Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 20

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 19 July	21 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tumble bus[edit]

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

This article is very insignificant. Outside one article cited by it, I was unable to find anything else but [1] this. This "coverage" is from a random town in Minnesota's local newspaper, a clear WP:GNG fail. The court case mentioned is not enough to establish notability either, since it is a mundane trademark lawsuit. Thousands of such cases are filed per year, most which do not end up in Wikipedia. I-82-I | TALK 23:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The current article doesn't distinguish between "tumble bus" and "Tumblebus". "Tumblebus" is the small business from Louisville in that court case, part of which came to whether the phrase "tumble bus" was "a generic term not entitled to Lanham Act protection", or was a company name worthy of legal protection even though it was unregistered. The generic term "tumble bus" is not in widespread use, from what I can tell, and neither the case nor the company seem worth documenting. The oldest versions were created by a single-use editor. --Lockley (talk) 08:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:MILL. How is this thing in any way notable? Bearian (talk) 20:28, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:13, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lurot Brand[edit]

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

Doesn’t meet WP:NCORP in my opinion. A google search doesn’t provide much other than own publications. PlunketMcShane (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. PlunketMcShane (talk) 23:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable per WP:NCORP --Devokewater @ 09:48, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NCORP. I can find no evidence in sourcing that this is a notable company. Newshunter12 (talk) 01:56, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. BD2412 T 23:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed[edit]

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

Not notable because that there are no significant coverage that are from reliable and independent. It would be great if someone could also do a source assessment table because I don't know how to make one.The creeper2007^Talk! ^{Be well, stay safe} 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@The creeper2007: Do you note that it's already the third nomination? I recommend you look at the second nomination. Σαν μο σα^{The Trve Lawe of free Monarchies} 23:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A Wikipedia policy that only has coverage from KnowYourMeme (of which there are thousands of memes listed, most without WP pages) is an obvious notability fail. I-82-I | TALK 01:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Obvious keep Peaceray's rationale in this article's second nomination said it far better than I possibly could, so I'll simply say that, from a cursory glance at the article, I would hardly consider Deutsche Welle or Variety to be unreliable in any case, especially when this is regarding a pop culture reference. OhKayeSierra (talk) 01:06, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The previous nomination was a year and a half ago, and closed as Keep, with many sources listed. Nothing has changed since late 2018, and the nominator does not explain why the recent consensus is invalid. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We need to avoid navel gazing. An article about something on Wikipedia itself needs much better sourcing than what we see here to justify it existing.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Nothing has changed since the last nomination. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 21:13, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like it passes GNG to me.★Trekker (talk) 17:07, 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. No consensus about a redirect, but anybody is free to create one. Sandstein 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10 (Linea 77 album)[edit]

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

Has some reviews, but not in reliable publications (except one listed, but the link wouldn't work for me). Didn't chart. Doesn't appear to meet WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. WP:ATD would be redirect to band. Boleyn (talk) 22:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Linea 77: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. I found very little sourcing about this album in a WP:BEFORE search I did. @ASTIG😎 I think deletion makes more sense, given that nothing indicates this obscure album is a likely search term. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Newshunter12, "10" is a generic term that is used as a name for albums, songs, bands and the likes. Some are notable, some are not. Therefore, redirecting it to the target article makes more sense since it's a valid WP:ATD. So, don't bother arguing with me. My vote stands no matter what. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ASTIG😎 Your hostile reply is unwarranted. If you "Barely found anything about the album", how was it unreasonable for me to point out just who is going to be searching for this, in an attempt to discus the value of a redirect vs deletion? If open, civil debate angers you, maybe you should rethink participating at AfD. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:22, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Newshunter12, anyone has the right to participate at AfDs. And so do I. So, don't stop me from doing so. Some people may vote to delete or recirect it. I voted to redirect it, and I've explained more than enough to back up my vote. So, be it. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:33, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn with no delete proposals. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operator (2015 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, no significant coverage by independent sources, does not meet WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 22:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NFSOURCES; the film has been mentioned by Refinery 29, Deadline Hollywood and Patch Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a review from Radio Times to further add to its notability. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 22:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added more sources that mention the film from The Post and Courier and Manila Standard. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 23:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment While these sources are good sources, they don't all constitute significant coverage. The Post and Courier article refers to the film in a single sentence as part of a list of film appearances and The Radio Times review is a capsule review (short summary of plot and a star rating, no actual review of the film). The others are more significant, talking about Casting or an actual critical review (and I am not sure how I missed these either...) BOVINEBOY2008 15:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've added a significant link from Jezebel and removed the links from Post and Courier and Radio Times. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 10:53, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Bovineboy2008: I've added a significant source from Screen Daily that mentions this film. Hitcher vs. Candyman (talk) 15:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for finding that! I think all of this is enough to withdraw my concerns for this AfD. BOVINEBOY2008 15:58, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 New Zealand Regional Leagues[edit]

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

This is just the Skyblueshaun getting around previously deleted articles by trying to turn it into one article. It isn't notable, it's the second level, not the highest level in NZ and all Amateur teams. None of the teams can go higher in the pyramid either and promoted to the top competition as it doesn't work that way in NZ. The user can't promise it'll always be updated, it's quite common for these type of articles to get outdated and honestly the people who will care about these competitions will just go directly to the competitions sites. Very little use as a capture of history information either. Lastly, it doesn't meet WP:NFOOTY, WP:NSEASONS and doesn't meet WP:GNG. It wasn't notable as individual articles, it isn't combined. Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_Mainland_Premier_League Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_FootballSouth_Premier_League Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2020_Central_Premier_League Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2020 NRFL Premier NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. NZFC^(talk)^(cont) 22:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and recent AFD consensus, and a trout to @Skyblueshaun: for acting in this manner. If you keep it up we will have to seek sanctions at ANI. Giant Snowman 10:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - if applicable, please speedy delete. Consensus already established very recently that this is not notable Spiderone 10:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per the previous consensuses (consensi?) Joseph2302 (talk) 17:20, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:08, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stan VanderWerf[edit]

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

Non-notable politician. VanderWerf serves as a County Commissioner in El Paso County, Colorado. There is no indication that he has achieved any particularly noteworthy accomplishments in this role. The promotional tone of the article could be addressed, but there's nothing really to replace it with. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Colorado-related deletion discussions. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 21:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is some press coverage, but it doesn't appear to be significant. - Scarpy (talk) 21:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Hyper local coverage of a county commissioner does not meet GNG or NPOL. --Kbabej (talk) 00:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR, edited heavily by single purpose account --Devokewater @ 20:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the creator of this article PeytonRose wants to improve it, they should be given some time to complete this, the Teahouse will assist them, however the SPA is stiil busy editing. Regards --Devokewater @ 19:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you !voting to draftify or leave this article in mainspace? --Kbabej (talk) 19:31, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Devokewater, PeytonRose is not an SPA. They are trying to do good and make a good article, not vandalize or spam or anything like that. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aha, now I realize that I was mistaken. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 03:57, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the subject were notable, but the article merely in need of improvement, I would have tagged it for improvement, not deletion. The quality of the article is not the issue here; the scarcity of useful sources is. This local politician simply has not been the subject of enough in-depth coverage in reliable sources for us to generate any significant content about him. (In my opinion, as nominator, of course.) WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 20:19, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment just cleaned up the article, leaving only sourced information (except his education), a lot of spin + PR has been deleted. Regards--Devokewater @ 13:16, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County commissioner is not a role that confers an automatic presumption of notability per WP:NPOL — it is a level of office where a person gets a Wikipedia article only if he can show a strong claim to being much more nationally significant than the norm for that level of office. But there's no indication of that here, and the article is written and formatted much more like a résumé than a proper encyclopedia article anyway. Bearcat (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Local news coverage of a local politician that doesn't meet WP:NPOL is not sufficient for notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 22:35, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Has anyone mentioned that this could have been speedy deleted at its inception as spam and a copyright violation of the campaign page [2]? While those rationales no longer apply, multiple revisions can be rev/deleted for the latter. Does the article's creator have an edit history for this sort of copied spam? 73.186.215.222 (talk) 01:56, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article's creator is bona fide, however I've had differences with a SPA. Devokewater @ 10:24, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I'm unconvinced. As a reminder, here's the article as created: [3]. Might be a paid contributor. 73.186.215.222 (talk) 15:31, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Stan is now a mountain climber. Devokewater @ 15:45, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, PR, edited heavily by single purpose account --Devokewater @ 15:47, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I've requested a FOIA with the National Personnel Records Center, Military Personnel Records on Mr. VanderWerf's military record to provide some clarity of his military records. Kodiis (talk) 16:07, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personnel records from a person's own employer aren't notability-building sources. Bearcat (talk) 12:55, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Hi, everyone! I introduced Mr. VanderWerf's page in an attempt to recognize Combat Veterans who went on to contribute to society in a positive way. I heard about Mr. VanderWerf's story and was inspired to start with him since his accomplishments seemed to be notable enough to merit a Wikipedia page. I come from a military family and know how uplifting it is for Veterans when they are recognized.

I thought this would be a great way to contribute to honoring these heroes. I started with info that appeared biographical, though it was riddled with PR. I tried to remove any PR verbiage and many of the wiki editors who are contributing here have definitely helped to accomplish that. Thank you, guys! I tried to use https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Cotton as an example to structure the creation of a proper biography.

It looks like another editor has requested an FOI to help with citations on Military accomplishments. My goal is to honor Veterans who have served the United States and then contributed to society and I hope that we consider Mr. VanderWerf (and other Veterans like him who have accomplished notable acts of valor and service) worthy enough to share with the World. I hope that we consider keeping this page. Thank you, everyone for your contributions! PeytonRose (talk) 18:04, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable. I would urge the community to keep this page while the FOI for Medals of Honor in Combat Duty are being cited. The combination of the subject's acts of valor and civil accomplishments are notable. Thank you, all for your contributions! — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeytonRose (talk • contribs) 20:22, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment VanderWerf's service record may be valorous, but that is not, in itself, notable. The medals he has received do not rise to the level that would automatically connote notability. WikiDan61^ChatMe!_ReadMe!! 03:46, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another local/regional politician who fails WP:GNG. KidAd (💬💬) 07:38, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete While I appreciate what they were trying to do, it fails wp:GNG. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 15:43, 25 July 2020 (UTC) (and modified at 17:35, 25 July 2020 (UTC))[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Discussion around WP:INHERITED (WP:ONEEVENT is not the relevant guideline since it's an entire organization / recurring planned event we're talking about) is bound to be highly subjective, so it is the closer's responsibility to take the opinions as they are so long as they are grounded in a reasonable interpretation of policies and guidelines. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:07, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siân Evans (librarian)[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}}.

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

One of four Co-Founders of Art+Feminism, an annual Wikipedia based event that took place between 2014-17. Another co-founder of this event was recently deleted at afd: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Mabey, with the consensus being that just being a co-founder is not enough to confer notability. All of the coverage this person has received is for Art+Feminism, which does have a justifiable level of coverage to have an article on its own, but this co-founder hasn't received coverage for anything else, so, therefore, fails WP:ONEEVENT. I don't think we should have articles on everyone who co-founds an event because they got interviewed about it.

