Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 19

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 18 July	20 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was redirect to D.I.C.E.. Vanamonde (Talk) 00:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of D.I.C.E. episodes[edit]

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

Relevant content has been transferred to the main article; this page should be deleted and redirected Dronebogus (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 23:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy redirect to D.I.C.E.. Content already exists there. Ajf773 (talk) 23:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There was a Merge Proposal by Dronebogus on 13 July 2020, but no one responded in that week, so Dronebogus boldly moved the content back to the main page. The series has 40 episodes but no detailed summaries, so either keep separated per size split and remove the episode list from the main, or merge/direct to main. AngusWOOF (bark • sniff) 23:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn’t actually do the move. Dronebogus (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The move was made by Anish59312. Ajf773 (talk) 03:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect if the content is going to stay at the parent series article. "Delete and redirect" would be senseless here, and not permitted by policy if there is original content that was merged. postdlf (talk) 13:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Monsanto, California[edit]

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

Monsanto is a railroad spur/siding serving the Monsanto chemical plant on the Atchison, Topeka, and Santa Fe railroad. I can't find anything that indicates it was ever a community. There doesn't seem to be any indication of notability. Glendoremus (talk) 23:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not pass WP:GEOLAND and fails WP:N, and I spent about 45 minutes looking through newspapers and other web sites and topo maps. Many only regurgitate WP's words. Best I can tell this area was named for the evil empire's headquarters. Lightburst (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Aerials go back far enough to show when there was nothing here but the main rail line, and then Monsanto put up a plant next to it, and the railroad put in a siding, and they gave the siding a name. Clearly not a community, and not a notable rail location. Mangoe (talk) 20:09, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All evidence points to this being a rail siding serving the Monsanto plant. –dlthewave ☎ 01:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 20:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:25, 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) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bennett Okotcha[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, offseason member only. Placed on injured reserve before he ever played a game, and he then retired, having never played a pro game. His college career doesn't meet the bar of WP:NCOLLATH. I'm not finding the sort of coverage that would indicate a GNG pass, most of it is published by the teams he played for or is WP:MILL announcements of signings/transactions/retirment. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 23:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Search turns up some significant coverage but look like it's mostly recruiting stuff. E.g., this, this, and this. Cbl62 (talk) 23:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "Not playing in the NFL" is not really a claim to notability and transactional-type recruiting news and fan blog entries are not really considered for notability. If more news is found that passes WP:GNG or another notability measure, please ping me and I'll happily reconsider.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete did not even play one regular season pro game.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not enough here for GNG. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 21:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adam Dixon (American football)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, as the Champions Indoor Football league does not seem to be fully professional by Wikipedia standards. His college career does not seem to have been notable enough to pass WP:NCOLLATH. I'm not finding coverage that would indicate a GNG pass, although there also seems to be a (probably NN) quarterback with this name. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arizona-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:54, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom WP:NGRIDIRON not met. Grey Wanderer (talk) 19:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as failing WP:GNG and WP:NGRIDIRON. We seem to have several Missouri State players that have articles created. Perhaps the enthusiastic editors (enthusiasm is a good thing!) could try another wiki such as an online sports almanac that is more suitable for these entries at this time.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another in a very long line of articles on non-notable football players.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I was able to find this but I don't think it's enough. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:04, 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) 00:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aaron King (American football)[edit]

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

Thoroughly non-notable American football player. His college career is of no particular interest (the college careers of long snappers almost never are), and he only ever played in a team in a United Football League incarnation, which is not fully professional. As a result, he fails WP:NGRIDIRON. The closest thing I can find to significant coverage is the Newsweek article, which only mentions him as an example of a player who took a nasty blow to the head. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it is rare for a college long snapper/center to generate enough press for inclusion in this encyclopedia. I do not see the coverage to pass WP:GNG.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:31, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete it is high time to stop the ridiculous charade of treating such clearly not notable people as notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see any reason to believe this article was created in bad faith. Your comment calling the article creation a "ridiculous charade" is uncalled for, unproductive, and is not a reason to delete. I still believe the subject is not notable and the article should be deleted, but I see no evidence of prejudice against the article creator. Enthusiastic editors should be WP:BOLD and the community of editors that make up Wikipedia largely encourages that.--Paul McDonald (talk) 22:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - No, a low profile player who never plays in a pro-leguage should never be given an article. We really, really, really need to going to requiring all articles to go through the AfC process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 11:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - WP:AFC is a great tool, but it is not required for article creation. I suppose you could make a proposal at Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals) to make it a policy or something.--Paul McDonald (talk) 13:17, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nominator....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:30, 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) 01:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meinert, California[edit]

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

Another minor rail station incorrectly identified by GNIS as a community. Durham calls it a locality on the Sacramento Northern Railroad. Several references refer to Meinert Station ([1], [2] ) but no indication that it was ever a community. Fails basic notability. Glendoremus (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think this is a keep, a notable populated place which passes WP:GEOLAND.

Check out the map showing a place with commercial businesses and an elementary school
See that they have a park called Ygnacio Valley Park Ygnacio Valley Park is a park in Contra Costa County and has an elevation of 69 feet. Ygnacio Valley Park is situated in Meinert, close to Saint Francis of Assisi School.
Meinert and Sierra, Concord Website

I stopped looking after these few hits. Lightburst (talk) 23:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please look more carefully. The area you are pointing out on Google maps is Concord. Ygnacio Valley Park is in Concord as you can see on this city website: [3]. The other two sites you have found are just clickbait sites . Enter any obscure location and the same or similar sites get generated. Glendoremus (talk) 00:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will look into this with my newspaper account later. I am puzzled by the map. Perhaps the road is a close spelling here on this map. Lightburst (talk) 00:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Older topos show a few large buildings along the tracks, consistent with a small rail stop. This is very similar to Bancroft, a nearby location that was recently deleted. Coverage is mainly found in sources that scrape data from sources like GNIS and Wikipedia; these soures are generally not reliable. –dlthewave ☎
delete It started out life as a junction on the Sacramento Northern line, but the branch died early (in 1925). Older aerials show two largish buildings on the north side, but sources indicate they were for a pear packing facility and may have and nothing to do with the railroad; in any event, the "station" was a simple shelter like those seen at other points on the line. There was no community around until suburbanization rolled over the the orchards that formerly surrounded the spot, and I see no indication that anyone thinks of this even as a neighborhood. Mangoe (talk) 20:30, 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 No consensus (but merge to tag added). As it stands this discussion appears to have no consensus. Discussion has hinted towards merging with the album's article 'L.A. Woman'. Personally, I would have said redirect to that. Because of the slight lean toward a merger, I will close this as no consensus here, but will add a merge to tag to the page for discussion on the talk page - as it was inappropriate to place here (the initial rationale even suggested a merge) (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 13:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Changeling (The Doors song)[edit]

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

Non-notable song, fails WP:NSONG, nothing written about it in depth, just passing mentions in the context of other Doors works such as the album or the A-side single "Riders on the Storm". Merge to the album article, L.A. Woman. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 22:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Binksternet:Why? It has citations and it has some important information for the song. Okay maybe it's not so very good article, but it's readable. Unkownsolidier 10:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Read WP:NSONG and tell us how it meets the requirements. Binksternet (talk) 09:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge or Delete Doesn't meet NSONGS: it's only mentioned in album reviews/analyses and is not "the subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". —Ojorojo (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable song, issued as a B-side to a popular single on one of the top albums of the 1970s. Is well sourced and there is enough for a separate article than the album. Receives a decent amount of coverage in this book. A good paragraph here. Manzarek and Densmore talking about the song. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not inherited regardless of the popularity of the A-side or album; the four sentences in the UCR source are within the context of the L.A. Woman album; Manzarek (Doors keyboardist) and Densmore (group drummer) (& Botnick, the album producer) are not "independent of the band"; biographers often title chapters after songs, but Jones doesn't mention it in the 8-page google preview. —Ojorojo (talk) 17:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that the notability was inherited, just stating a fact. As an example, most Beatles and Rolling Stones songs have articles, even deep cuts. I'm not saying this isn't justified, just that there are sources to support the articles, much like this one. With regards to the book, the song is discussed in the preview last time I checked, and there is more that is not in the preview. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 01:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Other stuff exists is not a good argument in a deletion discussion. Deep cuts of albums should have something related to WP:GNG at the very least (multiple in-depth mentions in the literature), and WP:NSONGS if there's a chart status or sales certification or YouTube view count, etc. Otherwise, the song can be very adequately described in an album article, or the artist article. Binksternet (talk) 02:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Given the sources that are already in the article, and the likelihood that more offline sources exists (after all, this is a 50 year old song by a band that attracted a lot of attention), deletion would not be appropriate. Redirection or merger could be appropriate given the current state of the article. I notice that the AfD rationale requests merger and not deletion so I am not sure why the merger request process was not used. Rlendog (talk) 15:41, 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of hospitals in Angola[edit]

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

This is a questionably notable list of hospitals in Angola. It only contains four items. Two of which are red links and the other two are to non-English articles. If I remember correctly, Wikipedia requires at least one blue link in a list for it to be notable or the list should be taken as a whole. I guess having blue links to non-English articles counts as one blue link, but it doesn't seem like the correct way for a list to be notable. Adamant1 (talk) 22:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge: We have set up standards for List of hospitals at the country level. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability In cases where there are only a few hospitals of note, they are listed in the Lists of hospitals in Continent article or the Healthcare in Country article and there is a Redirect for List of hospitals in Country. I did not know at first whether there were a lot of hospitals in Angola, so I started with a stand alone article since there were at least four. Please don't delete this article unless the hospitals are merged into either the Healthcare in Angola or Lists of hospitals in Africa articles. There may be other notable hospitals in Angola that don't currently have articles in any language. Some more research will be required to find them. The goal of the project is to have either an articl or redirect for each country. WP:HOS -- Talk to G Moore 02:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no article Healthcare in Angola. It's a redirect. Our coverage of the subject is non-existent. Deleting this list is not helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 17:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'd be totally fine with a redirect to a hospitals in Africa article or something. If the only two blue linked sources aren't English language articles then there shouldn't be an English language list about it IMO though. Since its not a notable enough topic to English speakers. Id love to see a policy or discussion about creating lists of articles in multiple langauges though or where the languages aren't the defualt of whatever Wikipedia language the article is being created in. I've personally never seen a list like that. So I assume its not usually something that's done. Adamant1 (talk) 09:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The topic is notable per WP:LISTN – see BBC, for example. The topic should therefore be retained for improvement per WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about the fact that it's not blue linked to any English language articles? That's the whole point in lists. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's not the whole point nor is it our policy. We have lots of lists where none of the entries are articles. What we have here is just half-baked but that's ok because it is our policy that it's ok to build up pages from an incomplete and imperfect start. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Two things Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lists says about stand alone list articles "The items on these lists include links to articles in a particular subject area." So yes it is part of the guideline that lists have links to articles. Like I said, that's the point in them. Otherwise, the guideline wouldn't say it is. Also, WP:NOTESAL says "The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable." It's not clear in this case that the items in the list are "notable as a set", because it's not how the sourcing discusses them. Therefore, the only other way the list would be notable is if some of the items are documented. So, 100% if there are blue links matters for this list. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's not the rule. There is no rule that lists must contain a bluelink. See in particular WP:CSC #2, "Every entry in the list fails the notability criteria." That would be impossible if bluelinks were required. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep One on German Wikipedia seems notable, as a large hospital with heaps of press coverage, I can just translate that actually if the lack of blue links are getting you down. Seems adequately sourced. Arguments made by Andrew and G Moore are appropriate re conservation of the list. PainProf (talk) 02:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is no policy that any article has to be notable to English speakers. Notability is not affected by the language of sources. Rathfelder (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As was posted in the admin noticeboard, it matters as far as the burden of proof that the source is reliable is on the person posting it, and there isn't a way to determine the reliability of a source you can't read. Which ultimately has nothing to do with language of the source. Ultimately, I could care less what language something is in, but I do care if it's reliable or not. I agree with you outside of that though. Hopefully the whole language discussion is done now. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The policy is that "There should be a list article for every country or state with hospitals." Rathfelder (talk) 21:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I assume your talking about something having to do with Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hospitals? If so, I wouldn't call a goal of a Wikiproject a "policy." Plus, they still have notability guidelines for things. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, Wikipedia:WikiProject_Hospitals' policy on lists is clearly laid out on the projects talk page and it pretty mirrors that of the normal notability guidelines for lists. No where does it say there that there should be a list article for every country or state with hospitals. It is mentioned in the tutorials, but it says that lists should contain a reference for each hospital listed and that notable hospitals should have links to the article about the hospital. No where is implied that the normal notability guidelines for lists don't apply to ones about hospitals though. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Healthcare in Angola. Only a few hospitals require no separate article. Bvatsal61 (talk) 08:26, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I dont see how such a merger would help the development of our coverage of Angola. Rathfelder (talk) 11:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Personally, I see the fact we have one article about a Hospital in Angola, a country of 30 million, to be somewhat embarrassing and before Rathfelder's work we had none, merging a list here would not help. Similarly, no other country has their hospitals listed at Hospitals in Africa, it seems preposterous to have a list of all the hospitals in a continent. I think we should be working to improve our coverage of African medical facilities rather than removing what little information we had. PainProf (talk) 12:55, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Merging to Healthcare in Angola would be a good comprise. It would help that article not get deleted in the future due to it's bad sourcing. Plus, having the list in it would be helpful information and there's zero reason to duplicate it. It's not like a separate list can't be created if, or when, there's an actual need to have one. As it is though, it's a useless [[WP:CFORK]. BTW, it's kind of circular/bad reasoning to keep a list because coverage of the topic is poor. The point in lists isn't to catalog what subjects need expanding. Plus, there could be completely legitimate reasons why there aren't English articles on Angolan hospitals. My guess is that there probably was some at one point but they got deleted. Either that or they just weren't created in the first place due to lack of good sources. It's extremely doubtful there's never been an English article about an Angolan hospital in the 20 years Wikipedia has been around though. You shouldn't create badly sourced articles to justify keeping the list either. That's the wrong way to go about this. Especially since they will probably just get deleted in the future anyway. --Adamant1 (talk) 17:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Closure
The result was merge into Healthcare in Angola. I have performed a merger of all the material and turned the original article into a redirect. Contributors are encouraged to further improve the Healthcare in Angola article. The article can easily be recreated in the future, if/when more material has been assembled. Olivier (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Following a request from the closer for technical assistance, I have reopened this AfD. [4][5] --Jack Frost (talk) 09:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Discussion reopened in order to generate additional comments and to tentatively reach a consensus. The article has been restored in the meantime. Olivier (talk) 10:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no real objection to merging into Healthcare in Angola. Stand alone lists are not very helpful. Rathfelder (talk) 10:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note. Discussions about lists of hospitals are taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Hospitals. I have posted a note there, inviting contributions. Olivier (talk) 10:55, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep These entries happen to be notable (whether we like it or not, basically all extant hospitals meet both GNG and WP:NCORP), but there is no rule that requires the articles to have already been created anyway. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:09, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Were does it say anywhere that all extant hospitals meet both GNG and WP:NCORP? They are no different then any other organization when it comes to notability. Even Wikiproject Hospitals has notability guidelines and they don't include all extant hospitals being notable. Adamant1 (talk) 05:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Clearly notable list that passes WP:LISTN. It might could be argued that an individual hospital may or may not be notable, lists of hospitals in a clearly defined geographic or political region are automatically going to be considered notable, even if NONE of the individual hospitals are. WP:LISTN clearly states that not every (nor any) entry must be notable (although it is within editor discretion to limit the list to notable examples). Lists are both navigation tools and informational tools, and lists of hospitals for other countries already have consensus as an acceptable article type. In fact, we have lists of lists of hospitals, Lists of hospitals in Africa and even Lists of Lists of Lists, ie: Lists of hospitals. The only question is if there are enough hospitals in Angola to populate a List page, and even Google Maps will answer that as "yes" in about 5 seconds (hint: yes). Policy is crystal clear here, the list passes the criteria for inclusion. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 00:40, 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 keep. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University Hospital of Oran[edit]

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

Non-notable Algerian hospital that has lacked references since 2014. I couldn't find anything about it that would pass WP:GNG in a search either and even the Arabic language article only has one source that doesn't seem to even be about the hospital. So, I doubt there's anything in-depth and reliable about it out there. The article does it has 600 to 2000 beds. Which might be a lot, but it's a pretty vague range to make any judgement on IMO. Plus, it's not sourced reliably or at all. Which it would have to be for anyone to use it as a keep justification and it wouldn't come before the WP:GNG guidelines if it was anyway. As an alternative to deletion it could be merged with Oran 1 University. Since they are associated and that seems to be the precedent. Although, I'm not really sure what would be merged. Adamant1 (talk) 21:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A hospital this size - especially affiliated to a university - is liable to be notable. The question is not whether it is known to Google. Our coverage of Algeria is dire. Only 2 articles about hospitals in the country. We should be slow to delete one of them. Perhaps if we looked under its proper name, Oran-Mohamed-Boudiaf Hospital, we might find more articles? Google gives me 58,900 results. For a start this is the site of La Peste. That has generated coverage on its own. Rathfelder (talk) 23:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep A good place to do WP:before for hospitals is Google scholar. Frequently there will be academic studies on the patients and these are normally in English. The large number of studies on patients from this hospital indicates it's notability. As does the large size. A hospital with 1000 beds likely sees > 500,000 patients per year and is inherently notable. PainProf (talk) 00:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To both of you, for one there has to be in-depth coverage of the hospital. That there was studies done on the patients there is totally irrelevant and trivial since its a university hospital. That's litterally what university hospitals do and its extremely trivial since it applies to all of them. Not that you provided any sources about it anyway, but it wouldn't matter if you do. Second, you can't claim something is notable based on an unverifiable, unsourced fact. So either provide a source that it has 1000 beds or its not a valid keep reason. Neither is keeping it because "Google won't have any results since its Algeria." It's not Wikipedia if the topic is obscure and the notability guidelines have to be followed. Plus you say there's 58,900 Google search results. You can't cite the large number of potential hits and then say it should be kept because only 2 of them are articles shows its obscure. That's the definition of not being notable, for any subject. BTW, there's already a Arbabic article for these. So by no means would deleting the English article wipe Algerian topics or even this hospital from Wikipedia. Adamant1 (talk) 09:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would argue all University hospitals which have published a significant number of papers are inherently notable. By the way it is important to know that not all Algerians speak Arabic and an article existing in Arabic is no reason to delete here I think quite the opposite actually. Should we be deleting French and German hospitals too on that basis. Many of them have no coverage in English. The other Wikipedia's are independent of each other. Afd is not cleanup. A University hospital should never be merged to the university unless it can be shown to be a part of the organisation. In many countries they are not for example Cambridge University Hospitals NHS foundation trust is affiliated to Cambridge but completely independent from a financial and governance perspective.

https://www.newsweek.com/tale-two-plagues-oran-algeria-covid-19-brings-dystopian-novel-life-1509081

There are only 16 university hospitals in Algeria a country of 40 million. this one has been noted for its role in controlling a plague outbreak in 2003^[1]

^ Bitam, Idir; Baziz, Belkacem; Rolain, Jean-Marc; Belkaid, Miloud; Raoult, Didier (2006-12). "Zoonotic Focus of Plague, Algeria". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 12 (12): 1975–1977. doi:10.3201/eid1212.060522. ISSN 1080-6040. PMC 3291359. PMID 17326957. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

