and WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello 21:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:26, 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) 23:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Codename Mike[edit]

Codename Mike (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)

Nothing to be found but spam and blog sites. Not a notable band and does not pass WP:N Lightburst (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No signif reliable coverage. Darren-M talk 22:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as non-notable. Their web site's not answering anymore. --Lockley (talk) 06:28, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable per WP:NMUSIC and probably never will be. Since it seems like they aren't active anymore. Plus, the article seems to involve way more name dropping them I'm a fan of. Although I know AfDs aren't cleanup, but still. Name dropping often hints at a lack of actually legitimate notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:26, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

William Leahy (Australian Army soldier)[edit]

William Leahy (Australian Army soldier) (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 and WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Lettlerhello 13:27, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:34, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John William Cotter[edit]

John William Cotter (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 and WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're right, my misreading of the MM and Military Cross. Mztourist (talk) 11:27, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:37, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Harold Stewart[edit]

James Harold Stewart (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 and WP:SOLDIER. Lettlerhello 21:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Lettlerhello 21:20, 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 Forrest Mims. There is consensus here that the subject does not require a standalone article, and that mergers may be useful. These isn't clear-cut consensus on the target. I am therefore closing this as "redirect", and noting that the target of this redirect, and of any mergers, may still be discussed on the talk page or elsewhere. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:39, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Atari Punk Console[edit]

Atari Punk Console (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)

General notability failure. The notability of some circuitry under this name is not reliably established and blog sources like Hackaday is not useful for establishing notability which fills the websearch results. Graywalls (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 14:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 15:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge selectively to Forrest Mims. The circuit is well known enough to merit short sections DIY music/Maker books like [7] and [8]. This scholarly paper called the circuit "seminal". But there isn't much in-depth written about it outside of Mims' writings. Given its modest but verifiable impact on early DIY electronic music, I think it is worth a mention in the Forrest Mims article. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:14, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In the interest of consensus, I would be fine with a merge to the 555 article instead. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 22:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment It could also go to tone generator. Is this circuit noteworthy and non-generic enough to be added into anything around? We wouldn't want every referenceable things from Forrest Mims book going into the page about him; circuit component pages. We wouldn't want every example of project examples in books/magazine seeding a pile of "such as....." list in the 555 circuit chip Graywalls (talk) 17:23, 14 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) 21:16, 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) 23:40, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nemhain (band)[edit]

Nemhain (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)

Has reviews, but in less well-known publications and not enough to meet WP:GNG. It has one member who was also in a notablw band, but apart from that doesn't meet WP:NBAND. Boleyn (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete. Blogs do not count for notability. Bearian (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep they are not blogs but are in fact reliable sources that show that the band does pass WP:GNG particularly with the references to offline sources such as The Virgin Encyclopedia of Rock (assuming WP:AGF), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 07:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus so far, it really appears to hinge on whether the sources qualify for WP:GNG.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ifnord (talk) 21:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I do not see the sources as a tipping point to WP:GNG. However, a more pressing problem, that has existed since 2009, is that the sourcing and notability were questioned with tags and never addressed. Assuming we assume all good faith on the off-line sourcing, it did not solve the issues of potential and possible original research, that would be a direct result of a lack of proper sourcing and inline citations. I also "assume" that approximately 29 unsourced paragraphs might be a tad too many for a BLP related article. I deleted all the unsourced material leaving an actual stub. Now we can make judgement calls on notability without being in violation of multiple WP:policies and guidelines. -- Otr500 (talk) 00:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: I don't see that the sources presented meet the level the GNG and NBAND requires. Ravenswing 07:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Due to failing WP:GNG and WP:NBAND since 99% of the references are personal blogs or primary sources and there isn't the multiple reliable in-depth reviews of their music to warrant an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:34, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Famila[edit]

Famila (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 short film. References were not found in my searches. The film claims to have been at the African Film festival. does not pass gng or WP:NFILM Lightburst (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The english translation appears there, and it has nothing to do with this article. Familia in Spanish - family in english. even if they attended this festival, it is a rather obscure festival which does not confer notability. Lightburst (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A proper WP:BEFORE search for a Spanish-language film involves a search for sources in Spanish. — Bilorv (talk) 08:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete it's pretty obvious this short film is non-notable due to lacking the in-depth coverage in multiple sources that it would need to pass WP:NFILM. Which isn't surprising because short films are a dime a dozen and most hardly ever get reviewed anywhere. Maybe someone could argue that people aren't looking for the name of the film in Spanish, but I find that a weak argument because the title of the article is in Spanish and there isn't any sources in the Spanish language article either. It's way more likely there just aren't sources out there then it is that the person who wrote Spanish article searched for the English title of the film. So, this is a pretty obvious delete IMO. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject quite evidently fails WP:NFILM. Wikipedia is not a directory of films nor a guide to film making. -The Gnome (talk) 08:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:26, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adikal[edit]

Adikal (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 information to show this topic/subcast is notable. If you find that the topic is notable a redirect is possible and there is much room in Nambudiri. I am unable to WP:V Lightburst (talk) 20:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is only one sentence long, reading more like a dictionary entry than an encyclopedia's, and there are no sources cited at all.TH1980 (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - have recently checked JSTOR, Sage, Oxford Journals, Cambridge Core, Project Muse, Taylor & Francis - not a word about this community. In the past, I have tried unsuccessfully using books I have here plus, of course, via GBooks. It may possibly be an alternate spelling for Adigal but there is no mention of that as a community and I base the theory on the variant name spellings of people such as Ilango Adigal and Maraimalai Adigal. It is possible that the community does exist as one of the Ambalavasi groups (not Nambudiri, which is a pretty tight and well-studied community) but there are hundreds of those groups, many little more than one or two families. - Sitush (talk) 23:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Going by the apparent lack of sourcing and Sitush's analysis of what this is, it really doesn't seem notable enough for an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 23:59, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's Not Fake[edit]

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

The subject does not pass our SNG or GNG. Lightburst (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as does not have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources therefore not passing WP:GNG. Thanks for taking this to AFD as I recently prodded it but now note it had been prodded and deprodded before, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and Atlantic306. A failed attempt at a viral ad campaign with no indication of notability. The only reliable source that appears to talk about it is the one WSJ article already cited in the article that just talks about how the campaign fizzled, and alone is not enough to pass the WP:GNG. Interestingly enough, it seems as if this article itself was originally created as part of the viral marketing campaign - it was created by an WP:SPA who repeatedly tried to spread the false information that this was a real show. Rorshacma (talk) 22:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: as a WP:NN neologism with flash-in-the-pan use. A great example of the flawed thinking behind WP:GNG. Toddst1 (talk) 22:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per WP:GNG and WP:NOTEVERYTHING. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Barely found anything about the viral ad. There's no way to expand the article, it easily fails WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 10:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per mom. Does not pass notability. Nika2020 (talk) 05:37, 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 merge and redirect to Carteret, New Jersey. BD2412 T 00:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carteret Fire Department[edit]

Carteret Fire Department (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 fire department with no reliable third party sources to warrant any notoriety. Maybe a merge or redirect to Carteret, New Jersey. Tinton5 (talk) 20:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I find this nomination puzzling, with its assertion that "no reliable third party sources" were available. Surely the New Yorks Times article, which devotes hundreds of words to the Carteret Fire Department is a reliable source? I suspect nominator meant to imply the two references to Carteret itself are not reliable - which would really only be appropriate if they were cited to substantantiate something controversial - not that Carteret hired its first firefighter in 1800.
  • I think there is a fundamental issue the nomination overlooks. If the only readers who wanted to read about Carteret Fire Department really only wanted to read about the Borough of Carteret the merge nominator suggests might make sense. But we have readers who are mainly interested in Fire Departments, and have very little interest in the cities those Fire Departments serve. For those readers covering Fire Departments in standalone articles makes sense. We have readers, I am one of them, who have a particular interest in fireboats. If there were sufficient references to substantiate Carteret's fireboat I would have started an article about it.
  • Further, I think the nominator overlooks a very serious issue. Navigating a wiki by clicking on links to relatively small articles that cover a single topic is far superior to scrolling around large omnibus articles that have had multiple topics stuffed into them. So, shoehorning multiple topics is almost never a good idea.

    You click on a link, and find the information there is not really what you were looking for, you can return where you came from by clicking on the back button. This becomes second nature. It doesn't require conscious thought. Returning to a different section of an article that is really about multiple topics is distracting. It places a cognitive burden on readers.

    Can't the reader search for the previous section? Sadly, for decades, our stupid browsers only remember one search term at a time. Busy readers will already have some other term they are looking for. Geo Swan (talk) 06:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Merge / Selective Redirect to Carteret, New Jersey - The article, as it stands, is a collection of items about a series of incidents where the Carteret Fire Department responded or was involved. There are none of the in-depth references from reliable and verifiable sources needed to demonstrate notability. Some of the more material incidents should be included as part of a selective merge. Alansohn (talk) 01:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Carteret, New Jersey: the sources [10][11] are alright but the material isn't enough for a standalone page. We certainly shouldn't be collecting lists of incidents which the department responded to, per WP:ROUTINE. Carteret, New Jersey could incorporate the previous two sources, a couple of sentences of history from [12] and the development [13]. The sexual harassment claim is not well-sourced enough for us to include per WP:BLP, especially as it uniquely identifies a victim. — Bilorv (talk) 22:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge. The sourcing is good, but like Alansohn and Bilov, I don't see how it has enough independent notability to rate its own article. The main article is not that difficult to navigate. Bearian (talk) 02:54, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge, less the incident log type contents. Graywalls (talk) 05:58, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge a slimmer version into Carteret, New Jersey as above. --Lockley (talk) 05:53, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 23:41, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ceriwis[edit]

Ceriwis (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 notability provided (one Google Translate link). Can't see evidence of coverage that would meet GNG with a quick search. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. It's existence is verifiable (per now) by clicking of the external link, but nothing comes in support of its notability. The only "reference" is hilarious (a Google translate link). –Austronesier (talk) 20:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 13:36, 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. BD2412 T 00:52, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Digital Review[edit]

Digital Review (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 GNG. The given links aren't significant coverage in reliable sources. Aside from this, I can't find reliable coverage with a quick search. Wikipedia isn't an indiscriminate list of info, not every website to be featured in every "Top 100" event needs an article. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as per nom.Babbu2208 (talk) 17:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The article is little more then a listing of the website and Wikipedia isn't a directory. There doesn't seem to be any in-depth reliable sources out there to turn it into a proper encyclopedic article either. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:02, 26 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 Withdrawn. Per WP:HEY. (non-admin closure) Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 00:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1921 DePauw Tigers football team[edit]

1921 DePauw Tigers football team (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:NSEASONS and WP:GNG. Only source cited is directory-style coverage. Initially redirected to DePauw Tigers football as part of NPP, was reverted without explanation. Obviously I am open to ATD outcomes like merge/redirect. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indiana-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep; abundant sourcing exists to establish GNG. I just added two sources to article. Jweiss11 (talk) 22:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Jweiss above. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 22:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Passes WP:GNG. DePauw at that time competed at a high level with opponents including Rockne's Notre Dame and Zuppke's Illinois teams. Cbl62 (talk) 23:58, 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. Sandstein 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abraham Horwitz Award[edit]

Abraham Horwitz Award (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 for the award itself. SL93 (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:13, 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. Sandstein 19:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aimeos[edit]

Aimeos (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)
  • For background: This software is a fork of an older package called 'Arcavias' which has had an article deleted twice at AFD, here and here, as well as being speedily deleted as an advertisement a few times. This is important to know because the best two sources in the references section (heise.de and linux-magazin.de) mention only Arcavias. The rest are all either selfpublished or indiscriminate software listings. There is also a set of links under a 'literature' subheading, these all look to be reviews in very niche magazines/blogs. None look to be the sort of things we would generally use to indicate notability. I've searched and haven't found any other useful sources, so I think this ought to be deleted (again) per the general notability guideline and WP:NSOFTWARE. MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. MrOllie (talk) 18:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Aimeos Open Souce project has been covered by several international print magazines like listed in the literature section:
  • Enterprise-Commerce, Midrange Magazine Issue 05/2016, ITP Verlag GmbH, ISSN 0946-2880
  • Enterprise-CMS = Enterprise-Commerce?, PHPmagazin Issue 2.16, Software & Support Media GmbH, ISSN 1619-7976
  • Flow-Commerce, web & mobile Developer Issue 1/16, Neue Mediengesellschaft Ulm mbH, ISSN 2194-4105
The article about Aimeos is
MrOllie falsly uses the deleted article about Arcavias (the name is mentioned in the Aimeos article only for historical reasons and contrary to Aimeos, it had no siginificant coverage) as reason for deleting the Aimeos article as well. Nsendetzky (talk) 07:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
— Nsendetzky (talk • Nsendetzky) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.
  • Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-01 ✍️ create
  • Delete due to lacking the in-depth reliable secondary sources that would it need to pass WP:NSOFTWARE. Also, the sources provided by the COI editor that they claim show notability are all sketchy and appear to be blogs. Usually there's more reputable sources covering opensource software if it's actually notable. So, I'm on the side of delete. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete due to the distinct lack of third-party, non-promotional sources; the digging through the rot takes galoshes and a closed node but turns up practically nothing substantial. The WP:COI smell in the casserole does not help, either. -The Gnome (talk) 09:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep because:
  • WP:COI: I'm only one contributor (nos3) in a large list of contributors which you can check in the GitHub repositories. I also contribute to many other Open Source projects including Laravel for which I've also improved its article in the past without problems.
  • Working on articles about template engines revealed software articles which seems to be much less relevant than Aimeos but are available for years without problems in Wikipedia like CTPP, Kid_(templating_language), Open_Power_Template, Thymeleaf, etc. Nsendetzky (talk) 16:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As I stated in my vote your sources are all either trivial or not reliable. Please review the notability guidelines WP:GNG and WP:NSOFT before you re-post the same bad sources next time. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:21, 26 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. Consensus is this article needs improvement, not deletion Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 11:21, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Japanese values[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Japanese values (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)

91% plagiarism from Library of Congress COPYVIO with this URL: [14]. Seems to have been that way for years as noted on the talk page. Netherzone (talk) 18:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The website with the 91% copyvio is souced from the "U.S. Library of Congress", which this article claims to using public domain material from. It may be possible that the url in question is copying from the public domain material, though I can't prove that. Username6892 20:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Copyvios should be CSD'd not AfD'd. As for this article, the actual source seems to be the Library of Congress. The copyright notice is here. From what I can see, this work is not subject to copyright. So this might be plagiarism, but it wouldn't be a copyvio in that case. You can list it at Wikipedia:Copyright problems for closer examination. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:22, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for making me aware of that {{u|ProcrastinatingReader]], I have modified my entry above to reflect that. Netherzone (talk) 21:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: I believe that Japanese values have changed somewhat since Ruth Benedict did a commendable but understandably flawed job of inferring and describing them circa 1944. And it's her book that much of this curious article currently claims to be based on. -- Hoary (talk) 01:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Blow it up and start over I think this needs some WP:TNT because it’s a horrible-quality article about a fairly important topic. Dronebogus (talk) 00:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Even if this article isn't plagiarism, it should still be completely rewritten. Words can't describe how vague it is. It shouldn't get deleted because it is definitely a notable topic that needs to be part of Wikipedia. Scorpions13256 (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Scorpions13256, you make the article sound worthless, yet you want to keep it (strongly, even). I don't understand. -- Hoary (talk) 09:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm saying that it should not be deleted but completely rewritten. I'm just saying that deleting it altogether seems like an extreme measure. Scorpions13256 (talk) 15:15, 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) 18:49, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freddie Mercury Close[edit]