I'd like to bring editors to the attention of the articles around this event in general. Until about 12 hours ago, it said on the Art+Feminism article that the last event was on the 11th March 2017. This was edited to say the last event was as early as the end of June 2020. Checking the source linked, this turned out to be an online event attended by 9 people. In addition, the editor admitted on the Previous afd that they were, in fact, a co-founder of this event (may even be this person). As I thought that it was too much of a stretch to call 9 people editing Wikipedia an "event," at least comparable to the ones taking place between 2014-17, I reverted this edit. It seems from a cursory glance that this organization allows anyone to organize events under the name and add them to a list hosted on this site. I think seeing as the 2017 event was the last annual event organized by the organization called "Art+Feminism 20**," it should be listed as the last event on the page. I would appreciate editors forming a consensus on this as well as I want to avoid edit warring on the page. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:31, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 00:01, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlessandroTiandelli333, an AfD is not a way to settle a content dispute on a related topic. Discuss at the talk page of Art+Feminism, not here. Vexations (talk) 11:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - wrong venue. I suggest you post this subject at Wikipedia talk:How to run an edit-a-thon. And if you have not already consulted Rosiestep, she is definitely a person who could point you in the right direction about your questions. But AFD is not the place for this. Sorry. — Maile (talk) 15:36, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed the text about the other issue from the afd. I still think this article should be discussed for afd though. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
AlessandroTiandelli333, don't do that, because now the replies lack context. Restore your text, but strike what you want to withdraw. Once that's done though, I will raise another procedural objection. Vexations (talk) 18:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep! Meets WP:GNG. Being the co-founder of an international movement that engages hundreds (thousands?) of people is important and makes the co-founders notable. In addition: (a) named as one of Foreign Policy's 100 Leading Global Thinkers; (b) published writer. P.S. Thanks for alerting me to this conversation. I wasn't aware that this was happening (Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jacqueline Mabey) or I would have participated (Keep). --Rosiestep (talk) 19:03, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I always dislike the "per so-and-so"reasoning, but in this case ... Per Rosiestep. I know so little about the above process that is the subject of the article. But I trust the knowledge and experience of Rosiestep. — Maile (talk) 20:24, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: an annual Wikipedia based event that took place between 2014-17 is false. Art+Feminism is active and still organizing edit-a-thons. My attempt to remedy the factual error in the article was reverted by the nom in this diff. The nom makes an assertion that he knows to be false (and contested) as a rationale for deletion. I have further procedural objections to this nomination, but need to have the original nomination restored, with deleted parts struck, for those to make sense. Vexations (talk) 20:31, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deleted paragraph restored as deleted text. — Maile (talk) 20:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong keep. Once again, the deletionists hope to save server space by taking up more bandwidth in fruitless deletion discussions than the article itself will ever require. Art + Feminism (and I too have facilitated these editathons, two of them) is a live and active project and its leadership has more than adequate indicia of notability both for this and for their independent activities. Do a little research before hitting the AfD button, this isn't a contest to see how many articles you can get deleted. Sheesh. Montanabw^(talk) 22:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The previous afd went overwhelmingly to delete (I think 5-1) and this is exactly the exact same situation, the person has only received coverage for being a co-founder of this event. I'm not having a "competition to delete pages," I don't think wikipedia is the place for WP:PROMO for someone who has been notable for 1 thing, thereby failing WP:ONEEVENT. I'm not going to lecture an admin but if you have been involved in the project perhaps you should disclose you have a WP:COI. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 23:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

For transparency, I am a co-founder of Women in Red. Women in Red has facilitated online editathons supporting many Affiliates and non-Affiliate communities when asked to do so, including Art+Feminism, the last time being their March 2020 event, with Women in Red's meetup page here. For a list of all of Women in Red's events, including where we've supported A+F, Wiki Asia Month, CEE, AfroCrowd via Black History Month, AfroCine supporting WM Nigeria User Group, etc., see {{Women in Red}}. Personally, I haven't created many, if any articles, about women artists, but I have written articles about women feminists, and I do so all year round, whether there's an on-going A+F event or not. As the Chair of AffCom, I know the founders of A+F as well as the founders and/or Board members of dozens of Affiliates. Sian and I have no special relationship. No one at A+F contacted me asking me to lend my support to this AfD. I'm here because user:Maile66 pinged me; see above. --Rosiestep (talk) 04:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlessandroTiandelli333, ONEEVENT does not apply. Evans is not the organizer of a single event, but the co-founder of an organization that has organized a ongoing series of events. As for PROMO, I'm don't see any soapboxing, propaganda, advertising or showcasing in the article. The statements are factual, and verifiable. That Evens herself engages in activism is irrelevant. Vexations (talk) 13:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The article already contains sufficient facts for notability but could certainly be usefully expanded.--Ipigott (talk) 09:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per discussion. And "In 2014, Evans was named one of Foreign Policy's 100 Leading Global Thinkers" is not trivial, but a notable achievement in real-world consideration. Randy Kryn (talk) 15:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep - Not even sure why this is here. This clearly meets WP:GNG. -- Dane ^talk 19:39, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails GNG due to a lack of significant coverage. The sources given mention her briefly and are mostly about A+F. Being a founder of Art+Feminism and being named as one of Foreign Policy's 100 Leading Global Thinkers weren't enough to keep Jacqueline Mabey's article. Dougal18 (talk) 11:03, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

then maybe when this AfD is finished Jacqueline Mabey's article can have a put-it-back-on-mainspace discussion. Randy Kryn (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: So far consensus is pretty clear to keep, but because this is a topic which might give rise to accusations of conflict of interest on the part of Wikipedia or some Wikipedians, I believe a more thorough examination of the subject's notability is in order.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Per reasons above. Article easily meets WP:GNG. 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 redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499. Tone 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

London Buses route 452[edit]

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

No refs. Fails WP:GNG. Should be deleted by WP:BUSOUTCOMES. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 20:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499. Absolutely nothing notable about this route. Ajf773 (talk) 21:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499 per WP:BUSOUTCOMES. Fairly obviously not notable. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 22:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and redirect per above. No evidence of standalone encyclopedic notability. --Kinu ^t/_c 04:10, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note It is discussed in detail in this book.----Pontificalibus 08:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that changes anything because in any case this would still fail WP:GNG due to there not being multiple sources. Even so, the term "452" is mentioned a total of 5 times in the 160 page book, with about only 5/6 paragraphs on the topic. Not to mention, the book also goes in depth into a lot of other Bus Routes which are not notable. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:02, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499 --Devokewater @ 20:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy close and revert back to this edit. WP:IAR. Quite clear this should have been done rather than taken to AfD. Nightfury 09:45, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well there has been some edit warring. I mean this article was reverted back to a redirect at one point. I though it would be a good idea to just get consensus on this article and if it should be retained. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:58, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The 452 is notable because it was the only new bus route introduced in connection with extending the Congestion Charge zone westwards, and it was not withdrawn when the western CC extension was withdrawn. I have added some references. The introduction of a new bus route for the CC extension is significant for plans to introduce congestion charging in other cities. Winstonsmith99 (talk) 00:11, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Winstonsmith99: Two of your sources are blog entries, we cannot accept these as appropriate sourcing. Nightfury 09:21, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of bus routes in London#400-499. Not notable enough per WP:GNG for standalone article. Additional sourced information could be included in other relevant articles. ~ Araratic | talk 05:18, 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 redirect to Encantadia. Tone 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juvila[edit]

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

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Encantadia: Not all characters in the series are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:11, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encantadia. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 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 redirect to Encantadia. Tone 20:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mine-a[edit]

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

Poor refs. Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Encantadia: Not all characters in the series are notable. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Encantadia. Fails NFICTION. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 11:41, 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 20:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sve Same Barabe[edit]

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

Delete - Album of the 43zla, group which got deleted off from wikipedia for not being notable. The album isn't notable either, googling Sve Same Barabe has absolute 0 references, since the main page got taken down, pretty sure this is going with it. PolePoz (talk) 9:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
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 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - The article for the band was already deleted per WP:A7 for including no statements of notability. Therefore this album article should be deleted per WP:A9. It does try to state the album's notability with an unsourced claim of popularity in a few countries, but that is not enough for the album notability requirements either. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:48, 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 redirect to 9xdead. Tone 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cursed (9xDead album)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that it meets WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Possible WP:ATD is redirect to band. Boleyn (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to 9xdead: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:30, 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. Sandstein 15:20, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luno (company)[edit]

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

Notability not established. Only covered in reputable media as a side note. TechCrunch is reputable, but a single article noting how much they raised does not make it pass GNG. The article in The Economist mentions BitX (old name) in just a single sentence at the very end of the article. The Baobab section of The Economist was a blog, and I don't think the article was ever printed. Ysangkok (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Ysangkok (talk) 19:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep the subject seems notable to me. I found all the sources within a moment: [4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], [11]. However, This one should be ignored as it is written by a contributor rather than by a staff member. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 06:10, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@TheBirdsShedTears: I don't think Bitcoin.com and TheBlockCrypto.com would qualify as reliable sources according to David Gerard. The article on Forbes is a blog, and therefore less reliable. FinanceMagnates seems suspicious since they single out cryptocurrency as one of their focuses. Their YouTube video is on an account call "Forex Magnates" which is related field full of scams. --Ysangkok (talk) 01:05, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

the crypto sources are indeed not regarded as evidence of notability (and that includes the Yahoo reprint of The Block piece). "IBS Intelligence" looks like they're promoting their consulting services, not a third-party RS. TechCrunch is news of them getting funding, which doesn't pass WP:NCORP. The Bloomberg and Business Times links might count, but they're pretty thin to base an article on - David Gerard (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning delete - two passing plausible RSes, seems a bit thin for WP:NCORP, and the article would be about three sentences - David Gerard (talk) 05:42, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom and @David Gerard. Fails WP:GNG as the sourcing is overall quite dubious or minor. Even more problematic is this article about a dark money financial company was created by a WP:SPA. It should be swiftly uprooted to prevent corruption of the purpose of Wikipedia, which is not free advertising. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn (non-admin closure) Pahiy (talk) 21:31, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neal Coty[edit]

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

A nonnotable country singer from the late 90s and early 2000s, Google searches turn up the same results as the article. And the only new thing that I could find about him was a YouTube video of a song filmed in 2000 in both Andrews, Texas and Marathon, Texas. While articles of the music video from the local newspaper of the former might be helpful for some; I’m not sure if they would be worthy enough to save this article from deletion. Pahiy (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per my expansions. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 08:51, 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 20:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MyDeathSpace.com[edit]

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

Though this article was deleted 14 years ago and was brought back two days after its deletion, this is/was a website that had no coverage whatsoever apart from a couple of news articles that the site got some attention in both 2006 and 2007. Pahiy (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:INHERENTWEB: "When evaluating the notability of web content, please consider whether it has had any significant or demonstrable effects on culture, society, entertainment, athletics, economies, history, literature, science, or education." Never should have been recreated, especially not 2 days after it was deleted. At best, MyDeathSpace.com seems to have served as an obituary site for social media account holders. But that does not make it notable for a Wikipedia article. Devoid of inline sourcing. The "References" section is a list of news items about the site, with no indication of how they apply to the text of the article. The newest listing there is August 2007. — Maile (talk) 20:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Peakin' Trippers. or vice versa - evidence shows that Peakin' Trippers changed their name to Big September as per discussion. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 10:46, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Big September[edit]

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

Looks like they were a small band with no sign of notoriety and only active for 2013-2014. Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bakertheacre ^Chat/_{What I Baked} 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. In terms of WP:NBAND, the subject appears to have had one single which was in the Irish Charts for one week (at number 24) back in 2013. As far as I can tell, it was the band's only charting single. In terms of WP:SIGCOV, the subject seems to appear only very sparingly in the Irish newspapers of record. For example, of the three articles I can find in the Irish Times, only one seems to be about the subject themselves. And that seems to be a single album review. And, while a search in the Independent News & Media stable of regional papers returns more examples, most are not really contributory to SIGCOV. And the main two articles date from just a few months apart. The first is a piece in the regional Bray People which talks a debut album launch (in May 2014). And the second is from the same regional Bray People paper which talks about the band's final gig (just a few months later in Dec 2014). Per nom, seems to be a fairly short-lived band, who achieved some moderate success, but not substantially to the extent that SIGCOV or NBAND are convincingly met. My recommendation leans towards 'delete'.... Guliolopez (talk) 19:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with Peakin' Trippers. After additional WP:BEFORE investigations, I am inclined to update my !vote to "merge". While, per the above and nom, it originally seemed like the group barely existed for a year or so, it now seems (in particular based on the ref describing their disbandment) that Peakin' Trippers and Big September are two articles covering the same subject. With several otherwise reliable sources confirming the name change. This evidence of coverage, together with the evidence of (granted limited) chart success, suggests to me that NN is met. And a merged version of the article should likely be retained. Albeit with the quasi-promotional guff from the Peakin' Trippers title removed.... Guliolopez (talk) 09:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and merge with Peakin' Trippers as above as they seem to be the same group and they definitely pass WP:NMUSIC with a number one charting release on the Irish national charts and also have reliable sources coverage, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note the nominator has been blocked as a sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:45, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:24, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ralph Tomlinson[edit]