There really seem to be a lot of sources in arabic. Perhaps we should actually just be asking an Arabic speaker to look at them. I am not confident enough in Google translate for the sources I see. The English sources on PubMed indicate this is a large hospital due to the broad range of topics and large number of papers. The journals are actually generally good ones so I don't have any wjalms with that. It clearly exists and from the number of different diseases studied is likely to have in excess of 20 wards with all major specialities represented. PainProf (talk) 14:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re "Should we be deleting French and German hospitals too", the problem isn't that this is an "Arabic" hospital. It's that there aren't any sources in English to determine if it's actually notability enough to warrant an article in the English Wikipedia or not, and like you say yourself the language barrier is barrier to figuring it out. The same would go for a French, German, or hospital in any other language if all other things were the same. We can't rightly keep an article about somewhere that we can't determine the notability of just because we don't speak the language or say that the only way notability can be determined is if an Arabic speaker gets involved in the AfD. If that's the case, then all more reason it should be deleted IMO. I don't think it would be valid to create a bunch of Portuguese stub articles from only English sources and then be like "Sorry you don't speak English. I guess you can't delete them." --2600:6C52:6B80:DBB:9890:309:9E58:5AD7 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC) --Adamant1 (talk) 14:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero requirement for English sources. English sources are preferred but not essential where they are unavailable. In this case English sources are available. The different Wikipedias are also different in culture for citation etc. A good example is if you look on most Wikipedia's you will find for instance science articles rely entirely on English sources because science is generally published in English. Many articles are also translated from other languages. Frequently AFDs close as keep where certain languages are difficult to parse through Google translate. Regardless from the search it is clearly a large teaching hospital which is confirmed by the sources in PubMed (which are largely in English) is notable. The sources are respectable academic journals and furthermore the Newsweek article I pointed out shows international coverage. PainProf (talk) 20:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, no where ever have I claimed there is a requirement for English sources. Second, the discussion is about the size of the hospital and there no articles, English or otherwise that discuss it. Cool that there's papers on Pubmed about research that took place there, but research papers aren't usable for notability because they are primary sources and don't qualify as in-depth coverage of the hospital. Plus, that the hospital is large because of how much research took place there is your own opinion and notability isn't based on opinions. The standard isn't "large" anyway. It's 500 beds or more and no source, English or otherwise, says how many beds the place has. Period. Again, it's a research hospital. Research hospitals do research. It doesn't mean anything when it comes to notability. The only thing that does is in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. That's it, and this hospital lacks it. Even if we knew it had more then 500 beds we would still need the in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources. The Newsweek article doesn't cut it because it isn't even about the hospital. The only time it's mentioned is in the caption of a picture. Even if it did though, it still wouldn't be enough. Again, the Pubmed research papers do absolutely nothing for notability. Zip, zero, silch, nada, null, ゼロ, Vinduḥ, nothing!! --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You say above "It's that there aren't any sources in English to determine if it's actually notability enough to warrant an article in the English Wikipedia or not". That is not the policy. Sources do not have to be in English. PubMed is a very reliable source. Its not primary research into the hospital. Teaching hospitals are generally notable precisely because they generate research which is reported in independent reputable sources. They employ researchers and academics who are also reported. This is not an argument about whether the article is accurate, or whether the contents of it are true or referenced. Its an argument about whether the hospital is a notable organisation. And if its notable in the Arabic wikipedia its notable in English. Rathfelder (talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further to this I have found a report by Finpro which has been referenced by the UK government who I believe would have vetted the report. It is available online here: https://www.slideshare.net/mobile/FinproRy/algeria-health-sector-overview-heli-pasanenzentz-finpro The description is of a large university hospital with 10 operating theatres 1200 beds, 40 departments, built at a cost of 120 million euros. Cited in this country of origin report by the home office.https://www.refworld.org/pdfid/50ffeb2d2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjcm5_v9tzqAhXug-AKHfCNCEwQFjAMegQIAhAB&usg=AOvVaw1Qh5NnV54yM1fW2AdKFFn4. I think those sources are good additions. PainProf (talk) 22:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also added the plague outbreak, as one of only 10 outbreaks in the last 20 years that could even have been independently notable. PainProf (talk) 00:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I said there wasn't any sources in English or any other language to establish and there wasn't. The Arabic article only cites one extremely trivial source. So I was 100% correct. And Pubmed can be a reliable source to use in articles. That's different then using it in an AfD though. Just like Twitter is OK to use in articles, but it's not OK to use in AfDs to establish something notability. Reliability of a source and notability of topic are two completely different things and standards. Your really gas lighting the hell out of this. Feel free to show me anywhere that says teaching hospitals are generally notable. All your doing is giving your opinion repeatedly and your not baking it up with anything. Just like your whole thing that it must be notable because there's an Arabic article on it. WP:OSE isn't a valid argument. Also, cool you found sources how many beds the hospital has. Neither one can be used to establish notability though because they are primary sources. It should be pretty obvious that a random slide presentation isn't usable to establish notability. So, find some actually reliable in-depth secondary sources. Otherwise, this isn't notable. Until then, I'm done with the discussion because it's completely ridiculous and your seriously committing WP:BLUDGEON by continuing it. Especially by continuing to post sources that are so obviously not usable to establish notability. It's completely ridiculous that you posted a source in the article that doesn't even talk about the hospital to. The "plague" articles don't even discuss it in depth. They aren't even about the hospital!! It's pretty clear you don't give a crap about the guidelines or doing this the proper way. So, I'm done with this. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When I look for Arabic sources I find plenty. Detailed discussion every week of events in the hospital. But I am not sure that the title of the article matches the name by which the hospital is known in Arabic. Rathfelder (talk) 08:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think a more correct name is CHU Hospital of Oran, there is a second notable hospital EHU hospital. They appear to be highly related hospitals. I think the confusion is partly because the French words translate the same with only a minor difference. Maybe A good name for the article is Oran public hospitals as these are the only 2 and establish redirects. http://www.dsp-oran.dz/index.php/structures-sanitaires/ehu see this website which seems to be the source we needed. Once I add that in it is much easier to describe the sources. All of the work on the page is currently describing CHU hospital. The arabic titles also have a name attached.PainProf (talk) 12:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with a name change to the article if that's what ends up being the problem. It would explain why I couldn't find anything about it, even in a few of the sources that we know about. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Rathfelder and PainProf have demonstrated that there are sources with coverage of this hospital. ~~The nominator has agreed.~~ — Toughpigs (talk) 02:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where did I say there were sources to keep the article? --Adamant1 (talk) 03:21, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's how I read the comment directly above. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you read it wrong. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I apologize for misunderstanding you there. I struck that sentence. — Toughpigs (talk) 13:29, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no shortage of sources, but they are mostly in Arabic. Rathfelder (talk) 13:10, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Nobody has ever yet built a modern, thousand-bed university hospital without that it described in great detail in reliable sources. The fact that most of us don't read the local language or have subscriptions to local newspapers is irrelevant to the question of whether those articles were published. IMO it passes both GNG and WP:NCORP easily. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:13, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Additional materials were located in University archives, specifically blueprints which revealed that the hospital was designed by noted Japanese architect Kenzō Tange this allowed for manipulation of the search terms which revealed this hospital is regarded as a major example of his metabolic archictecture concept. PainProf (talk) 18:35, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are plenty of sources in French. See these. There are also plenty of Arabic sources, e.g. these news items about a scandal involving the hospital mixing up dead bodies, about legal action the hospital is taking and about procurement scandals there. In fact this place seems completely unable to keep itself out if the news. Mccapra (talk) 03:44, 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) 22:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gavin Williams (actor)[edit]

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

WP:BLP of an actor, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NACTOR. The notability claims here are bit parts (mostly as unnamed characters) in film and television, not "significant" roles for the purposes of NACTOR #1, and the "references" are all blogs and primary sources, not notability-supporting media coverage. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an actor nor as a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NACTOR - stage acting totally in repertory theater and TV roles entirely of the Redshirt or gigs. Bearian (talk) 19:57, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alireza Shojaian[edit]

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

Wikipedia:Notability ahuR ☘ 21:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: LGBT persons in Iran face state-sponsored persecution. Uncloseted persons face public exection. Alireza is one of the pioneers of queer art in the middle east. The claim that the subject is not notable is countered by sources in at leat 4 languages issued in Italy, Lebanon, France, Jordan and the US. When following the nominator's page, it was clear that they are Iranian and that theis AFD is politically motivated. ~ Elias Z. (talkallam) 08:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

it was clear that they are Iranian and that theis AFD is politically motivated What motivation?--ahuR ☘ 09:11, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You are unaware of the state of Iranian society

Not just LGBT people Rather, all people from all walks of life are under political pressure This poll was requested without any political motive This person has no reputation For your information, one of the administrators of Persian Wiki is proudly LGBT And this is a kind of slander --ahuR ☘ 09:14, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the nomination rationale is "Wikipedia:Notability"? Let me remind the nominator that "When an editor offers arguments or evidence that do not explain how the article meets/violates policy, they may only need a reminder to engage in constructive, on-topic discussion. But a pattern of groundless opinion, proof by assertion, and ignoring content guidelines may become disruptive." per WP:DISCUSSAFD Merely asserting that something doesn't meet the GNG, without showing any work towards WP:BEFORE and WP:ATD is disruptive. Vexations (talk) 11:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep, on the basis the article currently hingis on a couple of interviews and an apparently self-penned article in The Advocate, but also has a couple of independent articles of some description or another. Probably squeaks over the WP:GNG high-bar at the moment. Sionk (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: There seems to be several decent references for the subject. Seems to meet notability. Also, the nominator for deletion gives absolutely no reasoning for the nomination. ExRat (talk) 18:05, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep, meets GNG/Basic and nom is arguably bad faith. Gleeanon409 (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. Plenty of sources, is notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:27, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:SIGCOV. There are BBC and several other substantial news stories. Bearian (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - There is enough to establish notability per GNG. Netherzone (talk) 18:31, 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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Barry[edit]

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

the sources do not prove any notability. 1)iafd is not reliable, 2,3,4,5,6) these are list of porn prizes winners which do not count anymore since pornbio have been deprecated, 7) this is a short and shallow interview and interviews do not count for proving notability, 8)TLA is a shop, 9)iafd is not reliable, 10) this is just to short to prove anything, 11) iafd is not reliable and 12)it was his own blog. therefore the sourcing is insufficient, I looked myself for better sources but I couldn't find anything significant. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 09:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep Meets GNG. Barry's life and career was written about in-depth in Jeffrey Escoffier's book Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore from pages 305-311, with additional mentions on pages, 285, 320-321, 339, and 341-342. Plus other mentions in other books and scholar articles by Escoffier and others. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 15:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

judging from what you say there are a few pages into a book that speaks about him, i wouldn't call it an extended cover of the subject. anyhow, I will give a more in depth look. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- More than a just a few pages, 7 pages (pages 305 through 311) that cover his life and career 1 plus 6 other pages where he is mentioned in varying degrees. That is non-trivial, significant coverage and could be used to expand and improve the article. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:31, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - than it could be a starting point but definately it is not enough and so far is the only source pointing toward notability. we need more. (I am AlejandroLeloirRey, I can't log in right now) --87.11.211.120 (talk) 19:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - As I mentioned in my first post, there is some other coverage in books 1, 2, 3 and scholar articles (unfortunately most of those are behind pay walls). 4 Nothing great like the coverage in Escoffier book (which asserts he was a "one of the top porn stars") cited above, but I still believe he meets the GNG. Other editors can give their thoughts about it and vote accordingly if they wish. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:RX can often get those sources. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I gave a deeper look to the book and actually is a good source. it is not based on the subject but the subject is covered in some length. the other sources you gave us are pure mentions. So far we have one reasonable source but I don't think this is enough(because is not that good as a source). we must find at least another one. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets GNG per sourcing cited. Unfortunately this looks like the latest in noms failure to make a good effort at WP:Before. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gleeanon409: let's try it again. For the 1000th time, please comment the article not me. I do not need to be constantly personally attacked by you and I don't need to justify my work which so far has shown to be a good job. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. After Michael Brandon, JD Slater, and Raging Stallion Studios AFDs you’ve proven to be utterly irresponsible for checking thoroughly for sources WP:Before you make the community spin its wheels explaining how AfD works. You’ve been asked before and I’ll ask again, please focus on improving articles instead of deleting ones on notable subjects. Gleeanon409 (talk) 10:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

you are forgetting also Johnny Hazzard, that one was a bad nomination also. Now, how many of my nominations have been actually deleted? I am not counting but they are about 30... than is 4 mistakes out of 34 nominations. I hope now it is clear that mine is a good job. plus, whenever I was proved wrong I withdraw my nomination, this proves to you that I am not nominating on the basis of a ideology. Now you can stop talking about me and start talking about the subject.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:44, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 13:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment so far only one source passing mention has been shown. one source that is far from fulfilling any guideline for notability. I hope that the closer will not simply count the votes but most of everything read the reasons for those votes: nothing. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Hmmm. Interesting, you conceded the Escoffier book was good source earlier after saying you reviewed it, now it's a "passing mention" (which it clearly isn't) once again? Make your mind up, please. There is no fixed number on how many different SIGCOV sources that are needed in the guidelines to meet the GNG. Just that the subject has been discussed in significant fashion. Plus we don't know how much he is discussed the scholar articles, as they are behind paywalls. It could be even more than the preview text show. I'm not *that* invested in saving the article to pay the fees to access them. But there multiple different articles there where he as the very least mentioned in books about porn and sex work, in addition to said SIGCOV in said book above and other mentions in at least three other books. Not "nothing" at all. BTW, it's not a big accomplishment to get a porn-related article deleted on here. Countless ones have been deleted over the years because porn stars are rarely covered in any meaningful way in the mainstream press. John Pack Lambert always votes delete on porn articles and voiced disdain for the amount of porn articles on wikipedia, so he isn't exactly unbiased on the subject. Because there is adequate sources out there for Barry. Here is one other from the Associated Press that bothered to get his feedback on the European porn market, the only American performer they bothered to get feedback from for their article. 1 And it shouldn't be dismissed the he was inducted into the GayVN Hall of Fame (along with some acting related ones in the industry). It's only been said significant porn awards *alone* aren't enough to prove notability. All together, it's pretty obvious he was notable within the porn industry, and there is enough sourcing out there to make good article for him. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 22:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

language barer, my bad, I meant there is only one that is more than a "passing mention". 7 pages on that book are a source that can be used but it is not enough to prove notability. everything else presented here, included the new links you gave, do not passes mentioning. we do not count how many times his name appears in a google search, or how many books contain it, we need a few good sources that cover the subject. you are basically are telling us that "may be" there are better sources around and you perceive the subject as notable. i have nothing against porn bios, I created one myself. Still, i feel that we do not need to take everything we can find on google and make an article out of it. any bio here should be of people who are significant in their field. a niche as small as gay porn should have a few représentant and that is it. porn actor are "covered in any meaningful way in the mainstream press" when they are notable, and we have a few examples here on wikipedia. If we keep an article basing on this kind of argument I want to have an article about my dog as to me he is notable and who knows, may be there are sources. as long as we keep article basing on this kind of argument wikipedia will be never taken seriously. the moment I came across article like this I know wikipedia is a joke. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:37, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment I was referring that he might have been further discussed in the scholar article than the preview text google search previewed may show. There's always possibilities that there offline sources, as is the case of any subject. Not everything is available online or for free. I'm obviously not the only one who thought he was notable in his field, the article has lasted here on Wikipedia for 14 years with no attempts to delete it until now, as I mentioned earlier Jeffrey Escoffier's book Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore (one of, if not the most extensive book written on gay porn) called him "one of the top porn stars" (in the gay industry presumably) and wrote about his career in-depth, and the GayVN Awards judges thought his career was significant to induct him into their Hall of Fame in 2008. If you want to mention WP:ANYBIO it could be argued he meets #1 of it's criteria for his Hall of Fame induction, Best Supporting Actor wins and Best Actor nominations. He had a long, prolific career and not only appeared in gay porn, but straight, bisexual, transsexual, fetish/kink porn as well. Not a big stretch at all to think he had significant career in his field. And he also worked behind the scenes directing, and in production section as a talent & casting manager. The gay porn industry isn't as big as the straight industry, but it certainly isn't a small, niche one either. So, let me get this straight (and I apologize if it's not what you meant), you think there should only be a few gay porn star articles on Wikipedia? That's an extreme view, in my opinion, and I'm sure by others as well. And I'm guessing one of those few should remain should be Carlo Masi. Hmmm, interesting. Well, since AVN articles are good enough for the Masi article, these AVN ones are for Barry's as well, furthering the coverage he's gotten to further pass the GNG. 1, 2. If you think Wikipedia is "a joke" then why are you still using and editing on it? GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 05:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment well, "it might" is never a good way to defend an article... there might be more sources as well as you and I might be aliens who want to conquer earth planet. Porn Prizes have been deprecated, mostly because most of the time they were given basing on how much a company spent on advertising through certain channels, most of the time they were meaning less (this is why there are so little articles telling about the winners, mostly you can find only the winner lists). Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore is a short cover of the subject, 7 pages. it is a starting point but not enough. the AVN article if they are significan cover of the subject have a certain weight (not much) but those you mention are very, very short article and reading them they look like "sponsored articles". the fact that the article was on wikipedia for ages doesn't prove anything, there is a lot of garbage we should get rid of. you claim a lot of notable stuff but where are the sources? notability has to be established basing on sources not on your personal perception. Speaking of Carlo Masi, his notability doesn't relies on the AVN articles (they are in the sources only to prove fact not to sustain notability) but it relies on a book, his biography, written by the most important Italian writer and plenty articles on Italian (and not Italian) news paper that in Italy have the same reputation as The New York Times (La Repubblica, Corriere della Sera, Stampa), I can see you don't know them but if you are willing to it is easy to figure out that those are the best main stream sources. plus, all those articles are entirely about Masi, he is not just a part of them but he is the focus. if you feel that Carlo Masi notability is not proved by the sources you can still nominate him. I feel that only porn actor who are notable should be on wikipedia, especially now that every horny guy with a cell phone can become a porn actor. wikipedia is considered mostly unreliable, it is considered unreliable by wikipedia itself (you can not use wikipedia as a source) I hope we can improve it but every time we publish an article with bad sourcing we hurt wikipedia reputation. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I think I've stated my case well enough why Barry's article should be kept. The GNG isn't be all and end all of the deciding of an article being kept or deleted and opinions vary on how much coverage is needed to meet it. I believe it meets it as did one other voter. I'm planning expanded the article with refs in the next few days when I have time. I don't have a problem with the Masi article and wasn't even suggesting it be deleted and it's sourcing is way more than adequate, but he was not really most notable porn star, and lets get real, there was very little meaningful coverage out there before the scandal broke out about him being a porn star turned teacher and the press that received and he chose to follow the publicity from that into more coverage from the other opportunities that popped up from that. Good for him, though. But not a reasonable standard to hold other porn star articles up to. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 15:21, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment opinions... this is why wikipedia is so unreliable, because some people believe that these things can be decided basing on opinions rather than facts. don't you even try, first Carlo Masi is notable as a person and not only as a porn star, second carlo masi as a porn star is way more notable than Mr Barry. as a metter of fact, in the article there are about 20 sources from the time he was a porn actor (not counting all the sources I didn't use, hundreds) while for Mr. Barry we can not find three decent sources. facts not opinions --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:15, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment more time to add articles, here we go again. go ahead, the closer will give you more time because they always do but I know by all the previous experiences I had that if you had any significant source you would have pulled out by now instead of ridiculously comparing the subject to Mr.Masi. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ok look, I wold like you to come to my page and talk about keeping or deleting articles because I wanna know your point of view. I just want to get rid of those whose notability can not be established by the sources but at this point I want to know why you want to keep mostly all of them. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 19:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say I wanted to keep all of them. I haven't even participated in any of your many other porn AFD's other than this one and the Johnny Hazzard and Dylan Vox ones (Hazzard was kept from the sourcing and reasoning provided, Vox is to be determined). Because I disagreed and found some good sources. And I rarely even in porn AFD's in general because it's generally a waste of time. The vast majority are always deleted. I have participated in quite a few mainstream entertainer AFD's, providing sources and reasoning why they should be kept, and the majority of those were. Not really interested trying to talk you out of deleting porn articles (really don't feel like it), you seem to feel very strongly about it - do what you want. Spent too much time arguing here already. However, if I feel there is notability and find some decent to good sources out there, I may voice my take. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

actually as far as I can see the deletion process is pretty random. I saw articles with pretty similar sourcing been kept and being deleted. I feel that porn bios are more likely to be kept. it is not a waste of time and look, this article is very much likely to be kept. I am on the delete side but I have no problems admitting that this one is on the edge. If it will not be deleted it will come out with your new sources, so it wasn't a waste of time at all, the article has been improved. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I am going to use some of the sources listed above. Didn't say I had any new sources to pull out. Go ahead and keep nominating porn articles for deletion all you want even "to a few to represent it" as you said above. Like I said, it's not a big accomplishment on here to get porn articles deleted on here. The vast majority that were created already have been, most deservedly so. You don't have the final say on the outcomes though. Be glad your article wasn't deleted. Have fun creating scores of other porn AFD's. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 17:08, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sourcing is not enough to establish notability for this pornographic performer.John Pack Lambert (talk)

19:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 07:36, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject lacks the notability to justify an article. Maybe sources could have been found that would do it, but I wasn't able to find anything and it seems like the people who were on the keep side spun their wheels attacking the nominator instead of finding them. Sad! --Adamant1 (talk) 08:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Um, sources were provided above. Did you look at them? Plus the subject won multiple major awards in his field. I don't think I've seen an consensus on here that major porn awards couldn't be a factor in determining notability. If it has been, and I missed it, please show me where on here this was stated. I've seen arguments in porn AFD's after PORNBIO was deprecated (which I have mixed feelings on) that awards alone weren't enough, but not that they couldn't be a factor at all. I can agree with that assessment if there's no good sources out there. I don't feel I was personally attacking the nominator (I don't have anything against him as a person, but obviously don't agree on some points), but some of his comments annoyed me and triggered me to get testy a few times. Definitely not something I normally do on here, and I apologize. GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 11:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoldenAgeFan1, the standard for AfDs isn't "sources." It's "in-depth coverage in multiple reliable sources." The key thing about this is the "multiple" and "in-depth." One in-depth book mention, whatever the depth of it is, just doesn't cut it and everything else is trivial. Sorry, but that's just a fact. Unless your ToughPig and ignore the guidelines apparently. "But, but, but, he's a porn star!" is no excuse. The crap thing about voting like that is that this will likely just come up for another AfD in a few months if people don't vote properly now based on what the actual facts are. Not doing massively disrepects the process and time of everyone here. Even if it might lead to the article being kept for the short term, and rarely disregarding the guidelines in a vote does anyway. Mostly it just leads to petty bickering and a contentious work place. As can be seen by most of the AfD discussions ToughPig is involved in. Adamant1 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I argued before, it isn't be all and end all of notability. Articles have been kept when there were other factors involved, such as winning major awards in your field. Here are two examples of AFD that I participated in that were kept when there was little coverage out their on there (and less than Barry had, with it came the quality of the coverage) and they certainly didn't have SIGCOV in multiple sources. I was later able to find an additional good sources in the first case that wasn't out there when the AFD closed. [6], 2 GoldenAgeFan1 (talk) 01:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: As GoldenAgeFan1 points out, the subject is covered extensively in an independent, published book, Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore. This is not the same as the AVN posts or porn awards usually cited in these discussions. In my opinion, a book like Bigger Than Life, presenting a historical overview of the subject, weighs very heavily in notability. Seven pages in that book is obviously non-trivial. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:40, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But that book is it with the in-depth coverage isn't it? If so, you voting keep directly goes against the whole "Multiple in-depth sources" part of this. The person doesn't get a pass on it just because they are a porn actor. Adamant1 (talk) 17:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rod Barry appears in quite a few books on the subject, for eacmples: The Sexual Self: The Construction of Sexual Scripts, Queer Communication Pedagogy, Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore. He also meets WP:NACTOR, being in over 150 films, being chrnonicled in books of the period, and being inducted into the Hall of Fame of the most notable body in the gay film industry. This person is a recognised and noted part of the gay porn film industry. Britishfinance (talk) 20:24, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Per Toughpigs, if this subject is being chronicled in material history books on the era, then it should not be deleted. Britishfinance (talk) 15:17, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments: GoldenAgeFan1 Do you have access to the content behind paywalls? -- Otr500 (talk) 17:29, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He actually gets a whole chapter in Jeffrey Escoffier's Bigger Than Life: The History of Gay Porn Cinema from Beefcake to Hardcore (Escoffier is a notable author on the genre). I have also added some more references from other books that chronicle him. Britishfinance (talk) 13:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CarSwitch.com[edit]

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

Non notable online market that falls short of WP:ORG as it lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as the following sources passes WP:SIGCOV: 1, 2 3 4 TruthGuardians (talk) 03:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per two of the sources that are already in the article and the sources provided by TruthGuardians. SL93 (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Previously deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/CarSwitch. Article has not been improved since then and the sources read as routine coverage and some puffery to me. Both Gulf Business and Arabian Business seem to be owned by marketing companies so I'm wondering about their reliability. (I admittedly live outside of their coverage area.) --Michael Greiner 00:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The company established back in 2016, and the previous version of this page deleted two years ago. The company has good coverage on sources like UAE's longest-running English daily news paper Khaleejtimes and thenational.ae https://www.thenational.ae/lifestyle/motoring/how-to-sell-your-car-remotely-in-the-uae-everything-you-need-to-know-1.1015500 https://www.khaleejtimes.com/business/make-the-switch-without-a-hitch, and USA's entrepreneur.com https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/292374 and Forbes magazines https://www.forbes.com/sites/sarwantsingh/2020/07/21/new-digital-retailing-business-models-in-used-car-market-take-center-stage-with-covid/#254adefb45c4 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Annajacob8 (talk • contribs) 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, this is nowhere near passing WP:NCORP, which specifically requires significant coverage in multiple independent reliable secondary sources. There are no such sources in the page. Of the four in this version:

the only information about the company is "CarSwitch.com, an online marketplace for certified used cars"
is a press-release, complete with "supplied photo" of the owners of the company; it contains no independent information
is about a different company; the information it gives about this one is "CarSwitch.com, a UAE platform for buying and selling certified used cars"; another sentence begins "Imad Hammad of CarSwitch.com was also set up, in 2016 ...", so is clearly not independent
is a permanent dead link to a completely trivial award ("entrepreneur of the week", no less)

This is also – despite denial by the page creator – obviously undisclosed paid editing just as the previous version was.