Freddie Mercury Close (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)

Minor private, closed street in London named after Freddie Mercury. Mercury, of course, is über-famous but notability is not inherited and the street itself has received little (if any) coverage beyond the routine news stories generated when the street was renamed earlier this year. Since Wikipedia is not news, I believe this fails the WP:GNG. One option is to redirect this to Freddie Mercury although this would require adding a sentence or two about the road to the main article (probably in the "Tributes" section). Pichpich (talk) 18:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is done all the time, and this is not a judicial bureaucracy. We don't need the same discussion in a less visible place simply to satisgy someone's love of process; this will serve quite well. Also, I'm disinclined to leave a redirect. Mangoe (talk) 12:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
For anyone saying that no argument for deletion is made, let me spell it out again. I don't believe the article meets WP:GNG because of a lack of sustained significant coverage. Thus, my first inclination is to delete. I recognize that others may disagree and so I offered option #2: leaving a redirect behind and adding to the Freddie Mercury article. AfD is the perfect forum to discuss these two options as well as the option of simply keeping the article as is. Pichpich (talk) 20:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The renaming received a smattering of coverage, but the street itself has no lasting independent notability. Already covered in sufficient detail at Freddie Mercury#Tributes. –dlthewave ☎ 02:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lots of places are named after lots of people, does not give them automatic notability even if noted in routine news. AFD outcomes are not limited to "delete" or "keep" and complaining about procedure is not a valid reason to default to the latter. Reywas92Talk 05:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The street itself does not have enduring notability and is only known for a single, passing event. -- Dane talk 18:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 13:38, 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. Sandstein 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Caleb Maupin[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Caleb Maupin (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 cannot find multiple reliable sources about this individual. ... discospinster talk 18:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ... discospinster talk 18:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Really? A quick Google search of his name brings up lots of results, especially news related, because he’s a journalist/reporter and features on many different news stations. His previous affiliations with communist and Marxist groups or parties are well covered on various websites too.--EsotericJoe (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • EsotericJoe is the creator and main curator of the article. -The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see about 70 results. Which ones are significant coverage in multiple reliable sources? ... discospinster talk 16:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, I am not a follower or supporter of him so I haven’t done any extensive research about him, But, I have seen him on YouTube quite a few times. A lot of references to him are on communist or socialist websites, especially those he belonged to a few years ago. He has regularly featured on news reports for several years now. He has published a few books. The point is, since last time, when the article of him was deleted, he has become more notable. To put it another way, are any of the sources currently used on the article considered to be unreliable?--EsotericJoe (talk) 09:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Someone's own YouTube videos are considered to be unreliable. Neither is Medium, since anyone can post there. Having written some books does not make someone notable. Being referenced in some websites is not considered significant coverage. If there are news reports where he is "featured", I can't find them and they are not mentioned in the article. "I've heard of him" is not an argument in favour of a Wikipedia page. Please see WP:N. ... discospinster talk 14:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
From what I can gather, he became to be known amongst left-wing circles in America during his time attending the Occupy Wall Street tallies (he was actually arrested twice). He then began to appear on various TV reports and has traveled abroad to places like Iran and has been covered on TV. Although writing books doesn’t make one notable automatically, his books are widely available and discussed. Also, I’m sure you have heard of George Galloway, well Maupin and he have been aired at the same time discussing politics. Various websites describe Maupin as a writer, political analyst and writer. He’s certainly well known amongst communists, socialists, Marxists and others on the left. He’s had many debates with other people on YouTube like the streamer Destiny. Last but not least, he is referenced on the Augustus Sol Invictus and 2014 Syrian presidential election articles.--EsotericJoe (talk) 19:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Once you discount the quotes, there's little left. Fails notability guidelines, no non-trivial references writing about him. FDW777 (talk) 10:25, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm not finding anything substantial here. Google hit counts are underwhelming, as are the results themselves. He brands himself as a social media type, but his twitter and youtube numbers prompt skepticism. I see a bit of social media noise, but nothing substantial. He's participated in a bunch of seldom-watched youtube debate with various fringe political personalities like Stefan Molyneux, Mike Enoch, Adam Kokesh, and bunch of others in similar little bubbles. Notability is not inherited, though, and none of this is notable by itself. From his own website, he has also contributed to InfoWars and other borderline outfits, which suggests WP:FRINGE issues, as well. We need much, much better sources. Grayfell (talk) 00:32, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subjects lacks independent notability, despite the effort to present sources. E.g. The Guardian article is about Occupy Wall Street and not our subject, who's name dropped exactly once. Wikipedia is not a collection of random information. -The Gnome (talk) 09:11, 26 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) 18:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juba Hotel[edit]

Juba Hotel (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)

Even regardless of the fact that the article is written like an advertisement, it simply doesn't meet the necessary notability guidelines. I can't find any sources that are reliable, independent, and provide significant coverage. PROD was removed without comment. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Jmertel23 (talk) 17:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Nothing to suggest notability, apart from, that is, the many uncited claims and peacockery in the article (which I was going to weed out, but there wouldn't be much left TBH). Also judging by the promotional nature of the text, there's a possible COI edit issue? The creating editor does seem keen, though, so perhaps as a compromise draftify this to allow a chance to source RS citations? (PS: I think the hotel is called Jubba, not Juba; only mentioning that in case it helps anyone trying to find references.) -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 07:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Promotional article to start with. The sources do not establish notability. They are mere listings sites and one mention in passing. I did not really find any other sources that show notability. pseudonym Jake Brockman talk 08:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Other than its value as an oddity, there is nothing about this two-unit chain of hotels that would allow it to pass WP:GNG. Bearian (talk) 03:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of notability, rather a promotional article. Nika2020 (talk) 05:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. non notable, PR --Devokewater @ 13:39, 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. Sandstein 19:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francisco J. Ricardo[edit]

Francisco J. Ricardo (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/WP:BIO. I am unable to find significant coverage of Francisco J. Ricardo in reliable, third-party published sources. I was able to find plenty of primary sources, storefronts and databases, and some trivial mentions in third-party sources, but there doesn't appear to be any significant coverage. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Woodroar (talk) 17:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - This appears to be an autobiography. Netherzone (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Or COI. Netherzone (talk) 18:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think it's a combination of autobiography and COI. At User talk:Adrie23, the user indicates: "As a matter of fact, he wrote much of the text himself and provided the article links. I did some editing on that. That should not pose a problem - he is the expert on his thoughts". That was in 2014. The recent flare-up could be a similar set-up. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there seems to be something odd going on. The image was "personally given" to the uploader Adrie23 by the article subject; same editor removed COI template, and they apparently had access to their passport information? Netherzone (talk) 20:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I probably should have nominated this for deletion years ago, but somehow it fell off my radar until the recent obvious COI edits flared up. I don't see any significant coverage about the subject at Google News. The guy only has one IMDb credit, so I'm not even clear on what he would be known for. I'm also concerned that much of the recently-added text from Astridjj are copyright violations, but I can't find the source material. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 20:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Fails GNG and BIO, per nom. Also does not pass WP:NARTIST. BTW, IMDb is not considered a reliable source because it is user-generated content, as per guidelines at WP:RSP. Netherzone (talk) 01:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete - The film he has released features celebrities James Franco and Seth Rogan, amongst other celebrities like Frank Bidart. For a director, this qualifies as notable. On his Facebook, it says he is about to release a film about Arturo Sandoval who won 10 Grammys and an Emmy and the Presidential Medal of Freedom. He is also a Bloomsbury editor and a prominent Latino in the academic community. For these reasons, I do not see a justification for deletion. Anything that needs to be edited can be edited." Astridjj (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — Astridjj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
  • Comment - I just found this IMDB page. Maybe you haven't covered all the ground on this person - https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7391454/ Astridjj (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC) — Astridjj (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Our notability requirements call for reliable, third-party published sources. Primary sources like Facebook and user-submitted sources like IMDb are not reliable sources. If Ricardo is a prominent editor and academic, then there should be reliable sources making that claim. Woodroar (talk) 16:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not delete - First you claim that there is only one IMDB as evidence of lack of notability, and when I point out a second IMDB, you insist that IMDB is now not a credible third-party source. This is incredibly hypocritical and self-contradictory. The film was reviewed and discussed in numerous outlets, including the Hollywood Reporter. https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/review/f-franco-film-review-748389 I do believe your desire to delete the page has nothing to do with notability but identity politics. For that reason, I will request dispute resolution. Astridjj (talk) 19:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck duplicate !vote.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Astridjj: Can you clarify who you are talking to, since you placed your comment underneath your previous comment instead of underneath the comment of whomever you were addressing. As for dispute resolution, this is already a form of dispute resolution. A user has nominated the article for deletion, you disagree with the reason, and other members of the community are welcome to weigh in and make arguments based on Wikipedia policy and guidelines. As for your issue with IMDb, it is never a sufficient source. This is codified multiple places including at WP:RS and WP:RS/IMDB. However, when performing due diligence to get an understanding of what work the subject might have done, editors are free to look at whatever sites they want. Notability, though, will be based on what reliable secondary sources say about the subject, not what IMDb says. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 21:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Comment" Myrmidon, or Cyphoidbomb, I suppose you would like to be addressed personally in my comment, so please be assured that I am directing this comment to you. The guidelines for Wikipedia notability whether they accept IMDB as a source or not ignores the point I have been making all along which is it is both capricious, malicious, and unnecessary to target this page for deletion under the spurious reasoning that somehow making a film with an A list actor is no longer notable and the only notable biographies are those of A list actors until they fall from grace, and then somehow they are tainted with the odor of obscurity which provokes the hoards of baleful myrmidons to try to delete their existence from Wikipedia, and thereby deny the reading public information about people who are legitimately in a public encyclopedia. Ignoring other information besides IMDB, of which there is plenty, also shows the shallowness and speciousness of the argument that the page should be deleted by purposefully ignoring all other evidence of the subject's notability. I have contacted other scholars of electronic media studies to weigh in on Dr. Ricardo's behalf. There are plenty of people who widely cite Ricardo in electronic media scholarship. Your metric for notability is clearly flawed and ignores a large portion of the evidence out there, now obsessing about IMDB while many other sources exist. Astridjj (talk) 01:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • You've crossed a line with your ad hominem Myrmidion nonsense, and the Wikipedia community doesn't tolerate personal attacks. I don't have an "obsession" with IMDb, I was clearing up yet another misunderstanding you had about my earlier statement. But since the more I respond, the more confused you get, I'll keep this as short as possible. The relevant notability guidelines as argued here can be found at WP:GNG, WP:BIO and WP:NARTIST. These are not my metrics, these are the Wikipedia community's metrics. If you don't bother reading any of that, that's not my problem. You should also read WP:NOTINHERITED which explains a common community perspective that notability is not inherited, so even if the subject made a work that was notable, the subject himself might still not be notable. At Wikipedia, nobody is considered notable just because they worked with notable people. Since you've admitted to what we would call off-site canvassing, the person who closes this AFD discussion will have to take that into consideration, since urging people to defend your perspective would be unethical. Cyphoidbomb (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete -- No indication of notability (per my comments at WP:BLPN). Despite the empty assertions of notability that have been made here, there is no evidence of said notability anywhere on the net, as far as I can tell. And yes, I did look. Perhaps I didn't look deep enough, but I did go several page deep into google, google news, and google books. Nada. Zip. If this person was notable, then someone should have noted him by now. There are no newspaper articles. No magazine articles. No books have been written about him. No book reviews of his works. There are just absolutely no reliable, secondary sources to be found, and if there are, buried deep somewhere, it's not my job to dig for them. The onus is on the person who wants this article to remain. The only reliable sources in the article are reviews of a movie that has not been widely seen, and doesn't have enough sources to confer its own notability, let alone the subject's, but those sources are not about this person. They tell us nothing about this person other than he was the producer. The article simply does not pass general notability guidelines. EZPZ. Simple as that.
  • Not to mention the article was almost completely incoherent as it was written. You don't often see an article that was that badly written, but there was absolutely no flow, no lead-in, no background info, nothing to give the average reader who never heard of this stuff to be able to have a clue what it is supposed to be saying. It read like pure stream of consciousness. Just a random string of incoherent sentences that would only make sense in the mind of the author. Not to mention most of the article was apparently trying to sell or promote his teachings. An article about a person should be about that person, and not be trying to push their ideas, theories, or products.
  • IMDB is obviously not a reliable source. Hell, they get a lot of their info from Wikipedia, and the last thing we need is to start citing sources that got their info from us. Anyone could have an article if we operated like that. We have to have some standards. Almost all of the sources are selling his products, like Amazon or Bloomsbury, and we don't use commercial sites as sources. Wikipedia is not here to provide free advertisement. People should have to pay through the nose for that kind of marketing.
  • If people here think this person is notable, then the solution is simple: prove it. Go find some reliable sources and try to salvage all of the unreadable prose and rewrite it into a proper encyclopedic style. But if you cannot find a good number of reliable, secondary sources (like described above) then that is a good indication that no one has noticed him, or taken note of him, and thus he is not notable. Zaereth (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Do not Delete- I understand some of your objections to the page, and I will make an attempt to rework it. On the topic of notability, Dr. Ricardo is well known in electronic media studies. Since he is well known in academic circles and an oft cited scholar in electronic media, he should be searchable in Wikipedia (for people doing research on electronic media studies). I am going to propose a Wikiproject dedicated to electronic media studies that will expand the number of electronic media scholars (like Dr. Ricardo) who can be found on Wikipedia. While it may seem that Wikipedia is limited to celebrities and current fashion icons, if Wikipedia is ever going to resemble a real encyclopedia, it must contain information about individuals who are notable in their academic disciplines. It seems some of his peer reviewed book publications have been deleted from his page, so that adds to the impression that he has not produced a significant amount of writing in his field. I will seek to correct that by finding those book citations and adding them. The previous post mentioned searching Google, as I just did. Perhaps this will be helpful https://books.google.com/books/about/Cyberculture_and_New_Media.html?id=-_XvCZ0JdAsC or perhaps this is helpful https://www.bloomsbury.com/uk/literary-art-in-digital-performance-9780826436009/ I will endeavor to find more sources in the morning. Astridjj (talk) 04:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Astridjj: I've formatted your "do not delete" !votes so they show up properly. You can only !vote once, so I have struck the second and third ones above. By the way, feel free to change the first one to a simple "keep", in bold, as that is what we say instead of "do not delete"ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you. I'll use the term 'keep' in the future. Astridjj (talk) 06:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Subject does not demonstrate notability. All sources currently listed in the article are either unreliable or fail to demonstrate significant coverage of this person. Potential of finding additional reliable coverage is also limited. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 20:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The creation of Wikipedia articles is supposed to be independent of the subject. This article very clearly violates that important criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I struggled to find a second review for the F is for Franco film beyond the Hollywood Reporter source. Similarly, I struggled to find mentions of his electronic media theories beyond his own books and namechecks. The closing admin might want to take note of Astridjj's statement above that I have contacted other scholars of electronic media studies to weigh in on Dr. Ricardo's behalf and the obvious COI.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:49, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Thank you so much. I did try to add sources that I found, but I had no luck. The formatting has changed since I was a philosophy editor 6 years ago. I realize it is late in this process now. Astridjj (talk) 04:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Astridjj I realize you are a newer editor and we welcome your efforts, however it is crucial that you understand an important Wikipedia policy on recruiting editors (on or off-site) to take sides in a debate: High-profile disputes on Wikipedia often bring new editors to the site. Some individuals may promote their causes by bringing like-minded editors into the dispute, including enlisting assistance off-Wiki....While Wikipedia assumes good faith, especially for new users, recruiting new editors to influence decisions on Wikipedia is prohibited. You may want to keep that in mind in the future. Netherzone (talk) 12:59, 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. Sandstein 13:04, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ludwig Bürgel[edit]