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

Per WP:ONEEVENT, this should be replaced with a redirect to The Anacreontic Song. Grover cleveland (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep meets WP:BASIC I did some work to the article adding a few sections, and references found in books and other sources. The WP:NSONG he wrote was notable enough to have an article, and the fact that it was used as the music for the U.S. National Anthem is quite notable in an English encyclopedia. He also received some rs for his A Slang Pastoral a parody of John Byrom's poem. The biography still needs to be fleshed out with his early life, and other details. That is why I call this a weak keep. Lightburst (talk) 21:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Obviously notable, and this is content that belongs in the encyclopaedia. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 12:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a relatively obscure historical figure but he certainly did more than The Anacreontic Song. Note that targeted searches in Google Scholar and Google Books reveal some pretty reliable evidence that the man has historical importance. For example, he has relatively brief but definitely verifiable coverage in several books on the origins of early American/British songs and academic journals on early American history. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he has coverage in multiple reliable sources such as reliable book sources and he has historical significance beyond WP:BLP1E so he passes WP:Basic in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:50, 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 no consensus. Views are pretty much split down the middle on this one. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karachi Kings–Lahore Qalandars rivalry[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Not notable, it's 2 teams that have only existed for 4 years. This "rivalry" is made up hype that doesn't meet WP:GNG Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete although three sources discuss a "rivalry", two of them appear to be more or less the same, and none of the three really establish this as a notable rivalry. Fails WP:GNG. Harrias ^talk 17:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems like a legitimate rivalry: I am not an expert in Cricket but this one has WP:RSs per WP:NEXIST and passes WP:N - most of the references below describe this rivalry and "biggest" and "intense" etc. Finally per WP:NRIVALRY This passes the requirement of NRIVALRY because of the RS. Sports rivalries are not inherently notable. Articles on sports rivalries, such as Yankees–Red Sox rivalry, should satisfy the general notability guideline.

Sportkeeda
The Express Tribune
24 News HD
Cricket World
International The News
Tech and Biz
Cricwick Lightburst (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Boston Red Sox have existed for over 100 years, these teams have been for 4 years. Joseph2302 (talk) 18:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The two largest power cities in Pakistan competing in a cricket league is a pretty obvious (and 100% planned) rivalry. In Pakistan, you'd probably get a shrug regarding Sox/Yankees, but this would earn immediate recognition. Nate • (chatter) 21:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. While there are sources that use the word "rivalry" (or rival), none go further than stating it as a rivalry – no explanation as to why/how it is a significant rivalry other than being from two big cities – i.e. coverage is trivial and does not address the topic directly and in detail as required by GNG (NRIVALRY). Further, it is presented in most sources as a city rivalry that has little to do with these cricket teams. _wjemather^{please leave a message...} 08:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Sound nomination, seems to be more the article creators opinion that an actual strong rivalry exists. Doesn't seem to be much out there which seems to provide significance about it. Plus, the teams have existed for 4 years, so there is no long-term rivalry there. StickyWicket (talk) 10:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It should be an emerging rivalry between the two sides and sources do not exactly say that there is a rivalry between these two. This rivalry might not be popular like the Chennai Super Kings–Mumbai Indians rivalry in the Indian Premier League. Abishe (talk) 17:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 20:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it may not be the most popular rivalry in the world, sources mention it being the "biggest" rivalry in the PSL and it has reliable sources as per WP:RS and lastly I added a few more sources to the page CreativeNorth (talk) 14:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - to me this doesn't satisfy the requirements for a sports rivalry. The sources primarily refer to a rivalry between the two cities and any rivalry between the sides themselves seems to me to be exaggerated for marketing purposes - basically we have a single written source (the PCB press release which has been more or less reprinted in The Dawn and partially reprinted by CricinGIF) which makes any attempt at creating some kind of actual rivalry beyond that which you would expect of two sides playing in the same competition; the Express Tribune article uses the word rivalry in the headline but doesn't seem to discuss any aspect of real rivalry beyond that; the same is true of the Crickwick article. That doesn't bring it close to the level of sourcing required (for example, that of the East Anglian derby). The sources to suggest an actual, notable rivalry between these two teams just don't seem to be there. Blue Square Thing (talk) 09:15, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is no much references present to show these both teams rivalry. As per it Fails WP:NRIVALRY Mr.Mani Raj Paul - talk 09:30, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The sources presented above are satisfactory. Solo Samaritan (talk) 12:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nom and @Blue Square Thing. Fails WP:GNG. This "rivalry" among newly created teams is a thinly veiled marketing ploy and it's not Wikipedia's job to be a marketing department for private organizations. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:38, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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, as improved. BD2412 T 01:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynne Ewing[edit]

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

This author does not seem to be all that notable, and the article is mostly without sources. That and this page sounds more like an advertisement than an actual informative article. ShadowCyclone talk 16:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ShadowCyclone talk 16:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Media-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Author of a notable body of work. Her books have been reviewed, translated, and adapted for film. pburka (talk) 17:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong and speedy keep. Utter and complete failure to comply with WP:BEFORE. The first page of Google search results includes a review archive that establishes a presumption of notability. The GScholar search results show multiple examples of commentary. Randomly selected Amazon book pages, though not usable as refs, consistently show multiple reviews. A nonconstructive nomination. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:06, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, and rewrite: I understand the initial nom due to how horribly the article is written, but per the slightly harsh but true above comments she passes all basic and author notability criteria and article could be expanded extensively with a bit of source digging. Should work on that instead of deleting. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 19:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Thanks XOR'easter for the rewrite! Now that that's out of the way I don't see any other possible reason for deletion. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 20:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:AUTHOR: multiple books with multiple reviews apiece, etc. I did a preliminary copy-editing so that the text, while not great, is not horrible either. XOR'easter (talk) 19:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Authors are notable based on the notability of what they create. Dream Focus 20:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep 24 books from major publishers! Gamaliel (talk) 12:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:HEY because of XOR'easter and AleatoryPondering's improvements. — Toughpigs (talk) 13:54, 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. Tone 20:23, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamish Thompson[edit]

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

This is primarily self advertising, and there is no evidence for notability-- Except for two minor awards, and a number of mentions. Most of the article consist of his own claims for his ownwork DGG ( talk ) 16:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve now thoroughly read the Wikipedia delete guidelines.
Firstly, it recommends doing a google search to check for notability. A quick google search for “Hamish Thompson“ with a key word like ‘PR’, ‘buzzwords’ etc will find multiple independent references to Thompson, particularly in national newspaper articles.
Secondly, it recommends allowing new editors time to improve an article before nominating for deleting. I would suggest that I have made progress in this, and I’d be extremely grateful for guidance on making more.
Thirdly, the inclusion of the awards is to prove that Thompson is creator of the stunts/campaigns as the news coverage itself doesn’t mention him.Florapostewrites (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:02, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, PR --Devokewater @ 16:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fluff. No evidence that he actually stands out among the people whose job it is to draw attention. XOR'easter (talk) 16:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think as a stunt creator, he is worthy of inclusion. Perhaps the article should just focus on that. His stunts have been reported around the world. I can add plenty of other citations to support this. He is also recognised as a PR expert (e.g. the episode of Word of Mouth where he was solo guest talking to Michael Rosen and Dr Laura Wright). Florapostewrites (talk) 17:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:24, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

I've now added more examples of Thompson's publicity stunts with links to newspaper articles directly attributing them to him. Florapostewrites (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've now stripped out anything that couldn't be independently verified. Added more citations. I also noticed I'd linked to a 5-minute extract of the Word of Mouth episode in which Thompson was the sole guest. I've now linked to the whole programme. Someone had already flagged Thompson for possible inclusion in the Australia project, before the article was flagged for possible deletion. Florapostewrites (talk) 07:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Complete fail of WP:BASIC and has to be one of the worst self promotion articles I've read. PR agents always get mentions in tabloids since their literal job is to grab attention, unfortunately there is nothing that concretely suggests he's any more notable than the majority. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 18:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, many of the stunts don't mention the publicist, instead quoting the CEO or spokesperson for the organisation. [Note: I didn't include a number of notable stunts that don't mention Thompson in news articles, so can't be independently verified.] Thompson's worth for inclusion is due to creating the ideas behind the stunts and being seen as an influential thinker on public relations. I initially wrote the article badly (I'm fairly new to this), but think in its present form Thompson is worth an article. If he isn't, can you explain why a publicist such as https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_Borkowski is worthy of one? Florapostewrites (talk) 09:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What would be really useful is some guidance on what to include: I think the most significant contributions Thompson has made are: (1) the death of the VCR, a campaign which went directly against previous PR orthodoxy (ie you never say something is becoming obsolete); and (2) the John Lewis Make Do or Mend campaign, which reinvigorated the culture of mending belongings instead of throwing them away and buying new. That, combined with being recognised as an expert on media and public relations, seems Wikipedia-worthy. Florapostewrites (talk) 09:53, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With reference to the comment about PR agents appearing in tabloids: Thompson has been invited to talk about language on BBC Radio 4 Today Programme, BBC Radio 4 Word of Mouth, ABC Australian National radio, New Zealand national radio. His opinion/research about jargon has been been quoted by linguist https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Thorne and in books and academic articles. Thompson has written for The Independent. None of these are tabloids; and in all of these cases was he was acting as an expert or pundit, not a PR agent. [note: links to all of these are in the references to the article.]

Florapostewrites (talk) 06:42, 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. Consensus is that there is substantial coverage in one acceptable source, GQ. But almost everybody who has taken a closer look at the other sources is of the view that they are the sort of crypto subculture materials that we don't consider reliable. Sandstein 15:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Banking on Bitcoin[edit]

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

No evidence of notability per WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Single RS talking about the film, after the non-RSes were cleaned out - NFILM requires multiple coverage. WP:BEFORE shows nothing more. PROD removed, but without any fixes to these issues. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. David Gerard (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It has been covered in GQ, which is a reliable source. Also, isn't NASDAQ reliable? [12] --Ysangkok (talk) 19:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- GQ is a single RS, and WP:NFILM requires multiple coverage. The NASDAQ source is a reprint of Bitcoin Magazine, which is a crypto blog. You also added a pile more links to said crypto blog. These are not RSes and cannot be used to demonstrate notability - David Gerard (talk) 23:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I added some information from other reliable independent sources including Cointelegraph, Bitcoin.com (Saint Bitts LLC) and Bitcoin Magazine. These are sources that are not related to the film producer and may be presumed to give accurate information and reviews, not all of which are positive. The film, now a bit dated, gained considerable attention in the bitcoin community and some attention outside that community. Aymatth2 (talk) 01:46, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: David Gerard thinks one cannot cite Bitcoin Magazine. See Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Bitcoin_Magazine_reputable. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ysangkok: Bitcoin Magazine has a sizable readership, and I see no reason to doubt what it says about this film. When Nasdaq republishes the Bitcoin Magazine review, that means they think the film is notable and Bitcoin Magazine is a credible source for a review. Whether Bitcoin Magazine or Nasdaq would be good sources for investment advice is a different question. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:40, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Aymatth2: it would be better to discuss that at the noticeboard since it concerns all the Bitcoin articles. There are a few other AfD's underway. --Ysangkok (talk) 15:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the crypto blogs. This is WP:REFBOMBing, not adding reliable sources - David Gerard (talk) 10:23, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have restored valid sources and the content they support. The crypto-currency news sites are reliable for information about the movie. You may argue here why you consider Nasdaq etc. unreliable. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added some more information supported by reliable sources. This information, and the citations, should not be removed during a deletion discussion. It is valid to comment here on whether the sources are reliable and whether they contribute to notability. Aymatth2 (talk) 13:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not understand what is going on here. I came to this discussion from Wikipedia talk:Proposed deletion#Flawed. Banking on Bitcoin is an article proposed for deletion by David Gerard, kept, and then nominated for AfD by the same user. A typical pattern. It seems like a harmless documentary, perhaps a bit biased, as documentaries tend to be. A Google search gives plenty of hits, so it seems notable enough.