Note: the earlier title, CarSwitch, was most recently deleted on 19 July 2020 by Michael Greiner as G4 (nominated by me). Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 16:54, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justlettersandnumbers, thank you for the spot on analysis. Of recent I’ve become quite tired of drawing up tables & analyzing obvious unreliable sources. Thanks for the assistance. Celestina007 (talk) 17:40, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:08, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxim Vlasov blogger[edit]

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

Promo page for a non notable former military person & current “influencer” who lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. Sources used in this article mostly either lack editorial oversight or are self published hence unreliable. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 21:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Totally an advert article that lacks any kind of notability. I'm not sure what else there is to say about it. Seems like a pretty clear delete case to me. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Utter promotional junk. Mccapra (talk) 21:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable, PR, --Devokewater @ 11:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Not to mention the article name doesn't comply with WP:NCP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES, WP:MILL, and WP:NOTRESUME. We have deleted so many articles about bloggers, film/TV producers, and "lifestyle" people that I'd risk that it's clear consensus to delete them on sight, absent clearly significant coverage to counter-balance that. Everybody is a blogger; I have 3,200 followers on Twitter. If this was 2008, we might have to assume good faith, but in 2020, everybody knows that Wikipedia doesn't post resumes. Bearian (talk) 20:05, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. This is so blatantly in violation of our polices that a speedy deletion per WP:SNOW is in order, along with a heavy salting. Bearian (talk)

Comment there is a wikipage called Maxim Vlasov too, I've requested speedy deletion. --Devokewater @ 10:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid for spam, the sources are laughably bad and obvious SEO/black hat nonsense. Yes, even the ones from such "reputable" outlets such as The Statesman and Deccan Chronicle. Praxidicae (talk) 12:08, 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 Flobots. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:33, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flobots Present... Platypus[edit]

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

Has been in CAT:NN since 2013. I can find this [7], but the publisher looks like one of those publishers that reprints Wikipedia Books LLC, especially since the work, which I can't access, is apparently 18 pages long. AllMusic entry is just a track listing [8]. I've been wrong on music articles before, but I see no way in which this EP is notable. Everything else I'm finding is lyrics sites, user-generated databases like Discogs, Last.fm which is deprecated, and blogs. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 21:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Flobots. Mccapra (talk) 21:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flobots: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Flobots --Devokewater @ 20:14, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Misti Dawn[edit]

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

Doesn't seem to pass WP:BIO through a Google Book and News search Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bibliographies-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 20:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - May be grounds for a G4 speedy due to the previous deletion Morbidthoughts (talk) 21:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The last deletion was 2010 and the (only) ref in the article is from 2014, so it would not qualify as a straight G4. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 22:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could find very little on news or in books on this subject, and thus a fail of GNG. Never seemed to reach any great notability even within her industry (e.g. no Hall of Fame or evidence of major following etc.) for NACTOR. Straight delete. Britishfinance (talk) 11:57, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Substantially unsourced BLP with only the most minimal assertion of notability. Even the LA Weekly reference is unsure about its facts. Independent search for RS coverage comes up empty. No real claim of passing WP:ENT. Fails WP:BASIC without substantial sources. • Gene93k (talk) 14:26, 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 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) 22:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MarketPsych[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article review process. No indication of notability. Sources are generally self-sources and short mentions. As a result the whole article reads like the company's description of itself. I did not analyze the 2 sources that are behind paywalls. A search for coverage came up similarly, mostly self-sources, plus one analysis of their indices. North8000 (talk) 19:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:24, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hannah Black[edit]

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

does not meet noteability critera, possibily should be footnote on dana schultz page Loudstrawberry (talk) 19:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 19. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is plenty of material on Black that has nothing to do with Schutz. This is not a case of WP:ONEEVENT where someone is only notable for, say, initiating a debate about a painting. Black is notable as an artist in her own right. Vexations (talk) 21:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 22:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I was surprised this was up for deletion. She's obviously notable with her performances taking place at MoMA, the Los Angeles Museum of Contemporary Art and Institute of Contemporary Arts in London. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable significant artist with plenty of independent 3rd-party coverage. --Lockley (talk) 23:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Baffling nomination, there are lots of reliable sources in the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep Very easily meets WP:GNG, as evidenced by the various sources already present in the article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Flawed nom. The nominator had only made two edits prior to this AfD nom. They obviously were not informed about reliable sources, and doing a BEFORE search. Netherzone (talk) 18:38, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy redirect to Takatika Grit. Nom accepted/applied redirect; fixing closure. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 10:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Takatika Grit theropod[edit]

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

Per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. The name "Takatika Grit theropod" never used in the literature. The remains from the deposit are not suggested to represent a single taxon and therefore the term "Takatika Grit theropod" is a misnomer and WP:OR. As far as I am aware, individual fossils not part of a named species fail the GNG unless they are especially significant, like the Gurlin Tsav skull. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Merge/redirect - see below. Agree with nom; this article including its title is an interpretation of various publications, but does not represent a recognized (or even single) thing. Takatika Grit as a lagerstaette (I gather) would probably make a good article, and that's where I would merge this to. But in absence of such an article - delete. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: there is currently a Draft:Takatika Grit that was previously declined due to a lack of refs, but these have since been added, do you think the content should be merged there? Hemiauchenia (talk) 23:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Hemiauchenia: There we go; looks like a reasonable draft. Yes, I'd suggest jumping that out of the queue and merging to it. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moved Takatika Grit to mainspace, cleaned up a little. Actually I think there's little merging to be done, the salient points (and the refs) are already in the table - just redirect? --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 14:02, 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 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) 22:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cool Chips (symposium)[edit]

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

Lack of independant coverage to make it notable as a standalone article. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:34, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 19:34, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V (programming language)[edit]

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

Per this message by North8000 on article's talk page. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC) [revised 18:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)][reply]

I had wiki-trouble and folks helped by creating this 4th nomination and also added a CSD. Reviewed under new article curation process. No indication of wp:notability. Actually zero coverage by independent sources in the references given in the article (which aren't actually references) , and I found none in a search except some notes in blogs. Article was previously deleted twice (the 2nd closed on Fen 25th 2020) and then immediately created Feb 25th upon deletion. Possibly it should be a speedy closed and salted.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please see Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/V_(programming_language)_(3rd_nomination) and note that it was concurrently nominated for speedy deletion by Tyw7 per North8000's request. --David Tornheim (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Problem resolved. -- RoySmith (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting for technical reasons
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 18:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 18:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I knew I recognized this from somewhere; turns out I commented in the previous AfD, 4 months ago. This is a complete rewrite, so WP:G4 doesn't apply. But it suffers from exactly the same problem as the previous version; no WP:RS. Every one of the references are to vlang's own websites or closely related such as github and patreon. -- RoySmith (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Big Lean. Tone 08:07, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Da Degrees[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article review process. No indication of wp:notability. Only a brief mention in the sources and in those cases the article was not covering the label. No indication for passing under an SNG. Creator is currently blocked as a sock. North8000 (talk) 18:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 18:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, fails WP:GNG. Sources listed do not focus on the company itself, rather the artists it has. dibbydib 23:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to Big Lean. This article is more about him than the label, it is a "vanity label" in that it only issues material closely associated with the founding artist, and I can't find any sources that would meet GNG nor has the label had any significant cultural impact, i.e. length of history, roster of notable artists, impact on genre or regional artistic scene. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:14, 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 WP:SNOW keep. It is immediately clear that there will not be a consensus to delete this. BD2412 T 02:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Failure[edit]

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

WP:DICTDEF. A comprehensive encyclopedia article on this subject is not possible. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward) (talk) 17:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 18:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep while agree that we are WP:NOTDICT there are some topics that are better covered with an article. This topic is notable and the article covers all aspects of failure including the perception of failure. We have to be careful not to have WP:SYNTH, but we can overcome that problem with careful and responsible editing. WP:SURMOUNTABLE Lightburst (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (edit conflict). There's certainly more than a DICDEF here. What's here is rather rough in patches, but overall, it's a reasonable attempt at a WP:BCA. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 18:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep per WP:WORDISSUBJECT: "such articles must go beyond what would be found in a dictionary entry (definition, pronunciation, etymology, use information, etc.), and include information on the social or historical significance of the term." which this (roughly) does and further sources do exist to improve it so I don't think WP:NOTDICT applies. However, while it could change, the article is still written very much like an extended definition. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 19:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.★Trekker (talk) 19:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per GN-z11. The article covers more than just a dictionary definition and includes information about usage in pop culture and theories as to the origin and ubiquity of failures. It may not cover them particularly well, but that isn't solved by deletion. — Wug·a·po·des 20:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There are articles about failure in several encyclopedias including the Encyclopedia of Educational Psychology; The Encyclopedia of Phobias, Fears, and Anxieties; Encyclopedia of Applied Psychology; Encyclopedia of Finance; Encyclopedia of Geomorphology; Encyclopedia of Heart Diseases; &c. Naturally these are not complete because this is a broad topic, which occurs in many contexts. This is not a reason to delete anything; it just means that we require care in presenting the topic. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per User:Andrew Davidson. We have articles on other broad, confusing concepts: Power (social and political), Social influence, Discovery (observation), Knowledge etc., etc. Like these perplexing ideas, failure is central to human existence, hard to nail down precisely, and clearly encyclopedic. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 23:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep because apparently the nominator needs to experience it, and better appreciate its significance. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I was entertained by how much of this article was plagiarized. XOR'easter (talk) 01:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: Thanks for checking. I did not. Lightburst (talk) 01:57, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tommy Hansen (actor)[edit]

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

sources are far away from proving notability. I searched for better sources but I couldn't find them. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Czech Republic-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 20:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 18:04, 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. Vanamonde (Talk) 22:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 Trump Tulsa rally[edit]

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

After reading WP:EVENTCRITERIA, I don't think individual rallies or campaign events (by any candidate) merit their own article. The information can be included in Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign instead. GoingBatty (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oklahoma-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sigh, strong and speedy keep per GNG. Try using Google. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 18:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Another Believer: When determining whether to nominate this article for discussion, I was swayed by WP:EVENTCRITERIA stating: "Many events receive coverage in the news and yet are not of historic or lasting importance. News organizations have criteria for content, i.e. news values, that differ from the criteria used by Wikipedia and encyclopedias generally." However, I did not bundle this with Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's Phoenix rally (June 2020) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Donald Trump's Wisconsin Tele-Rally because some editors may feel that the Tulsa rally was more important than others. GoingBatty (talk) 19:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GoingBatty, I understand. This topic is very obviously notable to me. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 19:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sadly most of what this guy does ends up notable.★Trekker (talk) 19:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While I agree that every rally should not have their own page, this one had special significance due to it being the first post-COVID lockdown, and the weeks of speculation leading up to it, and the fallout due to the small crowds. There is definitely room for a single significant rally within a broader event to get its own page, and I think for the moment this one does pass that standard. Playlet (talk) 00:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per obvious. This particular rally was heavily featured in the media for weeks prior to the event, and is still being discussed as a failed turning point in the campaign. This was not just another campaign event that everyone forgets a day later. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This specific rally was highly important and of historical significance; the first rally in a pandemic, highly covered by the media, will have enduring significance. Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This was quite a notable rally. AshMusique (talk) 10:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a newspaper, getting huge coverage in newspapers does not gaurantee an event is of pernament enclyclopedic notability, and this event clearly is not such.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This a notable rally, historical significance, encyclopedic.21:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
Keep - has achieved significant coverage, possibly of historical significance. Neutrality^talk 19:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - significant notability especially considering the date and location. If if it turns out to be non-notable, it can be re-nominated. Alaney2k (talk) 19:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The RS coverage (incl. in-depth pieces), as well as real-life impacts of spreading the virus, indicate DUE. I'm pretty sure people 50 or 100 years from now will find this article mind-blowing. Snooganssnoogans (talk) 02:08, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not every Trump rally needs (or has) an article. This one, however, meets WP:GNG. KidAd (💬💬) 08:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above. This was not only a notable rally, but perhaps the turning point in history. Bearian (talk) 20:10, 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 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) 22:37, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Titof[edit]

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

Sources are by far not enough to prove notability. I looked myself for better sources but i couldn't find any AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 17:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 17:59, 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 delete. Article created by a sockpuppet of a banned user (WP:CSD G5) Eagles 24/7 (C) 16:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio State–Purdue football rivalry[edit]

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

Appears to be merely a conference series; only one of the sources cited on the page even mentions the word "rival" or "rivalry" in reference to Ohio State and Purdue. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:21, 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 Group nomination withdrawn. Some of these I will be nominating separately but it's clear that they cannot be deal with as a group. (non-admin closure) Mangoe (talk) 04:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ashton, California[edit]

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

This is another group nomination of Lassen County "settlements" whose only sourcing is Durham's place names book, and whose only information (according to their articles) is that they were the names/sites of post offices. this blog has some more info on many if not most of them, and as a rule they are 4^th class post offices with no other information than dates and postmasters. These could be located almost anywhere, including in stores, train stations, and even residences, and their names tended to change when they were moved about, but they have names only because the postal system required them. They are not villages or towns and are not notable. Again, if there's more info on one that I've missed, it can be dropped from the nomination. Mangoe (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Ashton, I am nominating the following for the same reasons:

Mangoe (talk) 16:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep it is difficult to do a bulk deletion because several questionable articles in the AfD can sour the whole nomination. I find the following 4 places to be notable, or at least I question their inclusion in the bulk nomination. I did not find that the other entries are notable, however I may have missed something, there were 17 entries to research. I have a newspaper account so i was able to look back to news from turn of the century, which is not represented in google search.

Edgemont California was populated and appears to be a recognized place

Here is an www article about the area, Used to be called Spoonville - name changed after they got a post office in 1913 (not really a ref)
This article shows that there were residents of this area in the Lowell Sun Massachusetts newspaper in 1969.
Here is an article, LA Times recognizes the place when reporting an earthquake in 2017.

Long Valley, Lassen County, California was once populated.

Populated place per Notice for publication in the Daily Nevada State Journal 1902
Here is an article about the railroad beginning at Long Valley in the Sacramento Daily Record Union 1885
looks like a cattle farmer lived there in the Reno Weekly Gazette And Stockman 1889.

Glade california (I am not sure about this one being notable)

One resident claimed to be from Glade california here is an article about the resident. in the Fowler Benton Review 1917.

Rayl, California

Apparently there was a Rayl Hotel in Rayl Ca which burned down according to the Chicago Daily National Hotel Reporter 1922
Carolyn Jorgenson lived there according to the Santa Ana Register 1920. Lightburst (talk) 18:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep - Ok, so I picked one place off this list--Datura--because I thought the name was unique and would be most likely to bring back some hits. I entered it into Google and the first book result (please note...THE FIRST RESULT!!!) says "A typical letter is from Tully DuVall of Datura, Lassen County". How can someone write a letter from a place no one lives in? A little farther down the page is this fellow writing a letter from the same non-existent community. Here is a blog about Datura that mentions some guy named William Henry Harrison Fuller who opened a store in Datura (I know, it's just a blog). So I Google the name "William Henry Harrison Fuller" and found this copy of the Lassen County Times that mentions Fuller and Datura. This NRHP nomination mentions a stage coach line from Susanville to Datura. I'm not saying Datura is notable; what I'm saying is I found this much stuff about the first place on the list I searched for in five minutes! At Centerville, California this same editor assured us "the only thing I am sure of is that this article needs to be deleted no matter what else gets done". The same at Sunnyslope, California. I'd be satisfied if the nominator just assured us they ran each of these places though Google before nominating them for deletion. This list is a gigantic and unnecessary make-work project. Magnolia677 (talk) 21:58, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/Redirect Cromwell and Rayl to Herlong, California as they are part of a succession of short-lived settlements on the same site [9][https://www.newspapers.com/clip/55699113/lassen-county-times/. –dlthewave ☎ 03:06, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice (programming language)[edit]

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

It exists, but I couldn't establish that it meets WP:N or that there is an WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:04, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 14:10, 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 16:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the GNG. Nothing but casual mentions and namedrops, and damn few of those. Ravenswing 15:58, 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) 16:47, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bus Conductor (1959 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, unsourced except to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up this extract from the press pack and this one-line plot summary from BFI, but nothing RS. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 16:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 19:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a total violation of the principal of verrifiability as the article lacks any reliable sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found during a search. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete poor refs, fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 18:30, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 08:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Johan Ernst Nilson[edit]

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

Borderline, hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. Doesn't meet WP:BIO - he went on many expeditions and wrote one book, but none of that makes notability. I have to admit ignorance when it comes to how significant the mentioned Swedish Church medal and Royal Orden are - they are the only signs this may be notable. There is some coverage, including in a national newspaper, but not enough to meet WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as an explorer or a writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Publications section is within WP:GNG. Work within WP:GNG. This article needs a clean up and additional sourced perhaps. But notable.BabbaQ (talk) 13:36, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - per BabbaQ. Jusdafax (talk) 04:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Keep !votes would be much more heavily weighted if they pointed to specific instances of coverage in independent sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:35, 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 16:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He's an elected Member of the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, and thereby passes WP:NACADEMIC#3. Narky Blert (talk) 16:14, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I see no need to repeat the supporting rationales, but I would say that when the nominator states that they can't evaluate claims of notability, and can't be bothered to expend the effort to do the research required, the AFD should be summarily closed and nominator trouted and cautioned. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 17:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

user:Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, I in no way said I 'can't evaluate claims of notability, and can't be bothered to do the research required.' I was making sure to emphasise not only my opinion and conclusion but also my shortcomings in terms of knowledge on this topic, as I am not trying to 'win' but to get an honest and fair consensus. Please assume good faith in other editors. It isn't easy to work through entries in CAT:NN, especially those more than 11 years old, as they are often not simple, hence many people passing them over, as they don't want to risk taking them to AfD, and then being attacked for it. Boleyn (talk) 20:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, stop whining. You didn't do anything remotely resembling a minimally adequate WP:BEFORE search. If you had even taken a first step t, say, evaluate the notability of the "Royal Orden" by clicking through to its LINKED wikipage, you'd have learned that the "Amarante" order was abolished in 1656, and that Nilson couldn't possibly have been a member. Obviously should have been removed from the article. The ru-wiki article is more extensive and includes, inter alia, the claim that the subject was cover-featured on Time magazine. A simple image search verifies this, although it was a scholastic edition (which typically features simplified content drawn from the main publication). A rather major sign of notability. Even the basic Google search turns up a lot of substantive coverage, including Financial Times, Wired, the New York Times, and NBC News (a Dateline feature, not merely a news story).