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

GNG fail ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. --Greg Henderson (talk) 23:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]
@Curiocurio: that was an interesting find. Looking at it in Google maps reveals a gallery attached to the back of a house.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good detective work! Curiocurio (talk) 17:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - After a fairly exhaustive online search I only found listings of prints for sale on eBay, Etsy or auction sites, which is never a good sign. It seems that he was a commercial artist or production painter who cranked out a lot of prints and some paintings, but that his work was not received by the museum world. It is interesting that he does not have an article in De.wikipedia, if he were notable, one would think we would find him there. Netherzone (talk) 18:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Ludwig Bürgel was considered representative of naturalism and is mentioned in several International directories of arts. Many of his works are owned by art museums. The article could benefit anyone wanting to know more about a Austrian copper engraver and landscape artist. --Greg Henderson (talk) 19:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Questions: Do you happen to have page numbers in those directories? When I search the one in the references, it was unverifiable. Also the "museum" in Seekirchen is actually his house with an attached studio room that is being called a museum. Museums have independent experts in the form of curators who make art historical choices on the art that is held in their collection. It seems that is not the case here, that perhaps his studio was "given" to the town of Seekirchen and it was turned into a tourist site where visitors can purchase his prints. If you can find verifiable, independent sources WP:V linked to actual museum collections, please place them in the article. Netherzone (talk) 19:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Greghenderson2006: Many of his works are owned by art museums. Please provide sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, spent some time today updating the article with some new citations and information about him:[1][2][3]--Greg Henderson (talk) 22:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yesd I see you have done some editing there, adding word like "prominent" and claims of musuem collections... but no sources for museum collections. Do you have a COI on this article, since you refuse to give us a list of the articles you have a conflict with? Only asking because we just deleted articles on your mom and dad, so maybe this is another distant family member?ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ThatMontrealIP, I doubt this is a family member, but I did notice from the images that the article creator owns two pieces of his art work. This, to my mind, is another form of COI since there may be a financial stake in the "collectibility" or "market value" of the work. The attribution of the images has been changed, (they were originally credited to the uploader as "own work" after I nominated the images for deletion) but the complexity remains. Netherzone (talk) 23:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just removed several of the sources added today. One was a directory listing for the gallery, not the artist, and another was wiki.seekirchen.com. A wiki is not a reliable source, per our standards. There is no evidence that he is in any museum collections, just one six sentence mention of that in one Sketchy source in German:" He is in many museum collections". ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Fun fact: "His work is represented in all major Museums in Austria." per [16] That should be easy; just list two that have his work in their collections and he meets WP:NARTIST 4d. Vexations (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The entry for the International Directory of Arts is misleading, he is NOT written about in pages 1-55. There is a one-line entry for his studio gallery, which is simply a trivial listing. Netherzone (talk) 13:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Additional comment: I just went to the IDA's website, and it is essentially a phone/address book. It seems that anyone can submit a listing (I'm assuming for a price) as I could not find any information for vetting listings, but their parent org seems to be "pay to publish." We should not be adding this sorts of "yellow pages" as actual references, this one has no merit. If I wanted to list The Netherzone Museum, I probably could. Netherzone (talk) 14:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked out the International Directory of Arts as well. Within the first ten listings are:
  • A-1 Antiques and Auction House
  • A-1 Furniture
  • A-1 Furniture Refinishing
  • A-1 Jewelry and Coin
I would agree this is a business directory and not a good source, other than perhaps for confirming an address. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 21:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ International Directory of Arts 2014. De Gruyter. 2014. pp. 1–55.
  2. ^ Dopsch, Elisabeth and Heinz (1996). 1,300 years Seekirchen: history and culture of a Salzburg market town. Seekirchen. p. 735.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)
  3. ^ "Bürgel Ludwig" (PDF). wiki.seekirchen.com. Seekirchen. Retrieved 2020-07-18.
  • Comment I have added a few references. Still deciding his notability. I always ask, is it better to keep this in Wikipedia and WP:IAR, or is the encyclopedia better without this. I cannot fight WP:N guideline so I will continue to toil. Lightburst (talk) 01:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I was looking for a website that list all art exhibits around the world to see if his stuff was anywhere. https://museu.ms/museum/details/13852/galerie-ludwig-burgel Is there somewhere else that is used to search? Not sure how updated that place is. There is an address for Galerie Ludwig Bürgel in Austria. If someone can speak their language and search for reliable sources in it, should get better results. Or even contact people there at the gallery dedicated to the guy, and ask what other places carry his work. Is this a notable gallery or just some small local thing? Dream Focus 10:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dream Focus, as noted above, some editors (including myself) have researched this, and it is a room built onto the back of his house, the artist's former studio where people can buy his prints. In other words, it is a vanity "gallery" that was run by his widow after his death. Anyone can hang a shingle outside their house and claim it's Gallerie Netherzone or whatever. This is certainly not the same as having works in the permanent collections of notable museums, which he does not, or having significant in-depth coverage which he does not. Simply put, artists make art and show their work, that is just what they do; are we going to have articles on millions of artists in the encyclopedia just because they do what they do and hang a sign on their house? I've searched numerous online museum collections in Austria looking of evidence but came up cold. If he were notable he'd be in art history books. It seems that he was the town's local artist and probably a likeable guy, but that does not make him a notable artist. Netherzone (talk) 11:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Netherzone, I think you are being too firm on what you believe are the "rules". Remember, WP:5P5 from the 5 pillars. I have been in touch with the gallery and they said: "Hello Mr. Henderson, I am currently abroad, but will get in touch with you soon. There are still a few mistakes in the wiki article, which I will send to you from home. LG, Günter Schäfer." So, all I ask is for more time and for you to revisit some of the "Keep" remarks. I think it is important to recognize art and this man who was an recognized Austrian landscape artist that dedicated his life to it, had a road named after him, and has a gallery in Austria, where they still sell his art. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I kindly suggest you re-read WP:5P1 and WP:5P2. Netherzone (talk) 17:34, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article is fine example that some competence is required to edit Wikipedia. For example: Bürgel used a technique for producing prints called Intaglio in German: Kupfertiefdruck. The author mistakenly assumes this means "Art on copper plate". As for how notable Bürgel is: "The artist's work has been offered at auction multiple times, with realized prices ranging from $10 USD to $183 USD, depending on the size and medium of the artwork. Since 2012 the record price for this artist at auction is $183 USD for Blumenstrauß in einer runden Vase" (via Mutualart). He's a fine example of "Volksnahe Kunst" though; his son calls him "einer der letzten Repräsentanten der konservativen Kunst" ("one of the last representatives of conservative art") or as I'd put it: he made work the Nazi's really liked, it was cheap, and mass produced. Vexations (talk) 18:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as the mayor of a town of 1,500 people. Fails WP:NARTIST as one whose works are not shown in any major museums or collections. This appears to have been a run of the mill commercial artist. I note that many thousands of 20th Century art posters are valued in the $150 range. Talent does not create notability. Nor were his activities as a soldier notable. Bearian (talk) 03:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Comment: Passes WP:BASIC Bürgel has been the subject of publication in reliable sources, e.g. There is a chronicle of Seekirchen: Elisabeth and Heinz Dopsch "1300 years Seekirchen, history and culture of a Salzburg market town". In this is an article about Ludwig Bürgel: "The Painter Ludwig Bürgel" from page 735: 1,300 years Seekirchen. There are also primary sources, examples of his paintings, and even a street named after him. --Greg Henderson (talk) 14:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Greghenderson2006, Dopsch is a self-published source: "herausgegeben von Elisabeth und Heinz Dopsch" in English: "published by Elisabeth und Heinz Dopsch". Primary sources do not establish notability. That examples of his paintings exist is not surprising. What IS surprising is that the value of his work is so low. $183 is the highest price his work has recently sold for. It's almost–literally–worthless.
    plus Added I believe it is a WP:RS. Worldcat shows the publication as "Seekirchen: market town of Seekirchen am Wallersee, ©1996." It is available in the Library of Congress. --Greg Henderson (talk) 15:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Greghenderson2006, you have access to a copy, right? (If you didn't, then how could you cite it?) You can read on the cover: "Elizabeth und Heinz Dopsch (Hg.)" Hg. is short for Herausgeber which is German for Publisher. Vexations (talk) 15:47, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    It can also mean Hg stands for: Editor, A person or group of people who prepares literary, journalistic or scientific texts or works by authors and artists for publication (edition). The above citation is from www.worldcat.org.--Greg Henderson (talk) 16:07, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Greghenderson2006, alright, let's say the source is credible. (Dopsch is a historian) The book is a collection of essays ("Aufsatzsammlung") who wrote the essay on Bürgel? (I don't have a copy, but it appears you do). Vexations (talk) 16:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vexations, The essay was written by Professor Gottfried Tichy from the University of Salzburg. The article is called: "The Painter Ludwig Bürgel" from page 735. I don't have a copy but I am in touch with a representative from the Bürgel gallery. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greghenderson2006, please refrain from exaggerations and conflations. The "Street named after him" is a small dead-end frontage path next to the train yard, that looks (on Google Maps and Streetview) as not being open to cars. The sources are trivial, and small-town local. Netherzone (talk)
  • The man is a retired paleontologist and co-wrote and illustrated a children's book about a piglet that discovers art (Schweinchen Schnüfferl entdeckt die Welt der Kunst). Would we cite an art historian in an article about physics or math? A musicologist on paleontology? A children's book author on ... anything? But this is about art, where everybody and their dog fancies themselves an expert, amateurs are credible sources and this passes for a museum. Sigh... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vexations (talk • contribs) 18:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    plus Added Vexations As a reminder of the great artist, the municipality of Seekirchen named the path, Ludwig Bürgel Way, that connects the main street (at the level of the Hirschenwirt underpass) with the train station (along the Western Railway) and is heavily frequented by railway users. Based on WP:HEY, can we say this article has significantly improved?--Greg Henderson (talk) 22:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Certainly not. This article isn't remotely close to GA. You have used a citation that, by your own admission above, you do not have access to. The article makes a weird contradictory claim (self-taught, but studied at the academy). There is no evidence whatsoever that his work is held in notable collections, even though that claim has been made (and should be easily conformed if true), it is very poorly written ("His etchings depicted naturalistic landscapes." It uses a completely inappropriate connected source like Bürgel's son Peter. And frankly, he is not a "great artist": His work sells for almost nothing. The Ludwig-Bürgel-Weg is a red herring. (we're talking about this). That you would suggest that the frequency of use of a path establishes notability for the eponym is has convinced me that you have really lost all perspective and lack the competence and common sense required to edit Wikipedia. Vexations (talk) 15:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Vexations, I think you are being a little harsh. Currently, out of the 6,127,736 articles on Wikipedia, 32,110 are categorized as good articles (about 1 in 191). So, obviously, your bar is very high. I understand the article needs work and additional citations. I am working with contacts at the Bürgel gallery to come up with a list of museums or collections that have his work and getting more secondary sources. I think your last sentence is untrue. Just because I believe a street named after him may mean something, should not make you think I lack competence. Think about what you are saying to an editor who enjoys Wikipedia. What happened to WP:CIVIL and WP:AGF? The article at least attempts to bring light in an encyclopedia, about a somewhat unknown Austrian painter that is noted in Austria for his landscapes. Even after his death some 40 years ago, his art is still selling. The low price could be because they are prints (etchings). There are so many other articles worth deleting, e.g. Franz Alt (painter). All I ask is to give more time to improve the article and make it worth keeping. Thanks for letting me share my viewpoint. --Greg Henderson (talk) 16:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Greghenderson2006 I got curious about Franz Alt (painter), and found that his works are included in the collection of the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the Cooper Hewitt Museum (the Smithsonian's design museum), the Albertina Museum, the Museum of Fine Arts, Budapest and other international collections. Ludwig Burgel certainly does not have the notability that Alt has no matter how much you enjoy the prints of his that you own in your private collection. Why compare the two without doing the necessary research? It would be really great if instead of accusing long-standing editors (myself included) of bad faith, you might want to try understanding that we have some knowledge in the areas we edit. The sentiment behind our comments in this debate (and others) are to improve the encyclopedia and defend its integrity. And regarding the "street name", it is a one-block long dead-end footpath next to the train tracks, it's not a "Street". Austria has quite a checkered, problematic history of "honorary street names"; if you don't believe me, just google it. Netherzone (talk) 17:02, 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 redirect to Chronology of the Bible. Obvious redirect, speedily done. (non-admin closure) Ifnord (talk) 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chronology of the Bible.[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Chronology of the Bible. (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)

Redundant duplication

This article adds nothing of substance to the extant article on the chronology of the Bible, over than a full stop at the end of the title, and appears likely only to generate confusion. I have inserted a redirect for now but ultimately deletion is, in my view, the most appropriate response.ByzantiumLives (talk) 16:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 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 19:21, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fahim Mashroor[edit]

Fahim Mashroor (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)

Failed WP:ANYBIO and does not meet WP:GNG ~Moheen (keep talking) 16:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:43, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:08, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bernd Schipmann[edit]

Bernd Schipmann (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)

Footballer that fails WP:GNG. General notability not shown through a lack of significant coverage. Footballer also fails WP:NFOOTY as they have not played at the international level or for a fully professional club. Jay eyem (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 16:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:14, 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. Fenix down (talk) 15:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Guerra[edit]

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

Footballer fails WP:GNG. General notability not established due to a lack of significant coverage. Footballer also fails WP:NFOOTY as they have not played at the international level or for a fully professional club. Jay eyem (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Jay eyem (talk) 15:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:13, 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) 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keishorne Scott[edit]

Keishorne Scott (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)