I added some neutral and factual content about the film from sources that discussed the subject, and it was reverted by David Gerard with the summary "rm crypto sites - crypto sites are not WP:RSes, need mainstream sources". That seems a bit like saying Christian sources cannot be used in articles about Christianity. I restored the content and added some more from sources that seem to be far from "crypto sites". I then get a large warning box on my talk page from David Gerard saying something about WP:General sanctions, and shortly after Retimuko removed all the changes I had made.

What is going on? I have no views on bitcoin beyond vague skepticism. I am not trying to push any opinion, just trying to salvage a bland article about a Netflix film that has received some attention, rightly or wrongly. Why do we urgently need to purge the article on the film? Aymatth2 (talk) 19:46, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In particular, Cointelegraph, bitcoin.com, Nasdaq (reprint from Bitcoin Magazine) are not considered reliable sources. Retimuko (talk) 02:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Retimuko: To be clear, if I restore all the content I added apart from the citations to these three sources, you will not again purge it all? David Gerard seems in his/her unsigned notice on my talk page to be saying one false step and I am in deep shit. I do not want get get into anything resembling an edit war. Aymatth2 (talk) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't this make half of the claims unsupported? Besides, I am not familiar with other sources. Is imdb considered reliable? What about thatshelf.com, gritdaily.com and infolaft.com? Simply speaking, yes, I wouldn't object if Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and bitcoin.com are excluded together with claims they were supposed to support. Retimuko (talk) 05:35, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. I have put back the material other than the stuff from Cointelegraph, Bitcoin Magazine and bitcoin.com. This all seems very paranoid to me, but I suppose that is what the world of cryptocurrencies is like. Aymatth2 (talk) 12:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sometimes when I go to save an article I get warning notice like:

Error: Your edit was not saved because it contains a new external link to a site registered on Wikipedia's blacklist.

To save your changes now, you must go back and remove the blocked link (shown below), and then save.
- Note that if you used a redirection link or URL shortener (like e.g. goo.gl, t.co, youtu.be, bit.ly), you may still be able to save your changes by using the direct, non-shortened link - you generally obtain the non-shortened link by following the link, and copying the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded.
- Links containing google.com/url? are resulting from a copy/paste from the result page of a Google search - please follow the link on the result page, and copy/paste the contents of the address bar of your web-browser after the page has loaded, or click here to convert the link.
If you feel the link is needed, you can:
- Request that the entire website be allowed, that is, removed from the local or global spam blacklists (check both lists to see which one is affecting you).
- Request that just the specific page be allowed, without unblocking the whole website, by asking on the spam whitelist talk page.

Blacklisting indicates past problems with the link, so any requests should clearly demonstrate how inclusion would benefit Wikipedia. The following link has triggered a protection filter: census2011.co.in
Either that exact link, or a portion of it (typically the root domain name) is currently blocked.

Solutions:

If the url used is a url shortener/redirect, please use the full url in its place, for example, use youtube.com rather than youtu.be,
If the url is a google url, please look to use the (full) original source, not the google shortcut or its alternative.
Look to find an alternative url that is considered authoritative.

I suggest that Cointelegraph, bitcoin.com and Nasdaq should be added to Wikipedia:Spam blacklist to avoid problems like this in the future. Aymatth2 (talk) 03:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, WP:GNG still not met. The recently added sources are all crypto-currency news sites; not necessarily unreliable, but probably no better than trade magazines for notability (the WP:RSN discussion above is a good discussion of this; I think we're still trying to build consensus around this). The single remaining GQ article is not sufficient. BenKuykendall (talk) 08:27, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 19:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A note on the sources:

IMDB (Amazon) and Barnes and Noble are reliable for basic facts like people and companies associated with the film, but do nothing to establish notability
Ben Prunty's bio is probably accurate in saying he composed the music, but does nothing to establish notability
Grit Daily, GQ and That Shelf are large sites (GQ also has a print version) with many readers. The articles are written by paid journalists. They may be assumed to be factually accurate, although the opinions expressed will be those of the authors. They clearly establish notability
Lozano Vila & Asociados is a large legal consultancy based in Colombia that specializes in prevention of money laundering and terrorist financing. Its lengthy overview of the film may be taken to indicate that the film presents a legitimate mainstream view of the subject, if that is relevant.
Nasdaq republished a review of the film by Bitcoin Magazine, which also indicates both legitimacy and notability, but the nominator has insisted this source be removed.

Aymatth2 (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Aymatth, looks to have sufficient enough coverage to be worth keeping, regardless of what we might think about the subject matter.† Encyclopædius 12:07, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Significant coverage in multiple reliable sources: [13], [14], [15], [16]. Thanks Aymatth2. ~Kvng (talk) 14:09, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ysangkok (talk) 00:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Final relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 15:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per BenKuykendall. Cryptocurrency, being an area rife with promotionalism, is a subject where niche sources have a deep well to climb out of in order to prove themselves reliable. Churning an unreliable source does not make its content more trustworthy, so the NASDAQ/Bitcoin Magazine item counts for nothing; the closest we get is the single piece from GQ, which isn't enough. XOR'easter (talk) 16:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@XOR'easter: what about the three other sources listed by Kvng? None of them are crypto media. --Ysangkok (talk) 02:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other areas "rife with promotionalism" include politics, the performing arts, software and so on. Let's not get paranoid. The main sources are reviews of the film published in broad-audience journals. They are reliable and independent: that is what they saw, and that is what they thought about it. The film itself may be biased – many films, books, politicians etc. are biased – but what counts is whether it has been noted, and that is clearly true. Aymatth2 (talk) 18:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the documentary is covered and reviewed by the multiple notable sources [17], [18], [19] and [20]. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 04:11, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - The GQ source is good, but otherwise the sources people are linking to to support keeping are really dodgy. "Grit Daily" calls itself the "top news source on Millennial and Gen Z brands". Other sources are from Bitcoin Magazine and other bitcoin-related sources rather than sources known for their coverage of film. For a recent movie on Netflix about a topic in pop culture, there's a surprising lack of good coverage here. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 18:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Magazine is not cited, or any other bitcoin-related sources, because of the ruling that all sources that cover bitcoin-related topics are unreliable. That limits the available sources for a film about bitcoin. GQ, Grit Daily and That Shelf are independent and surely reliable for what they say about the film. Lozano Vila & Asociados, a law firm, is surely also reliable and independent. All these sources cover the film in depth, which is all that WP:GNG requires. Aymatth2 (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitcoin Magazine and other bitcoin-related sources are in fact linked above as evidence that the article should be kept (the source published on nasdaq.com says "publisher: Bitcoin Magazine"). I see no indication that Grit Daily is a reliable source for a film review here. Ditto the law firm. Independent is not the same as reliable for a particular purpose, of course. Would need to look into That Shelf more, since I've never heard of it and it's unclear by looking at it, but jsut GQ + That Shelf doesn't speak highly for a film. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:53, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"I don't like it" is a weak argument. We have identified seven professionally-written reviews of the film published by sources that cover crypto-currency, finance in general, technology and modern culture. There are not short publicity blurbs. They are detailed descriptions and thoughtful, informed critiques from different perspectives. The depth and breadth of coverage is impressive. The film is notable. Aymatth2 (talk) 11:49, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No we haven't, they're bad sources that can't be used for notability - even if you keep just repeating your claim at everyone who points this out. We have two review sources at absolute best - David Gerard (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion Infolaft (Lozano Consultores Ltda) is the most significant source. They specialize in prevention and control of money laundering and terrorist financing. It is their business to understand in detail the crypto-currency technology, legal issues and ways in which bitcoin etc. can be used for illegal purposes. They are subject matter experts. GQ is a glossy that dates back to 1931, Grit Daily can explain the significance of the film to millenials, and That Shelf can comment on its artistic quality, but Infolaft gives a truly informed view of the views expressed in the documentary, the errors, omissions or distortions. Aymatth2 (talk) 00:04, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the nom. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM since it only has one significant reliable source, the GQ article. The article is fluffed up with links to IMDB (which is not a reliable source) and a Barnes & Noble advertisement, neither of which do anything to prove notability, in an attempt to seem notable. One significant source is not sustained WP:SIGCOV, and articles on topics so financially focused should require a high bar to meet notability, to prevent Wikipedia being abused as free advertising. Newshunter12 (talk) 02:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The GQ is a certainly good coverage. If there was an equivalent review in another equivalent periodical that would demonstrate notability for me. I do notice some routine coverage in Deadline e.g. [21]. Beyond that I find a whole lot of references to it in good enough sources: in this listicle at the Telegraph on the best business content on Netflix, or this Chicago tribune column or as a throw away line in this CNBC article, or as a good primer in this the Street article. I could give more like that. None of them add up to a good enough second source for me to show notability. But my collective reading of them gives me great pause about deleting it. So I can't quite say we should keep up but I also can't say in good faith we should delete it. So take this as my own personal no consensus about what we should do here. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:10, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Haroon Shahid[edit]

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

fails to meet basic GNG. Creator of this BLP is a paid editor. Saqib (talk) 15:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable individual.John Pack Lambert (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article provides very little evidence that its subject is notable.Babbu2208 (talk) 17:14, 23 July 2020 (GMT+5:30)
Delete non notable --Devokewater 14:29, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He has appeared as a lead actor in a movie. - Solo Samaritan (talk) 12:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In just one movie. No enough. --Saqib (talk) 17:39, 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 20:29, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aneesa Sharif[edit]

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

Fails to meet basic GNG. Creator is a paid editor. Saqib (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Looking at what at first glance appears to be the strongest source, Deccan Herald – uh oh, at the end of the article this is printed: "DC doesn't endorse the above content". It's an advertorial. ☆ Bri (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Smells strongly of WP:PAID, no solid third-party sources to support notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 00:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable model.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:04, 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. Nothing to suggest this needs to be deleted. Can easily be cleaned up and as editors have noted, there are sources of it. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 16:27, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broad Street Mall[edit]

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

No suggestion at all, anywhere, that this is notable as a structure or a landmark. A few local newspaper articles prove that it exists--but that is not enough for an article. Drmies (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep When searching I also found mostly local newspaper coverage, which is perhaps to be expected, though the local newspapers are, I would argue, reliable sources; I also found this photo history, which could be used to expand the article. I did also find [22] from the Estates Gazette about the centre itself, and a couple of news stories from the Daily Telegraph [23] and from the BBC [24] about stories related to the centre; more substantial coverage of the latter appears in the local newspaper sources. (The centre used to be called the Butts Centre, with its name changing around the advent of online news coverage, so I didn't find much under that name—but it might appear under that name in older print sources.) YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Other bits include [25] from Reading Museums on the history of the site, and [26] about its opening, from a source I've never heard of but which may be reliable (it seems to have staff and a company owning it, rather than being simply user-generated content or a blog). YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 17:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had a quick look at that Flashbak site--it's a bit odd in its lack of clarity about what it is, but I wouldn't discredit it right away. The thing is, it has very little text (and that's the kind of thing I would have accepted, since it looks decent), and so it doesn't help much in writing the article, and the unknown quality of its quality means it can't add much weight to the notability matter. Thanks, Drmies (talk) 20:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Not the best article, and in my defence when I created it 15 years ago WP policies on all sorts of issues were still very much evolving, so I probably didn't pay as much attention as I would now to notability and sourcing. Later editors havn't helped by making it too much like a mall directory. But we should remember that deletion is not cleanup and there is notability and sources to be had. -- chris_j_wood (talk) 22:57, 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 keep. Tone 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ian Parks[edit]