Face it. You did a piss-poor job here, because your fundamental approach to searching is gravely deficient. Just a cursory review of the sources cited in the article is nowhere near what WP:BEFORE calls for. What you are doing with nominations like this damages Wikipedia, both by jeopardizing worthwhile content and by causing other editors to waste disproportionate quantities of time cleaning up the messes you create rather than more productive activity. And falsely complaining that you're not being accorded good faith is utter effing nonsense. This is a WP:COMPETENCE issue, pure and simple, and you're way on the wrong side of it. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 01:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - members of National/Royal Academies almost always meet WP:PROF. Bearian (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If this conversation hinges on his membership in the Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, has anyone verified that uncited claim? I can't find him in their current membership list. On Swedish Wikipedia, his article doesn't repeat this claim and the full list of academy members does not list him: sv:Lista över ledamöter av Kungliga Vetenskapsakademien. czar 21:22, 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) 16:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donald Trump's Wisconsin Tele-Rally[edit]

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

After reading WP:EVENTCRITERIA, I don't think individual rallies or campaign events (by any candidate) merit their own article. The information can be included in Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign instead. GoingBatty (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related page because it is about a similar rally:

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. GoingBatty (talk) 16:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Ephemeral events which nobody cared about three days later. The fact of him doing rallies remotely may be notable as part of his campaign, but there's no claim to notability of individual rallies with regard to what happened there, and I don't see the need for redirects from individual rallies. Mangoe (talk) 16:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect not a notable event per WP:EVENTCRIT. Could be redirected to Coronavirus and politics. WP:NETRUMP Lightburst (talk) 16:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm in Wisconsin and I know I would have for sure heard about this in 30-second form on my local newscasts. I did not. This is completely non-notable and is not the first of anything (every other political party does this...even when there isn't a pandemic going on). Nate • (chatter) 17:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a single event which is unlikely to have enough lasting effects and coverage to achieve notability. Nwlaw63 (talk) 17:41, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It was barely memorable 24 hours later in the media, let along to merit a page Playlet (talk) 00:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. A rally that did not really happen. If needed, one could make a page Coronavirus in US politics. That would be something reasonable. My very best wishes (talk) 02:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As per WP:EVENTCRITERIA Zoozaz1 (talk) 04:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG. Neither event has any lasting notability. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This was not even a live event, it is just plain not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or merge into an article about Trump's campaign. At least the two other Trump event articles currently nominated for deletion have far more articles. HumanxAnthro (talk) 11:24, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nobody followed it. Not notable, never will be. Bearian (talk) 20:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:55, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nai Raahen[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search failed to reveal the plot, let alone anything in-depth. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM Spiderone 07:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an article lacking reliable sources should not be able to survive 5 days let alone 5 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nagoya Anarchists[edit]

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

Article has no sources at all, and has not had any for fifteen years. As a result, I don't think it fulfils WP:Notability Sparkledriver (talk) 13:46, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep:The article started out before references became mandatory on Wikipedia. Their lack, therefore, does not mean lack of notability. We should bare in mind that much of the material about them is in Japanese. I do agree however that it should have references, and Is hall see if I can dig some out. Leutha (talk) 17:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There is currently no indication the subject is notable. If Leutha can add references that indicate notability I'm open to changing my mind.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:37, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge -- This seems to be a shortlived political movement in Japan. I suspect that there will be rather more on it in the Japanese WP, but I cannot read the language and have not investigated. The article mentions other groups with which this one merged. I suspect there is scope for merging all these into one article on 20th century political dissidents in Japan. That may not quite explain its scope. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge A quick look on Google suggests that there are sources out there, and merging into an article such as Anarchism in Japan is probably the way to go Playlet (talk) 01:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you be more specific? What sources? My search didn't turn up anything.--Carabinieri (talk) 11:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Playlet:, any information on potential sources you have would be really helpful. Leutha has a long history of good contributions, so I'm sure this isn't a hoax, but as the article stands there is no evidence whatsoever other than Leutha's reputation that this group existed.--Carabinieri (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Sparkledriver and Carabinieri. I'd change to merge if someone comes up with rs, but without rs merging will only add unsourced content to another article. // Timothy :: talk 14:19, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Without sources, we're down to whether this is a sensible redirect to Anarchism in Japan. I don't see what we'd be sourcing there under this topic, so better to delete than redirect/merge. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 06:38, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:54, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Madhavi (1969 film)[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to IMDb (not WP:RS) since creation in 2015. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing RS, and not even the plot. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete IMDB isn't WP:RS; fails WP:NOTABILITY. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - due to concerns around WP:NFILM and WP:GNG Spiderone 19:49, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is supposed to be built on reliable sources, not IMDb.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 08:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mulla Behram[edit]

(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) 16:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:SCHOLAR because he is a notable Muslim scholar with significant following especially in his native city of Chaman, Balochistan. He is also regarded as one of the leaders of the Pashtun Tahafuz Movement. Besides Pashtuns, Mulla Behram also works for Baloch missing persons and is associated with the human rights organization Voice for Baloch Missing Persons. Also per WP:NOENG: many non-English sources (Pashto, Urdu, etc.) mention him (as "ملا بهرام" and "ملا بہرام"). Khestwol (talk) 18:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and expand. -Hatchens (talk) 03:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 14:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete i did a google search in Urdu language, and what i found is that they only discuss his arrest [10] and public speeche [11]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 09:18, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per @TheBirdsShedTears: Ytpks896 (User talk:Ytpks896talk) 05:02, 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 no consensus. Its true that a local afd consensus doesn't have to follow the outcome of an RFC to the letter. Its also true that since the RFC I recall closing a number of secondary schools as keep per the discussion consensus. I can't find any real consensus in this discussion unless I simply ignore the keep.side altogether. Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Xavier's School, Behror[edit]

If you came here because someone asked you to, or you read a message on another website, please note that this is not a majority vote, but instead a discussion among Wikipedia contributors. Wikipedia has policies and guidelines regarding the encyclopedia's content, and consensus (agreement) is gauged based on the merits of the arguments, not by counting votes.

However, you are invited to participate and your opinion is welcome. Remember to assume good faith on the part of others and to sign your posts on this page by adding ~~~~ at the end.

Note: Comments may be tagged as follows: suspected single-purpose accounts: {{subst:spa|username}}; suspected canvassed users: {{subst:canvassed|username}}; accounts blocked for sockpuppetry: {{subst:csm|username}} or {{subst:csp|username}}.

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of an earlier redirected article. Fails WP:GNG, no reliable sources, according to this article it is just a branch of St. Xavier's College, Jaipur. No independent notability The Banner talk 13:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From all evidence, the school is not just a branch of another high school but it branched off and became an independent school. Jzsj (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Than I assume you have evidences/sources about that. The Banner talk 10:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. The Banner talk 13:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St Xavier's School, Jaipur per the previous discussion. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The Banner Ivanvector .You may need to reconsider the decision .This School is not a branch of either St. Xavier's School, Jaipur or St. Xavier's College, Jaipur but a separate institution equivalent to them under Delhi society of Jesus . Find English Language reference here - https://WWW.xaviersbehror.org , http://xaviersbehror.org/aboutschool.php and Footer Page of http://www.delhijesuits.org/ .In the older version of article the redirection was wrongly placed . It is separately registered with CBSE Find afffliation number here - 1730149. and check on cbseaff.nic.in. Could you please reconsider the decison based on above refrences. Check Co-ordinates as well ? Jaipur and Behror are two different cities . User:राकेश5678(talk) 17:39 , 11 July 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by राकेश5678 (talk • contribs) 14:24, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Find Hindi Language News Sources here - https://www.bhaskar.com/rajasthan/alwar/news/rajasthan-news-st-xavier-school-dominated-in-basketball-boys-beat-in-17-and-19-squads-074505-5451472.html and https://www.bhaskar.com/news/RAJ-OTH-MAT-latest-khairthal-news-044036-478767-NOR.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by राकेश5678 (talk • contribs) 14:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The link in the nomination points at: Having started with just six students, the school soon grew to accommodate many more children. It is still expanding, and has set up branches at Bhiwani, Behror, Mahua and Nevta. The Banner talk 14:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment : The resource you are citing in support of nomination has inadvertent mistakes which have been pointed out regularly in this discussion but then for notability you are requiring to oppose the same source which is for any article not possible since finding "negative sentences" for any article are impossible if the said context doesn't exist since the said context has been developed by the person nominating itself ! . For Example This sentence couldn't be found anywhere - " User:The Banner and User:राकेश5678 are not brothers . " because the context for it does not exist . Similarly you will not find not find this sentence anywhere -" St. Xavier's Behror is not a branch of St. Xavier's Jaipur " because as mentioned for any negative sentence to exist a prerequisite context must be there but here context has been manufactured from an inadvertent reporting. And positive independent references have been pointed out time and again by me summarised in Text Wall below for the article to exist . राकेश5678 (talk) 07:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: For that matter School in Nevta is same St. Xavier's School, Jaipur Nevta is a locality in Jaipur , AND it is not Bhiwani .. it is Bhiwadi that is a another institution under Delhi Jesuit Society ..website here - http://www.stxaviersbhiwadi.com/ ... Wikipedia Page here - St. Xavier's School, Bhiwadi राकेश5678 (talk 21:00 , 11 July 2020 . —Preceding undated comment added 15:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain As per "Hello" above, and also: This is a secondary school and it is being proposed that it be joined to an article on a school of tertiary education. There was hardly any previous discussion. A certified document on the separate incorporation of the school is here. Though public media in India are not easily accessed by us for such minority schools, I do not think we should hold that against this high school and deny it a place in Wikipedia. Jzsj (talk) 14:43, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That certificate does not state that it is an independent school. The Banner talk 14:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That Certificate do state that it is a separate institution.It mentions it is managed by BXES While a similar certificate for St. Xavier's Jaipur and Nevta mentions it is managed by JXEA . Both these societies are independent of each other and have common members from Delhi Jesuits . All Schools With names St. Xavier's are managed by Society of Jesus . You might find their names in the below mentioned template . Also For analogy , St. Xavier's School, Behror is a separate institution just like St. Xavier's School, Jaipur and St. Xavier's School, Delhi are and have different Wikipedia pages but all these are overseen by Delhi Branch of Society of Jesus . List of Jesuit educational institutions Find Template here -{{Jesuit Schools of India}} राकेश5678 (talk

A separate institution is not always an independent institution. The Banner talk 15:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, But A Separate may also be an independent institution . References mentioned in Text Wall point that. राकेश5678 (talk) 14:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Another independent source -https://school.careers360.com/schools/st-xaviers-school-behror-alwar Below here

http://web.archive.org/web/20150710054606/http://www.xaviersbehror.org/aboutus.php you will find the archived info where it states that ""St. Xavier's School, Behror is a Christian minority school under the management of Jesuits of Delhi Province of the Society of Jesus, an international Catholic Religious Order. Opened in 1991, the school is affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) for the All India Secondary School Examination (Class X) and All India Senior School Certificate Examination (Class XII)."" Also User:TheBanner Canyou share any resource thatsays St. Xavier's School Behror is a part of or under control of St. Xavier's School Jaipur ? राकेश5678 (talk —Preceding undated comment added 16:15, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

B

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See the link in the nomination and the earlier quote from that page. The Banner talk 20:42, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to St Xavier's School, Jaipur, this secondary school fails GNG, as it is sourced entirely to primary sources. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree- Mentioned in Text Wall --> https://www.bhaskar.com/rajasthan/alwar/news/rajasthan-news-st-xavier-school-dominated-in-basketball-boys-beat-in-17-and-19-squads-074505-5451472.html , https://www.bhaskar.com/news/RAJ-OTH-MAT-latest-khairthal-news-044036-478767-NOR.html , https://school.careers360.com/schools/st-xaviers-school-behror-alwar , https://xaviersbehror.org/minority.php , http://cbseaff.nic.in/cbse_aff/schdir_Report/AppViewdir.aspx?affno=1730149http://office.incometaxindia.gov.in/hindi/jaipur/Lists/Exempted%20Institutions/DispForm.aspx?ID=88&ContentTypeId=0x010098C21414FD53114DB5ABFEB74E3075FE , http://alwarsahodaya.com/st-xaviers-school-behror/, These are not primary sources . राकेश5678 (talk) 14:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There was no previous discussion This is a secondary school set upin 1991 has about 1500 students enrolled and located in town of Behror of population of about 30,000 . This town Behror lies at distance of about is 142 kms from Jaipur.If there is any issue tag the page for improvements.Shyamsunder (talk) 08:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That prior discussion is here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/St. Xavier's School, Behror. And it nice to see you here, after the request on your talk page for assistance by राकेश5678. The Banner talk 10:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsing a huge wall of text by राकेश5678. Sandstein 14:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

"Independent Status" Find clear information Showing independent status from Affliating Government Board here on this site under heading " Nature Of School" . This has been resourced from Central Board of Secondary Education which is a federal government affliating authority.

http://cbseaff.nic.in/cbse_aff/schdir_Report/AppViewdir.aspx?affno=1730149

राकेश5678 (talk) 08:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)राकेश5678 (talk 14:20 , 12 July 2020 ( GMT+5:30).[reply]

Canvassing (requesting other to come here to protect the article) is not appreciated. The Banner talk 10:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I too don't appreciate that @ The Banner talk , But when someone continously and ""diligently ignores"" evidences otherwise and solely rests on a single news (which may have erroneous representation) and who doesn't understand other Hindi Resources provided and even ignores legal government resources stating otherwise , I was compelled to ask a local admin/moderator to provide his input . Sorry for Harsh Language . It also should not be appreciated someone sitting 1000 miles away dictates the terms even when he doesn't understand context .

        ** And why did I say Erroneous Representation because the news report mentions ---Quote -" Having started with just six students, the school soon grew to 
     accommodate many more children. It is still expanding, and has set up branches at ""Bhiwani"", Behror, Mahua and Nevta.---- There is not even a St. Xavier's School in Bhiwani which is directly controlled by Delhi Jesuits (http://www.delhijesuits.org/) .{{{In your report It is St. Xavier's High School, Bhiwani which is nowhere mentioned to be controlled by Delhi Jesuits directly  which may be a copycat or If I find resources about that I will update here}}}--The one which isa correct is --> St. Xavier's School, Bhiwadi  .News Reports may also have erroneous representation . You can't solely base your reference on one single report even when two hindi language news sources tell otherwise .

As far as resources I have both St. Xavier's High Schools Bhiwani and Mahua are copycats or otherwise .

Because the school that Delhi Jesuits run is in Mahwa, Rajasthan ( Dausa District Rajasthan ) and the one mentioned in your report is Mahua (community development block) which is in Bihar .

Similarly the school that Delhi Jesuits run is in Bhiwadi ( Alwar District Rajasthan ) and the one mentioned in your report is Bhiwani which is in Haryana .

In schools run by Delhi Jesuits and in their logos IHS will be present which is not present in both the above cases .(Mahua , Bihar and Bhiwani , Haryana).

— Preceding unsigned comment added by राकेश5678 (talk • contribs) 12:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The ones directly controlled by Delhi Jesuits are mentioned under heading Our Institutions mentioned in footer of Website ---> http://www.delhijesuits.org/

and are repeated here as such --

Our Institutions St. Xavier’s School, Rohini St. Xavier’s School, Civil Lines St. Xavier’s School, Bhiwadi St. Xavier’s School, Jaipur St. Xavier’s School, Behror

Another Information on Schools run By Delhi Jesuits is here --->http://www.delhijesuits.org/education/

You might have to view source code , page doesnot display all letters accurately ( at least here )

Quoted as such _{It runs six major schools and two upcoming schools. The oldest school in the Province is St. Xavier’s Sr. Secondary School, C-Scheme, Jaipur, established in 1942 while it was part of the Patna Province. The second oldest is St. Xavier’s Sr. Sec. School, Raj Niwas Marg, Delhi started in 1960. St. Xavier’s Sr. Sec. School, Bhiwadi, Rajasthan, St. Xavier’s Sr. Sec. School, Behror, Rajasthan, and St. Xavier’s Sr. Sec. School, Shahabad, Delhi were established more or less in the same time. The most recent major school is St. Xavier’s Sr. Sec. School, Nevta, Jaipur which was begun in 2014. The developing schools in the rural set up are St. Xavier’s School, Ropar, Punjab, and St. Xavier’s School, Mahua, Rajasthan. Altogether, the Province is catering to more than 15,800 school students.}

Below is a personal question -- I apologize before hand for asking --

To @ The Banner talk---->

I had two questions as analogy - Why this page --> St. Xavier's School, Nevta and this page ---> St. Xavier's School, Bhiwadi and this page -----> St. Xavier's High School, Mahua are present there and why you intentionally are behind this page ?

राकेश5678 (talk) 11:47, 12 July 2020 (UTC)राकेश5678 (talk) 5:17 , 12 July 2020 (GMT+5:30).[reply]

Every article is judged on it own merits, so comparing is useless. And I am under no obligation to check other articles, I am just a volunteer-editor. The Banner talk 12:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

</> @ The Banner talk---->

I am too a volunteer -editor improving articles of my city and why I am adamant here because I used my time to gather resources for this article which are in line with Wikipedia's policies . And why to compare because you didn't intentionally understand provided resources . And hell bent on referring again again on a single report , mistakes in which were pointed out by me .I am improving articles in alwar district and I though the same here and did proper research ( thats why I am wasting my time here with you because I can't let go waste my time for want of a single admin who even doesn't know where jaipur or behror is )When trying to write about one of the first CBSE Schools in my city . I also don't have any interest in editing articles out of Rajasthan which is not my expertise .

--राकेश5678 (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reason for Comparison - Because you are referencing these same things in your news report (in which mistakes have been pointed out above) used for nomination to delete this article राकेश5678 (talk) 13:10, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retain- Find summary of resources and arguments in favor of retaining Page -

Independent Secondary References/Sources-

https://www.bhaskar.com/rajasthan/alwar/news/rajasthan-news-st-xavier-school-dominated-in-basketball-boys-beat-in-17-and-19-squads-074505-5451472.html

          In Hindi - Mentions Xavier's            Basketball Cup , Alwar district Interschool tournament organised by St. Xavier's behror Evety year .

https://www.bhaskar.com/news/RAJ-OTH-MAT-latest-khairthal-news-044036-478767-NOR.html

        Again mention of St. Xavier's Behror with no mention of St. Xavier's Jaipur.

https://school.careers360.com/schools/st-xaviers-school-behror-alwar

Complete School profile from a reputed Educational Website in India.

http://cbseaff.nic.in/cbse_aff/schdir_Report/AppViewdir.aspx?affno=1730149

Federal Government body database of affiliatedSchools

http://www.stangelasophiajaipur.in/CampusNews_Secondary_201920.aspx

School in Jaipur Which participated in tournament in St. Xavier's School, Behtor

http://office.incometaxindia.gov.in/hindi/jaipur/Lists/Exempted%20Institutions/DispForm.aspx?ID=88&ContentTypeId=0x010098C21414FD53114DB5ABFEB74E3075FE

       Income Tax Rebate to Xavier Behror Educational Society , Controlling body of St. Xavier's Behror

https://fitindia.gov.in/events/run-for-unity-3/

http://www.environmentclearance.nic.in/state/FORM_B_PDF.aspx?cat_id=SIA/RJ/IND2/21349/2017&pid=New

Environment filing showing St. Xavier's Behror is located in RIICO industrial area .

https://xaviersbehror.org/minority.php

Most Important legal document showing no whatsoever link to St. Xavier's School Jaipur as in any legal document name or mention of controlling authority should be present if the said school is a branch of it .

https://www.yumpu.com/en/document/read/18991917/ind-area-keshwana-kotputli-riico

Authoriative document mentioning Schools in Behtor City .

Linked Secondary References/ Sources -

http://www.delhijesuits.org/education/

Mentions history and sequence of Schools established by it .The page has some error in displaying fonts .You might want to read HTML source of page to read the full text .The said Text has been quoted earlier in discussion , Please reference there.

http://www.delhijesuits.org/

Website Footer clearly mentions Education Schools under it .

http://www.stxaviersbhiwadi.com/ Also mentions some history of St. Xavier's Behror in General Infotmation Page .

http://alwarsahodaya.com/st-xaviers-school-behror/

Very Important info provided by source. It is an infotmal grouping CBSE Affliated Schools in India .Here mentionef is Alwar Chapter under ehich Behror City Falls .

Primary Sources -

http://web.archive.org/web/20150710054606/http://www.xaviersbehror.org/aboutus.php

http://xaviersbehror.org/aboutschool.php Authentic legalingo provided here as required by Federal Government legislation and CBSE

https://www.xaviersbehror.org/

Official Website of the Page in Question

Note -- Secondary Sources are those which are not linked to the institution in question . Linked Secondary sources have some linkage to the institution in question .Primary sources are from the institution itself.

Arguments in Favor .

Authentic Goverment of Rajasthan Minority Department Document on School's Website mentions that School is controlled by Xavier Behror Educational Society ( XBES) .It is registerd in Behror under Income Tax Filings mentioned here therefore not linked to St. Xavier's Jaipur which is in Jaipur and managed by JXEA which is a different trust registered in Jaipur .Both St. Xavier's Nevta , St. Xavier's College Jaipur and St. Xavier's School Jaipur are managed by JXEA (Jaipur Xavier's Education Association ) .

The only link between XBES and JXEA is that they both are established by Delhi Jesuits and have members from it.

This wholly negates the argument that St. Xavier's Jaipur manages St. Xavier's Behror.

          Similarly for St. Xavier's Bhiwadi

Government of India Body Central Board of Education which is affliating body for CBSE Schools all over India mentions this school as Independent and data there has no links with St. Xavier 's Jaipur .

There is no mention of St.Xavier's Behror on St. Xavier's Jaipur Official Website .Had it been a branch of it definitely there would have been Mention of ot there .

Delhi Jesuits Website mentions St. Xavier's Behror alongside St. Xavier's Jaipur implying that these are equivalent institutions under it .It nowehere mentions St. Xavier's Behror is a branch of St. Xavier's Jaipur.

Why argument in favor of Deletion or Redirect doesnot hold ground.

~~https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/jaipur/Raje-to-launch-75th-anniversary-celebrations-of-St-Xaviers-School-Jaipur/articleshow/51012259.cms~~

~~Having started with just six students, the school soon grew to accommodate many more children. It is still expanding, and has set up branches at Bhiwani, Behror, Mahua and Nevta.~~

Factual Inaccuracies in above statement from Report -

There is no School of Delhi Jesuits in either Bhiwani (Which is in Harayana) or Mahua (Which is in Bihar).Arguments in favor of this statement -

→ All Delhi Jesuit Schools have IHS in their Official Logos .Check Logos of these two on their Official Websites .

→ There is no mention that these schools (Bhiwani- https://stxaviersbhiwani.in and Mahua - http://www.xaviersmahua.com/) are managed by Delhi Jesuit Society in their Websites while it is the norm in all other schools under Delhi Jesuit Province that they mention in their Websites that they are managed by Delhi Jesuits .Reporter included Copycat Names .

→ As mentioned here in Linked Secondary Source Delhi Jesuit province controls 6 Schools where Schools with similar names are Bhiwadi in Rajasthan and Mahwa in Rajasthan.

→ The other two schools mentioned in report are - Behror and Nevta .

St. Xavier's Nevta's Website ( https://www.stxaviersschoolnevta.in/ )mentions beforehand that it is a branch of St. Xavier's School Jaipur , While there is no such mention of In St. Xavier's Behror's Website .

Assuming that St. Xavier's Behror is a branch of St. Xavier's Jaipur and is managed by Same Delhi Jesuits as a policy it should also mention the same in its website because all other particulars in websites of these schools regarding Delhi Jesuits are same .