Paid for spam about a non notable individual sourced entirely to fake news black hat SEO sites. Praxidicae (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Trinidad and Tobago-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Authors' fake news has been removed and fixed with improved references and cite. All promotional articles and press releases have been scrap, including Hindustan Times and other unreliable sources. The author is self-published and has been numerous books on Amazon and Barnes and nobles. The author has a large social media following with over 500,000 followers combined and has been in many credible news outlets including ABC News and news 12. Rhetorician1217 (talk) Rhetorician1217 00:47, 19 July 2020
  • Keep This author is a very popular relationship coach and motivational speaker in the states. He has written over 5 books, been seen on ABC News, Good morning America, and News 12. This notable author has over 300,000 followers on Facebook and over 185,000 on Instagram. He may need more press and reliable sources, but his presence is notable and momentous. DamselDove (talk) DamselDove 03:13, 19 July 2020
  • Delete I was reviewing this at the same time as Prax (edit conflicted to raise the deletion discussion), and came to the same conclusion. The subject's books are all self-published, the secondary sources referenced in the article are all fake news sites, and there's no depth of coverage in reliable secondary sources - fails WP:NAUTHOR, WP:GNG. GirthSummit (blether) 15:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Just to reiterate: despite what the newly-registered accounts above say, the fake news sites have not all been removed from the article - LondonDailyPost and California Heralt, for example, are classic examples of black hat SEO sites. Whatever 'Emergepreneur' is, it's not a reliable source. The Forbes article, which is listed twice in the refs, is a snippet that the subject wrote himself as a contributor to a 'Forbes council'. His 'over 5 books' are self-published, and unreviewed by RS as far as I can find. GirthSummit (blether) 15:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article sources are either press releases or simply unreliable sources. Hindustan Times clearly states that at the bottom of the article. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nominator and other two delete explanationsVVikingTalkEdits 13:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Probably should be speedy deletion, the original author of the article was blocked as a spam only account. VVikingTalkEdits 13:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, PR Devokewater @ 10:25, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments: I'm trying to rescue this by stubifying it. I removed two sections of unsourced material. I could not verify that he spoke at SUNY New Paltz, my alma mater (I read all the emails and communication that I get from the alumni office, and have never heard of him). If I can't fix it, so be it. Bearian (talk) 03:23, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep of what's left as a stub. I have been able to verify he does have a lot of followers on Facebook (316k) and Twitter (24.5k), but I removed those as citations. Bearian (talk) 03:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete undisclosed paid-for spam. No significant coverage in reliable sources. GSS 💬 03:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: based on what’s been said above about black hat SEO (fake news sites especially) this isn’t just fit for WP:TNT, but salting as well to ensure proper review if it ever comes back ☆ Bri (talk) 20:19, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael H. Forde[edit]

Michael H. Forde (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)

Promotional article about a non-notable author (a single self-published book, available for free download from Amazon), supported by numerous references to black hat SEO fake news sites. GirthSummit (blether) 14:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit (blether) 14:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Mccapra (talk) 16:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article has been fixed with updated references. Author is notable as a public health specialist, re: National Institutes of Health directory. Book is for sale on Amazon and is distributed on several notable platforms. WikiFixer337 (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The article has not been fixed. This new account, whose initial contributions are interesting, has removed some of the more obviously spammy sources, but the article is now supported by a mish-mash of social media, passing mentions, primary sources, interviews, and a dubious review of his self-published book (which is indeed available, for free download, from Amazon). GirthSummit (blether) 09:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I agree with Girth Summit. The article has been worsened with more spammy junk. Even more definite delete. Mccapra (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:TOOSOON. I don't see any reliable sources; I removed the Facebook page reference. The "improvements" haven't helped the page to reach WP:HEY. Sorry. Bearian (talk) 03:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. His Facebook page is personal, so by definition it must have less than 5k friends; his Twitter account has 261 followers (cf. I have over 3,000 followers on Twitter, just saying). Bearian (talk) 03:40, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for the feedback. Bearian, I was able to find his Facebook page. He is verified with 172k followers. Thanks for your comments. WikiFixer337 (talk) 05:19, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Spammy article that lacks multiple in-depth reliable sources about the subject. It seems like a pretty clear case of a delete to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:35, 26 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [✉] 15:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Coleman (American football)[edit]

Rod Coleman (American 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)

Fails wikipedia's GNG Mariyaismail (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of a string of bad noms by this newbie, who doesn't seem to know what he is doing. Johnbod (talk) 14:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment please be civil if you want to keep the article add the citation without accusing meMariyaismail (talk) 14:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I am going to accuse you - you've been here 1 day, & launched a string of bad noms, including some speedies. You should stop this. Johnbod (talk) 14:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ’’’speedy keep’’’ passes WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON having played professionally multiple seasons in the NFL and a 2005 Pro Bowl selection. This nomination seems disruptive to me-rationale is not only vague but totally off base. —Paul McDonald (talk) 14:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy Keep as a straight-up WP:NGRIDIRON pass. Ejgreen77 (talk) 14:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep/withdrawnMariyaismail (talk) 14:54, 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 19:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duke Union Community Television[edit]

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

Non-notable college student media channel, fails WP:BCAST and maybe even WP:GNG. Most citations are to student publications and internal resources. It's been a while since the 2008 AfD. Raymie (t • c) 03:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 03:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 17:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 14:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. Even if independent sources could be found, they'd still be local and fail WP:AUD. -- Netoholic @ 07:56, 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 19:22, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bon vivant[edit]

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

This article is nothing but WP:DICDEF. Soumya-8974 talk contribs subpages 08:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Soft redirect to Wiktionary. It's mentioned in several articles so it is something that is likely to be looked up. Thryduulf (talk) 11:28, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'm also happy with disambiguation as suggested by Cnilep below. Thryduulf (talk) 10:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Dabify, based on article history. Until April~May 2020 a portion of the article's content was about Johnnie Cradock and Fanny Cradock, who wrote together under the pen name Bon Viveur. In May it was briefly a redirect to 1971 Bon Vivant botulism case. Way back in 2014, it was proposed for merger to Hedonism, but no discussion was started. That's at least three Wikipedia articles to disambiguate, which would coexist with the usual Wiktionary link. Cnilep (talk) 03:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, - Flori4nK t • c 14:11, 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 Withdrawn by nominator. (non-admin closure) IceWelder [✉] 15:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Serpost[edit]

Serpost (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 wikipedia's notability guidelinesMariyaismail (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Mariyaismail (talk) 14:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Peru-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:19, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep WP:BEFORE, sources on the Spanish language article indicate clear notability. So should improve not delete. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Arguably it's not helpful to create stubs like this, but the subject can hardly fail to be notable. Johnbod (talk) 14:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep/withdrawn — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mariyaismail (talk • contribs) 15:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:54, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Nieders[edit]

Ralph Nieders (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:SINGLEEVENT - they appear to be notable only for one construction project, and the article itself seems more WP:PROMO than anything else. Darren-M talk 14:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Darren-M talk 14:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:20, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 14:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nominator's rationale. Lightburst (talk) 17:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I agree with the nominator's rationale. Keizers (talk) 13:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Agree with nominator's rationale, appreciate the explanation given by Darren-M. Rnieders forgot to add~ Rnieders (talk) 15:07, 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 speedy keep. Discussion started by sock Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Igor Janusev[edit]

Igor Janusev (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 wikipedia's GNG, most probably a paid editingMariyaismail (talk) 13:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marlou Arizala[edit]

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

As per WP:NOTNEWS, the subject has no sufficient claim to notability. Recently receiving coverage in the national mainstream showbiz media due to a rape allegation.

I'm not sure if the subject is notable enough to have an article if his claim to notability is a sensational plastic surgery operation and antics/notoriety against several acting celebrities. His stint with Hasht5, and Hasht5 itself don't satisfy WP:NMUSIC Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Hariboneagle927 (talk) 02:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:54, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - There may be some local interest about the subject as sources seem to check out, though I don't think it's enough to establish global notability/significance. — Infogapp1 (talk) 12:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - To me, this is an easy one. There is ndependent, non-trivial coverage in reliable sources (including the country's newspaper of record) and it is not all focused on one event. GNG doesn't require global significance, and this coverage is clearly more than local. Most of the coverage I see is from 2017 to 2019 rather than the 2020 allegations (though certainly we should monitor the mentions of such allegations for WP:BLP compliance). Larry Hockett (Talk) 21:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - He is not a good example to the younger generation. He should not be recognized at all. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:4454:1B2:4900:ECDF:32DE:BC50:7723 (talk) 16:26, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Κeep since subject easily meets the criteria for notability on account of the numerous sources. -The Gnome (talk) 18:42, 26 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) 21:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kaalaippani[edit]

Kaalaippani (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)

Under-sourced film. Couldn't find any sources. Why is it notable? TamilMirchi (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. TamilMirchi (talk) 00:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussionsTamilMirchi (talk) 20:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - has notable actors including Nassar and Vasundra, a notable director - and some reviews covering the release of the film. Neutral Fan (talk) 22:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Neutral Fan: For the film to be notable, there must be reviews from notable sources, which are not present in the article (i.e. The Hindu) TamilMirchi (talk) 23:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, no notable sources found online. As for Neutral Fan's rationale that the film includes notable actors and directors...this is irrelevant (as has been pointed out to me when I tried to use this defense for another film). The film itself must past the WP:NFILM criteria, and, unfortunately, having a notable person attached to the film is not part of that criteria. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:43, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahmoud Fadel[edit]

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

The subject does just scrape by GNG as the single reliable source used for the entire article discusses him in some depth, however, according to GNG, notability is only presumed. In my searches I could only find a few hits and only one of those (the single reliable source already used) had depth. The others were a few sentences he gave in an interview at Muhammad Ali's funeral; a brief mention of him losing a fight and suffering racial abuse in South Africa; and the others were unreliable, blog/user generated websites listing his death. I think there was 7 or 8 in total. He fails WP:BASIC which requires multiple sources. He completely fails all aspects of WP:ANYBIO/WP:NBOX as he achieved nothing in his boxing career (I believe this should be the defining factor here, as there is only one reliable source in the article). Literally, his only claim to fame, the only thing he is "notable" for (as the article makes clear), is that he was an on-and-off sparring partner for Muhammad Ali. Even with the single reliable source used/available, the subject is just not noteworthy enough to merit a Wikipedia article. If the subject hadn’t died, there wouldn’t even be the one source that’s been used. 2.O.Boxing 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 19:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Boxing-related deletion discussions. 2.O.Boxing 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, ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 12:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable boxer and he can't inherit notability from being Ali's sparring partner. The crucial factor is that he doesn't appear to have the significant independent coverage required to meet WP:BASIC. The only things I found in my search were articles on his death and those were focused on him being Ali's sparring partner. To me this brings up issues of WP:NOTMEMORIAL and WP:NOTINHERITED. Papaursa (talk) 14:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HuntGroup (talk • contribs) 12:49, 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 19:23, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honey Bunny Ka Jholmaal[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA. No credible citations are available. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 11:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Tone 19:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Boulton (UK journalist)[edit]

David Boulton (UK 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)

There is more than is included in the article that would count towards notability, e.g. he has written far more than 3 books, but I couldn't establish that he meets the criteria for WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's regional Granada Television he worked for, from 1964 to 1991. More complete biographical source here. Written a lot of books. I don't see any signs of notability in his career. --Lockley (talk) 02:32, 12 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) 12:26, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: No significant coverage in reliable sources to show that the subject meets the GNG. Ravenswing 08:45, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johsie Cruz[edit]

Johsie Cruz (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:BLP of a person notable primarily as an as yet unelected candidate in a future election, not referenced to any evidence of notability-supporting reliable source coverage. As always, candidates are not automatically entitled to keep permanent Wikipedia articles just for standing as candidates per se -- the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable political office, not just running for one.
The claim that she's the first person of her ethno-national background ever to run for Congress is not supported by any source that verifies it -- instead, it's supported by a primary source that technically verifies her candidacy, but fails to verify the claim that the candidacy is a historic first. And regardless, "first member of X group to do a not otherwise notable thing" is not an article-clinching notability claim even if it were sourced.
Across the board, the references here are entirely to primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as her own campaign website and the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with and directory entries -- and the only real media source present in the article is being used solely to tangentially verify the existence of an organization while completely failing to mention Johsie Cruz's name at all in conjunction with it, so it still doesn't help to support her notability.
As always, no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins her seat, but nothing here is valid grounds for her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 12:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The lead sentence makes three claims for notability stant she is a theologian, entrepreneur, and politician. The claim of being a theologian is not backed up with any sort of statement in the article as to what she has done as a theologian. The claim to being an entrepreneur presumably is from starting Red Alternativa Capitalista de Información. But I can find no coverage about her and her entrepreneurship. The only coverage is mentions in routine election coverage which does not establish her notability as a politician, especially one who has held no political office. -- Whpq (talk) 14:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or Delete Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia as a usual and appropriate outcome for candidates running for the US Hours of Representatives. Candidates do not meet WP:NPOL as Bearcat describes. --Enos733 (talk) 15:28, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:28, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathon Stern[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:GNGACTOR. No credible citations are available. Hatchens (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:53, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Struck out !vote by sockpuppet. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Badly-written article with more refs needed, but notable as Big Brother contestant etc. Johnbod (talk) 14:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Well, if the refs are not out there we cannot improve anything. We delete. -The Gnome (talk) 09:54, 26 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 Rice bal. Tone 19:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chakkoli[edit]

Chakkoli (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 can find some recipes - but no evidence of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist, as minimal discussion so far.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 11:53, 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 19:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luba Drozd[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG at the current stage and qualifies WP:TOOSOON/WP:NOTJUSTYET. Hence, calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:46, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per nom, too soon, probably one day! PainProf (talk) 03:02, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:29, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marwa Dabaieh[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NPROF. No credible citations are available. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 11:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete WP:TOOSOON perhaps. Not long been a full professor (not a named position). Not a massive number of citations, no notable prizes (I'd say a PhD prize generally isn't notable). -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Note that this is not a highly cited field so top pub of 90 might be quite good. Need to look at comparable architect. Does Sweden have named positions? PainProf (talk) 03:10, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete since subject fails all of WP:NACADEMIC. -The Gnome (talk) 09:48, 26 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. discussion started by sock Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lapwing Publications[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Lapwing Publications (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 wikipedia's GNG Mariyaismail (talk) 11:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:00, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep One of a string of bad noms by this newbie, who doesn't seem to know what he is doing. Johnbod (talk) 14:25, 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 19:24, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Knowledge Structures & Systems[edit]

Journal of Knowledge Structures & Systems (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 does not appear to be Predatory open access publishing. It appears to be a self-published work. Would an WP:AFD discussion be more appropriate than outright speedy deletion? Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 10:56, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy deletion Does not make a credible claim of notability, they couldn't even buy a web domain? PainProf (talk) 18:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Looks very suspicious. No independant coverage at all. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:43, 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 speedy delete. Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhikkhu Sangharatna[edit]

Bhikkhu Sangharatna (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 wikipedia's GNG Mariyaismail (talk) 10:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • oops, I came for deletion sorting, and it got speedied Lightburst (talk) 13:57, 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. Discussion started by sock. Eagles 24/7 (C) 17:21, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hotseat (multiplayer mode)[edit]

Hotseat (multiplayer mode) (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)

Undersourced, fails wikipedia's notability guidelines Mariyaismail (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Mariyaismail (talk) 10:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:03, 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 no consensus. No consensus at this time, and don't think another relist will do much good. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lasco, California[edit]