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

I cannot find decent coverage of this poet. There is quite a lot in various blogs, and I have found and added two interviews, but nothing that meets notability requirements. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is worded very promotionally, in particular the obviously cherry-picked quotes in the "reception" section, so if it is kept it needs to have a good going over for neutrality. I prefer not to spend my time looking for sources when an article is so blatantly promotional. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough independent sourcing to show that he is a notable poet.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT, WP:NOT, and WP:NOTESSAY. It is written in the form of a witty review or essay. I'm not sure he;s notable anyway, based on the lack of WP:SIGCOV. Bearian (talk) 01:51, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Substantial coverage in reliable sources exists: this article in English Studies discusses his work in some depth, as does this recent doctoral thesis. The article also cites a review in Acumen – the review doesn't seem to be available online, but we don't require sources to be. The interview in Dream Catcher in the external links section is also quite a good source – I know some editors don't think interviews should contribute to establishing notability, but typically established publications don't interview just anybody. The current state of the article is indeed poor, but the list of works and the useful references strongly suggest WP:TNT isn't the right approach. – Arms & Hearts (talk) 23:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Arms & Hearts; with the back-flap blurbs removed, it reads better, and I think this is a case where the interviews are evidence of the world paying attention, so they count towards wiki-notability. XOR'easter (talk) 17:17, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I did a little searching (<5mins) and found these: [27], [28], [29], [30], [31]. A bit more time in JSTOR, Project Muse etc, would (probably) reveal more. He's not famous but I believe he is notable. Agree with Phil Bridger on promo style problem; it reads like a press release. The article could defintely use work. // Timothy :: talk 23:49, 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. Tone 20:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matthew Dyktynski[edit]

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

Appears to have many roles but all minor. Cannot locate any significant coverage to satisfy WP:GNG or WP:NACTOR. CNMall41 (talk) 15:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The same Keep arguments apply as in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Matthew Dyktynski. The article does need to be improved though to make notability clearer. Boneymau (talk) 23:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Boneymau, acknowledging the need for improvement. Deus et lex (talk) 12:47, 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 20:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Avtar Singh Makkar[edit]

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

Unelected politician. The article fails WP:GNG. Becoming the part of his party's affiliate organization is not enough for passing WP:NPOL. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 20:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As someone generally unfamiliar with the organisation he was president of, it's unclear to me how exactly he's unelected. SportingFlyer T·C 21:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject's claim to importance is not as a politician as definied by WP:POLITICIAN, but as the leader of a body managing places of worship, so the appropriate guideline to check against is WP:GNG. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - SGPC president should suffice for notability. Notably seems all major English-language newspapers covered his death: https://www.hindustantimes.com/india-news/former-sgpc-president-avtar-singh-makkar-passes-away/story-tprB46tAwFcxsOdiL0Fy0L.html , https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/amritsar/former-sgpc-chief-avtar-singh-makkar-passes-away/articleshow/72914313.cms , https://indianexpress.com/article/cities/ludhiana/former-sgpc-president-jathedar-avtar-singh-makkar-cremated-in-ludhiana/ , https://www.business-standard.com/article/news-ani/former-sgpc-president-avtar-singh-makkar-dies-after-a-brief-illness-119122001507_1.html , https://www.outlookindia.com/newsscroll/former-sgpc-president-avtar-singh-makkar-passes-away/1690964 , etc. --Soman (talk) 12:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:13, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- per Soman, as meeting WP:GNG, and as having a better claim to notability than many of our WP:SNGS find enough for "presumption" of it. The organisation he was the president of, is described as an "apex body" of Sikhism. The obits linked above have enough WP:SIGCOV for a balanced, neutral, encyclopedic biography on the subject, which is what WP:GNG is all about. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 12:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG per above sources. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 20:31, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Osborne (sport shooter)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, cannot find any coverage of him in a before search, tagged for over a decade. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC) SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SportingFlyer T·C 17:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. If he did win a world championship in his sport then he would be notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 16:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source me. I've looked. SportingFlyer T·C 21:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not terribly hard, it would seem. [32] [33] [34] [35]. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, Keep. -- Necrothesp (talk) 00:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Necrothesp I suggest you add those sources to the article. Papaursa (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Although the sourcing of the article isn't great, Necrothesp did find some sources that are reliable and confirm Osborne was a world champion. Papaursa (talk) 14:08, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: per Necrothesp. I likewise think that the sourcing is shaky, but the fact that the subject was a world champion is a definite indicator of notability. Ravenswing 17:02, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Di Higrade[edit]

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

non notable musician, sourced entirely to fake "news" sources operated by black hat SEO firms. Praxidicae (talk) 14:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — no evidence of satisfying any notability criteria. Celestina007 (talk) 16:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete not notability and known trash sources. — billinghurst sDrewth 22:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom, sources are spam used for promotional purposes. ‐‐1997kB (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:02, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:33, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laura Scales[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. All sources in the article are self-published materials or her own employer. I could not find any independent reliable coverage of her in a WP:BEFORE search I did. Newshunter12 (talk) 14:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very weak keep. Her papers have been archived (albeit at the school where she was dean), and she seems to have some coverage I can't quite access in Animation Journal and Museum Origins. pburka (talk) 20:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. As with a lot of women of this time, searching for sources is made more complicated by the many variations of her name to search for (e.g. "Mrs. Robert Leighton Scales", "Mrs. Robert L. Scales", as well as various permutations of the names given in the article itself). I can't read it to tell how in-depth it is, but she appears to have an obituary in The New York Times [36] and a syndicated news story about her 110th birthday [37]. She had an honorary doctorate from Smith in 1931 [38]. Her resignation from the museum of fine arts is covered at [39]. She was the subject of an Alfred Eisenstaedt photo in Life [40]. Her publications include "The Museum's Part in the Making of Americans" [41] and "Shall we fear the large college?" [42]. So there seems to be plenty more to say about her than is already in the article. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep on basis of information found by Eppstein. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Keep The NYT obit is not long, but it does confirm her honorary doctorate of humane letters from Smith in 1931, as well as an honorary doctorate of literature from Dartmouth College in 1939. Two honorary doctorates from well-established institutions, along with the other information given above, adds up to a notability case. XOR'easter (talk) 23:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep now that I have some idea what's in the NYT obit. —David Eppstein (talk) 23:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Two honorary doctorates from well-established institutions, papers held by one of them, plenty of coverage. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 05:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, passes GNG with Eppstein's sources.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 07:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sufficient notability. Gamaliel (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep given the sources presented above. -Kj cheetham (talk) 14:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If any passing admin would like to snow close this, that would seem fair by now. XOR'easter (talk) 17:16, 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 redirect to Morgue file. As proposer suggested; the 2006 deletion discussion would not hold up today - the website is complete non notable. Appropriate for a redirect (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 16:30, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MorgueFile[edit]

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

Kept a very long time ago, at a 2006 AfD. The article has not kept up with changing notability norms, particularly WP:GNG. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. – Teratix ₵ 14:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Morgue file: As an WP:ATD. Barely found anything about this database. It may be best to talk about it in the target article, albeit in at most 1 sentence. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have no strong objection to redirection, but the title is not a likely search term; readers are unlikely to omit the space. The potential target mentioned is about quite a different subject, and I don’t see how any content could be merged there. – Teratix ₵ 03:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 14:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Kj cheetham (talk) 14:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I support turning this to a redirect, per WP:ATD. However, I don't support a merge, as MorgueFile and Morgue file, despite sounding similar, don't have much to do with each other. Not a very active user (talk) 16:15, 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 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

H. Ray Dunning[edit]

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

Tricky one, hence sitting in CAT:NN for over 11years. He has been published, articles and books. He has held an academic post. But looking at it altogether, I can't see him passing WP:PROF, WP:GNG or WP:AUTHOR. At least most of the sources should be in English and easily accessible. Boleyn (talk) 13:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 13:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NAUTHOR is plausible. I found a review [43] of one book and a "critical response" [44] to another. There's a citation to another review in the latter. It may be harder to find sources as much of the subjects work predates the internet era. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 16:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There's another review of that book here. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:55, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep passes WP:NAUTHOR with reviews of his works in multiple reliable sources as shown above and now in the article so deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 18:33, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Huh? There has been no significant change to the article since its nomination (only some category sorting) and the article still does not list any reviews. There are reviews listed above, but the number is small. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stand corrected about the article state but there are three scholarly reviews identified in the discussion, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:09, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. No serious challenge to the level of notability established by the reviews cited here, and the nominator's argument that "At least most of the sources should be in English and easily accessible" is utterly ungrounded in policy and reflects quite poorly on their basic WP:COMPETENCE. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, I was saying that this person's first language is English, so that is likely to be the language of most relevant sources, as opposed to another I had nominated, where I had commented that we needed to be extra careful because of possible confusion and difficulty tracking down sources in the subject's native language. Boleyn (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that there was some ambiguity in the "should be" in the nomination statement. I initially interpreted it in the same sense as Hullaballoo Wolfowitz, so thanks for clearing the point up. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:46, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Dunning is one of the most important and infulential theologians in the Wesleyan/Holiness branch of Christianity. Kevin Rector (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The comment immediately above comes without evidence, but the sources identified above along with the one I just added to the article show that it is true. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:43, 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 20:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dragon Knights[edit]

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

A difficult one to assess. Possible ATDs are redirect to creator (Mineko Ohkami ) or publisher (Wings (manga magazine)). I couldn't find the coverage to establish it is WP:NOTABLE - it definitely exists but most sources are primary or unreliable. I'm aware I may be missing something from Japanese sources. Boleyn (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 14:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Anime News Network is considered a reliable source by WP:ANIME. I also found coverage in Natalie: 1 2 3 With that said, the article is full of unsourced WP:FAN and WP:ORIGINAL that needs to be cut down. lullabying (talk) 09:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. In the current state it is pretty bad, but I'd hesitate to delete it without input from Japanese speakers. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:47, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the sources already on the article and the sources found by Lullabying. If two different reliable sources cover this manga in six different articles, then it seems to meet WP:GNG. The "Characters" section would, however, need some heavy clean-up. Not a very active user (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cosendai Adventist University[edit]

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

Seemingly non-notable university. Only a few articles in Adventist news sources come up in a search about them and the two sources in the article are extremely trivial. So, there's nothing about it that pass WP:GNG from what I can tell. Adamant1 (talk) 07:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The number of Ghits looks a little better for the name "Université Adventiste Cosendai", and this bit of 3rd-party coverage is more convincing, although possibly a different campus of the same school. --Lockley (talk) 21:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:30, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect I spent about 3 minutes finding sources, but returned with trival mentions. What i want to say is that the subject is recognized and registered with multiple other institutions. It's main organisation Seventh-day Adventist Church is affiliated (or working) with the Maranatha Volunteers International. However, a topic needs in-depth independent coverage to meet the general criteria of notability, which the subject in question lacks clearly. Therefore, it be redirected to the List of Seventh-day Adventist colleges and universities. [45]

TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 21:19, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ajay Devaloka[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as spam Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Graeme Bartlett: Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks Anthony Appleyard. This was also a contested prod that was returned, and user:Mydreamsparrow contested the spam delete and stated "a known director". Graeme Bartlett (talk) 05:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - He is a notable director IMO. DreamSparrow ^Chat 17:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:25, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:04, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paolo Garbisi[edit]

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

Player does not qualify for WP:NRU as has played no professional or international games. Also for me does not qualify for WP:GNG as the player does not receive enough significant coverage. A large number of the sources are also trivial or have a close connection to the subject being from teams he has played for and their reliability can be questioned. Therefore I don't believe there to be significant enough coverage of the player as a few articles about him doing well for Italy U20s does not qualify him as being significant. Of the opinion that it is WP:TOOSOON and should be Draftied until he makes a professional appearance that qualifies him for WP:NRU. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:36, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Rugbyfan22 (talk) 14:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep In my opinion the article clearly meets the GNG, with sources such as these (among others): Allrugby (the main italian rugby magazine) or OA Sport (one of the main italian sport focused websites). And about the significant coverage, as per addressed in WP:GNG, it does not mean that there has to be a certain number of sources, but that there most be some sources that significantly cover the subject (theoretically even one good source would be enough for GNG, and the presence of other sources, primary ones or with trivial mentions doesn't change anything about that). And for the above mentioned sources there really seem to be no issue of reliability or independence. Furthermore the player has been selected in the last squad of the italian national rugby team, Italy arguably being one of the top 10 biggest rugby countries worldwide, which also clearly indicates a certain notability. For information, there was already a quite in-depth exchange on the subject of this page here. --Coco (talk) 15:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there are lots of good quality sources in the article. Skeene88 (talk) 18:43, 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 merge to Salah Choudhury. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:16, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weekly Blitz[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:WEB or WP:GNG. Arunudoy (Arunudoy)-- 10:53, 4 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 4. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 11:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article has problems, but multiple stories in The Australian, The Wall Street Journal, and The Jerusalem Post make it difficult to argue that the Weekly Blitz doesn't meet WP:GNG, that it hasn't gained significant attention by the world at large. One could debate how much is about the founder and editor, and how much about his controversial tabloid newspaper - the raiding, bombing, and mobbing of its offices - but that would not support deletion, only, at worst, merging.