→ Secondary Linked Source clearly mentions that St. Xavier's Jaipur was the first institution established by it in 1942 then St. Xavier's Delhi → St. Xavier's Behror and St. Xavier's Bhiwadi and so on . Assuming that On basis Which St. Xavier's Delhi's Page and St. Xavier's Bhiwadi's Page is present on Wikipedia Same must be criteria for St. Xavier's Behror Since in One of the editir's World view these are branches of St. Xabier's Jaipur.But that is not true these all are independent institutions under Delhi Jesuits as mentioned here →

Now arguments other than for redirection --->

Finally arguments why a page of this School is importannt

Below info may not be neutral but might include my personal Inclinations --

I have been improving pages of Alwar district and especially of my home city under it .

I don't have any online source to point it but as far as according to offline sources this was the first CBSE afffiliated school in my city.

and this definitely requires a Wikpedia Page which May not be revelant to Someone 1000 miles away but is definitely relevant to Someone in Rajasthan.

~~From all evidence, the school is not just a branch of another high school but it branched off and became an independent school. Jzsj (talk) 15:56, 11 July 2020 (UTC)~~ It had remained independent of St. Xavier's Jaipur since establishment nothing sort of Branched off.

From all the above arguments it is clear that St. Xavier's School, Behror deserves independent page . But I also mention that I don't have neutral viewpoint in this discussion Since I put this article up . But I also abhor if someone without proper context / information gets in between . If someone bases all of his arguments in single reference and ignores a heap of counter evidence .

I support RETAIN , it is worthy of it .

राकेश5678 (talk) 18:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect or WP:ATD-M to St Xavier's School, Jaipur per WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES Lightburst (talk) 16:13, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The references listed above satisfy WP:SIRS WP:ORGIND राकेश5678 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- We commonly ALLOW articles on secondary school to exist, in contrast to primary schools. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:10, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Only when these schools can prove their notability. The time that school-articles were kept just because they were about schools is long gone. The Banner talk 17:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- secondary schools are typically kept.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 00:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- RFC on secondary school notability: Secondary schools are not presumed to be notable simply because they exist. The Banner talk 09:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - That RfC doesn't apply here, because "References to demonstrate notability may be offline, and this must be taken into consideration before bringing a page to AFD" which was apparently not done. Moreover, the offline sources are possibly in Hindi, making this even harder.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - The RFC does apply here. As you can see the author of the article is a local . He/She should have access to the local library to find newspapers, magazines and books that describe the school. The Banner talk 20:25, 25 July 2020 (UTC) quote: I am too a volunteer -editor improving articles of my city and why I am adamant here because I used my time to gather resources for this article which are in line with Wikipedia's policies .(...) When trying to write about one of the first CBSE Schools in my city . (...)--राकेश5678 (talk) 13:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Yes but I can't take images of them and paste here , offline sources are difficult to site . And online sources other than listed above are mostly in E-Paper edition and some behind paywall. WP:SNG. I don't know if Newsletters are admissible under WP:N. Here are the links for one of them : https://www.jesuits.global/sj_files/2020/05/annuario2015_en.pdf {PG 67} {Weak Primary},

https://jcsaweb.org/jcsa_publications/NL_Nov_19/2019.11.Nov.DM_v2.pdf {PG 2}. Besides that the references sites earlier in the discussion do satisfyWP:Nand also WP:SNG might be applicable here . राकेश5678 (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete I cannot find any non-trivial references in online English language sources. Since this is a branch of another school, good sources may not exisit in any language, online or offline. However, if @राकेश5678: or another user could identify good sources in Hindi or another local langauge, even if the sources were not available online, I could be convinced to change my !vote. — BillHPike (talk, contribs) 16:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: @(talk, contribs)"{~~Since this is a branch of another school~~".}. Independent refrences which qualify WP:N have been included in the collapsed text wall mentioned above .I Wonder how Following sources -- CBSE , Career360 , Income Tax India Filing , Govt of India Minority Certificate fail notability reference for this article here . Since according to WP:N they must be independent , all of the above are independent of the subject of article and are reliable three of them are Government Institutions the remaining is a reputed educational news website in India and have more than trivial reference and Besides Yes there are many articles in Hindi Language in the following Newspapers - Rajasthan Patrika ( Bhiwadi Patrika ) and Dainik Bhaskar (Behror-Neemrana Bhaskar ) but those are in their Print and E-paper Editions which till recently were open access but now are behind paywall so unfortunately I may not be able to include those reporting here . Yes few reporting that has been in their digital site has been included by me above in text wall .WP:SNG . राकेश5678 (talk) 07:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is a separate school with 55 staff, in the Delhi province of the Society of Jesus. Checking the references, this is a properly registered school. The article itself needs more information as the home page of this school has vision, mission and a bit more up to date information. Whiteguru (talk) 08:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I'm unsure, but just to be clear, "secondary schools are typically kept" is an invalid keep rationale as per this RfC, so I would hope anyone who closes this as something other than redirect will specify the policy-based arguments to the contrary. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:27, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The RFC was contentious as it was a forced consensus when there was none and is routinely disputed at AFD, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:15, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, it was a bitter defeat for the keep-camp, who never acknowledged the new facts that school-articles are no longer kept because those are about schools but have to prove their notability. The Banner talk 21:20, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And yet nobody actually contested the closure. Instead, a small minority of people who didn't like the outcome just pretended like it didn't happen, and thus it falls to the AfD closers to weigh WP:JDLI arguments accordingly. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:50, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Time for another RFC as it is being used to overrule later consensus at AFD by closers. It was three and a half years ago and consensus changes. Regarding the first RFC I wasn't even aware of it at the time and there are many similar. Also it's notable that the deletion camp keep quoting the RFC but revert to common outcomes with regard to elementary schools, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:19, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Have you any examples of these AfDs? The Banner talk 09:38, 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 delete. Tone 08:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deer Lake School[edit]

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

I'm not seeing anything notable about this school. All of the sources in the article are primary and nothing come up when I did a WP:BEFORE about it that would establish notability. The article is also written like an advertisment and mostly contains extremely trivial information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adamant1 (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As the article creator, I am likely not permitted to vote. However, I would like to point out that the statement that there are no secondary sources cited in the article is incorrect. While I did cite the school's own website a number of times, there are plenty of secondary sources cited in the article. NorthernFalcon (talk) 06:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Please note that being the article creator certainly does not rule you out of expressing a !vote. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. Vote to keep If there are any deficiencies in the article, please let me know, and I will fix them. NorthernFalcon (talk) 18:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I must have missed the one source out of the sixteen in the article that wasn't primary. My bad. I guess I should probably withdraw the AfD now for lying. As if. It still doesn't pass the notability guidelines. Even if you did include one non-primary source. Adamant1 (talk) 12:21, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - although this article needs considerable tender loving care, it does show this is a notable subject. John from Idegon (talk) 12:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly shows it's notable? --Adamant1 (talk) 18:41, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not seeing how the entity meets WP:NSCHOOL. At best, it has few mentions in passing, but no in-depth coverage, analysis of significance or such outside its own PRIMARY materials. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:43, 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 16:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Salome Ortega[edit]

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

Published author, but doesn't seem to meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete merely being published is not enough to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment seems to be a respected Spanish poet and novelist, and her award winning novel La Alfombra de la Palmera y la Media Luna is fairly widely held. Having trouble finding significant coverage, though. pburka (talk) 22:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:24, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I'm a WP:INCLUSIONIST at heart, but a Google search turned up absolutely nothing in-depth about her. The fact that she has no article in Spanish WP is supporting (though of course in no way conclusive) evidence in support of my !vote. Narky Blert (talk) 21:21, 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

History of Seventh-day Adventist freedom of religion in Canada[edit]

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

There doesn't seem to be anything particularly notable about the history of religious freedom in Canada specifically as it relates to the Seventh-Day Adventists. As is made clear by all the primary sources in the article. Which includes a lot of references to Canadian laws about "religion", not Seventh-day Adventists per say, and quotes from the bible. Which really have nothing to do with them in particular, any more then it would for any other Christian denomination. Therefore, I think his article should either be deleted. Or at least whatever little content that might be relevant and worth saving could merged with Freedom of religion in Canada.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge This appears to be in the form of a WP:SPINOFF from History of freedom of religion in Canada and it does contain referenced material not in the parent article. E.g. the 1904 Lornedale Academy Workers arrests. Accordingly, it should either be merged to the parent or kept. 24.151.50.175 (talk) 18:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep --this is well referenced, meets GNG, and is too detailed for a merge in my opinion--but feel free to create more articles for other religions in Canada.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:06, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure what articles about other religions in Canada have to do with it, but I think it would be more then short enough to merge once the stuff that isn't specific to the Seventh-day Adventists and information taken from un-reliable primary sources is removed from the article. A lot of those sources are what make up a lot of what your claiming is "well referenced" about the article. There's nothing well referenced about an article where 99% of the references are primary and mostly to the same source. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:55, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anything pertaining to Sunday legislation in the Anglosphere is sufficiently specific to Seventh-day Adventists during the relevant parts of the 19th and 20th centuries. You'd have to either have been an Adventist or have some sort of experience paging through relevant old periodical stacks to know this from your background knowledge. Your claim that it is not specific to Adventists appears to be incorrect; little of the article should be considered nonspecific.--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 03:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just doing a basic glance at the artice there's the section on World Calendar Reform. Which is neither specific to Seventh-day Advetists or really has anything specific to do with Canada either. It actually really had nothing to do with freedom of religion. Let alone vould you call it "Seventh-day Adventist history." That's a whole section. Your claim that its that its specific to Seventh-day Adventists or that I'd have to be one to know all that is completely ridiculous. Same goes for much of the other topics in the article. For instance Lord's Day Acts have been passed all over the world, so its not a "Canada thing" and had nothing specific to do with Seventh-day Adventist except that they are one of many religions groups that do observe Sunday and they decided to get involved in it, but many groups did. So again its "Seventh-Day Adventist religious Canadian history." The laws effected even non-religious people. It would be the same for any global event that effected pretty much anyone. You could argue WW2 was Seventh-Day Adventist religious Canadian history if you wanted to ne that broad about it. That's not how Wikipedia and notability works though and I don't need to be a Seventh-day Adventist to know it. Adamant1 (talk) 08:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:24, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Restructure -- The Adventists have the practice of observing a sabbath on Saturday, whereas the rest of Christendom observes the Lord's Day on Sunday. I would prefer to see this restructured into an article on Lord's Day observance in Canada, which could then instance the Adventists falling foul of this as an example. Peterkingiron (talk) 16:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Adamant1 says that Seventh-day Adventists are "one of many religious groups that do observe Sunday". This is incorrect. The Seventh-day Adventists observe Saturday; that's pretty much their distinguishing feature. The Lord's Day Acts had special significance to Seventh-day Adventists, so Adamant1's argument that this information is irrelevant is based on a false premise. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The Seventh-day Adventist church was cited in the court decision that repealed the Lord's Day Act, a fairly significant judicial decision in Canadian history. As such, an article on Seventh-day Adventist religious liberty in Canada meets notability requirements, and this article lists numerous instances that were a prelude up to that court decision. NorthernFalcon (talk) 01:07, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Epiphyllumlover this is well referenced, meets GNG, and is too detailed for a merge. // Timothy :: talk 14:26, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Article passes WP:GNG and is supported by WP:RS (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:46, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pais de los Maynas[edit]

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

It isn't notable and doesn't make much sense to read. CupcakePerson13 (talk) 03:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move: to "Mainas missions" or similar. "Maynas" is not the usual spelling in English, but "Mainas Missions" turns up a decent number of hits at Google Books. The reference to Samuel Fritz in the article checks out. The main source for the spelling "Pais de los maynas" appears to be this Spanish-language chronicle. Agree that in its current state the article needs lots of work, but given the number of sources I'd say it's notable -- see also this section of History of Ecuador, where the Jesuit missions are discussed in some detail – the section describes "Jesuit missions in Mainas or Maynas", and it would seem reasonable, given the sources on Google Books, to turn that reference into an article in its own right. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 07:08, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: How does it look now? (There's still more to do: Taylor's piece in this highly reputable source is rich with further info.) After taking a look at the sources while overhauling, I suggest a move to 'Mainas missions' with a redirect from 'Maynas missions', since 'Mainas' appears to be the more common spelling in English, at least in recent years. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 07:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:38, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep article makes sense in its present iteration, well referenced--Epiphyllumlover (talk) 04:08, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY by AleatoryPonderings; well written and referenced compared to the original version submitted to AfD. Britishfinance (talk) 23:50, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 14:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are reliable sources Devokewater @ 15:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as the article has been significantly improved since nomination with the addition of well referenced content supported by multiple reliable book sources that show that the subject passes WP:GNG and should be included, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 20:53, 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. Tone 16:15, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

5000 Miles[edit]

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

Non-notable film, not enough significant coverage from independent sources (looks like there is a magazine review in the external links but I cannot verify this), does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 14:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 14:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No significant coverage in reliable sources. There is one review in the external links section from an online magazine, and a link to filmbaby which dead. I am unable to verify what the claimed award is actually about as I cannot find an organisation called "International Academy of the Visual Arts". -- Whpq (talk) 18:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Nothing notable about this film found online. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 15:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jonathan De Falco[edit]

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

Despite the claims of notability in the article the sources do not prove notability and I couldn't find any source pointing toward notability. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:33, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I'm not super up on my Belgian football leagues, but it sounds like the one he played in was professional enough to pass WP:NFOOTBALL and I don't see anything unique enough about his stats as a player to warrant it either. Same goes for his acting career. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:40, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 14:38, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. Shellwood (talk) 16:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 19:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 20:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 10:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and NFOOTY.--Ortizesp (talk) 16:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to The Amazing World of Gumball#Episodes. People who are so inclined can then further redirect to the appropriate season article, and/or merge sourceable content from the history. Sandstein 11:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Routine (The Amazing World of Gumball)[edit]

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

Follow-up of this AfD, which focused a specific episode to prevent a trainwreck. Bulk nomination of The Amazing World of Gumball and Darwin's Yearbook episode articles created by the same user, Some Dude From North Carolina (talk · contribs). It is unlikely that any of these meets WP:GNG.

The nomination includes this page as well as the following (in order of article creation):

The Pizza (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Brain (The Amazing World of Gumball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Butterfly (The Amazing World of Gumball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Detective (The Amazing World of Gumball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Banana Joe (Darwin's Yearbook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Clayton (Darwin's Yearbook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Alan (Darwin's Yearbook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Sarah (Darwin's Yearbook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Teachers (Darwin's Yearbook) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Parents (The Amazing World of Gumball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Fuss (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Menu (The Amazing World of Gumball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
The Nuisance (The Amazing World of Gumball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

P.S. Since the last nomination, the user created articles for multiple episodes of The Umbrella Academy, all of which have been boldly redirected by another user. Some Dude From North Carolina needs to be warned about creating this type of article. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:19, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge all to The Amazing World of Gumball or whatever season articles are out there for it that would be relevant. I think that works. The sourcing for each article is slim, but it exists and I think some of the information has enough merit to preserve it. That said, the user should be warned about the iffyness of these types of articles. There's zero reason they can't just write about specific episodes in main show articles or the particular season articles. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
User warned –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to each episode's proper season...and salt the titles to stop these headaches from continuing. Nate • (chatter) 17:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Love Island (2015 TV series, series 6). Tone 16:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luke Mabbott[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. No indication of wp:notability under wp:gng or sng. Claim to fame is that he was a contestant on a TV show and the only references are short items related to that. North8000 (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete it should be pretty clear cut that random game show contestants aren't notable unless they placed first or there was something particularly notable about them that would garner enough media coverage to pass the notability guidelines. Neither seems to be the case with this person. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect I created this page as a redirect to Love Island (2015 TV series, series 6), and a revert to that seems sensible. Redirects are cheap and he is a potential search term. Boleyn (talk) 19:02, 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 16:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Pro Notes[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. No wp:notability. Zero mention much less coverage in independent sources. One reference is to the creator's website, the other is a dead link to a website that apparently previously had a post on it. Found nothing independent in a source search. North8000 (talk) 12:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 13:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: First reference is a personal website; second is a promo website and its broken. nirmal (talk) 09:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LABash[edit]

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

Long-standing event (since 1970) and is international. But I couldn't find anything to show genuine significance or in-depth coverage. Boleyn (talk) 07:44, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 09:54, 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) 11:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails the GNG; couldn't find anything substantive myself. Ravenswing 13:31, 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. Tone 16:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BazQux Reader[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article fails WP:GNG, this feels like it's been placed in wikipedia to be WP:Promotional, when I did a google search I didn't see enough to pass general requirements. Govvy (talk) 11:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same can be said for most articles linked through the 'News aggregators' category. 'Rojo.com'? 'Imooty.eu'? 'Prismatic'? I believe deleting all these would only make the category poor and less helpful for those looking for alternatives, rather than a meaningful source of notable information. Leaving the page would allow people to contribute and develop it with better sources as well. Eleman (talk) 15:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 11:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I was the nominator when a previous instance was deleted at AfD in December 2012. A subsequent instance was speedy-deleted G4/G11 in 2015. Immediately after the present instance was created, Lopifalko moved it to draft with the comment "Undersourced, incubate in draftspace" but the article creator moved it back into mainspace shortly afterwards, after adding a vendor blog reference and a mini-review from a DonationCoder forum posting. Neither of these is a WP:RS reference; nor are the WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ITSUSEFUL arguments above sustainable here. Taking a fresh look at this, I can find listings, inclusion in some alternatives-to lists, and some positive user experiences, but nothing to indicate the WP:NSOFT inclusion criteria are met. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 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. As even the nominator changed to 'keep', and there were no arguments against keeping the article, the consensus is easy to see... PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:03, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frontiers for Young Minds[edit]

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

No significant independant coverage found. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coverage cited in original (very basic) wikipedia article including Scientific American and the American Library Association's award page for the journal. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreaturelyMe (talk • contribs) 21:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect back to Frontiers Media#List of journals like it was a few days ago. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 12:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 07:33, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Pretty well known science outreach program and an interesting attempt to give credit for it. Possibly unique journal.

1.https://neuroscience.berkeley.edu/kids-are-the-reviewers-at-this-scientific-journal/ 2.https://www.cell.com/neuron/pdf/S0896-6273(16)30941-2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwi5i7fG3ujqAhWpoHIEHapMDOs4FBAWMAJ6BAgIEAE&usg=AOvVaw3Cpl-JUYXqKc5392DLJhDH (Not independent (written by editor of journal) but cited 20 times (suggest. independent coverage) and in Neuron from Cell press not sponsored (Neuron is a respected H high impact journal. ) 3. academic paper https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6121596/ 4.https://www.lycoming.edu/news/stories/2019/04/frontiers-for-young-minds.aspx 5. https://www.dailyprincetonian.com/article/2019/11/psychology-professor-sabine-kastner-receives-award-for-education-in-neuroscience won award from Sfn for education. 6. Scientific American story 7.https://www.discovermagazine.com/mind/how-to-better-teach-kids-science-just-ask-them 8. Another scientific paper https://europepmc.org/article/pmc/pmc5459263

Popular News about journal stories indicating concept.

1. http://m.digitaljournal.com/science/rudolph-s-luminescent-nose-essential-to-guiding-santa-s-sleigh/article/452955 2. There are others but tricky on my phone.