Lasco, 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 spot on the ex-NCO Railway line, the only indication I have of anything there is this Forest Service newsletter which states that there was a lumbering camp there in the e 1920s. Myrick appears to document the same, at greater length, but not being able to read the passages in full I cannot tell whether he says much more in toto. At any rate the evidence is that this wasn't a settlement; whether it is notable for having a lumber camp on the site, I will leave to others to discuss. Mangoe (talk) 03:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP - I found a writeup about this place and community here that I'll add a bit from, to improve the article with. http://www.tipurdy.org/camp-lasco/ Goldenrowley (talk) 18:22, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have come across Purdy's site several times of late. My problems here are two: first, it appears to be a self-published site, so I've been reluctant to use it as a source. Second, we're back to the issue of "not a town". Logging camps are, by their nature, seasonal if semi-permanent, and even Purdy's text doesn't make it clear how much the camp and the spot on the railroad should be identified as the same place. I'm more ambivalent about this case than some of the others, but realize that it's going to change to being "Lasco was a stop on the railroad where there was a logging camp for a time," which may fail to satisfy others' notions of what is notable, especially considering how one must stretch for sourcing. Mangoe (talk) 19:39, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You don't need to WP:SHOUT your vote, please. We can read the bold vote just fine. Reywas92Talk 19:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seasonal logging camp, not a notable town/community. Reywas92Talk 19:50, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I've done some work on the article, I think its a notable location, and its better to have this content in its own article instead of in a subsection of Lassen_County,_California#Communities. While seasonal, it was populated for eight years, and families lived there. I don't have a newspapers.com subscription right now, but I do see the Lassen newspaper has some more articles on it that someone might add as references. It is a notable part of the history of the region.--Milowent • hasspoken 21:13, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:51, 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 Capital University#WXCU Radio. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nK t • c 15:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WXCU Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable student radio station, does not meet WP:GNG and cannot be considered under WP:BCAST. Raymie (t • c) 07:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 07:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - I'm sorry, but this isn't a radio station, it's simply a student club that is FALSELY branding itself a radio station. Radio stations are notable due to the extensive paperwork required to have a broadcast license. Fails both WP:GNG and WP:ORG. Additional problem: simce the children behind this club have usurped a valid call sign to brand the little meaningless game they are playing, at some point, this title will be a legit radio station that has nothing whatsoever to do with this children's club. John from Idegon (talk) 17:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whether this is as it should be or not, we have no other word for internet radio stations to label them separately from terrestrial AM or FM radio stations. For an internet radio station to call itself a radio station isn't "false branding", it's just a different broadcasting platform. Bearcat (talk) 11:40, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect: Let's keep the information (trim it down) and move it to the Capital University page. I think, since it does have 5 sources, it can be saved, but since it doesn't meet NMEDIA, redirect is the way to go. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:48 on July 11, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
    • Update: There is a section on the Capital University page for the station itself. It needs a few sources. Add the 5 the article has and there ya go. :) Redirect complete. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 19:51 on July 11, 2020 (UTC) • #StayAtHome • #BlackLivesMatter
  • Redirect to Capital University: It's best to discuss the station in the target article. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 16:00, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Capital University Devokewater @ 09:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Capital University. Internet radio stations aren't entitled to the same presumption of notability as terrestrial AM or FM radio stations, but the sources here are entirely primary sources and/or the student newspaper of the same university, which means they aren't getting this over WP:GNG. However, per WP:NMEDIA, student media which are deemed non-notable should be redirected to and discussed within the article on the university or college that they serve, rather than simply being deleted outright. Bearcat (talk) 11:40, 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. Consensus seems clear enough. It has also been expanded. Geschichte (talk) 11:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

1692 in Norway[edit]

1692 in Norway (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I believe that this should be deleted as there is really no information on it. It has not been touched in years. Possibly maybe instead of deletion, an expert can assist? Bakertheacre Chat/What I Baked 18:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Bakertheacre Chat/What I Baked 18:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America1000 18:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge all of the 169x in Norway together into a single article due to lack of recorded events. See Talk:1526 in Ireland for a similar discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 23:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, why are we picking on Norway, and 1692? (i happen to like both ), this is not a cat, and WP:NOTPAPER, we should be expanding these "year in [country]" articles, not deleting/merging them. ps. it also meets WP:LISTPURP ie. info/navigation. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ps. i recently added to the "events" section, shows how relatively easy to expand it. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:50, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP There is enough valid content in it to justify its existence. There are thousands of articles like this, and they always survive unless there are so few things in them that they have to be merged together in a list by decade. Dream Focus 11:19, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep There is nothing wrong even if this article is going to remain a stub forever. desmay (talk) 23:44, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep -- I see no harm in annual articles by country. However the related category and siblings would be better for being merged inot on 1690s category. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:14, 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 speedy keep. Izno (talk) 15:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titanfall[edit]

Titanfall (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 wikipedia' notabilityMariyaismail (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Mariyaismail (talk) 09:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep/withdrawnMariyaismail (talk) 14:57, 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. Per source analysis Spartaz Humbug! 22:58, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steak House[edit]

Steak 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)

Non-notable organisation. References are PR and award is non-notable. scope_creepTalk 08:15, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that Clockmaster68 at least has been banned. Perhaps their votes on this and other open AfDs can be struck out or removed. There seems to be a ton of that kind of thing going on lately for some reason and from what I've seen it's been happening way more with keep votes. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That was very quick. scope_creepTalk 09:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Twitter seems to be the rallying point, that combined with paid editing. The seem to be desperate to keep it on Wikipedia as it is good adversing. This article is a steakhouse with 19 restaurants. 190 might be notable, but not 19. scope_creepTalk 09:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Im not paid to say this. ~Styyx (talk) 21:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:45, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Article cites plenty of sources. SafeSweepy (talk) 12:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - likely paid-for spam, even more with the sock/meatpuppetry in this AFD. MER-C 13:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep 28 year old company with 19 locations (references that need to be formatted). I will give it a go. Lightburst (talk) 17:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Anyone know what a relible source in Saudi Arabia is? I ask because the two main (or really sources) in this article seem to anonomously written and usually we consider unreliable. Which, therefore, means they can't be used to establish notability. At least that's my understanding. Adamant1 (talk) 19:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: I am working on it here and there. A few of the sources are likely press releases. I will keep looking, I added several refs and reworked the article. Will see if I can discover the news sources of Riyadh. Lightburst (talk) 20:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Media Lightburst (talk) 20:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine. I'm going to probably wait to vote and look into the sources more myself. I feel slightly uncomfortable voting on AfDs that mainly involve non-English sources. I'm trying to learn what the good ones are. I'd guess there's probably more on this company in Arabic. Although I could be wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the overall consensus for these types of stores is the number needs to be in the 100's. There many many businesses with a couple of dozens stores fronts. 19 stores doesn't cut it. 190 possibly, or 290 I wouldn't even have nominated it. The consensus is, it must be in the 100s.scope_creepTalk 19:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep:It fulfills WP:ORG without a doubt, it has been a subject of a reliable, independent, secondary source here and has received significant coverage.TheIraqiAmericanYXT (talk) 13:29, 24 July 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That is a non-notable award, and it was given to the individual not the company, and it was so important to the individual, they never turned up to collect it. So its not significant coverage, by any definition. scope_creepTalk 13:46, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who said they never came to take it, and besides the awarding organization is notable.TheIraqiAmericanYXT (talk) 15:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:59, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No it is not. There is no interviews of them accepting it, whereas there is some of the other winners. scope_creepTalk 15:51, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Lets go the references:
  1. Ref 1,2,3 are press releases. Ref 2,3 are duplicates. This comes under WP:NCORP standard notices, brief announcements, and routine coverage Not independent of the subject.
  2. Ref 4. Advertising its new menu updates. This comes under WP:NCORP simple listings or compilations Not independent of the subject.
  3. Ref 5. Dead link
  4. Ref 6. Advertising it won an non-notable award. This comes under WP:NCORPof non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products
  5. Ref 7. Advertising it won an non-notable award. This comes under WP:NCORPof non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products Same as Ref 6
  6. Ref 8 Same as Ref 6 and 7. Same award which is non-notable hospitality award.Advertising it won an non-notable award. This comes under WP:NCORP of non-notable awards received by the organization, its people, or products scope_creepTalk 15:59, 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 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paioli[edit]

Paioli (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 nothing in this to show it meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG, and I couldn't find anything on a search or in Italian WP either. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 10:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 12:57, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joshua Flanders[edit]

Joshua Flanders (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)

Set up two groups (both currently at AfD for lack of notability). Doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete, article was presumably created by a COI editor, this guy does not meet GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Non-notable and unknown person. The reference is at the wrong place. Even the writer itself with "close connections" can write only a single sentence. Styyx (talk) 09:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. --Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 20:38, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:54, 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 19:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brandon Cutler[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poor references. Not notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:08, 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) 21:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of newspapers in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands[edit]

List of newspapers in South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands (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 list consists of essentially one item and is not expandable. May be should be merged into South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands or a better target if there is any. Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment The South Georgia Museum is not part of the Government of the South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands, so they should be considered separate items. Other small territories also have short newspaper lists, like the Isle of Man. Joofjoof (talk) 07:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep You have to look at the article in reference to List of newspapers in South America. An article being a stub for life is no reason for deletion. Having a good overview of all the media coverage of a territory is essential for a good encyclopaedia. KittenKlub (talk) 09:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It's not clear to me that any of the listed items truly constitutes a newspaper or ever did. The situation in Isle of Man is quite different, since Isle of Man has a permanent population of over 80,000 and print newspapers are published there. [17] South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands have no permanent population and only a minuscule temporary population. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 14:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there are no true newspapers on this list and so there is no justification for having it.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep or Rename This page could be renamed as "Media" instead of "List of newspapers". The organizations on South Georgia (gov't, museum, scientists) are the de facto news sources for the territory. Joofjoof (talk) 06:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete not a useful article, could be a redirect to South Georgia Museum if we really feel the need for excessive completeness. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands as said by nominator. Styyx (talk) 09:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This doesn't seem expandable past one item as is and I don't think renaming it to "media" instead of "list of newspapers" is really an option because the term is to broad and ambiguous. For instance books, records, and movies are all "media", but I don't think there should be a list that includes all of them. I know "media" can refer to "news media", maybe that's an option, but "news media" (or even "media" as it relates to the news is kind of a slang or pejorative term. So deleting the article sounds like the best thing to do. Merging with South Georgia and the South Sandwich Islands could be an option to though, I guess. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:07, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Cultural Nigeria[edit]

Miss Cultural Nigeria (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)

Nigerian beauty pageant run by Silverdowed Entertainment. Does not have sufficient coverage for notability. Bob not snob (talk) 06:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2017-03 ✗ PROD, 2017-03 ✗ PROD
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom and the article lacks enough sources to support and verify it's notability. Em-mustapha talk 13:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Deletenon-notable pageant.--Richie Campbell (talk) 03:54, 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 no consensus. Arguments for keep are relatively weak, with one arguing more for the campaign being notable than her. I don't think an additional relist would be that helpful at this point. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valerie Smith (social activist)[edit]

Valerie Smith (social activist) (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)

Of the two non-broken links in the article, neither gives the subject more than a namedrop. No evidence of reliable sources providing substantive coverage to the subject proffered in over a decade. Fails the GNG. Ravenswing 14:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I mentioned BLP1E assuming that someone would come along making a claim that Smith is not notable that it is only her "quixotic crusade" (ie. an event) that is notable. (Further, I mentioned BLP1E because when I was just skimming the surface of sourcing about Smith it was mostly about her involvement with Eminem and I feared others might come to a BLP1E conclusion.) The argument you make here is a perfect example of the kind of discussion I anticipated as, in my opinion, you seem to be claiming there is sigcov not about Smith but about the "events" she has been involved in. Samsmachado (talk) 14:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I think there's a reasonable argument to be made that she is notable only for her long-running and apparently single-person "media violence" campaign. That she and her campaign have received significant coverage over an extended period indicates that one or both are notable. I would consider supporting a proposal to move this page if there were consensus for a new name. The name of her website, Free Radical, is too ambiguous, as is Action Agenda (and probably inaccurate). pburka (talk) 16:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I believe this article can stay for the coverage she has earned as a long standing advocate of a better society. Nika2020 (talk) 05:40, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Village at Riverwatch[edit]

The Village at Riverwatch (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)

Standard mall development, though a large one - doesn't meet any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 06:50, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 11:59, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the article reads more like a brochure for the shopping center than a notable area. Zombles - Talk to me 15:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Article is quite outdated and needs to be worked on. Seems like more than a 'typical mall', & many of which are generally kept. Wikipedia:Deletion is not cleanup, and this could be salvaged.Djflem (talk) 16:25, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 05:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: per nom. Not seeing any notability myself. Ravenswing 10:10, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:02, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Margarita Brender Rubira[edit]

Margarita Brender Rubira (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 am not yet convinced of this lady's notability. —S Marshall T/C 09:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 09:44, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 10:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there are articles about her in several other language wikis, of which ca-wiki has references in Spanish, including this and this. See also this, an archive.org rescue of page in Catalan linked from ro-wiki. The text of the English article looks like a translation of ro-wiki article. HouseOfChange (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: pioneer woman architect, with sources about her in other languages. I've copy-edited the page to make it look a bit tidier. Dsp13 (talk) 22:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment per WP:HEY, I suggest the nom withdraw this AfD. HouseOfChange (talk) 14:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Definitely meets WP:GNG. -- Dane talk 17:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article seems to give sufficient sourcing now, so definitely need to be a case of WP:HEY. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:01, 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! 23:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mustaq Ahmad[edit]

Mustaq Ahmad (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. No effective referencing. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creepTalk 17:06, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Some WP:BEFORE could've been done before this one. Not sure if he is notable, but it's possible, and I'm not too familiar with reliable Singaporean sources. But there are these [18][19] with a quick search. Significant coverage yes, but not sure if reliable. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 17:33, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @ProcrastinatingReader:, The Online Citizen, when the articles are not politics related, is general reliable. Vulcanpost is generally reliable for business related news. Significant coverage of the Mustaq Ahmad is only recent despite of Mustafa's long time presence. – robertsky (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Created by User:BloominOnion27, who is also the creator of an article claimed by Wikiprofessionals Inc. as paid editing done on their behalf. All of this editor's article creations are questionable. BD2412 T 20:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A parallel biography can be read here: https://eresources.nlb.gov.sg/infopedia/articles/SIP_1164_2009-03-10.html, which strikes to me that his life revolves around Mustafa Centre. Some text in this article can easily be incorporated into Mustafa Centre, which is way more notable than Mustaq Ahmad himself. – robertsky (talk) 23:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep a cursory search online yields just enuf significant third-party coverage through the years for GNG to be met (Forbes, Bloomberg, Straits Times, etc.) This is not a case of BLP1E. Agree that the article's current state is quite terrible (if it wuz indeed paid editing, then somebody should be demanding a refund!)—but AfD is not cleanup. Kingoflettuce (talk) 05:23, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Forbes is non-RS. It is deprecated as a source for info. scope_creepTalk 08:30, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
says who?! Kingoflettuce (talk) 08:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Scope creep: not the list entry as sourced in the article per WP:FORBES. You are probably referring to WP:FORBESCON. – robertsky (talk) 06:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yip that its, but more so, the WMF has added a feature to the software which highlights certain sources if your in the NPP/Afc group, i.e. references that are very low quality. The policy now is to remove them. I think Forbes is going to be another Daily Mail. There is just too much poor quality, low-value content coming out of it. scope_creepTalk 19:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this blatantly promotional text that, in our Wikipedia of years past, might have fit right in. Not in our day and age, though; not when the criteria have tightened up as they have. Nowadays, we don't have much time for random information. -The Gnome (talk) 09:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You have said that twice now, but that is not the point. If there was coverage, it would in the article. Most the coverage that is present is promotional, self generated. There is little, to none of secondary sources, that are reliable, intellectually independent and secondary. scope_creepTalk 08:49, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "There must be sources" is not an acceptable argument. -The Gnome (talk) 11:48, 27 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 moved to Draft:Happy Halloween, Scooby-Doo!. This is a close call, but it is well argued that this presently falls short of the level of coverage needed to establish notability for a film, though notability is likely to develop in reasonably short order. BD2412 T 00:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Happy Halloween, Scooby-Doo![edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NF. This was Deproded without explanation or approval, and this has already failed a Draft submission. The future film does not meet notability guidelines yet. It's only coverage before is an announcement that a trailer is available. The film's production is not particularly notable and thus the film should not have a stand-alone article. A sensible option would be to merge relevant information into a list article, but there is not enough for an article. BOVINEBOY2008 17:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:17, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per WP:NFF, doesn't seem to have gotten far enough into production to meet that hurdle yet. WP:TOOSOON. Hog Farm Bacon 18:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    WP:NFF also says In the case of animated films, reliable sources must confirm that the film is clearly out of the pre-production process, meaning that the final animation frames are actively being drawn and/or rendered, and final recordings of voice-overs and music have commenced., which a trailer indicates all has already happened. Starzoner (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I don't think this article fails WP:NF or that Bovineboy2008 fully understands the deletion policy. The film is set to be released. JTZegers (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, I also agree that this doesn't fail WP:NE. A quick search turned up many sites announcing the film, which just happened. A trailer was released so the "plot" could potentially be added to the article, and once it is released there most assuredly will be reviews. This is not a case of WP:TOOSOON, but a case of WP:TOOSHORT. Donaldd23 (talk) 19:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