There is also evidence that the newspaper meets the fourth point of the applicable section of Wikipedia:Notability (media). Examples of being cited by other reliable sources include: [46][47][48][49][50][51]. Keep and improve. --Worldbruce (talk) 17:52, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The articles that I was able to access hardly said anything about the Weekly Blitz and instead discussed its founder, Choudhury. Therefore I conclude that it fails WP:NORG and recommend a merge to his article. (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Still disagreement whether the RS presented meets GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:16, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge To the Choudhury article. It seems notable enough of a subject for a mention somewhere, but not enough for it's own article. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:54, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:18, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgetown Little Theatre[edit]

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

A non notable community theatre organisation. WP:MILL Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we cannot justify keeping an article when the only source is the subject's own website. Wikipedia is not a lightly anotated directory to websites.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There's a reliable source in the article now. pburka (talk) 17:38, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks for finding the source - I would still argue that this coverage is WP:MILL for a local community theatre. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep There appears to be some reliable coverage here, tho it is minimal I think it helps the subject pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. I added a couple of sources. One is a very in-depth piece about their 25th anniversary in 1984. And there's tons of less notable stuff ... particularly in Georgetown publications. Nfitz (talk) 03:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a WP:MILL amateur theatre company. A review of the article about its 50th anniversary confirms this. -- Ssilvers (talk) 10:11, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- MILL is an essay that argues we should ignore GNG and define notability based on things being unusual. It contradicts our guidelines and doesn't reflect Wikipedia consensus. pburka (talk) 15:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - pburka...but it’s generally regarded that amateur theatre companies are not notable. WP:CLUB says that non-profit organisations can be notable if there is “reliable independent sources outside the organization's local area.” There has been no evidence of that so far. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 16:33, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That may be, but so far none of the !voters have presented policy-based arguments for deletion. pburka (talk) 17:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - The 1985 (and lesser 1981) article I added yesterday is from Toronto Star, the largest circulation newspaper in the nation, well outside the local area, and is in-depth reliable independent source, providing more than enough information to write an article. User:Cardiffbear88, why do you ignore that one? Nfitz (talk) 18:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a ordinary amateur theater. One national article on its anniversary is not significant coverage. Bearian (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. MILL is an essay that argues we should ignore notability guidelines and only have pages for topics that are unique, unusual, or out of the ordinary. This theatre is notable because it has been the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. pburka (talk) 03:54, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: New RS has been added but is disputed as GNG; try a relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on the improvements. This is not the same article which was nominated. Nfitz and others have added sources to show that this subject meets WP:N Lightburst (talk) 16:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - there’s some evidence that the Burlington Post and Independent Free Press sources are primary self-authored pieces, so shouldn’t count towards notability. I still strongly feel that we cannot base notability on one anniversary piece in the Toronto Star. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 08:04, 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 redirect to XForms#Implementation technologies compared. Tone 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FormFaces[edit]

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

Doesn't meet NOTABILITY. Possible ATD is merge to XForms. Boleyn (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This should be a slamdunk, honestly. Zero coverage in reliable sources save for casual mentions or namedrops. Fails the GNG by a country mile. Ravenswing 09:30, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to XForms#Implementation_technologies_compared, where it is already mentioned in a better context. Basic facts about this XForms implementation are verifiable and the term is a plausible search term. Merging the sources may be useful, too.--{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 10:16, 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 delete. Tone 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fopnu[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. Poor refs. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 19:58, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:35, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, Author. I've added more stuff, other guys should edit it soon to add more content. This software was being mixed with Tixati, but it's not the same, it's a different client running on a different p2p network. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.152.97.90 (talk) 14:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not satisfy GNG or WP:NSOFT. All sources in the article and available in searches are either to the software or to download sites. No significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 18:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Nothing to suggest WP:GNG: of the nine alleged citations, the Polish one is the only actual proper reference, and I don't know how RS it is. And that's it then, I've not been able to find any more myself. Clearly also fails WP:NPRODUCT and WP:NSOFTWARE. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:21, 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. Nomination withdrawn (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 12:40, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Freeman Osonuga[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This had no consensus a month ago. The individual claims to have received a number of awards, but it is not clear which are real, or what are the actual accomplishments. The internationally important Award claimed in the article is false. He was not named Time person of the year in 2014. A unspecified group of people, several 100 of them , were named "Person" of the year for their practical work in fighting Ebola . 3 or 4 of them were named in the magazine story's film on the web, which is the specified reference. he was not one of them. He might be one of those named in th print issue but that doesn;t make him Person of the year,

He has been named as a finalst for a spacetrip. He'll be notable , but only if he is actually selected and goes. He received several national awards, but I do not know how distinctive they are. He founded an advertising network. He was named on a list of influential people , among 100 other people some of whom are actually influential.

This is pure PR, which is bad enough, and reason for deletion. But it is also PR based on dubious claims, which is certainly reason for deletion, and, I would say, salting as well DGG ( talk ) 21:33, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 21:37, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Per WP:ANYBIO the Sierra Leone meritorious award is one of the prestigious award in the country. I always like to apply WP:IGNORE sometimes especially to articles that appear harmless to its reader, his achievement could be a motivation to the indigent Nigerian--Brain7days (talk) 20:36, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As opined in the first AFD, subject clearly meet WP:GNG and WP:BASIC to deserve inclusion.. Having been significantly covered by multiple independent reliable secondary sources which include The Wired UK, The Guardian, Bussinessday, Vanguard Newspaper, Quartz Africa, ATQ News and recently selected as one of the Nigeria’s Top 10 Real Estate Disruptors of 2020 according to Vanguard and ThisDay. The "space travel" thing again is only a tiny part of his biography and almost insignificant to the subject's notability. Kaizenify (talk) 12:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The sourcing available, especially as documented by Kaizenify, demonstrates that the notability standard has been met. Issues with questionable awards and accomplishments should be addressed by editing the article or discussing on the talk page. Alansohn (talk) 15:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- - Withdraw I continue to disagree, but the consenseus is against me. DGG ( talk ) 01:53, 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 per WP:SNOW. I don't see why we need to drag this one out any longer. The only delete opinion is more of a disagreement with our underlying policies and guidelines than it is an argument over whether the subject meets those policies and guidelines, and so is misplaced here. The question of whether this should be moved can be decided separately. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sadie Bonnell[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^hello 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 17:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. An entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is de facto evidence of notability. pburka (talk) 17:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment An entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is de facto evidence of notability - where is this precedent established? Lettler^hello 18:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the first pillar of Wikipedia: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia. Therefore it should include topics found in encyclopedias, such as the Dictionary of National Biography. (Despite the name, DNB is not a dictionary.) In my experience, topics which appear in other reputable encyclopedias are very rarely deleted. pburka (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And WP:ANYBIO #C3: The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. Spicy (talk) 15:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per pburks's accurate analysis and because multiple obits in major newspapers make a prima facie case for notability. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. I don't accept the entry in the Oxford Dictionary of National Biography is de facto evidence of notability argument. Also that's the only source given so no WP:SIGCOV. Mztourist (talk) 03:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Per Spicy, above, @Mztourist:, WP:ANYBIO #C3: The person has an entry in the Dictionary of National Biography or similar publication. So a DNB entry is both a de facto (evidenced by all the keeps on this page) and a de jure indicator of notability. I hope you will now modify your acceptance parameters to come into line with long published wikipedia guidelines. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Obvious notability once you account for Sadie being a nickname (of Sara) and Bonnell being her maiden name (later Talbot). Obit in The Telegraph (reprint - [52]), entries in books ([53]), and Dictionary of National Biography. The article could have a better title for Sara 'Sadie' Talbot (nee Bonnell). Vici Vidi (talk) 07:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and Move: ODNB + broadsheet obits, clear notability. Should be at Sadie Talbot, needs redirects from Sara Talbot etc. (Will make the redirects now but not move it during AfD) PamD 08:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps leave at existing title: it's her name while she was doing her notable work as she married in 1919... PamD 08:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I know it isn't cited (I'd do it myself if I had full access to the sources) but she has a Telegraph obit and an entry in the DNB, from what I can see there is enough in them for SIGCOV to be met, so she meets the GNG. SOLDIER isn't relevant here. Perhaps someone at Women in Red has access to the sources and would like to tidy it up? I've dropped them a line. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A DNB entry is a definite pass of WP:GNG. Always has been by long consensus. Likewise an obit in a newspaper of record. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:45, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep she passes WP:SIGCOV by virtue of ODNB entry and obituaries in national newspapers in my opinion. I've added details from ODNB - now available with a package of other resources with a few clicks via Wikipedia:The_Wikipedia_Library/Databases which is superhandy. Thanks to nominator for proposal to delete, this article was in quite a shoddy condition before. Mujinga (talk) 10:28, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Absurd nomination given the ample evidence of notability. WP:IDONTLIKEIT is insufficient reason to reject first-class sources out of hand. Gamaliel (talk) 12:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. DNB is ample evidence of notability alone - anything else is gravy. (Mmmmm, gravy...) --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 13:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ANYBIO #C3, per comments above. --Tagishsimon (talk) 17:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Given that the keep votes amount to little more than "it would be nice not have a gap", I'm not see8ng anything that answers the notability challenge. Fenix down (talk) 22:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2018–19 Hartlepool United F.C. season[edit]

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

Season article for a club in a non-fully professional league at the fifth level – fails WP:NSEASONS. We have had numerous AfDs on these types of articles and virtually all have resulted in deletion (see this recent one, in which many more are cited). Also nominating 2017–18 Hartlepool United F.C. season for the same reason. Both were prodded, but deprodded without an explanation as to why. Number 5 7 14:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:07, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep We have articles for the preceding seasons:

2010–11 Hartlepool United F.C. season

2011–12 Hartlepool United F.C. season

2012–13 Hartlepool United F.C. season

2013–14 Hartlepool United F.C. season

2014–15 Hartlepool United F.C. season

2015–16 Hartlepool United F.C. season

2016–17 Hartlepool United F.C. season

It doesn't make sense to have gaps in the record for a club with a long history like this. And the worst case would be merger into a consolidation such as List of Hartlepool United F.C. seasons. Applicable policies including WP:ATD; WP:NOTPAPER and WP:PRESERVE all indicate that, now we have articles about the seasons, it best to keep them and that deletion would be quite inappropriate. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In those seasons the club was playing in a fully-professional league and WP:NSEASONS was met. The example of another AfD (that resulted in delete) given above was for Leyton Orient, who were in the same situation as Hartlepool (in terms of being a former Football League club who dropped out). There is also no certainty that Hartlepool will ever regain Football League status and had this argument been used for Nelson or Glossop North End, we have nearly 100 years of NSEASONS-failing articles for them. Number 5 7 14:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NSEASONS does not suggest that such articles should be deleted. It says that they are certainly kept at the highest level and may be consolidated if the notability is weaker. Furthermore, I notice that the nominator did not notify the creator of these pages – neither for the PROD nor this deletion discussion. As the page was accepted by AfC, the new editor is likely to feel aggrieved at such inconsistent and unpleasant treatment. As the nominator seems to be familiar with Wikimedia UK, they may like to know of a talk given at its recent AGM by Pigsonthewing with the theme that "Wiki hates newbies". See WP:BITE for more details. Andrew🐉(talk) 14:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The linked AfD (and all the ones mentioned in that) show that there is a clear consensus that these articles do fail WP:NSEASONS.