The awards from American library association, the Society for Neuroscience, the papers in academy journals describing the concept and popular News stories suggest the concept of a journal being reviewed by children is both notable and innovative and should not be redirected or deleted. It would not be fair to apply usual rules per common sense re indexing etc. PainProf (talk) 16:00, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Even though I'm the nominator for this, based on what PainProf said, I've changed my mind to keep. -Kj cheetham (talk) 16:52, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changing to Keep after the expansion from CreatureMe. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 17:27, 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 keep. Tone 16:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Safa Kabir[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Failed WP:CREATIVE. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 10:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - easily passes WP:GNG and WP:NACTOR. Sources with significant coverage: The Daily Star, Prothom Alo, The Indian Express, Manabzamin, The Independent BD, The Daily New Nation. --Zayeem ^(talk) 16:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes WP:GNG with significant coverage in multiple reliable sources as identified above so that deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:26, 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 keep. Tone 16:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Louis School, Hong Kong[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable school. There was an AfD for this back in 2005 that resulted in keep. The keep votes seemed to mostly revolve around claims that all schools are notable and WP:OSE. As it currently stands, the article only cites two primary sources and is promotional in tone. It's also been largely edited by users with possible COIs. So, I see nothing that passes WP:NORG about this or anything else that would be in favor of there being an article about the school. Adamant1 (talk) 09:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The East Wing of St. Louis School is listed as a Grade II historic building, "Buildings of special merit; efforts should be made to selectively preserve". Additional info here: [12]. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 19:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't there just be an article about the east wing then? I don't think one building on a campus being notable automatically makes the whole thing notable. Including the design of their school badge and them doing inter-school quiz competitions. If the east wing is notable create an article for it then. There's nothing else notable about this and notability isn't inherited. Seriously. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes the school can definitely inherit the notability of its main building, seriously. If a couple of paragraphs in the article are not encyclopedic, they can easily be removed. Underwaterbuffalo (talk) 09:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
1. 黃棣才 (2015). "聖類斯中學: St. Louis' School". 圖說香港歷史建築 1920－1945 (in Chinese). Hong Kong: Zhonghua Book Company. p. 32. ISBN 9789888340200. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
2. Tsang, Ian (2014). 小一入學全攻略 (in Chinese). Sing Tao News Corporation. p. 297. ISBN 9789623482288. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
3. "無奈落車聖類斯開中文班". Oriental Daily News (in Chinese). 2010-01-08. Archived from the original on 2010-05-29. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
4. "聖類斯中學多元活動助學生掌握人生". Wen Wei Po (in Chinese). 2016-02-29. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
5. "聖類斯涉讓學生接觸師生私隱". Apple Daily (in Chinese). 2019-03-08. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow St. Louis School, Hong Kong to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".
Cunard (talk) 07:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good job. The last article doesn't say anything about it though and it's a tabloid newspaper anyway. Ao I doubt its reliable. I'm not sure how you can claim your citations are "reliable sources" when one is a tabloid and doesn't even talk about the school, but whatever. Also, don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida? If there isn't id think its out of scope of the intended audience and isn't actually notable to them. I.E. English speakers who read this (BTW, I only ask because I've seen it brought up before and I think it lacks scruples to a degree to call every non-English source reliable purely because they exist when you really have zero way of knowing that. Since I assume you don't speak Chinese and aren't deeply enough involved in the Chinese Wikipedia to know which Chinese language sources are reliable or not. They aren't all are, but you seem to be fine acting as id that's the case. Even when your citing a tabloid). Adamant1 (talk) 09:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says "Sources do not have to be available online or written in English." — Toughpigs (talk) 14:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Toughpigs: The person posting them still has to be able to read the sources to make sure they are reliable and it's clear that Cunard didn't. So I really don't get what your point is. Language matters in so far as it being a barrier to actually knowing if the sources are reliable or not. Maybe they don't "have to be" written in English, but if someone is going to post them, they at least have a basic understanding of what the article is saying if it's not in English. That seems pretty obvious and is the only point I was making. I'll also support what I said with Wikipedia:Arguments to avoid in deletion discussions arguments not to make in AfDs discussions. Mainly "Keep It has 345,400 Google hits, so it is clearly of interest. – GoogleBoy, 04:04, 4 April 2004 (UTC)." Which is exactly what Cunard has a history of doing. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You said, "don't you think there should at least be one source in English since this is an English encyclopida?" — Toughpigs (talk) 15:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mainly because if there was one source in English that we 100% knew was valid then a few Chinese ones that were of iffy or undetermined quality wouldn't matter as much. Kind of like it's OK to use local articles to establish notability as long as there is one regional or national source to boast the article with. Context matters a lot to this. --Adamant1 (talk) 15:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, doing a basic look over of your Wen Wei Po source it contains a lot of sentences like "Saints High School has always attached great importance to students’ life planning education" and "The school attaches great importance to cultivating students' self-knowledge. Career planning and career exploration not only broaden their horizons, but also help them increase their understanding of all walks of life, but also increase their own personality and growth." So, there isn't anything neutral about the article. Which is a major test of reliability. Again, it's another problem with you posting sources you don't even review before hand and taking a "the only thing that matters is sources exist" approach to this. --Adamant1 (talk) 12:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly what policy or guideline, Adamant1, says that non-neutral sources are not reliable? Many, perhaps most, of the sources we cite here have a POV one way or another, and quite a few are seriously biased. That such sources have taken note of a topic still contributes to notability. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 23:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It should be pretty clear that an over aggrandizing puff piece that doesn't actually talk about the school, except to fawn praise on it, can't be used to establish notability. A bunch of vague personal opinions about how great it is and how much it benefits student's, or similar general statements, isn't "in-depth coverage." WP:GNG states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail." Which the source isn't doing. Further it says ""Reliable" means that sources need editorial integrity." An overly positive puff piece that's essentially a PR job isn't exercising editorial integrity. Otherwise, it would be more neutral. It should also be pretty obvious that there's a huge difference between the normal level of non-neutrality in most news sources, and something that is trying to sell people on the benefits of a school. The source is essentially a promotional review and WP:NORG applies to this. It says "Editors should use reviews only from sources with well established reputation for independence and objectivity." (or in layman's terms "neutrality") Otherwise, they aren't reliable sources. Also, WP:OSE isn't a valid argument.

Keep as meets, for one, WP:NBUILD and it may be notable enough as an educational institution as well. I see enough in the citations and further reading to think that someone else would find more. "The primary section of St Louis School was particularly famous in the 1970s and the 1980s, for it won almost all the inter-school quiz competitions organized by Radio Television Hong Kong" suggests something specific that could be sought out in secondary sources if an able editor is so inclined. Wikipedia is already too west-centric; there is enough here for this article on an east topic to remain. DiamondRemley39 (talk) 23:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, but I'm pretty sure winning some quiz competitions doesn't pass WP:NORG. Especially since here isn't really any sources about it so far. Even if there was though, I'm pretty sure it would be trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 00:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And how are you "pretty sure" that an undetermined amount of coverage by an undetermined number of news outlets for an undetermined number of years would be trivial? DiamondRemley39 (talk) 00:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because there's certain topics that WP:NORG considers trivial and the number of news outlets that cover it or years over it taking place doesn't matter to it. For instance "of event schedules or results" is considered trivial. There's no "unless the event schedules are covered in multiple news outlets over a certain number of years" or whatever clause. Just like "of the hiring, promotion, or departure of personnel," doesn't become non-trivial if a company has promoted a lot of people because they have been in business for a long time. The topic is what determines triviality. At least in the example we are talking about. There can also be the triviality of details in a specific article, but that's not really relevant to this or what WP:NORG is talking about. --Adamant1 (talk) 01:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for (1) the listed building is notable, an article on the school makes way more sense than one on its main building alone, unsure what the argument was there?2) the sources per Cunard's rather stellar source search. Side note: English is actually an official language of Hong Kong, 4% speak it as their usual language and almost 50% can speak it, so the English speaking argument is not only incorrect from the policy perspective but also fails to take into account Hong Kong's English speaking population. PainProf (talk) 01:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A lot of schools have articles about notablw buildings on their campuses when a specific building has it's own notability. Usually if something is a government denoted historical landmark its notable enough for its own article to. There are cases where specific things are more notable then where they are located or what they are associated with. That's all I was saying. But apparently its disruptive, combative, and abusive yo explain things. So I didn't feel the need to gice more details about what I meant. Plus, it seemed obvious anyway. I'm not sure how it wouldn't make sense to have an article about the building if its notable enough for one, but whatever. Apparently the thing that isn't notable about this deserve an article and the thing that is doesn't. "Shrug." Adamant1 (talk) 12:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources identified, particularly the historic building. The idea that you should have an article about the East Wing and not about the school is silly. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:36, 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. Keep, based on GNG, while not meeting the NPROF yet. Tone 08:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Zhang (scientist)[edit]

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

I don't think she meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics). For a scientist, she is probably too young to have a page about her (still pursuing PhD/MD according to her LinkedIn page [13]). Meeting President Obama at age 17 does not confer notability. Her "major contribution" appears to be research carried out while in high school. There are some articles written about her, but "cancer-curing teenager" seems more hyperbole than substance. MVP-nostalgia (talk) 01:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see no automatic notabilty from winning the International Science and Engineering Fair, all coverage related to that and does not pass NACADEMIC. Reywas92^Talk 17:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Thank you for commenting. I note that the International Science and Engineering Fair article has a list of "top prize winners", but her name is not there. Perhaps she has won something lower than "top prize". MVP-nostalgia (talk) 17:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment For ISED, looking at https://sspcdn.blob.core.windows.net/files/Documents/SEP/ISEF/2011/Press-Releases/Grand-Awards.pdf she won a $3000 award (ref ME054), which was buried on page 32. That's definitely not a notable award in itself. The Siemens Competition one might be though? -Kj cheetham (talk) 19:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for commenting. The Siemens Competition seems to be a competition for high school students. While obviously very competitive, I don't think it confers encyclopedic notability in itself. Do winners of other national high school competitions (e.g. sports) get pages on Wikipedia? MVP-nostalgia (talk) 21:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not the award itself that confers notability in this case (though it's a $100000 scholarship effectively), it's the coverage of the subject in multiple independant news outlets, under WP:GNG. -Kj cheetham (talk) 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clearly meets WP:GNG with significant coverage in a combination of national (U.S. News, Atlantic) and local (Mercury) sources. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:36, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Very weak~~ Keep - Fails WP:NPROF, but ~~just about~~ seems to pass WP:GNG. Due to articles in The Atlantic and Mercury News. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Changed to a regular keep now additional sources have been added. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All competitions have press releases and promotional activities; lay news coverage doesn't demonstrate notability per se. Wait till she has several first-author papers. JoelleJay (talk) 20:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for commenting. I don't think she has any first-author papers yet per [14]. MVP-nostalgia (talk) 21:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I think the difference is that she is headlined in multiple articles, rather than simply being mentioned in a list of laureates. You don't see this kind of coverage every day. It doesn't matter if she has subjectively done anything "important" enough to merit an article because it's not our place to be the judge; we simply follow what the sources say. GNG alone (without meeting PROF) is sufficient. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:17, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, thanks for your input, but I respectfully disagree.
1. I will argue that she is not "headlined" in any of the articles - she is either "teenager" or "student" in the titles.
2. I will argue that we should have higher bars of notability for science than pop culture. A notable YouTuber does not need to do anything, but a notable scientist should have "important" scientific or technological contributions. Yes, it's subjective, but we have evaluating guidelines (Wikipedia:Notability (academics)). If a scientist is in the news for non-scientific reasons (pop culture, getting murdered, competing in the Olympics, espionage, etc.) then that's something else, but that's not the case here. Zhang has done important research — for a teenager, which explains the coverage. She has not done important research if we take out her age element and just look at her publications like we do with other scientists ([15]).
3. I will also argue that her coverage is WP:ONEEVENT (winning the Siemens Competition in 2011). The ISED award is for the same research project, and meeting Obama is a direct result of that win. Beyond that... nothing. MVP-nostalgia (talk) 22:53, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What I mean by "headlined" is that the headline alludes to her and the entire article is devoted to her, as opposed to having just a paragraph as part of a larger whole (which is often already enough to count as one source with significant coverage).

That is not supported in any policy, and I imagine most people would actually say the reverse.

WP:ONEEVENT does not apply here. She won the award in 2011, and was still having articles written about her in 2015 (U.S. News). This is evidence of the persistent coverage required to transcend WP:BLP1E. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not at the present meet our inclusion criteria for academics or scientist.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing requires that an academic meet WP:NPROF, if they already meet WP:GNG. Satisfying either one of them is sufficient for notability. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:06, 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) 08:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since she doesn't meet the notability guidelines for academics. The only thing that might make her notable is her cancer research, but it doesn't seem like the research has received any wide spread coverage. Maybe WP:GNG would apply instead of WP:NPROF, but then only one source, U.S. News., would qualify IMO. The other one from The Mercury News wouldn't because it's a local paper to the area she lives in, local papers cover that kind of thing, and I don't think that Siemens Competition is a high enough award for it to be notable on it's own. Especially since there isn't more regional or national news out there about her winning it. Ultimately, this should come down to if her scientific research has garnered peer notice. Her article is about her research, it's likely the only reason she has one, and so you can't say it's not relevant to the AfD and that WP:GNG is the only that applies. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Adamant1: Take a look at this CBS source. Even if we discount Mercury (and I don't agree with that - based on my understanding of WP:AUD, all sources, local or non-local, count as qualifying sources, and of the multiple qualifying sources just one needs to be non-local), U.S. News + CBS ought to be enough. WP:NPROF itself says: "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines." Nowhere does it say that people who are primarily known for their academic accomplishments must use NPROF instead of GNG. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:11, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment From my understanding there's some debate as to if the specific notability rules like NPROF over rule GNG or not. Personally, I'm under the impression that they mostly do (with a few exceptions). Otherwise, there's zero point in having them if people can just default to the GNG when an article doesn't meet the specific guidelines. There's some places, like with sports players and companies, where they are absolutely necessary. Otherwise, there would be no way to delete most articles in those subject areas. The need to follow them is probably a little less extreme with academics, but it shouldn't be none existant and the GNG is to general for them IMO, because ts easy to be an academic and be mentioned "somewhere." But there should be more then that. Just like mentions of sports players are a dime a dozen even with minor local teams. So the GNG alone isn't enough. Adamant1 (talk) 17:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
See Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 13#Matthew Jones (footballer, born 1980)‎, which deals with the opposite scenario: I closed a discussion as "keep" because the footballer met WP:NFOOTY despite not meeting WP:GNG. "Otherwise, there's zero point in having them if people can just default to the GNG when an article doesn't meet the specific guidelines" - funny, that's exactly the point I was making in defending my close, but in reverse: "Otherwise, there's zero point in having them if people can just default to the GNG [to argue for the article's deletion] when an article does meet the specific guidelines." In other words, the point of SNGs is to allow subjects to be considered notable even if they don't meet GNG. Many important academics don't receive much newspaper coverage and have an article solely by virtue of their highly cited work. GNG is always a valid argument for inclusion, unless the subject is specifically excluded in WP:NOT.

"There's some places, like with sports players and companies, where they are absolutely necessary." That's simply not true. WP:NFOOTY often results in stubs on footballers who played a few professional matches being kept; sports SNGs are widely believed to be looser than the GNG. Regarding "minor local teams", that's why we require at least one source with significant coverage to be non-local; if a local player meets that, I don't see why we shouldn't have an article on them. And WP:CORP is little more than a restatement of WP:GNG with some clarifications about the quality of sources and what constitutes significant coverage. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I never said it was news coverage or bust for academics. Obviously having highly cited work would come before a mention in the news. This person doesn't have that though. Personally, I'm not solid on the "one non-local source" rule for athletes myself. A few people were trying to argue that an athlete was notable because one of the two sources was from a Chicago newspaper and Chicago is a large area. So it shouldn't be considered a local source. I've also seen people try to combine local sources from different areas into a single "regional" source to get over the one non-local source threshold. So, I think there should be a little more then that. With athletes, I guess it really depends. Having to play professionally is stricter in some ways, but yeah it does result in a lot of stubs. So, I guess it's a trade off. Personally, I wouldn't call the topics that WP:CORP considers trivial as just a restatement or clarification of what's in WP:GNG. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Technically, no guideline other than WP:CORP requires that sources even be non-local (note the location of WP:AUD). So if you want to ignore AUD because it's in the wrong guideline, then we would simply accept local and non-local sources equally, since neither WP:N nor WP:BIO makes any mention whatsoever about regional scope. (That's not how AfDs work in practice, so we should probably move it to the main notability page.) If you disagree with AUD and think that local coverage cannot count at all towards notability, then feel free to start an RfC. For me, looking at non-local sources alone she crosses the line just barely, but when you include the Mercury articles she is well above it. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It's definitely true that a subject does not have to pass WP:PROF if they pass WP:GNG instead. Usually this matters for historical figures, who are hard to evaluate by WP:PROF (a guideline geared towards researchers active now). It can happen under other circumstances, too. XOR'easter (talk) 18:00, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This person isn't a historical figure though. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why I said It can happen under other circumstances, too — whenever someone who happens to be a scientist (or an academic more generally) has achieved a degree of influence, significance or notoriety for activities outside the rather narrow remit of WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 22:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Trivial coverage for any scientist. Basically every time we publish a somewhat interesting thing, we put it out on the newswire, when it gets picked up we can easily get hundreds of newsarticles within a day hence many scientists would be notable by GNG. It doesn't mean the researcher is particularly notable just that the university has a good PR reputation. In this case she hasn't published much yet (no first author paper I can see, one Science middle author (pretty good but if this helps noone would hire her without a first author), I see she is doing a MD-PhD in Darrell Irvine's lab (an outstanding lab run by a notable individual), so probably WP:TOSOON, many MD-PhD candidates will become notable later because its pretty hardcore. I would also say that using gold nanoparticles is really quite trivial even at the time and not a major advance. Btw Darrell Irvine is an excellent person for an article, as HHMI and prof at MIT he probably should have an article. PainProf (talk) 19:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You're free to have your opinion that GNG shouldn't count for scientists, but note what WP:PROF actually says: "It is possible for an academic not to be notable under the provisions of this guideline but to be notable in some other way under the general notability guideline or one of the other subject-specific notability guidelines." -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:57, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Trivial mentions don't really count. I think in this case we can see this is trivial churnalism based sourcing. The scientific guideline in this case might help us to assess it a little better. Another consideration is that this page is likely embarrassing to the subject considering having a Wikipedia page over a couple of times in the news before your PhD looks like peacocking. As a note I also think the article looks like it might also be conflating different people, she's listed at MIT, she's in David Irvine's lab from what I can tell on the article its Stanford which seems to be a different person, This makes me think there is way too much OR here and until some of this is actually verifiable this should be draftified regardless. i.e. https://www.linkedin.com/in/angela-zhang-a083b946 and https://www.linkedin.com/in/angela-zhang-b2755b105 PainProf (talk) 23:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Your characterization of the sources as "trivial mentions" is patently false. She is the main subject of multiple different articles in respected news outlets, spanning a wide timeframe. Whether you think her research is trivial is of no importance; as long as several reliable secondary sources each have a few sentences on her or more, she meets GNG, and some of the sources go well beyond that. Regarding her identity, the article itself is not confused, as all the major sources say that she went to high school in California (the other one is from North Carolina). There was no mention of the North Carolina person until you brought her up. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If she is not in David irvines lab this is much simpler. In that case the article shouldn't claim she is a scientist as she has yet to publish a paper even as middle author. Gotta have at least minimal standards for that claim. PainProf (talk) 23:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you allude to some vague "standards" but don't address the central point, which is that WP:SNGs are never a requirement if a subject meets WP:GNG. The only defense to a subject having enough significant coverage in independent RS to meet GNG is WP:NOT or WP:ONEVENT, but I have explained above why that does not apply. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Or she fails WP:BASIC these are routine events. Wikipedia is not news. These don't reflect any notable achievements such as a major award. The USA news is written by an intern not their staff and relies on material provided exclusively by the subject so fails independence. The other sources are churnalism of press releases. Also verifiability is important - without a peer reviewed paper it's impossible to assess the claims of "research". I published my first academic paper at 20 so I don't really see this coverage as particularly notable, as I said when my work gets in the media there are invariably hundreds of articles but they are at best rewrites of the press releases the university writes. To me this is like saying winning the spelling bee is enough for notability.PainProf (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The WP:NOTNEWS angle fails because she has received coverage across multiple years. Can you point to anything in our notability guidelines that says that articles written by interns should be treated differently? The publication's reputation is on the line for all articles it publishes no matter who wrote them, so they have all undergone the same fact-checking process. Just because the U.S. News has a lot of quotes from her, doesn't mean that it is a primary source; there is enough journalistic reporting in there to constitute significant independent coverage. You refer to "churnalism", but give no evidence that those publications are simply republishing press release material. They may use primary sources in the process of their reporting, but any reputable outlet will do their own fact-checking on top of that, so the sausage that comes out of the factory is independent news reporting.

Regarding your own example, you're claiming that it is common for big-name national outlets to routinely report on student papers? Funny that you mention the spelling bee, because a spelling bee champ Evan O'Dorney was kept at AfD primarily due to news coverage of him winning competitions. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I checked university library as it essentially tells you where sources come from see https://hollis.harvard.edu/primo-explore/search?query=any,contains,Angela%20zhang%20science&tab=everything&search_scope=everything&vid=HVD2&mfacet=rtype,include,newspaper_articles,1&lang=en_US&offset=0 it looks like they are all from same Press release so not independent PainProf (talk) 00:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Covering the same event that PR Newswire also covers is not evidence of churnalism. If both the press release and the news article accurately represent the facts, then an overlap in content is not surprising. Since these are reputable news sources we're talking about, which will generally explicitly cite press releases when they use them (e.g. [16]), the burden of proof is on you to prove that they swiped the material from press releases. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per arguments set forth by editor King of Hearts. I also liked the thought introduced by PainProf concerning the poor baby doc getting embarrassed because she has an article on Wikipedia. Makes me wonder how many other notables are embarrassed for the same reason? Sorry but that's not here nor there. KoH has this put together correctly and nobody thus far effectively rebuts. (imho) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 04:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I won't offer any further arguments on the relative merits of the sources. My understanding is BLP1E's main purpose is to protect low profile individuals from this. I actually think this is somewhat missed sometimes. Not everyone benefits from a Wikipedia profile. In this case for instance claiming to do be the one performing research where you weren't the first or last author has a really bad connotation within the scientific community itself. In this case, I could imagine an adverse effect on the subject. An inaccurate attribution can be fatal to a career. I accept this might not be a valid argument in any particular policy but I did want to point it out as a consideration. PainProf (talk) 15:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the main protection here relies on her notability, and she and her research are notable under GNG. So I don't see her as a "low profile individual". I'm a low profile person, very low profile, and I would jump with surprise and joy if someone were to write an article about me. I think it would pass GNG, but there is no way I'd write it myself. What we have here appears to be a child prodigy who has done notable work while still underage. She's 25 now and probably quite capable of enjoying the fact that we write about her and acknowledge her notable accomplishments. She's also probably under a lot of pressure to continue her works of genius, so I doubt if she pays much attention to us. No pressure, but I hope her research leads us into a new era of NOFEAR when it comes to things like cancer. Good on you, though, for such thoughtful sensitivity of her situation! P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of the outcome we should make sure the research section appropriately attributes the work to her supervisors and her as a contributor. If anyone can find an underlying academic paper from the supervisor that would assauge my concerns more. That might be a good way to mitigate the concern re attribution which is the main potential harm. It would be great if we had some kind of template to make clear that she can request deletion on the talk page. I consider her low profile independently of her notability since she hasn't obviously sought the coverage herself.PainProf (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To me it looks like the research was published, here in a low impact journal. I leave this for context. I do think the research section needs to not engage in hyperbole. The research was led by Dr Xiaoyun Chen, and Ruijin Xing, in my experience the first and last author generally had the idea for the study regardless of the media claims.^[1]

Keep. Per King of Hearts. Meeting GNG is a valid alternative to not meeting (at this stage), NPROF. She has enough RS that are specifically on her to meet GNG per the article, and I also found: Business Insider, Business Insider, and CBS. Britishfinance (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passing WP:GNG per KoH and Britishfinance. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 03:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, for those who want this article kept. Davidgoodheart (talk) 08:00, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

^ Xing, Ruijun; Liu, Gang; Quan, Qimeng; Bhirde, Ashwinkumar; Zhang, Guofeng; Jin, Albert; Bryant, L. Henry; Zhang, Angela; Liang, Amy; Eden, Henry S.; Hou, Yanglong (2011-11-28). "Functional MnO nanoclusters for efficient siRNA delivery". Chemical Communications (Cambridge, England). 47 (44): 12152–12154. doi:10.1039/c1cc15408g. ISSN 1364-548X. PMC 4620662. PMID 21991584.