-@Donaldd23: Yeah, I guess that's understandable. JTZegers (talk) 22:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • I saw these sources too, @Donaldd23:, but if you open up and look at the sources they are all basically the same article. While this seems to meet the guideline of significant coverage, I don't know if an article that essentially says 'here's the trailer and some of the cast' constitutes. That's why I brought it here - for discussion. BOVINEBOY2008 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep (I'm the creator of the page). I think it is already notable. WP:NFF has said that an animated film can be created if it is already in production. A released trailer already indicates the animation is alreayd worked on, voice actors working on it, and likely music is worked on. If this was to be deleted, then the prior 34 films has to be as well. Starzoner (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't think we are interpreting WP:NFF the same way. When I read: "Films that have not been confirmed by reliable sources to have commenced principal photography should not have their own articles...", I don't think that the converse is automatically true. Just because it meets this bar does not mean it meets WP:GNG. It would be nice to know why you have submitted this for publication after @Dan arndt: declined the submission, without any improvements, and why you deproded without any improvements after it was proded by @Robert McClenon:. And I think the discussion we are having here has little to do with the other the articles about Scooby-Doo films, please don't turn this into a slippery slope argument. BOVINEBOY2008 16:57, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - The guideline on future films states that films that have not been released should not have their own articles unless the production itself was notable, and refers to the guidelines for the Production section at the MOS on films. There is no Production section, presumably because the production was not notable. The guideline on future films is widely misinterpreted; the misinterpretation here is not unusual, but the guideline says when films should not have articles. It is commonly misread as saying that films should have articles when they have started or completed production. It says that films that are in the works should only have articles if the production was notable. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - User:JTZegers - It appears that User:Bovineboy2008 does understand film notability, having read it well enough to parse what it does and does not say. Robert McClenon (talk) 18:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • Comment, whether it goes one way or another, I would like it to be moved back to draft instead. Starzoner (talk) 20:52, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draftify as all announcements of release are essentially the same piece of coverage. Although WP:TOOSOON for now, the current work can be stored in draft space in case reviews come later, and if not the content for merging is still readily available. Plus the author seems to now be requesting this regardless. –2pou (talk) 23:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Draft As said above ot might be too soon put it on darft and bulid it up to become a wikipieda page closer to it relase Fanoflionking 13:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 04:43, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above. Malcalmxl5 (talk) 17:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC) Striking LTA sock !vote[reply]
  • Draft It doesn't have the reviews yet to pass the notability standards for films. It seems the person who took it out of draft space did so prematurely and should have waited until it was released. No big, but back to draft space. Adamant1 (talk) 19:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

McAvoy, California[edit]

McAvoy, 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)

Appears to be another railroad facility. Durham calls it a locality on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe RR. This old travelogue calls in a side track on the rail line. And it is refered to in other places as a rail crossing (and here.) No sources call it a community. Does not seem to meet basic notability requirements.  Glendoremus (talk) 04:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy delete Mass-produced junk that's had a lie on it for the last decade from the negligence of the creator. Reywas92Talk 19:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete as clearly an isolated station without a surrounding community. Mangoe (talk) 04:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No sign of a community. –dlthewave ☎ 02:26, 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 speedy keep. As mentioned in discussion below, the subject passes notability guidelines for politicians. A subject doesnt have to pass general notability criteria if it passes subject-specific notability guidelines. Hence as long as it can be verified in reliable sources that the subject is/was member of legislative assembly, the subject doesnt need to have significant coverage. —usernamekiran (talk) 08:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dinesh Parmar[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:NPOL. No credible citations are available. Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 04:31, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Speedy keep - a minister in the state cabinet and a member of a state legislature easily passes WP:NPOL. WP:NPOL states that "The following are presumed to be notable: Politicians and judges who have held international, national, or (for countries with federal or similar systems of government) state/province–wide office, or have been members of legislative bodies at those levels. ..." (my emphasis) --Soman (talk) 11:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Kindly note, it fails WP:SIGCOV i.e., no significant coverage in third-party reliable sources. If you can help, then please update the article. -Hatchens (talk) 03:20, 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 Katharine Hepburn Cultural Arts Center. Since the events take place at the Katharine Hepburn Cultural Arts Center, the article isn't notable as it stands (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 13:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chestnut Hill Concerts[edit]

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

It exists, and has some longevity, but not enough to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 21:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Comment It looks to me as if the little content could be merged to Yale School of Music. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 08:39, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 12:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:45, 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 18:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- Dane talk 04:22, 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) 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brahmand Nayak[edit]

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

Fails to pass WP:GNG. No credible citations are available. Hatchens (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 03:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Doesn't pass WP:GNG. No coverage, WP:RS to be found. Show geared for regional market with no broad appeal; btw, page creator has long been banned for unconstructive editing. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 05:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That regional market is the state of Maharashtra with a population of 112 million which is more than many countries, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
agreed (I'm Marathi!), but topic is still lacking in notability (imho) and has no real coverage. Thanks. GreaterPonce665 (TALK) 01:02, 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 merge to JUCE TV#Former programming. (non-admin closure) PuzzledvegetableIs it teatime already? 20:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of programs broadcast by JCTV & JUCE TV[edit]

List of programs broadcast by JCTV & JUCE TV (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)

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. Zero sources except itself. It is a subchannel of Positiv which itself has a lack of sources. Suggest merging to Positiv North8000 (talk) 03:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:14, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge into JUCE TV#Former programming A bit of history behind the creation of this; once JUCE switched to Positiv, I rolled this 'list of' content into this article as it seemed awkward to keep in as a long appendix about Positiv's former guise that really didn't apply to a current-day all-movie network. A network official then came in asking for some branding clarity, and @BilCat: spun out the remainder of the JUCE content in the Positiv article into its own JUCE TV article, thus making this an awkward bit that should be put back into that article now that all the JUCE content is out of the Positiv article outside some links and clarity of the network's history. As for Positiv...there's not much to find. It's a broadcast subchannel that only airs Christian films, thus it works as a stub, not a full article. Nate • (chatter) 05:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Mrschimpf: I had a hard time understanding what you wrote (it would probably require more knowledge of those entities) but I sounds like you are well versed on this....if you could explain a bit more on the situation and recommended action..... Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 01:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge as above as a valid alternative to deletion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 18:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge but ONLY what can be sourced. 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. Spartaz Humbug! 23:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lil Buddha[edit]

Lil Buddha (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 was deleted under Sacar Adhikari and Draft:Lil Buddha was declined by myself and Robert McClenon. There is no significant coverage in reliable sources and no evidence of satisfying WP:MUSICBIO. GSS 💬 03:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 03:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. GSS 💬 03:04, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Can you please explain how these two passing mentions and one interview (primary source) support notability? Thank you, GSS 💬 10:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • (Not commenting on anything else) The Kathmandu Tribune is an absolute garbage whose appearance is designed to give it the credibility its content does not, and has past associations with UPE and PROMO. Usedtobecool ☎️ 11:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • speedsy close AfD and Return to draft. I strongly object to this entire procedure. I moved this to draft yesterday, as an alternative to deleting it under A7, although there seems to be some items missing from the log. Primefac removed the AfC template, and I think moved it back to mainspace, with the note draftification contested - will need to go to AFD. GSS, who had moved this to draft earlier that same day, nominated this for deletion less than an hour later. My understanding is that moving a page from draft to mainspace, with the intent of deleting it under mainspace rules, is specifically against consensus. WP:DRAFTS says: Drafts are meant to be works in progress, and most will not meet Wikipedia's standards for quality at first. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 19:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    DESiegel, Draftification is one experienced editor exercising a limited mandate; any draftification can be contested and after that only AFD can resolve the difference of opinion. "Draftify" is a perfectly valid outcome for any AFD. I don't think Primefac was personally contesting the draftification. I can see that draftification was contested multiple times before yesterday. In any case, when a draftification is reverted, the normal procedure is to take it to AFD rather than engage in a draftification war. Experienced editors can not and should not be able to become one-man gatekeepers of the mainspace, that's the job for AFD. Repeatedly draftifying the article violates at least two principles, one that the whole "Draft:" space and AFC is optional, and two, draftification should not be used as a backdoor to deletion. "Drafts are meant to be works in progress, and most will not meet Wikipedia's standards for quality at first." is a bit meant to provide a relative security to works in progress in the draftspace, not to move the articles in mainspace to bypass deletion over objection from editors who have decided their work is ready for mainspace. Usedtobecool ☎️ 20:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    For the record, while I love the ability of Special:MergeHistory to make my life easier, it is an absolute POS when it comes to logs. As you say, the page was moved to the draft space, but then the creator copy/pasted it back into the article space, so I did a histmerge from Draft to Article. As mentioned above, when someone is dead-set on having an article and does things like that it's better to go through AFD and formally delete it or determine if it's reliable. Primefac (talk) 21:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I missed the copy&paste "move" and the history merge. That explains the gaps in the logs -- that feature really should create a log entry of its own, at least. Since it appears that the article creator chose to return this to mainspace against at least my advice, and I think that of others, there was not a move to mainspece in order to use mainspece deletion rules. I still think this would be better off in draft, to allow time to establish no0tability if that ism possible, but no one editor has the power to force a page to stay in draft, and I wasn't claiming such a power. I think we maybe need a more developed consensus on when and how things should be moved in and out of draft. There has been so9me discussion of this on WT:CSD recently, but no consensus seems to have developed there. Anyway this article clearly hasn't demonstrated notability at this moment. I would still favor a move to draft, but if that doesn't have consensus, and if no better sources are found, this should be deleted.
    I apologize to Primefac and GSS for suggesting that they were acting improperly -- I should have asked them what they had in mi8nd and why first. I have struck my call to close this AfD above. DES (talk)DESiegel Contribs 21:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I wasn't meaning to imply that someone was playing gatekeeper, only that repeated redraftification would amount to it, despite honourable intentions. But, the histmerge explains some of the weirdness in the history, and I apologise for implying there was a persistent redraftification even, as it's now difficult to tell what was going on and who was aware of just how much history when they acted. It's a real pity when COI or PAID editors try to force entirely unready articles to mainspace over the better judgement of many experienced ones. There is no manual for how to handle it. With the current, now well on its path to become "stable", version of our paid editing guidelines contradicting the whole "Draft space is optional" motto while some users seem to be against draftification altogether (specifically remembering the one comment on Captain Eek's RFA), the best option is not always clear to even the most experienced users I'd imagine. I didn't know of Robert McClenon's essay or I would have just cited that. The exception now entrenched into WP:PE notwithstanding, I am quite sure the current consensus/policy support is with exactly what Robert says in that essay (it could be an information page, IMO, if it asserted its position more boldly, citing the relevant PAGS, discussions and practices, and did not end abruptly in a comma). Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 06:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User:Usedtobecool - Thanks. Typo fixed. It was written during a period when there were several move wars, because the reviewers thought that AFD was not an appropriate resolution because deletion was not their objective. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - I was a little puzzled by the way that it seems that the draft and the article were histmerged. I agree that taking this to AFD is what I recommend in my essay on Repeated Draftification. There may be unusual situations in which an article may reasonably be draftified twice, but normally a second draftification is just move-warring. I don't entirely understand why some experienced editors think that AFD is so bad that move-warring is a less disruptive alternative. Robert McClenon (talk) 22:01, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nomination, since subject lacks independent notability. The needed sources are simply not there. Wikipedia is not a collection of haphazardly thrown together, random information. Let's gracefully wish that this is a case of WP:TOOSOON. -The Gnome (talk) 11:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment : Agree that its a bit WP:TOOSOON. I added some independent references which should qualify it for a keep. Not intersted in modifying to improve the article though. nirmal (talk) 14:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nirmaljoshi: All of them are passing mentions, and not sufficient for notability. GSS 💬 14:20, 26 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! 23:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Gillon[edit]

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

There are refs given - but no page number and wasn't able to verify. Seems to be promotional; no Portuguese equivalent. See,s to have had success, but I've not seen anything that establishes it meets the threshold for WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 19:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: Probably my fave source so far is this, a Brazilian cultural encyclopedia. The reference to the São Paulo Art Biennial in the ref list checks out, but is remarkably thin: he's cited just on page 426 of the PDF as a set/production designer on A visita da velha senhora (a play). His work has been sold at auction many times, and I've been able to find a number of galleries that discuss Gillon – which I'd consider reasonably reliable sources, at least for basic biographical info (though would happily be corrected by participants in WP:ART, if they disagree). Downside: all sources are in Portuguese or French (or obviously machine-translated English), and none cite their own sources. I have basic competence in both and would be happy to translate to the extent I can, if others think these qualify as legitimate sources of info. (PS: for your amusement, see this ad in a 1963 local newspaper, for Gillon's Jangada armchair.) AleatoryPonderings (talk) 15:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
user:AleatoryPonderings, thanks for taking the time to look at this. It's hard to tell, but those sources may well be helpful and we certainly don't want to discount anything because it's not in English. Boleyn (talk) 19:13, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Boleyn: Of course. I may have some time soon to incorporate some of that material into the article, so will see if my opinion changes re: reliability as I look more closely at the sources. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 19:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC) Update: I did the best I could, but there's not much left. I would like to get my hands on Cadeiras brasileiras and Mobiliário residencial brasileiro, the two sources mentioned in the bibliography, but they don't appear to be online. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 21:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found some more sources and have added them to the article. Seems Gillon is pretty much exclusively known for the Jangada chair, mentions of which crop up in a number of design publications. Would note in particular that a retrospective was held (in Portuguese, but headline is pretty clear nonetheless) was held on him in 2015. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:18, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Took a swing at it myself, but likewise I'm seeing nothing but casual mentions and namedrops, none of which meet the bar of the GNG. Nor is the GNG satisfied by a flurry of non-qualifying references; as far as the guideline is concerned, 0+0+0+0+0+0=0. No prejudice against recreation for someone who has done the work to produce reliable sources with significant coverage, but considerable prejudice against keeping the article around just on the off chance some appear. This article has already been sitting around for eleven years without good references. That's way too far enough. Ravenswing 13:39, 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 no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ARC Association for Real Change[edit]