Regarding the secondary issue, the problem is that the page should not have been accepted by the AfC reviewer in the first place. Being a new editor does not mean notability guidelines are relaxed to avoid hurting their feelings. Number 5 7 15:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, the other old case shows that other editors agree with my view that WP:NSEASONS does not require deletion and the text of WP:NSEASONS does not say so either. What matters most in such cases is policy and WP:ATD is quite clear, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page. ... Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page". Andrew🐉(talk) 15:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What? 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 AfDs all resulted in delete. 1 resulted in keep because it met GNG. Number 5 7 15:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails GNG and NSEASONS. Giant Snowman 15:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The seasons get press coverage and so they pass WP:GNG. For example, see Northern Echo. Andrew🐉(talk) 15:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A brief overview by the local paper? Wow! Where's the significant coverage? Giant Snowman 16:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The same source is used for all those other season articles which you're fine with. No difference. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to List of Hartlepool United F.C. seasons. The Rambling Man (Stay indoors, stay safe!!!!) 06:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep i understand that the league is that they play in rn isn't as high-level as in the past, but would argue that the legacy of the team (over 100 years) and that they've only played in it for like the most recent couple years should supersede the fact that the league isn't top-tier. would be weird if they are promoted to have a gab of a couple of years. Epluribusunumyall (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The article fails our notability guidelines. There is also no way of knowing that this is a 'gap'. For all we know, the club may never return to the Football League like Glossop North End or Nelson. Number 5 7 12:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, the editor here. I'm very disappointed with the decision to delete this page. These two articles were the first that have been made by me so I was very pleased when they passed the initial process at a good standard. The decision to delete this page seems ridiculous frankly. Currently, approximately I believe that around 20 of the 24 teams in the National League are professional teams. Furthermore, the support for this league has grown massively over the last 10 years. Matches are regularly streamed live on BT Sport nationally and attendances are increasing. Hartlepool United's fan base regularly averages over 3,300 which is higher than several teams in both League 1 and League 2: despite being smaller than fellow National League sides of Notts County, Chesterfield, Wrexham and Stockport County. Moreover, I would like to add that the reasons that Glossop or Nelson have never returned to the EFL is due to their much lower support. This would imply that these teams are not sustainable enough to return to the Football League. In recent years, almost all of the teams relegated from the EFL return within at least 7 years (even with smaller supported teams such as Macclesfield Town). Overall, after the hard work to make and publish the article it seems like a complete waste of time to delete an article, to leave gaps on the List of Hartlepool United F.C. seasons and to demotivate new editors such as myself. User: Michaeldble 17:44, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There will be no gap in List of Hartlepool United F.C. seasons caused by deleting the article we're discussing here – the article is not even linked from the list. I'm sorry if you feel demotivated, but we cannot accept articles that fail to meet our notability guidelines just to keep new editors happy. Number 5 7 17:40, 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 delete. Tone 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Ablitt[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^hello 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete DCM and other lesser medals doesn't satisfy #1 of WP:SOLDIER and fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. The sources are almost all primary or not actually about this guy. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:00, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I think a second-level decoration and two third-level decorations are sufficient for notability. Certainly passes my notability standards. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Your standards are not Wikipedia's standards per WP:SOLDIER. Mztourist (talk) 13:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - My standards on honours are my informed opinion and have served me well over many AfDs and many years of editing Wikipedia. Remember, WP:BURO. You need to stop being so hidebound and try a little common sense (i.e. think exactly why two second-level awards are notable but one second-level award and two third-level awards are not? Because they are, so there, is not a valid answer!). It works much better than applying some monolithic rules that don't actually exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It amuses me how when a rule suits you you follow it and when it doesn't its IAR or Commonsense. Mztourist (talk) 03:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - It amuses me how you're so hung up on "rules" that you can't see that sometimes you just have to apply logic and common sense instead! We don't even have rules on Wikipedia. We have opinions and consensuses. Note that I'm not speaking from an WP:ILIKEIT perspective here, but as someone who actually does know what they're talking about as far as honours are concerned, as should be evident from the page I cited. I also note that you can't answer my point about the logic of why two second-level decorations should be notable but three decorations of which two are third-level not? So, two acts of bravery are notable, but three are not! Nope, no logic there whatsoever. And that's the danger of slavishly applying non-existent rules to everything and why we have WP:IAR as a policy. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:41, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If someone meets the lowest level rank of #2 of WP:SOLDIER, that's it as far as you're concerned, without considering SIGCOV, but for #1 you burrow down into 2nd and 3rd tiers awards to try to justify notability. If you're so convinced you're right then take it to MilHist and see if you get any support for a change to #1, if not then stop trying to push it here every time it comes up with the fallback WP arguments of IAR and Commonsense. Mztourist (talk) 11:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It is, because officers of that rank are clearly notable, despite your attempts to claim they're not. As I said, AfD is about opinion. This is my informed opinion. Yet once again you try to suggest that Wikipedia has set-in-stone rules and opinions are not valid. You may be uncomfortable with Wikipedia not having rules. I am not. stop trying to push it here every time it comes up. A bizarre statement, given I don't believe this issue has really come up before. Please enlighten me. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        No, officers are only presumed to be notable, they must have SIGCOV, which you always choose to ignore. I have seen your IAR and Commonsense arguments frequently here on AFD, why are you denying it? Mztourist (talk) 14:12, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        If you're so convinced you're right then take it to MilHist and see if you get any support for a change to #1, if not then stop trying to push it here every time it comes up with the fallback WP arguments of IAR and Commonsense. We have not had a debate relating to this issue before, so how can I possibly be "trying to push it here every time it comes up"? As to rank, I would point out that you have failed every time you have tried to claim that officers of one-star rank and above are not notable. So consensus (yes, consensus) would appear to be with me, not you. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't need to take #1 to MilHist because its clear that they need SIGCOV and usually people manage to find some mentions that they regard as meeting the criteria, meanwhile you continue to push your medal opinion.Mztourist (talk) 11:03, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Since you obviously aren't actually reading before you respond and seem close to indulging in personal attacks, I'll leave it there. I have my opinion; you have yours. -- Necrothesp (talk) 15:38, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Devokewater @ 09:59, 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) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

James Hall (British Army soldier)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Also completely uncited. Lettler^hello 14:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:02, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this gentleman does not pass WP:NSOLDIER#1 because his awards do not meet our standard. ...or were awarded their nation's second-highest award for valour (such as the Navy Cross) multiple times. His military rank, and his participation in the war do not meet the standard set by our SNG. Additionally RS cannot be found for this soldier leaving us without WP:N Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and also WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DCM doesn't meet #1 of WP:SOLDIER and fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me)

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Hamilton (British Army soldier)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:SOLDIER. Lettler^hello 14:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Lettler^hello 14:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTMEMORIAL. Clarityfiend (talk) 22:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete DCM doesn't meet #1 of WP:SOLDIER and he fails WP:GNG Mztourist (talk) 03:25, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Most of the sources are primary or unreliable websites. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:55, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yaw Myay F.C.[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG Search revealed only mentions in score/scheduling database sites. // Timothy :: talk 02:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 02:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG as written. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no evidence of notability. Giant Snowman 11:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the basis of the new sources found below. Giant Snowman 10:39, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:29, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article does meet WP:FOOTYN. Found mentions in articles such as this and this which shows that this club does exist and does play in the MNL-2, which is a national level league. There are plenty of mentions of the club when you search their name on google and focus on the sourced site. Article might fail WP:GNG though. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plays in a national league Spiderone 11:12, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep agree per above.SoeThiha5 (talk) 19:53, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I don't understand this nomination. The team plays in the second tier of Myanmar football, and all teams in the second tier participate in the national cup. Not surprisingly, all teams in the second level also have articles. With the top tier being fully professional, we normally argue whether the players in the second tier are notable - I don't recall ever seeing a discussion about whether clubs themselves are notable. I'm really surprised at User:GiantSnowman's delete - which seems unusual for a club at this level. The prime issue here is a complete lack of access to media in that country. Nfitz (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - FOOTYN is an out-of-date WikiProject guideline only, what matters here is GNG, and those !voting 'keep' admit there is no coverage. So why is this club notable? Giant Snowman 11:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can't even find mention of the city it's in, in a Burmese media search ... a lack of available online media in the west, combined with an impenetrable script, does not equal "no coverage". I'm not aware that we've depreciated the plays in national tournament guideline ... and it's not even borderline here ... the first tier is fully professional, this is the second tier ... and the third tier also plays in the national cup. To not include this, is huge WP:BIAS. Nfitz (talk) 16:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: WP:FOOTYN states: "teams are required to meet the general notability guideline. The following guidance may indicate at what level teams generally have enough coverage to meet the GNG. The criteria listed below aren't notability guidelines themselves but rather mere tips for confirming if the teams meet GNG, which this does not. It has mentions in a few local sources but per nom most search results end up in automated databases. As people who voted "keep" already admit it fails the first step of establishing notability, this isn't a hard one. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 19:18, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I just found some coverage of Yaw Myay FC in reliable Burmese news see [54], [55], [56], search with Burmese language [ယောမြေအက်ဖ်စီ]. I think there is enough to meet WP:GNG. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 18:52, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good Find! Coverage - GNG met! I must have been messing up my search. Gosh, that should even melt User:GiantSnowman's objections! Nfitz (talk)

Comment I've been looking for sources of information about the team to add information to the article, but I have been unable to find any. I'd like to save the article and change my vote to keep, but the references listed above are simply scores and references to particpation in individuals games and one about a team member getting into a fight, not information about the team itself. WP:GNG states "Significant coverage addresses the topic directly and in detail ... Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention". I'm just not seeing this in any of the above references. If I am missing something, please direct me to it and I will be happy to add it to the article. I really would like to improve the article and change my vote. // Timothy :: talk 12:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I expect what you are missing are newspapers that you'd get on the street. Nfitz (talk) 18:15, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can those meet WP:V? I really am hoping someone puts up some sources so I can change to keep. // Timothy :: talk 18:53, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lol very negative. Cape Diamond MM (talk) 01:48, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep passes WP:FOOTYN plays in national league.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 14:46, 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 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dylan Duff[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Recreation of deleted article; G4 declined as new awards listed, none of which appear to support notability. No coverage which I can find to support meeting the any of the relevant notability guidelines (WP:NACTOR, WP:ANYBIO, or WP:GNG). Remains WP:TOOSOON. Jack Frost (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 13:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I can't find any RS about the subject. "Teens Wanna Know" doesn't sound like a RS in any context. I agree with the nominator that this is a case of TOOSOON. --Kbabej (talk) 15:03, 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 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Azoi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Unnecessary article. Intention to write this articles are simply not clear and nothing substantial is found. Light2021 (talk) 12:48, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 16:55, 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.