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 16:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manabu Yukawa[edit]

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

Article has been unsourced since creation and fails WP:GNG lullabying (talk) 07:21, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:37, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this unsourced article has existed for over 11 years. It is time we actually put some teeth behind the principal of verifiability and started removing unverifiable content.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I could not find any usable sources. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:38, 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 16:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ally Burnett[edit]

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

Straightaway PR/Advertising WP:PROMO. Fails to pass WP:GNG and WP:SINGER.Calling for an AfD discussion. Hatchens (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 07:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass any of the notability guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete per nom MaskedSinger (talk) 15:16, 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 16:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Dorigo Jones[edit]

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

He appears to be known only for "wacky warning labels". Those articles only mention him in passing or perhaps have a short quote. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 05:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer and radio personality.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:57, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 08:10, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Las Juntas, California[edit]

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

According to Durham's Place-Names of the San Francisco Bay Area there are two places named Las Juntas in Contra Costa. One is Rancho Las Juntas a large Mexican land grant stretching from Martinez to Walnut Creek. The other is described as a locality and corresponds to the Las Juntas rail station on the Southern Pacific Railroad. The station was used primarily for loading freight. A picture of the station can be found here. There is no evidence of a community by this name. Rail station does not meet notability standards. Glendoremus (talk) 04:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Glendoremus (talk) 20:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Gudde agrees that the spot was just a station. Mangoe (talk) 01:46, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge We usually keep articles about railway stations and the worst case would be merger to an article about the railroad, line or locality. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:55, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For US stations where the building is not notable and which there is no information about other than its existence, we as a rule do not keep them. Mangoe (talk) 13:31, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be tidbits of information in sources such as Pleasant Hill. Deletion does not seem appropriate as there are sensible alternatives. Andrew🐉(talk) 20:01, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The "tidbits" you refer to are all references to Rancho Las Juntas or to the fact that Las Juntas was a rail station. All of this is covered above in the original RFD. Not sure what alternative you are suggesting. If you have a specific suggestion, please tell us. Glendoremus (talk) 20:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What "original RFD"? The book gives details of railroad operations at the station. Rancho Las Juntas is the same locaility and so merger would be appropriate. We have more than mere existence and so deletion is not appropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, meant AFD. Rancho Las Juntas covered 20 square miles and was long gone by the time this station was built, so hard to say that the two shared anything but the same name. It doesn't make sense to merge a railroad station with an old Mexican land grant. Merging with the railroad that operated the station could be done but there's nothing in this article about a railroad station, it is written on the false premise that it's a community. Glendoremus (talk) 19:03, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Historic railroad stops are not automatically notable, no evidence of being a notable community. We do not need an article for a "rude shelter...resembl[ing] a chicken coop." Reywas92^Talk 22:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. There are no sources showing that this was ever even a community, let alone a notable one. Merging to Rancho Las Juntas does not make sense, as the two topics are not the same. Rorshacma (talk) 20:16, 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 16:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Law & Order: UK characters[edit]

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

fancruft, does not meet gng Prisencolin (talk) 03:38, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:02, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:31, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Law & Order: UK already has a more than satisfactory list of characters, this page is nothing more than a mountainous pile of fancruft, sourced to only one dubiously reliable review that is currently a dead link. This clearly does not pass WP:LISTN, and it also fails WP:PLOT since it is written from an entirely in-universe perspective. Title is not a useful redirect. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge/redirect to Law & Order: UK#Characters. I have no opinion on what level of detail is appropriate for this subtopic of the series so as to merit a WP:SPLIT or not, but if not kept standalone the redirect is absolutely where one would expect to find a character list based on WP titling standards. postdlf (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge/redirect to Law & Order: UK#Characters. WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 23:49, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- I agree with the Wombat. Law & Order: UK#Characters already has a character list so I tried to identify if there was any sourced content that could be merged. There is none. I'm also not convinced that the title would be useful as a redirect. Reyk _YO! 09:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Confusing multiple list Shrikanthv (talk) 07:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Subject is covered adequately by the shows main article. Dunarc (talk) 22:51, 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 16:12, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Populist Party Chairman Lee Consterdine was elected to Landkey Village Parish Council this month. Therefore the party is now equal in terms of councillors with several political parties of note, including the British Democrats, the Breakthrough Party, TUSC and the Animal Welfare Party. Moreover it puts the Populists ahead of the well-known Britain First, BNP, CPGB, Heritage Party and Socialist Labour Party. RussellOfPenge2022 (talk) 13:38, 13 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Populist Party (UK)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of political parties. This party has no notable achievement expected of a political party, no notable figures or personalities, and no notable citations beyond those which prove it exists. Fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG. The mere fact of registration is not itself notable. Usefulness is not a valid criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Article has been deleted and re-created prior to this nomination. doktorb _words^deeds 00:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 00:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 00:08, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not a notable organisation. LefcentrerightDiscuss 20:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The party had a candidate in the 2017 general election, as well as other local elections. There are a lot of incoming links, which suggests that there should be some coverage of the party out there. Yes, the article has previously been deleted, but that was back in 2006. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 12:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non notable --Devokewater @ 14:21, 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 Esperantido#Romániço. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romániço[edit]

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

Non-notable Esperantido. A single reliable source for the entire article, which barely mentions Romániço at all. Very much in passing, two small mentions out of 166 pages. The rest of the sources are extremely dubious. One of them, the so-called "official website", literally has "ceiling cat is watching you masturbate" on its homepage, and it also has a gif of a woman jumping up and down and...yeah. (If you don't see it, click the logo a few times.) I have not even been able to verify who invented this language, so how do we know that site is official? Just because the WP:SPS claims to be? Even if true, an SPS really does nothing to boost its notability anyway... I use this, rather than PROD, as well respected editors seem to have written large portions of the page. Per XTools, User:Kwamikagami, User:Wavelength and User:Drmies all contributed quite a bit to the article, and I wonder if they have some good reason I can't seem to find for believing this is a notable Esperantido. Nothing against them for contributing to an article of dubious notability, I've done so before a few times too, but that's why I chose AfD and not PROD. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 10:13, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Psiĥedelisto, the only thing I've done is quality control, and while I appreciate the shoutout, I only cleaned up some. I have no real opinion on whether this is notable or not but I will grant you that the sourcing right now is piss-poor. I wish I knew what drew me to the article four years ago. Drmies (talk) 20:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've only done a bit of editing while cleaning up. The WP-eo article says the author is anonymous and it's the protolanguage of Romanice. WP-eo tries to cover every ido ever mentioned, with no attempt at limiting per notability. Personal lang projects have no business being on WP-en unless they've achieved notability somehow, which few of them have. — kwami (talk) 00:34, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It appears to be one of those languages that ring a bell, but nobody really knows where and why. Nüm bal (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2009-08 move to → Románico

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The language itself appears to be quite elaborate, and the website creates the impression that it's quite alive as well. Still, there's too much that is unclear about this language. The article says it was created in 1991 by an anonymous author, but Alan Reed Libert (the only non-primary source) mentions a certain Mike Morales. And this archived page suggests that it evolved in the mid-1980s from the Esperanto used by a group of juvenile shoplifters. The relationship with Esperanto isn't clear either: Libert discusses it in a book about Esperantidos, but the website (as well as other websites like this one) doesn't even mention Esperanto at all. It's not explained why and how there are several variants of Romániço. Is the website maintained by same person who created the language, or was it adopted by someone else? Apart from the fact that this article does not answer these basic questions, it is not clear where the information comes from either. I would suggest to change the article into a redirect to Esperantido#Romániço, leaving the page history intact. —IJzeren Jan _Uszkiełtu? 00:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Esperantido#Romániço per IJzeren Jan. Not notable for a standalone. –Austronesier (talk) 10:54, 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. Tone 16:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mukul Nag[edit]

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

He has had several roles, but none with the significance to meet WP:NACTOR or the overall coverage to meet WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 13:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:55, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the multiple significant roles in notable productions threshold to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR of having multiple significant roles in notable productions. He has two main cast roles in national Indian television series and a recurring role in another as confirmed by reliable sources so he deserves a Wikipedia article in my view. Kaitudi (talk) 20:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep because it passes criteria 1 of WP:NACTOR as confirmed by reliable sources and should not be deleted in my view. Kaitudi (talk) 08:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep although he has worked in multiple notable series in India but his major notable work in Sai Baba (TV series) is quiet notable. Dtt1^Talk 13:12, 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 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Navigrid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This had no consensus in 2009 AfD. Does have some coverage, but I don't see that it meets WP:GNG or another other part of WP:NOTABILITY. With this having waited in CAT:NN for over 11 years, I hope we can now resolve it one way or the other. Boleyn (talk) 13:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:54, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being in BBC MindGames Magazine should give it some notability but i could not find anything also it supposedly has some links to the daily mail but i couldn't find anything on it as well. Lastly it fails WP:GNG so should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CreativeNorth (talk • contribs) 14:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Logic puzzle As another WP:ATD we could create a list of Logic Based puzzles. Lightburst (talk) 18:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Not seeing enough to satisfy WP:GNG here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 19:42, 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. Tone 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jeff Hewitt[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non notable local politician. I can’t PROD this article because there was a previous article about a different person with the same name, so computer says no. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Falls well short of WP:GNG and WP:NPOL standards. Sal2100 (talk) 16:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22]. Notable as a Libertarian elected to office. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 16:37, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What he was elected for isn't high enough in the political realm to qualify for notability from WP:POLITICIAN and only being covered in a few local sources doesn't cut it either. He'd at least need coverage in multiple major regional news outlets or national ones. The libertarian parties website as cited above doesn't work for notability either, because obviously they are going to cover him. So, it's essentially a press release. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- He received coverage in the Los Angeles Times - that's a major national outlet. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:01, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had thought about them, but I wasn't really sure if it was or not. There would still need be another one, but it at least gets him a little closer to being notable. Adamant1 (talk) 15:23, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment generally agree, although being referred to as the most powerful Libertarian in the LA Times counts as something. I voted keep, but not a strong one. Graywalls (talk) 22:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county board members are not notable. You need really good coverage, and we do not have that here. As mentioned above the previous article was about a totally different person. To show notability at this level we need clearly out of the area coverage, so unless we find coverage in a paper outside California it is not adding to notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Inclined towards keep "Jeff Hewitt is the Riverside County supervisor for District 5. He is the most powerful Libertarian ever elected in the United States." in the LA Times piece and that article https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-in-libertarian-jeff-hewitt-riverside-20190205-story.html is very thorough.Graywalls (talk) 21:59, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:45, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. County commissioner is not a role that confers an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL, and Calimesa is not a large enough community to make him notable for being its mayor. To be notable for either of these reasons, he would have to show nationalized coverage expanding significantly beyond just a few stray hits in his own county's local media. Bearcat (talk) 14:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 15:12, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Being a county board member alone is not notable. Two editors have cited an LA Times article as proof that he meets general notability guidelines. I was also able to find a Reason article that covered him, but I still don't think this is enough. More coverage is needed. Scorpions13256 (talk) 03:16, 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 CHFI-FM. Tone 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tapestry (CHFI)[edit]

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

Article about a radio program, not reliably sourced as passing WP:NMEDIA. The article claims that the show was syndicated to multiple stations, so it would be eligible for a well-sourced article, but simply asserting that the subject passes a notability criterion is not in and of itself an exemption from having to get over WP:GNG on sources that demonstrate its significance -- but the only footnote here is a deadlinked directory entry on a site directly affiliated with the Canadian Association of Broadcasters, which does not clinch notability all by itself if it's the best or only source on offer, and even in a ProQuest search for older coverage, literally all I can find is glancing namechecks of its existence in coverage of its parent radio station, with no evidence of any sources that have this show as their actual subject. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to CHFI-FM: Barely found anything about the radio show aside from being mentioned in this book. It's best to briefly discuss it in the target article. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 12:09, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirecting to CHFI-FM sounds like a good compromise to outright deletion. Since there's one source about it. Which is enough for a mention somewhere, but not enough for a standalone article. --Adamant1 (talk) 13:13, 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. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Francesco Petrucci[edit]

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

This article is supported by 4 sources, 5, if you consider an article by the subject that is cited by the Italian version. The works section completely unsourced, and appears to have been copied from a Facebook post, according to [23]. The central claim appears to be that Petrucci is notabale for discovering several lost Bernini's. I'm not a Bernini expert, and I am not disputing that he was involved in their (re)discovery, but I dispute that he is notable for those, meaning that he has not received significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 17:08, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:16, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:17, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move to draft. The biography is completely unsourced. There may be notability here, but it isn't presently supported on the face of the article. Book reviews in reliable sources would help. BD2412 T 00:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I think this is a case of WP:TNT. There is no way to properly source the current article. However, if the Italian sources were consulted, it's likely at least a decent stub could be created. Curiocurio (talk) 17:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Curiocurio, there are two sources from the French and Italian version that are not used in the English version, http://romatrepress.uniroma3.it/repository/60/pdf/e24e6add-59ab-4c24-be6d-a78c12564616.pdf and http://www.30giorni.it/articoli_id_4384_l4.htm Vexations (talk) 18:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for pointing that out. The article was obviously created by someone who knows the subject (the photo of the subject was taken by the article's creator). I just don't see realistically how it can be cleaned up as it stands. Someone needs to trim it down severely, utilizing only actual sources. Curiocurio (talk) 20:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elias "Coach" Korcoulis[edit]

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

Found during CAT:NN cleanup. Looks like a great guy, but I don't see notability. I can't access more than the first couple sentences of [24], but the title suggests it is about this figure and is probably significant coverage. [25] is not significant coverage. [26] is a passing mention in an interview with one of his former athletes. He's in a high school athletics hall of fame for his sport in his state, [27], but that honor is at a low-enough level it likely doesn't indicate notability. [28] is not significant coverage. I've only been able to find one obituary that's not hyperlocal coverage and a couple paragraphs in that hall of fame listing. He seems to have been a great guy, but to me, this is strongly in WP:NOTMEMORIAL territory. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Hampshire-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm _Bacon 05:16, 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. Tone 08:20, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kohlhammer Verlag[edit]

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

Does not appear to be notable. The two references provided are internal to the company, and are only supporting information in the infobox. The body of the article is completely unreferenced. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Beyond My Ken (talk) 04:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conditional support: I'm having a hell of a time finding secondary, third-party sources for this article (even searching for it just turns up stuff published by Kohlhammer), so I'm for deletion, so long as all the links to it are replaced by the Template:Interlanguage links. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 06:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep, since Rathfelder has taken it upon himself to clean up my mess. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 19:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Publisher founded in 1849. First scientific paperback series on the German market. Annual revenue 64.1 million Euros The notability does not have to be online. Nor in English. Perhaps you should look in the files of the Stuttgarter Zeitung? Rathfelder (talk) 23:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability requires independent third-party reliable sources. For all we know, the information currently in the article is a fairy-tale -- I don't think it is, but there's no AGF for article notability, it has to be shown. Beyond My Ken (talk) 00:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just dug through Stuttgart Zeitung's (available) catalog and couldn't find anything usable on the article. Closest was Kohlhammer employees complaining about traffic congestion in Stuttgart. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 01:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's hard to believe that a 150 year old publisher has no coverage, but WP:NCORP should not be handwaved. Dewiki does have one source that looks independent: ^[1] (t · c) buidhe 03:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Franz-Josef Sehr (2005), Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach e. V. (ed.), "Entwicklung des Brandschutzes", 125 Jahre Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach (in German), Beselich, pp. 116-117, ISBN 978-3-926262-03-5{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

Buidhe: Do you have access to that source? If so, what does it say about the publisher? Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, are you certain about the ISBN? There's no listing on BookFinder [29]. Beyond My Ken (talk) 03:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is a summary of the German article. But sadly German Wikipedia seems much less strict on references than English. However I find no shortage of quite detailed news about the companies current operations. And maybe you should look at the newspaper they published, the Neue Deutsche Familienblatt. Rathfelder (talk) 08:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - As a rule, in any article which I've nominated for deletion, I'm pretty quick to withdraw the nomination or change to "merge" or so on, as the circumstances change, but I don't think that's the case here. I thank Rathfelder for their edits to the article, expanding it with sourced information. However, the core of the article -- what is now the "History" section and the section on the paperback line -- remain completely unsourced. I do not think that the threshold for keeping the article has been passed. Beyond My Ken (talk) 21:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I could just axe those passages until such time as they can be sourced. –♠Vami_IV†♠ 00:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - If the consensus here is to "keep", I wouldn't suggest you do that. The article is only 5 months old, it can live for a while longer with "CN" tags in them. Where did you get the info from when you write the article? One of the two internal documents? If so, it would be better to put that in as a ref, along with a "Primary source inline" tag. Beyond My Ken (talk) 01:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I translated the German Wikipedia article directly. It is reasonable to assume the German editor(s) got their info from Kohlhammer's website, so I'll look it over. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:01, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: This is a historic publisher, right? The German National Library holds thousands of publications, and we think about deletion? Really? - We can drop statements that seem contentious. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adding: This is a review of one of their publications by a leading German newspaper. The publisher is linked to more than 500 articles here. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, look and stop talk about deletion. Yes, the article should be improved. --Gerda Arendt (talk) 22:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I'm willing to give publishes of significant works the benefit of the doubt, especially a century-old one. The existence of the de.wiki article is also a positive sign. --K.e.coffman (talk) 01:21, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeshiko League Division 1[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary duplication of, and should be merged into (if it wasn't basically copied and pasted from), Nadeshiko League. Seany91 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 04:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete The editor Josedimaria237, who created this article, has said on the parallel discussion WP:Articles for deletion/Nadeshiko League Division 2 that he wants that article deleted, and his post at the Teahouse I think indicates that he is wanting both of them deleted. --ColinFine (talk) 14:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - not notability. Giant Snowman 15:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - zero notability and article creator has requested deletion Spiderone 15:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as a G7, otherwise just delete, as it's a copy of parent article. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 07:07, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nadeshiko League Division 2[edit]

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

This is an unnecessary duplication of, and should be merged into (if it wasn't basically copied and pasted from), Nadeshiko League. Seany91 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Seany91 (talk) 04:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Spiderone 11:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I want this article deleted. Josedimaria237 (talk) 12:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete: Note that the comment above (which I have reformatted) is from the creator of the article. ---ColinFine (talk) 14:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - not notability. Giant Snowman 15:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - zero notability and article creator has requested deletion Spiderone 15:53, 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. Clear consensus not to delete. Whether to re-title can be discussed outside of AfD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kalevala (synopses)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Of course Kalevala is notable. But this is a synopsis - effectively a plot summary of the work. This seems simply out of scope for Wikipedia. This is pretty much a WP:PLOT (and it is explicitly the exact part of "what Wikipedia is not" in the "Summary-only descriptions of works" example!) for of Kalevala#The_story. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This is effectively a summary of the work. It is a collection of a large number of different folk poems, with a modern-language telling being 500 pages long: Kalevala suomeksi. The main Kalevala page only goes through everything in a few words and some parts like Lemminkäinen are also not summarized enough compared to everything else on that page. Wikipedia does include larger summaries for works with many characters and complicated turns, for example Inferno (Dante), Purgatorio and Paradiso (Dante) (or just split each chapter/cycle into its own article like Araṇya-Kāṇḍa or General Prologue). One notable thing about these examples is that they all feature a great number of artwork for the individual chapters. The biggest reason for keeping the Kalevala synopses page is that I was going to basically transform this article into a gallery of Kalevala art. I have approximately 50 images prepared and I was about to complete it the following week but now this happened. Most Kalevala art is often incomprehensible even to Finns without a brief summary of the part it is in. So if I were to make a Kalevala in art article, I would have to include most of the summaries of the parts the paintings appear in from here. This article instead would be killing two birds with one stone. I would not be against renaming the article with this reimaging of it in mind, if someone is able to come up with a better name. The main Kalevala article is not fit for showcasing the art, as for example it mentions "Väinämöinen brings trees and life to the barren world." but leaves out the large man felling the great oak. It also has no mention of Väinämöinen literally taking seeds and spreading them. This sparseness repeats for most other parts too. I would have to tell all of the stories in the captions of the images, leading to what I described before. With the synopses, I can just give the name of the work, the artist and the year. I would add a mode=packed gallery with a smallish 160px in size under nearly every song, which looks good and fitting. Example:

Gallery
The Felling of the Great Oak, Joseph Alanen [fi], 1919–1920 Aino By the Sea, Sigfrid Keinänen [fi], 1896 The Forging of the Sampo, Väinö Blomstedt [fi], 1897 Lemminkäinen and the Great Snake, Joseph Alanen, 1919–1920 Lemminkäinen at the Fiery Lake, sketch, Robert Wilhelm Ekman, 1867 Commons additionally lacks about 25 similar works which I'm about to add.