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

It exists and is a worthy organisation. Most coverage just confirms its existence and its basic details. I couldn't establish that it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Boleyn (talk) 16:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Its a major care provider. Significant player in UK social care. Plenty of coverage, but mostly in the specialist press. The article was very weak, but I've found extensive coverage of its campaigns by the BBC. I think that is quite sufficient to establish notability. Rathfelder (talk) 17:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 09:31, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 02:40, 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. Fenix down (talk) 07:04, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vital Football[edit]

Vital 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)

NN internet forum, fails the GNG and WP:ORG. It *exists*, but no significant coverage in reliable, third-party sources can be found. Notability tagged for over a decade. Prior AfD in 2006 closed as no consensus, with the three keep voters' rationale being "Keep per alexa rank." One went on to argue "No doubt it will soon be expanded - give them a week, for example." Alright, we've given them fourteen years. Enough is enough. Ravenswing 02:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 02:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 02:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 08:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lamachaur[edit]

Lamachaur (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)

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. Small residential area of the city of Pokhara. No GNG suitable coverage. The most substantive reference is about Pokhara, not the subject of this article. Does not meet any SNG. Also, as neighborhood with no self unit of government does not even meet the lower standard common for inhabitated places. Suggest merging to Pokhara. I'd be happy to handle the merge if pinged. North8000 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:30, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete looks to be just a city neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 04:42, 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 moot, creator blanked and it was G7ed. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:13, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Space Rings (disambiguation)[edit]

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

None of these things are called "space rings" in reliable sources at any significant rate. Most of these things are not even ring shaped, many being disks instead. Crossroads -talk- 02:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 02:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 02:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Crossroads -talk- 02:25, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Edit or Keep its obvious that disc and ring shaped astronomical bodies are a simple enough group to put together into a disambiguation page. If you would prefer a different name recommend one but I do not think that the idea of the page merits a deletion, only the idea that the name should be potentially changed. Bgrus22 (talk) 02:28, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom with circular fire. Aside from jewelry, the only "space ring" I can find is in this single article. The fact that there is no space ring article (just a redirect, itself up for speedy deletion) should have given the page's creator a clue. Clarityfiend (talk) 04:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to a new page. Delete This one is a bit wierd. I feel it might be better as some kind of list of rings/discs in space, rather than a disamb page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:48, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Based on further thought, and especially the response by Lockley, I'm changing my response to delete. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. WP:DPAGE: "A disambiguation page is a non-article page that lists and links to encyclopedia articles covering topics that could have had the same title". This page isn't one if those, so delete, without prejudice to the creation of an article at Space ring. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. "Space ring" isn't a thing that would have an article of its own, let alone multiple articles that would need disambiguation. Aldebarium (talk) 19:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I just noticed this article has quite a few redirects pointing to it too, which doesn't really comply with WP:HOWTODAB under the valid reasons to redirect to a disamb page. -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment -- just to underline Kj cheetham's point, the creator here also created twenty-nine new redirect pages pointing here. One example is Space dust disks. As far as I can tell, zero pages link to those 29 redirects. I suspect they should also be deleted en masse perhaps under speedy delete G8 as "Redirects to non-existent targets". I'm willing to help if somebody wants to ping me. --Lockley (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Like I said then, how would you classify astronomical bodies in ring or disc like shapes considering that the main differentiation is size or if they are man made. As for that speedy deletion mentioned above it was deleted because the user was problematic not because the content was inaccurate. Im fine with moving this page to a different name or reformatting it but it seems strange that it is so difficult to group the 2 pages that cover circumplanetary discs along with other general space disc or ring shaped bodies. The other ones I linked simply due to similiarities in name that seemed fitting for a disambiguation, but if my concept of how this should work is wrong then by all means lets remove an unnecessary page (I deleted 2 already that were poorly chosen names since if you include debris you could not mention "space rings" which was a redirect at the time of making this disambiguation. But by all means, lets either propose an alternative name, potentially removing unrelated topics like hypothetical structures and astronomical tool, or just delete the whole page outright if it does not satisfy all of your criteria despite potentially solving several issues (pages in need of merging and working similar to a see also section for these topics). Bgrus22 (talk) 05:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Considering a name that does not specify size would effectively mean any option is an equally viable search result seemed like a simple reason to put those in line with sending results to the disambiguation and allow users to pick what they would like. With regards to the other terms they simply began joining the list as redirect pages with similar names led me there and seemed like space related rings or discs, a group that is honestly broad enough that a disambig should exist, if not heavily altered; my reason for voting edit or keep above. Bgrus22 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per the nomination. Even the things on the list that are actually rings aren't called "space rings". XOR'easter (talk) 17:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. This good-faith effort to describe and name a category of astronomical objects has two basic problems (1) it's not for wikipedians to invent names and classify things, it's our job to report on names and classifications found in reliable 3rd party sources, and (2) as explained above this is not a disambiguation page. --Lockley (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Thank you for recognizing I did this in good faith! It seems like the community is set that this page is unnecessary and I am fine with its removal without a replacement if that is what the community wishes. I do think the idea of a list instead of a disambiguation page sounds logical and I would like to know if that would be something I could convert this to. Thank you everyone for teaching me about disambig guidelines! Bgrus22 (talk) 23:01, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:31, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jayne Joso[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Jayne Joso (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)

Still not a biography, just a bibliography and a list of little prizes and nominations; certainly no better than in 2016 and no more notable. Orange Mike | Talk 23:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete: Can't find significant coverage. If there are (multiple) offline sources showing such coverage, please tell me and I will reconsider my vote. Username6892 04:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep Comment: There are a couple of sources and mentions on reliable sources which makes her pass wp:gng like a mention about her Novels in Newyorktimes here [23]. Dtt1Talk 15:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That only appears to be a single sentence, Dtt1, whereas WP:GNG requires significant coverage. One of the reasons the article lacks any real content is that we essentially don't know anything about Joso, because she's not been written about in any depth. Cordless Larry (talk) 06:59, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete there is not the level of coverage to show she meets notability for a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:17, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable awards, non-notable works. Ifnord (talk) 21:52, 26 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. Sandstein 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very erotic very violent[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Very erotic very violent (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)

Little to no lasting notability, meme is not inherently notable.

Article's sourcing is poor and outdated. Many sources are either dead links, or are not reliable (such as "Blog China" and Southern Metropolis Daily). The few sources that are more reliable (such as United Daily) can be added to this incident's section on the main Xinwen Lianbo page, where it is already explained.

Although Xinwen Lianbo is not a great source on its own, the influence of this individual event on the credibility of Chinese state-run and state-sponsored broadcasters (as the article claims) appears to be have been extremely minimal after the initial popularity of this internet phenomenon around 2007/2008. Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ Kɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ Kɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ Kɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ Kɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Kʜᴜ'ʜᴀᴍɢᴀʙᴀ Kɪᴛᴀᴘ (parlez ici) 01:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:57, 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. Sandstein 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LGBT theatre in Singapore[edit]

LGBT theatre in Singapore (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)
Alright, hear me out; this won't be a short one. (Apologies in advance, for what turns out to be by far the longest nomination essay I've written in 15 years at AfD.)

This article has been notability tagged for over a decade, but I can't honestly say it's not a notable subject. What this IS, however, is a polemic essay that's heavily involved in WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH violations and choked with editorializing, and it always has been. It's chock full of the editor/s assertions that this production or that constitutes "LGBT theater" because of particular theatrical styles where all roles are played by men, or because the star happens to be trans, or because the editor thinks such and such play "includes LGBT themes" and so on. There are many sources, but actually examining the sources turns up that they're mostly just reviews of the plays/films, from here or there in the world, and do not discuss their actual performance in Singapore by the theaters this article claims put the shows on.

It turns out there was, back in 2006, an AfD of a previous iteration of the article (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Singapore gay theatre) where the nom put forth the following rationale: "Delete as unverifiable original research and indiscriminate. From WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information: Lists or repositories of loosely associated topics...". Also "Wikipedia is not a publisher of original thought: Critical reviews...Opinions on current affairs...". I'm not questioning the verifiability of the specific plays; if they're notable they should have their own articles. However, loosely associating them in this fashion is original research and the article is little more than one contributor's review of gay theatre in Singapore." The AfD closed as no consensus in one of the common garbage deletion decisions prevalent at the time, where the keep proponents stated that those plays existed and suchlike, and that time should be given for the article to improve.

That was fourteen years ago. It hasn't. Indeed, much of the text of this article is unchanged from then. There is absolutely room for a well-written article, based on reliable Singaporean sources, discussing this important subject. This isn't it. It never *has* been it, and it's rife for nothing beyond TNT. Ravenswing 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Singapore-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:59, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. I agree, this is OR. Even if some of the theatre companies and productions discussed are notable, you can't just say, "I'm going to lump these notable things together and conclude that they are a connected set of set of things that constitute an encyclopedia topic", unless there are actual articles or studies or publications of some kind that have made that connection. In other words, there appears to BE some LGBT theatre that can be viewed from time to time in Singapore, but we don't even have an article in a queer culture magazine, or an entertainment magazine like Time Out, or anything that says it's "a thing".-- Ssilvers (talk) 20:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oksana Salamatina[edit]

Oksana Salamatina (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 about an art galerist was created by a paid editor. There are quite a few sources in the article, but all of them only present passing mentions, and none describes the subject or her activity in depth. Thus, the subject fails WP:GNG. I do not see correspondence to WP:CREATIVE either though it is of course formulates so broadly and unfortunately is interpreted even more broadly so that in principle any creative professional can pass. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Keep There are enough sources and she does have a WorldCat mention, a search with the ref tool finds one mention of her in the New York Times. Probably could use better primary sources... I could go either way on this one.Oaktree b (talk) 21:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Wikipedia is not a place you pay to get in, we must be vigilant in fighting against such behavior.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  •  Dislike @Ymblanter: starting an AfD entry with reference to author's paid contributions to other articles is quite manipulative. This way you convince anyone who dislike the concept of paid editing to show no mercy. You know Misha and probably know Timofei (both of them are primarily active in Russian Wikipedia), and all our contributions to art-related topics have always been voluntary.
 Comment: Now to the point. TheArtGorgeous isn't the best source, but it's clearly not a passing mention. WP:CREATIVE doesn't formulate broadly by any means, it's unclear in regard to many creative professions. I addressed the point 3. She's a curator who doesn't create artistic works, but "creates" exhibitions. And Roberto Matta's exhibition in State Hermitage is actually a well-known "work" that won significant attention from both mainstream and art-related media. Birulik (talk) 16:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
https://theartgorgeous.com/oksana-salamatina/ is a terrible source. No, it's not a passing mention, but most of it is an interview, and it is not clear who conducted it, as it's bylined "Fempire". They don't appear to be a magazine that has any editorial oversight; they describe themselves as "a media company and community powerhouse" that develops "innovative concepts and strategies and create captivating content, closely working with our unparalleled network of global art world influencers and institutions". That doesn't sound like independent and reliable at all. Vexations (talk) 20:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let me cite TheArtGorgeous About page as well. They clearly claim to be a "media company" and an "art entertainment magazine". They also have a print edition with an editorial board. They also seem to be focused on female artists / curators. The Fempire is a section, not an author. The publication in question obviously have two independent sections: a bio and a kind of interview/questionnaire. The bio is obviously the main part of the article. Let me sum it up: there's a female gallerist/curator bio in a female-focused art entertainment magazine with a print edition and editorial board. Does it sound reliable enough? Birulik (talk) 20:01, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Birulik, No way. That magazine's first issue is from Spring 2017, and the article you cite is from January 2016. The magazine didn't even exist. Vexations (talk) 21:42, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So what? The digital edition existed for 2 years prior to print one. The point is that they obviously have an editorial oversight. Having an editorial board on display is a good practice, but by no means an obligation in 2020. Birulik (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per WP:TNT. Those who would like to keep the article must be allowed to start it from scratch though. Accesscrawl (talk) 05:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:34, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gotta elaborate my point about correspondence with the point 3 of WP:CREATIVE. That was the first Roberto Matta's exhibition in Russia. It also took place in one of the most important museums in Russia and the 2nd largest art museum in the world. That's quite an institutional support. I guess that the artist that had a solo/collaborative exhibition there will be considered notable without doubt. Birulik (talk) 12:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete on the basis of WP:TNT more than failing notability at WP:GNG. I really don't see anything salvageable from this hyper-hypertexted advertisement. Ifnord (talk) 21:30, 26 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 Hong Kong Adventist College. Mz7 (talk) 19:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Kong Adventist Academy[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be anything notable about this academy. From what I can tell it hasn't been referenced since it was created and I can't find anything notable about it in a web search. Plus, it's written like an advertisement and the two main editors of the article clearly have COIs. --Adamant1 (talk) 04:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
merging to Hong Kong Adventist College would be fine. I was actually going to suggest it myself. Except whatever is merged would still have to be supported by in-depth secondary sources. Otherwise, there's no point in doing it and one book mentioning the place exists doesn't cut it. You can't merge an otherwise non-notable subject as a run around to the AfD process so the information can be kept. Otherwise, if it actually had reliable sourcing I'd be fine with merging it. --Adamant1 (talk) 09:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:40, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 01:34, 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 merge to Lazzeroni. Sandstein 10:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lazzeroni rifle[edit]

Lazzeroni rifle (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 product, fails the GNG going away. Notability tagged for over a decade, and no reliable sources in over thirteen years. Article is blatantly promotional. No significant coverage in reliable sources found, although I did find a firearms forum with comments such as "Who buys these things? I seriously wonder how they can move enough guns to stay in business from year to year," "I've never even seen a Lazzeroni in real life or know anybody who's ever used one," and "According to the ATF manufacturing report, Lazzeroni Inc manufactured and registered only 27 rifles in 2010." Ravenswing 01:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page, for which the same SPA created both:

Lazzeroni cartridge (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Firearms-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 01:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete the rifle [24] is an in-depth look at the Lazzeroni products, although I'm unfamiliar with the source, and there's nothing to be found about guns.com in the reliable sources noticeboard archives. [25] Reviewed in Field and Stream, which is a reliable publication (and yes, it appears to be a staff review). [26] is a decently reliable source imo, so long as the content does not bear on the NRA, it's publisher. However, the content in that article is about Lazzeroni himself, not the rifles. On the whole, the guns.com piece is of unknown reliability and the Field and Stream piece is brief, so I'm going to say weak delete. Hog Farm Bacon 05:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reliable sources noticeboard now has info on guns.com. Not a reliable source. It is just a online website that connects gun buyers with licensed gun dealers. Assume that anything you see on guns.com is an ad, even if it looks like an article. --Guy Macon (talk) 06:44, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good to know. I come from a family of sportsmen, but I freely concede that knowing which firearms publications are reliable or not is not my long suit, and I'm happy to listen to editors with more expertise on the subject. Ravenswing 06:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak keep the cartridge. For the cartridge - [27] is an in-depth piece mentioning the cartridges, but I'm unfamiliar with the source and there's nothing on the reliable source noticeboard about it. A Google search seems to indicate this isn't a particularly major publication, so I'll default to not notability-building. [28] presents a paragraph about Lazzeroni cartridges, and it's a reliable source. [29] is a Field and Stream piece that talks about the cartridge to some extent, and even about the rifles some. [30] is a namecheck, trivial mention. It looks like the 10th edition of Cartridges of the World contains info on the cartridge, based on the citation (AGF, as I can't access the source). Between the war memorial site, Field and Stream, and Cartridges of the World, I think the cartridge just barely scrapes by notability. If rifleshootermag turns out to be reliable (not holding my breath), I'm say this is a strong keep. @Ravenswing: - Would you consider splitting the discussion, since these two articles seem to have slightly different merits?Hog Farm Bacon 05:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A major problem with both is simple: there just isn't enough info out there to be able to write a decent non-stub about them. I agree with you that Field & Stream is a reliable source, and that's a fairly comprehensive piece, but the Imperial War Museum's something of a casual mention; we don't have separate articles on every one of the hundreds of thousands of items in large museum collections. Cartridges of the World (which I ganked off of Scribd) is a similar one-paragraph listing. Ravenswing 06:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Gah, I missed that target: looked for an article on John Lazzeroni and failed. Merge and redirect's an obvious and useful solution, thank you. Ravenswing 16:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Merging them all into one is acceptable to me, too. Hog Farm Bacon 18:23, 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 no consensus. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:48, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sonic Temple art & music festival[edit]

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

This is an event that did not happen. The coverage I found, like https://www.dispatch.com/news/20200612/coronavirus-music-festival-organizers-concert-goer-sue-dr-amy-acton, is WP:ROUTINE, and falls into the category of "this is going to happen" or "this band is scheduled to appear at the festival". It may happen next year, but unless third-party sources can be found, it doesn't seem to meet notability criteria. If it does stay, let's move it to the correct capitalization: Temple Art & Music Festival. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 08:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Per RazorJackal, it appears it did happen in 2019, which weakens the nominator's argument. But was it notable?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 14:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per PMC, reviews of festival."review". newnoisemagazine.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020."review". loudwire.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020."review". cincymusic.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020."review". musicfestnews.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020."review". columbusalive.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020. Previously Rock on the Range for 11 years"info". metalnexus.net. Retrieved July 8, 2020., Sonic Temple art & music festival held an inauguration."info". thechimeramagazine.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020.(t · c) RazorJackal 03:12, 8 July 2020 (EST)
  • Comment It's best not to conflate Rock on the Range with this festival. They're two separate topics. And we don't use refs. I removed the ref tags. Walter Görlitz (talk) 18:40, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per PMC, The inaugural Sonic Temple Art + Music Festival capped off the Danny Wimmer Presents 2019 spring festival season with sold-out crowds of 120,000."attendance". domaincle.com. Retrieved July 8, 2020.(t · c) RazorJackal 05:29, 8 July 2020 (EST)
  • Comment Thanks for the updates, RazorJackal. It appears that the only edits you've made have been to events related to Danny Wimmer Presents. In light of of Wikipedia's Wikipedia:Conflict of interest guidelines, do you need to declare your involvement with the company? At the very least, you're a Wikipedia:Single-purpose account, and this is concerning. Walter Görlitz (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Per Walter Görlitz, No, WP:DNB.(t · c) RazorJackal 10:34, 8 July 2020 (EST)
    • I am not trying to bite, but I am quite concerned at your choice of subjects and the facility you have with the system. If you say you have no CoI, I accept that, but I still find it suspicious. Walter Görlitz (talk) 04:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep then delete 90% of the material in this COI-like terribly written article. IMO it appears to have enough coverage and real world prominence to where it can and should have the article. The next step would then be to delete 90% of the material as this terribly-written article has the kind of material that a COI promoter would want in it rather than what readers would want to read / what is in the sources. North8000 (talk) 13:45, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:24, 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) 21:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Treasure (South Korean band)[edit]

Treasure (South Korean 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)

Redirect to YG Entertainment challenged. As this group have only debuted this month, it may be WP:TOOSOON to have a standalone article. Adam9007 (talk) 01:05, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Adam9007, are you sure? For K-pop, I thought all that was necessary was a teaser and a lengthy selection process. I see articles that flaunt NBAND all the time--with one record, and nothing but promotional stuff sourced to Naver and all that. Drmies (talk) 01:07, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Drmies, I'm not sure of anything. This had been redirected before, so per WP:BLAR I took it here. The group does have some coverage, but they're in sources I'm totally unfamiliar with, some of them are not in English (so I can't tell exactly what they're saying), and a lot of them seem to basically say they've debuted or are going to debut this month. I'd be surprised this this band meets WP:BAND. Adam9007 (talk) 01:16, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know--I'm just saying that it seems like with K-pop the normal rules don't apply, and that's in large part because of all those websites that allow editors to pretend GNG is passed. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 01:18, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep the article is taking shape. I have cleaned it up a bit, added cats, refs, and format. The band will launch this month, but they have received so much press that I have to call it a keep.Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment You may also want to take a look at Draft:Treasure (band). Adam9007 (talk) 02:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you much! Many Korean language refs in there. Not my specialty! Lightburst (talk) 02:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I've just noticed that there was an AfD six months ago, where the consensus was to redirect to YG Entertainment. Adam9007 (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We may find a new WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. I see they charted on the Billboard Social 50. I believe the Bb is notable. Perhaps 6 mos ago they were not Lightburst (talk) 02:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete. Given that Draft:Treasure (band) exists and is much more detailed and organized than this one, I would prefer to see that one used as the main article once the group makes their debut. Additionally, there are no other notable bands in the world that are also named Treasure, so the distinguisher "(band)" in itself will generally be only referred to the K-pop group Treasure and makes "(South Korean band)" superfluous. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 03:06, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Nkon21: The draft is a much more confusing mess. I am transferring references from there, and more can be merged. I think best we discuss the article now rather than a draft which may never be submitted. Lightburst (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since YG said July 2020, that means that there is less than 2 weeks left. Once they debut, I think that this article should RD to Treasure (band), given my rationale above. I disagree with what you said here: the draft is a much more confusing mess. In my view, the draft meets Wikipedia's quality standards much more than this article. Noting what you said earlier Many Korean language refs in there. Not my specialty and I am transferring references from there, the refs can just as well be updated (with more English sources) on the other page. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I Understand your position. I was able to use my chrome browser to translate. I guess my point is, we should determine if this boy band is notable, and then merge whatever useful information exists in those multiple drafts. My opinion is that it is a better alternative than staining the article with the scarlet letter of deletion. I experienced that just yesterday on an article that had been deleted once - reinstated and then was submitted for SD and gone, gone, gone. I will leave the rest to the AfD !voters. Cheers! Lightburst (talk) 12:11, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect or delete - as with previous AFD, press releases are just press releases. Let the page exist when they meet notability for music if or when they debut. Evaders99 (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as this page isn't needed since Treasure (band) has previously been created. As previously mentioned above there are no other notable bands named Treasure thus "(band)" should suffice in comparison to "(South Korean band)" which is highly unnecessary. The content here has multiple issues and isn't valuable enough to consider merging.Suugaapio (talk) 00:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep so we don't have to re-create it in a few weeks once they establish more credibility. YG is a major K-pop company and this group has already gained a lot of attention. Their YouTube channel, for example, already has 1.26M subscribers. --Dan Leveille (talk) 06:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't have to recreate anything. After their debut on 8/7, all we need to do is click "publish" on Draft:Treasure (band). ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 09:46, 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 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Western Penduz[edit]

Western Penduz (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’ve looked at this article for new page review. I’m not sure about the notability of the subject so am bringing here for consensus. There are a couple of refs that may help with notability and a few that probably won’t. I’d appreciate, in particular, views from editors more experienced in sources for a Indian popular music. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 18:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment One of their crossover hits @:[34] has 110,000,000 views on Youtube. scope_creepTalk 21:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:37, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:45, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hayat Al-Fahad[edit]

Hayat Al-Fahad (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)

Is the community content to keep this biography of a living person in the mainspace? —S Marshall T/C 19:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:15, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. North America1000 19:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete this non-notable actor, per WP:ONEEVENT. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: this short stub shows that she has the title role in a notable TV series, for a start, but the Arabic wikipedia article has what appears to be a large filmography ranging from 1962 to 2020, and 34 sources. I don't read Arabic but it seems unlikely that she is not notable. Needs expansion, not deletion. PamD 09:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • If that's the consensus, then I think we should draftify it until an Arabic speaker carries out the translation you suggest. In its current state, as a poorly-sourced BLP this is unsuited to the mainspace.—S Marshall T/C 10:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or Draftify per WP:NPOSSIBLE and PamD.Less Unless (talk) 10:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination does not seem to suggest the subject lacks notability: in fact she seems very well known.[35] The Arabic Wikipedia article gives some idea of how widely she has been written about.[36] (I understand no Arabic so I am relying on Google.) However, the article is presently not BLP-compliant through severe lack of balance. The section "Controversy" should be removed but possibly reinstated whenever a full biography has been produced. Alternatively a (weirdly-tagged) earlier version such as this could be restored. Indeed, pending all this, the article could be moved to draft space. Thincat (talk) 11:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep clearly passes wp:gng I also added a couple of wp:rs to the article. Dtt1Talk 12:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 00:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 01:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The arabnews.com article claims that she is famous, which is supported by the over 30 sources in her Ar.wiki] page. There is definitely a language/cultural barrier here that needs to be addressed in terms of article upkeep but the subject by herself has been established to be notable. — BriefEdits (talk) 17:27, 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. TonyBallioni (talk) 21:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ariko Inaoka[edit]

Ariko Inaoka (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 photographer, fails the GNG and WP:CREATIVE. A search for sources turned up several interviews of the subject (which explicitly cannot count to bolster a subject's notability), but is wholly lacking in substantive coverage in reliable, third-party sources. Ravenswing 00:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 00:12, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I am seeing lots of sources when I search with the Japanese version of her name. However my Japanese is limited to saying hello and thank you, so we need a Japanese reader here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:41, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply: Indeed, there are a number of sources. I went through a couple dozen without finding a single one conferring significant, independent coverage from a reliable source. Ravenswing 01:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Currently unmentioned in the (very feeble) article is that she's a restaurateur. The recent disappearance of her website may suggest that she has given up photography for full-time restaurant-running and home-making, but she's exhibiting and has a new book out. -- Hoary (talk) 12:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The disappearance of her website continued to puzzle me. As she no longer calls herself "Ariko" but instead 稲岡亜里子 (Inaoka Ariko), I wondered if she might possibly have moved to inaokaariko.jp or arikoinaoka.com or whatever. And yes, an up-to-date website appears at the latter. (I've edited the page accordingly.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I am seeing enough online to establish notability as a photographer and as the owner of the oldest (and notable) soba restaurant in Kyoto, Honke Owarya, founded in 1465. It's a little confusing because there are so many variations in the restaurant name (and spelling), but she is the 16th owner, following in the footsteps of her father and grandfather who were the 15th and 14th owners, respectively. I also found a couple articles in the Guardian & Metal Magazine on her photography, and there are others out there. I've added these to her article, and hope to add other sources, as they exist. Netherzone (talk) 14:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Owarya" is I think just a typo for "Owariya". 本家尾張屋 Honke Owariya) is a compound of 本家 (honke) and 尾張屋 (Owariya). 尾張屋 is 尾張 (Owari) suffixed with 屋 (ya), often used as the last part of the name of a store or restaurant. "Owarya" is phonologically possible in Japanese but I've never encountered such a change made by ‑ya or indeed any other suffix. On the second or third hand, I'm completely unfamiliar with the dialects of Kansai, so I wouldn't be so surprised if told I was wrong. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment on the claim in the nomination that interviews of the subject "explicitly cannot count to bolster a subject's notability": the string "interview" appears nowhere within Wikipedia:Notability; and its only appearance within Wikipedia:Notability (people) is as the title of a link to an essay. So if interviews cannot count, then this has to be inferred; it's not explicit. Interviews should, of course, be treated with care (and indeed suspicion); they're not reliable sources for achievements. We don't cite an interview with somebody to "source" a claim that she received an appreciative letter from Cartier-Bresson or won the Prix Pictet. However, nobody has suggested anything like this here. Mere number or length of interviews or profiles can also be meaningless (for example in India, where even long-established and augustly titled newspapers seem to put out whatever promotional flatus they're paid to); but the interviews of Inaoka suggest to me editorial judgements that her work merits exploration. -- Hoary (talk) 01:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That would be WP:IS. An interview is by definition not independent; it's the very words of the subject. Ravenswing 02:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is, and I agree with WP:IS (a page I hadn't previously encountered, and that only makes a single, fleeting reference to interviews) that "Reliance on independent sources ensures that an article can be written from a balanced, disinterested viewpoint rather than from the subject's own viewpoint or from the viewpoint of people with an axe to grind." We shouldn't take an interviewee's word for her own achievements, such as having surmounted this or that difficulty. I haven't suggested otherwise. -- Hoary (talk) 03:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, notable as a photographer. No, I haven't yet found any detailed analysis, and a lot is more or less based on interviews; but even if one removes the mere blog entries and recyclings the bulk is telling. Putting aside material in Japanese and what has already been mentioned, there are this, this, this, this, this, this, this. (Incidentally, this NYT page temporarily isn't responding, but according to Google it says that Inaoka is also in the T&H book Family Photography Now.) -- Hoary (talk) 02:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Hoary: no opinion on this, but I did get access to the NYT article you linked. The article is a book review containing one of her photos with the caption "Ariko Inaoka has taken photos of Erna and Krefna, identical twins from Iceland, every year since 2009."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep searching for her Icelandic twins project produced several good sources. The Guardian article from 2014 is the best as it reprints 13 of her photographs (visual SIGCOV), but there is also the Iceland Monitor article Hoary found, this Slate article, this short Iceland Magazine article in addition to the ones in the article and those mentioned above. I think clearly WP:BASIC is met, as well as GNG. She has an international profile as a photographer proven out by international in-depth coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's add meets WP:ARTIST to that list, since the twins project is widely covered and reviewed: "The person has created or played a major role in co-creating a significant or well-known work... In addition, such work must have been the primary subject of... multiple independent periodical articles or reviews."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 04:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, to take stock:
And more. Not bad going for an allegedly non-notable person. Hoary (talk) 06:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Actually a lot of pages reproduce half a dozen or more of her photographs. In my list of links above, I omitted those that did little or nothing more than reproduce the photographs, partly because they wouldn't be usable as source material, partly because I had no particular reason to think that the publication was authorized. (This is no criticism of the Guardian, which may make an occasional error but which I'm sure is conscientious.) And a lot of web pages do no more than regurgitate other web pages. ¶ Legitimate and particularly interesting (though unusable): a BBC page about twins (not about Inaoka's work but illustrated with this), and available in either English or Hausa. -- Hoary (talk) 05:27, 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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_July_18&oldid=969884773"