PiercingEyes (talk) 11:52, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Galleries are not encyclopedic (WP:NOTGALLERY) and belong on Wikimedia Commons instead. See also WP:GALLERY. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - You're getting stuck on the word gallery. What I wrote would be the exact opposite of "Photographs or media files with no accompanying text" from link number 1. It would fit perfectly with "In articles that have several images, they are typically placed individually near the relevant text" from link number 2. The two linked rulebooks seem to completely work in my favor, for I don't see anything that wouldn't be certified by them. PiercingEyes (talk) 05:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Absolutely. The article is no more a gallery than a list of Shakespeare plays, each one's text accompanied by an image, would be a gallery. Of course it isn't any such thing. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (and probably rename) per PiercingEyes. The current title is certainly off-putting but some kind of list of artworks and poems is entirely sensible; the notability of the work as a whole is not in question. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:07, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to List of runos of Kalevala. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 15:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broadly happy with any suggestion of that sort but perhaps List of Kalevala poems would be better for those who don't speak Finnish. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:14, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article calls them runos, Kalevala calls them songs. I'd have to check an assortment of English-language sources to see what is the most widely used term. I have no personal preference here. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Such a name would be less confusing for sure; WP:USEENGLISH is my preference (songs or poems). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I don't know which, if any, policies this actually violates; AFAICU, not WP:PLOT, given that this isn't the only article on Kalevala, and the main one Kalevala covers the context, background, etc. that WP:PLOT requires. And if we were to merge it into the main article's synopsis section to get around WP:PLOT, the next thing we'd know is someone proposing splitting it into a separate article because it's too much. I think the article is useful, and it would be a pity to lose that content; I'd leave it as it stands, except for possibly a name change (see next point). -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment It isn't perhaps immediately obvious what the article name 'Kalevala (synopses)' means, but then most people will presumably end up there via the main Kalevala article, and in that context it should be clear enough, and I'd leave it as it is. If it were to be changed, then I'd suggest 'Kalevala (synopses of poems)' or words to that effect. I wouldn't have thought 'runo' means anything to non-Finnish-speakers, and for the same reason I'd also edit that term out of the article itself. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 15:17, 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. Tone 16:13, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wire Radio[edit]

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

Non-notable online-only station does not pass WP:GNG with little substantive non-routine coverage. This was kept at AfD five years ago somehow (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Southsound Radio), and it had copyvio material in it. Raymie (t • c) 16:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 16:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 16:06, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMEDIA.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Barely found anything about the station. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:15, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wheaton, California[edit]

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

In order to move things along, I'm nominating a group of rail locations in Lassen County, California whose only documentation in the articles is being listed in Durham's California place names book. I have been able to verify that most of them were rail locations from the list in this archive directory (expand the section "Southern Pacific Railroad Company" on the right, and pull the area wider to be able to read it), but that is pretty much all I can find out. They all point to either blanks spots or points at the edge of other towns. There's no evidence that any of these are actual settlements that I have found, though of course is someone finds some info to the contrary on one I will pull it from this nomination. Mangoe (talk) 04:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to Wheaton, I am nominating the following:

Mangoe (talk) 04:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All No evidence of significant coverage or official recognition of these railroad-related points; simply being listed in a gazetteer is not sufficient to establish notability or, arguably, verifiability. In general it makes the most sense to just delete these stubs with no prejudice against re-creation if notability can be demonstrated. –dlthewave ☎ 02:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all Mass-produced without concern for WP:V or WP:N, with blatantly false content sullying the project for the last decade. Newspapers.com yields no results for any of these. Recreation welcome if accurate content of substance found. Reywas92^Talk 05:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete All None of them are notable. Mass-produced, non-notable, inaccurate. Glendoremus (talk) 23:14, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vammatar[edit]

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

This article may be a hoax or a WP:TNT candidate. I cannot find any reliable source that calls her a goddess, there are a few Google Book hits but they are not very reliable - first is an obvious copy from Wikipedia, another is a New Age publisher (Llewellyn Worldwide). The only reliable source for this is [30] but it is a one liner, and academic works can have errors too. As a goddess, she seems to fail GNG as she has not been a subject of any academic study or discussion, and all we get is a one line in a single source (that does not cite a source). She does seem to be mentioned in the Kalevala, but it is unclear she is a goddess, and I can't find any literary or otherwise academic analysis of her as a character, so she she fails WP:NFICTION (also as a minor Conan the Barbarian character). As a side-note REDFLAG, you'd expect a Finnish goddess to have an article on a Finnish Wikipedia... At best, I think this can be redirected to Kalevala#Characters but right now the article does not mention her (it seems she plays a very minor role in the epic, I think gets only a few sentences in the work...). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - per nominator - GizzyCatBella🍁 05:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete I too find nothing significant scholarly on it; the context of what I can see suggests that it's either a poetic figure or possibly an attribute of some other deity, but in any case what we have here seems to be a fiction created by unwary new age authors. Mangoe (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm fairly certain its not an outright hoax. Aside from the one reliable source shown by the nom, The Larousse Encyclopedia of Mythology also mentions her and another goddess named Kivutar as some of the children of Tuoni and Tuonetar, and states they were "goddesses of pain and disease". This book also mentions her as one of Tuoni and Tuonetar's children, as well. With all of the sources pretty much being one to two sentences long and just stating those same two facts, there probably is not enough to work with to develop a stand alone article, but this should probably be Redirected somewhere. Rorshacma (talk) 02:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

possible "redirect" targe Finnish mythology#Heroes, gods and spirits? Coolabahapple (talk) 15:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Not a hoax. Although there doesn't seem to be much in-depth about her, Vammatar is in Rune 45 (Birth of the Nine Diseases) of the Kalevala. The line in Finnish is: ""Kun ei tuosta kyllin liene, Kivutar, hyvä emäntä, / Vammatar, valio vaimo, tule kanssa, käy keralla / tekemähän terveyttä, rauhoa rakentamahan!"[31] which Crawford translates as "Should this prayer prove unavailing, / O, Health-virgin, maid of beauty / Come and heal my dying people, / Still their agonies and anguish."[32] This source says Vammatar (Spirit of Injuries) is synonymous with "Kivutar" (Pain Spirit) in the same verse and "Kiputyttö" (Pain Girl) in the previous verse. There is a Finnish Wikipedia article for fi:Kipu-tyttö, although it doesn't mention Vammatar. All three names appear in passing in this source (p. 150). Carter (talk) 13:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not to put too fine a point on it, but The "Larrousse" is, as I understand it, a Robert Graves concoction, who I am loathe to accept as reliable. I'm also dubious about the Virgin Mary paper given that the claim is uncited. Beside that, the question remains as to whether this name appears anywhere else in Finnish primary sources besides this one passage from the Kalevala. Mangoe (talk) 13:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Graves actually just wrote the four page Introduction for the English edition. The actual text of the encyclopedia was translated to English by a Richard Aldrington and Delano Ames from the original French Larousse Mythologie Generale, which was originally edited by Felix Guirand and published in France by Éditions Larousse. A lot of places, such as Amazon, list Graves as the "author", when he actually had nothing to do with the actual text of the encyclopedia itself. Rorshacma (talk) 14:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

agree with Rorshacma, Laroussee Mythology is not "a Robert Graves concoction", it is a reliable source. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As best I've been able to determine this morning, Kiputyttö gets more ink than Vammatar in discussions of the Kalevala, but even her not that much. For the Conan character, she first appeared in the short story Legions of the Dead, which was the source material for her first Marvel Comics appearance. It looks like she appeared in about a half issues of various Conan titles, as well as a mention in some Marvel encyclopedias (although it's not clear if the Conan Vammatar is supposed to be the same character). In either case, she fails WP:NCOMIC for a solo article, but would meet for a list candidate. Carter (talk) 15:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mythology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is not a hoax, but it is impossible to write an in-depth article about her. A minor mythological figure which gets passing mentions in texts. The fictional character named after her is a mortal witch and is not depicted as a deity. Dimadick (talk) 10:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comments. The deity was worshiped, and there is plenty of evidence in the form of scholarship. However, the Conan character isn't the same person, and is a minor character. Not surer what we should do here. 20:24, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
- Dear person who did not sign their name, could you provide a reference that says this entity was actually worshipped? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into the relevant articles on the Kalevala and Marvel Comics. No need for a separate article. Vammatar is also noted in the the book Kalevalan sanat ja niiden taustat by Aimo Turunen (p. 371a:5) He states that she sometimes appears in spells, even though there is no such being in Finnish mythology. He also posits that she is another name for the Virgin Mary in much the same way that Kivutar and Päivätär are. There is some scholarly research about Vammatar, nothing that I've seen refers to her as a goddess, just as a mythical being. -Yupik (talk) 06:13, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Here is one of the spells she is referred to in and another one -Yupik (talk) 06:18, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 16:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Touch (Lebanon)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Granted, the article needs to be thoroughly rewritten, and also updated given the ongoing changes in the Lebanese telecoms market (the gov't has taken over both mobile operators, with a view to re-tendering their licences imminently). But as one of the two mobile telecoms operators in Lebanon, the company in question is surely notable, and the article can be made to meet notability guidelines with RS references, of which I've already found a few. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The argument that the notability of a company can be satisfied by it being one of a few companies of x-type in a given market is not supported by NCOMPANY/GNG. If there is no coverage or such, there is nothing to make a mobile operator in a small country more notable that a large mobile store in a big city or such. If there are sources that allow us to show this company is notable, please show them. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:41, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you, I understand the distinction between the 'real-life notability' of the subject and the notability requirements of the article, per my earlier comment. I will find and add references when I get around to editing the article, hopefully soon. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have edited/updated the article and added references; hopefully it now better meets the requirements. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 08:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the expansion, but the sources seem relatively poor - mentions in passing and press releases like [33]. I am afraid I still don't see why this company merits an article in Wikipedia, per policies cited (NCOMPANY/GNG). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 09:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fine, that's your opinion, and you're entitled to it; I've voted Keep, let's see what the consensus is. The references I added are mostly to RS publications (you've obviously chosen to cite the one press release as proof to the contrary), and verify the salient points. By all means put a refimprove tag on it, if you're unhappy with the article, but deleting it seems to me far too heavy-handed. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 10:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The coverage does not need to be English-language coverage. This nomination is misconceived. Rathfelder (talk) 08:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the leading telecom company in Lebanon is notable. Lightburst (talk) 15:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
None of the "Keep" votes suggest any coverage that would lead to passing NCORP or GNG. Perhaps there are sources in Arabic but unless they can be found and notability verified, the article should be deleted. (t · c) buidhe 03:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - if no additional sources are found. - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, T. Canens (talk) 02:56, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep: Not impressed by the interference with this AfD, see history, which is indirectly what brought me here. That said the communications provider to a country is a kind of critical thing and the article does contribute towards how the country is handling that in a region that is somewhat disrupted to put it mildly. Djm-leighpark (talk) 11:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. PhantomSteve/talk¦contribs\ 18:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Military of Love[edit]

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

too soon, short article and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 21:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Comment~~ Keep: I started the article and I'd like to clear up some points here re: article is (1) too short, (2) too soon and (3) needs more reference. For (1), I'm not sure if there is a specific amount of words needed for an article when stub articles even exist. For (2), while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this and the other TV programmes being AFD'ed were already announced including the artists who are taking part of the series which leads me to (3) the additional references (as published in Thai reliable sources) are as follows:

It would have also been better if concerns raised were discussed on the page's talk page and WP:BEFORE was done. Other articles being AFD'ed in relation to this are Devil Sister, The Gifted: Graduation, Oh My Boss, Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area, Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated and A Tale of Thousand Stars. — Emperork (talk) 03:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area that nobody actually knows the premiere date for this show, or the others nominated with the same rationale. The only real rationale given is TOOSOON, but the nominator doesn't know how soon it will actually be. "Short article" and "Not notability" are not acceptable rationales. Keep on all of these thoughtless nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete without prejudice to recreation when it comes out. it's definitely TOOSOON because it hasn't been released yet and there's no telling when it will be. Saying the standard doesn't apply just because we don't know when it's coming out isn't compelling, because it's just words. For shows to be notable they need in-depth coverage like reviews that this doesn't have yet. Or in absence of that, serious articles about the pre-production or something like a serious disaster/or injury on the set. Even then though, Wikipedia isn't news. This has none of those things though and all the sources in the article totally trivial and don't establish notability in the slightest. The first source doesn't even seem to mention the move at all. The first one provided by Emperork only does in passing as "Troop in Love", the other sources are exactly the same. We know the show exists. It's not encyclopedic. What we need is in-depth coverage. Not just "this show is being released at some point" repeated over and over, without anything else, in 50 different "articles." --Adamant1 (talk) 20:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the struck comments and the most recent !vote being delete relisting a third time to see if consensus can be found.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:45, 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. If anyone wants to write an article about the concept of central volunteer bureaus, I'm happy to provide them a copy of this content. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 06:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Volunteer Calgary[edit]

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

A worthy organisation working across a large city. I could find no evidence of the coverage or significance that would bring it to WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Poor references, fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/merge In the light of current proposals for rebranding, it is interesting to read that "Since its formation by the JLC as the Central Volunteer Bureau, Propellus has been branded as the Volunteer Bureau Department of the Calgary Council of Community Services (1960), as Volunteer Centre of Calgary (1975), and as Volunteer Calgary (1998) to better reflect its mission and vision." It seems that many North American cities have had a Central Volunteer Bureau and we ought to cover these institutions severally or together in some way. Per WP:IMPERFECT, we should welcome this contribution so that we can develop it into a more complete account. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I couldn't find anything either, and the link to the organization's website redirects to a generic, non-local "volunteering" page. Beyond that, the article's full of complete twaddle about the history of volunteer work, and various links discussing how many people in the city and the province volunteer, but devoid of one critical element: any discussion of, or any information pertaining to, the subject of the article. COI issues besides, as the article was created by User:Volunteer calgary and heavily worked on by User:VolCal1 and User:Volgeek, SPAs all who filled the article with promos and adspam that have since been removed. Ravenswing 07:36, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Or, y'know, rather than keep this horribly flawed article flooded with COI and just about devoid of any information about its subject, if you believe that there is a place for a well-written article about civic volunteering generally, why not write one? (That being said, you advocate merge without proffering a merge target. Would you care to do so?) Ravenswing 07:42, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: per nom --Devokewater @ 12:03, 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. Tone 16:14, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

V. H. Lewis[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 July 11. The original nomination was based on notability concerns. Procedural nomination; I'm neutral. T. Canens (talk) 02:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 03:15, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural close and relist the first AfD. There should be a G4 equivalent for renominations to get a delete result. This closed as a keep 9 days ago. And then moments ago the deletion review also said the original AfD was "no consensus at best" yet it should be relisted (the nominator cited WP:BADNAC). I get it, however a relist is not a renomination so this should be closed. The first AfD should have been relisted as the close of the drv ordered. Lightburst (talk) 03:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Fails WP:BASIC, and English Wikipedia presently provides no presumed notability for religious subjects in its notability guidelines. My own source searches are only providing name checks and passing mentions (e.g. this article), and primary sources, none of which establish notability. Note that the the subject also goes by the title, "Dr. V. H. Lewis", but source searches including the title, including various customizations in searching, are providing more of the same, along with a few snippet views of primary sources such as those from the Journal of the General Assembly, which is published by the Church of the Nazarene, General Assembly. Simply put, the subject does not meet any notability guidelines to qualify for an article. Name checks, fleeting passing mentions and primary sources do not establish notability.

Per my objective assessment, none of the sources provided at previous AfD discussion actualy establish notability per Wikipedia's standards of notability. Only one independent, reliable source, published by The Oklahoman, actually provides what may be considered by some as significant coverage. However, I feel that this article falls a short of that requirement. Regardless, notability hinges upon a subject having received coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, not just one. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:51, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
[34]	A primary source published by Church of the Nazarene		This has a written work by the subject. This is a primary source that does not establish notability.	✘ No
[35]	A primary source published by Church of the Nazarene		~ Has some mentions, but this is a primary source, and is not usable to establish notability.	✘ No
[36]	A primary source published by Church of the Nazarene			✘ No
[37]			Has a one sentence quote from the subject. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
[38]		An unreliable genealogy website. At the AfD discussion, it is assumed that this appears to be from a reliable source (diff), but no proof of this assertion was provided. Furthermore, in the edit summary, the user stated, "Found a paid for death notice" regarding this source.	~ Has some coverage, but the source is unreliable	✘ No
[39]			The subject's name is mentioned within a single sentence. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
[40]			Contains one sentence about the subject. This is not significant coverage.	✘ No
[41]	A primary source: a website "initiated by the global Church of the Nazarene" (link)		Contains a link to works by the subject, which are primary sources	✘ No
[42]	A primary source: the Church of the Nazarene website		Mentions the subject within a single sentence that is about another person.	✘ No
[43]			~ Consists of routine coverage and mentions about the subject holding a meeting and prayer service. Also has two very short paragraphs about the subject later in the article, consisting of a total of four sentences. Some may argue that this comprises significant coverage, but I feel that it falls below the threshold.	~ Partial
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Keep. He held the highest office in the largest Wesleyan/Holiness denomination in the world. That seems fairly notable. Kevin Rector (talk) 15:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Kevin Rector: But see my counter-argument below. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The sources are very weak, the issue is whether being the General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) is enough to meet WP:NPRIEST as in "Are the head of a major religion." The term major religion redirects to Major religious groups, and I don't see the Church of Nazarene listed there... so delete. He was a head but of a minor religion, so he needs to meet GNG, which is not shown due to next to no significant/in-depth coverage in sources found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:38, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I commented on some possible sources in the previous AFD but did not return to cast a !vote. I am in agreement that the sourcing is just not there to support this article, that it is not sufficient to meet BASIC/GNG. I do not agree that there is inherent notability here. As a second choice, redirect to General Superintendent (Church of the Nazarene) where V. H. Lewis is listed (though that article has sourcing problems of its own). --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 07:51, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massar (Company)[edit]

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

This is the exact same article with some items shuffled around that has been deleted now 3 times at the Massar Solutions page and is now salted. No indication of notability and essentially a WP:PROMO piece. -- Dane ^talk 01:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. -- Dane ^talk 01:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (Undecided) - If an article has a lot of promotional language, that is actually a reason for cleaning it up if the company in question is notable. This company has media coverage but I am undecided on whether it is robust enough to satisfy WP:NCOMPANY. (That crucial notability guideline was not mentioned in this nomination or in the previous speedy delete decisions.) If the article is kept at the end of this debate, the title should be moved to Massar Solutions because that is how it is named in industry sources and that is what it calls itself quite clearly ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I also took into account the notability and I believe this fails WP:NCORP. I apologize that I didn't mention the specific notability guideline I was referencing when I indicated no indication of notability. -- Dane ^talk 01:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Likely WP:PROMOTION. Amanuensis Balkanicus (talk) 17:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Feels like a promotional piece, also does not appear to meet its notability guideline. dibbydib 23:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Respect your comments and views. The article was created through draft via Articles for submission after many sources were given and multiple changes incorporated to establish notability as per the views of the reviewer and administrator. The administrator and reviewer accepted the article after sufficient references and citations were given to establish notability.

Also Massar is not a private company, it is owned by the Government of UAE under subsidiary of Abu Dhabi Water & Electricity Authority and Abu Dhabi Power Corporation. The Abu Dhabi National Energy Company, PJSC (TAQA) (ADX: TAQA) a government-controlled energy holding company of Abu Dhabi, United Arab Emirates is the owner now. (Francisjk2020 (talk) 11:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Comment: The AfC draft isn't largely different than the version that was G11'd. Also, the reviewer was not an administrator, just to clarify - it was a volunteer with the WP:AFC team who may not have been familiar with the prior article. The article still seems to fail WP:NCORP to me. -- Dane ^talk 15:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete again just not notable In ictu oculi (talk) 08:40, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 02:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kip Morgan[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PRO has been removed without useful rationale (despite me explicitly asking for one) by the usual party. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As one would expect, the subject is covered in books about L'Amour and his writings such as Louis L'Amour: his life and trails; The Louis L'Amour Companion; Louis L'Amour: An Annotated Bibliography and Guide There's a good summary of the character here. Applicable policies include WP:ATD; WP:IMPERFECT; WP:NEXIST; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:29, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Care to link (or provide a page range) of any non-plot description? I can't see anything that goes beyond a simple plot summary. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the article is without sourcing. The mentioned links above only provide plot points, nothing more indepth. People really need to start adding sources if they want us to seriously consider keeping an unsourced article. Especially when it is an unsourced article that has existed for 10 years.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no evidence this fictional character passes GNG, and there is no redirect target and nothing to merge anywhere. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fictional character, about which very little is written outside of the fandom. Bearian (talk) 20:26, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:22, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Starnes[edit]

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

By our standards the football player is not notable. Played D1 but not much. Does not pass our WP:GNG or WP:SNG Lightburst (talk) 00:26, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I PROD tagged this originally under the same logic. Never opposed to more debate, he only played 13 college games at a Div 1AA school, unlikely to ever meet WP:GNG. Grey Wanderer (talk) 00:32, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Missouri-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Does not pass WP:NGRIDIRON (no pro games), WP:NCOLLATH (no major awards, records, etc.), or WP:GNG (not finding requisite significant coverage). He did get some coverage in The Springfield News-Leader (e.g., this and this), but not sufficient IMO to pass the GNG bar. I am also skeptical about potential WP:COI as the article was created by a WP:SPA (User:Yahoo123456789) that only ever edited on July 3, 2009, and with 8 of 9 total edits being on the pages for Starnes and his high school. Cbl62 (talk) 00:59, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Coverage is not quite substantial enough to indicate a GNG pass, and fails NGRIDIRON and NCOLLATH. Not-notable. Hog Farm _Bacon 22:50, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NGRIDIRON, WP:NCOLLATH, and WP:GNG, per all above. Ejgreen77 (talk) 10:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete generally Division I-AA/FCS players do not generate enough press for inclusion in this encyclopedia. There are exceptions, but this does not appear to be one. I'm not seeing any coverage to hit WP:GNG nor any other notability guideline or measure.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 01:30, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Krisp Clothing[edit]

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

Company no longer exists and doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP standards. Website leads to a company owned by spring retail limited. PlunketMcShane (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 00:09, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:47, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 14:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing notable Light2021 (talk) 22:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:55, 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.

[1] Bitam, Idir; Baziz, Belkacem; Rolain, Jean-Marc; Belkaid, Miloud; Raoult, Didier (2006-12). "Zoonotic Focus of Plague, Algeria". Emerging Infectious Diseases. 12 (12): 1975–1977. doi:10.3201/eid1212.060522. ISSN 1080-6040. PMC 3291359. PMID 17326957. {{cite journal}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

[2] Xing, Ruijun; Liu, Gang; Quan, Qimeng; Bhirde, Ashwinkumar; Zhang, Guofeng; Jin, Albert; Bryant, L. Henry; Zhang, Angela; Liang, Amy; Eden, Henry S.; Hou, Yanglong (2011-11-28). "Functional MnO nanoclusters for efficient siRNA delivery". Chemical Communications (Cambridge, England). 47 (44): 12152–12154. doi:10.1039/c1cc15408g. ISSN 1364-548X. PMC 4620662. PMID 21991584.

[3] Franz-Josef Sehr (2005), Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach e. V. (ed.), "Entwicklung des Brandschutzes", 125 Jahre Freiwillige Feuerwehr Obertiefenbach (in German), Beselich, pp. 116-117, ISBN 978-3-926262-03-5{{citation}}: CS1 maint: date and year (link)

[1]

[1]

[1]