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vezeeta[edit]

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

Non-notable company. Too early to make a significance. Press coverage is trivial and investment onlys. Light2021 (talk) 12:46, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Egypt-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2016-07 ✗ G11

Delete Fails WP:GNG due to a lack of sustained WP:SIGCOV in independent reliable sources. I would also note the creator of the article was indef-blocked less than a week after creating this article due to their problematic editing, which included significant sourcing and content issues. The article has had very few edits since its creation. Newshunter12 (talk) 03:04, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 20:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moksha Amman[edit]

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

Promo page for a supposed musician & actor who falls short of WP:MUSICBIO & WP:NACTOR respectively & in general lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources. A before search only shows me links to his social media accounts. Celestina007 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Asia-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 12:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as it seems WP:TOOSOON as he only has one single released and only bit parts for his acting. Not surprisingly there is a lack of coverage on google at this stage so WP:BASIC is not passed, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MVision[edit]

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

Non-notable enough for now typical funding news -" in 2018 raised €620,000 in pre-seed funding from Icebreaker.vc, Nuard Ventures". It is too early to have encyclopedic significance for this one. Light2021 (talk) 12:37, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG - David Gerard (talk) 17:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hasn't attracted sufficient coverage to meet WP:CORP. SmartSE (talk) 14:42, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medinformatix[edit]

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

Speedy Delete. Non-notable link only. There is nothing to write about this one. Light2021 (talk) 12:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:RS and WP:NOTINHERITED. I'm sure they do important work, but they're not notable and haven't gotten any coverage. Bearian (talk) 20:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:16, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skulpt[edit]

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

Not enough notable for wikipedia. it is too early for now coverage is typical in press. It seems only intention of writing this article for marketing and promotional purposes or do some link building exercise. Light2021 (talk) 12:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:49, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: The article references are a mixture of brief start-up funding / product coverage along with articles about Electrical impedance myography in general. Aside from coverage of a similarly-named spa, a synth and a Python implementation, there are routine listings for this product's iOS and Android app (with fewer than 200 reviews in total) and some brief coverage but I don't see the coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 06:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 14:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Josephmark[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable and typical Corporate Article with no significant links to established depth for this company. It is written like a Company profile and it appears to be driven by only marketing and promotional agendas. Light2021 (talk) 12:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:44, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Clearly a self serving article. Teraplane (talk) 23:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom PR --Devokewater @ 20:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Advertisement. Deus et lex (talk) 12:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 20:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Media Insight[edit]

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

It does not have Encyclopedic Significance. Wikipedia is not a blog space to make corporate profile. As it reads - "a Google analytics partner and web design Company in UAE specializing in Website Design and Development" Light2021 (talk) 12:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Arab Emirates-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:45, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article appended with refbombing of passing mentions which fall under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH, plus miscellaneous articles about viewing habits, about movies, etc. A company going about its business, but no evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 08:13, 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. Week keep is still a keep, I am not relisting for the fourth time. Tone 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Horror House on Highway Five[edit]

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

Minor independent film with no known actors/directors, with no third party independent reviews Donaldd23 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep as did find one reliable sources review here as Dread Central is a Wikipedia film project rs for horror films. Will look for more later, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 02:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Couldn't find much more, only this piece which says it is a cult film, and this piece where it is included on a best dvd of 2017 list, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 20:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:39, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, (t · c) buidhe 08:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. I see four unique hits in newspapers.com, three passing mentions and fairly good coverage in the Racine Journal Times of Halloween, 2014, here for subscribers, about a postman whose spooky secret was appearing in this film. Others mention the gag casting of an actor named Ronald W. Reagan appearing in a Nixon mask. That might amount to independent third-party coverage -- ? --Lockley (talk) 21:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, PATH SLOPU 12:05, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, but if and only if someone adds the citations found and writes up the reviews. Otherwise, userfy it with one of the proponents. Bearian (talk) 20:36, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:Do it yourself, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 11:52, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SaeHan Information Systems[edit]

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

It seems that the company's claim to fame rests on them developing the world's first MP3 player, which is cool, but does not satisfy WP:NCOMPANY/GNG. I can't find any coverage of them outside this fact. Their player, MPMan, is likely notable, but the company itself does not seem to be so, per WP:NOTINHERITED, unless someone can find more sources about them (in Korean, perhaps?). The Korean Wikipedia article is not better referenced, unfortunately. At best, I would suggest redirecting this to MPMan, ~~if it is stubbed (and it could be easily, just based on the referenced sentence present in this article right now - I may even do it myself if I find the time/will to work on this topic).~~ PS. Actually, the player already has an article, it was just not linked from the article about a company. So, anyway, let's disuss - does this company warrant a stand-alone article, or just a redirect? _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The company was also major cassette tape producer for various companies so have notability for that. 2A01:4C8:41:A44:87A8:B8C3:B93E:81A7 (talk) 10:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which part of WP:NCOMPANY states that being a "major cassette tape producer for various companies" is sufficient? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 7 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]

Delete both per Peter's thorough WP:BEFORE (which deserves more traction than this AfD is curretly receiving), and current policy. ——Serial 18:03, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 11:22, 20 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) 11:22, 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 20:35, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dmitry Erokhin[edit]

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

Advertising for a Russian Wikipedia editor who working for money. Last nomination was fully supported by people's of Dmitry Erokhin, who always support him pages (if have any problems) in Russian Wikipedia ( "fan club"). Author of page Special:Contributions/Mark_Ekimov have 95% PR activity, mostly him pages deleted as PR/promo, have violations of WP:PAID, he take care Erokhin's profile on WikiData. Now the article on the Russian Wikipedia about Erokhin is proposed for removal, users says that he not pass WP:NOTABILITY: he is not a professional athlete, only an amateur activist. Special:Contributions/Дмитрий_Кошелев - inactive user, who mark himself as paid editor (possible vote "for money" or sockpuppet/member "fun club" of Erokhin), Special:Contributions/Ssr - possible Erokhin's lawyer (protect page on ru.wiki: ru:Обсуждение:Ерохин, Дмитрий Юрьевич). Pages on another wikis created by him community or another friends of Erokhin (he have a big PR agency in Russia about create pages on Wikipedia for money, its mean he can pay to people for him PR). Кронас (talk) 07:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I am not a lawyer, Erokhin is a lawyer, I cannot protect any page at Wikipedia because I am not an admin with any authority to protect pages. Erokhin is a Wikipedia popularizer and has lots of different friends, many of them wikipedians. Your words about "fan club" violate WP:CIVIL. Being friends with someone does not violate Wikipedia rules. On the contrary, Wikipedia organizers encourage people to be friends and to collaborate on Wikipedia in friendly way. Your personal attacks on other Wikipedians with trying to declare their friendship as evil violate WP:5P. You are trying to delete a biography page about a person by telling how bad other Wikipedians are. This is not a legitimate reason for deletion and contradicts with Wikimedia collaboration and good faith principles. Erokhin's paid Wikipedia activities are properly declared in full compliance with WP:PAID. You are trying to attack him across several language Wikipedias (you confirm that) and your nomination serves purposes of your "global" attack and is not based on English Wikipedia rules. --ssr (talk) 18:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lawyer isn't mean lawyer as real job, it mean word about paid advocacy. Erokhin isn't "Wikipedia popularizer", he is standard user, who strongly connected with paid advocacy. He need PR-page in Wikipedia about him for promote him services (e.g. "look, I can create page about myself, its mean I can create page about you too... for money"). Words about club have confirmation in my nomination, in last discussion was a 3 users: 1 confirmed undeclared WP:PAID + author of page Dmitry Erokhin + moderator of him Wikidata page, 1 possible sock/mit puppet and 1 (you) possible undeclared WP:PAID (for instance, before you create page Ilya Sachkov, that only PR users show interest on it, in ru-wiki everybody confirm, that pages about Sachkov and Group-IB is strong advertising, in en-wiki your page was deleted as crosswiki spam). Next, I explain about the reason for the removal this page: Erokhin’s records are unofficial and recorded by organization affiliated with him, ho have official international recognition (which was recognized in the deletion discussion in ru.wiki), original page in ru wiki (which was simply translated into English and else 12 languages all by friends and colleagues of Erokhin) was created for PR purposes, and him activity about Wikipedia fully isn't notable. Кронас (talk) 14:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update: deleted page about Erokhin on es-wiki as cross-wiki PR/spam. Кронас (talk) 19:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Very exciting investigation! I'm your fan! — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 06:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The person is notable by WP:BASIC: has articles in RIA Novosti, RT, Rossiyskaya Gazeta, The Moscow News, NTV, Dozhd. — Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 06:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No have any international and foreighner articles (no have any normal sources in English), only in russian news, where is can buy page very easy and for small money (look like this Erokhin has a big salary and can pay easly). Wikipedia need independent and highly respected sources. But your sources is mix of interviews, some short references and promo pages. Regards, Alexei 5.101.194.158 (talk) 19:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Is the Eurosport a fairly independent source (1, 2)? – Дмитрий Кошелев (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NSPORT ("Trivial coverage of a subject by secondary sources may be used to support content in an article, but it is not sufficient to establish notability"). Clearly WP:G11 (Unambiguous advertising or promotion) + undisclosed WP:PAID. Important: 64% of pages deleted as promotion. 166.239.110.60 (talk) 07:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 17:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, no extra value is added since previous nomination but nomination only talks about how bad are some users regardless of article content, which approach is prohibited. --ssr (talk) 11:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Perhaps there's a genuine wiki-notability case buried under all the self-promotion, but it's not our job to find it. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He obviously is not notable as a WP:SPORTSPERSON, because he is an activist. But I do not believe there is enough coverage of his activism, either related to sports or related to Wikipedia (which is something in between popularizing ruwiki and creating PR-articles in it, unfortunately). Wikisaurus (talk) 15:03, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Evidently non-notable as an athlete, Wikipedia activity though noble bends toward self promotion. No Swan So Fine (talk) 22:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable by WP:SPORTSPERSON, sources isn’t independent. Person is just some local activist who like connect with some newspapers and agencies, he just like running everywhere. Else too much PR activity, Wikipedia isn’t a soapbox or means of promotions (per WP:PROMOTION). 94.25.170.164 (talk) 10:51, 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 merge to [(religion)]. Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Biblical accommodation[edit]

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

This makes no attempt to describe the topic to the casual reader. It is head-to-tail impenetrable jargon. Despite the general-looking title, it seems to be constrained to specifically Roman Catholic seminary-level theology even to begin to understand it. (And any communicator at that level wouldn't produce these contents for an encyclopaedia such as WP.)

It fails NPOV. There is no attempt to discuss the topic; it simply dumps data supporting a specific viewpoint.

There is a far, far more approachable description at Accommodation (religion)#The Bible.

There is a case for an article of this title to exist. But these contents definitely do not comprise that case. And it this were being submitted for review as a new article, there is no way it would be accepted.

Almost nothing links here. I strongly propose deletion. An acceptable compromise would be to move it to draft space and re-submit it into the usual review process. Feline Hymnic (talk) 09:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I’m not sure what the copyright status of the Catholic Encyclopedia is, but this article is ripped straight from this, which appears to be copyright. Mccapra (talk) 14:25, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- No it's not. Both the Catholic Encyclopedia and the 1911 version of Encyclopaedia Britannica, where the text wa probably first published, as acknowledged in the article, are out of copyright. The 2020 copyright claim on that page is misleading at best. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On a meta-level I'm not sure what grounds for deletion are being advanced here. Also there is no such thing as "strongly proposing" deletion, you either propose it or you do not.

While NPOV is not a ground for deletion, it would still be useful if you indicate how the article is NPOV? Or better still fix it.

The article seems pretty straight-forward. Perhaps it's been significantly edited since the proposal.

All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Further Accommodation (religion)#The Bible seems to be describing different concept. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 16:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Draftify? My "strongly propose deletion" (and such a concept is perfectly rational, isn't it?) was explained in the immediately following sentence, which began "an acceptable compromise...". Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The concept has been the subject of an entire scholarly book. Seems to merit an article on its own, even if it needs work in its present state? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify? If it were currently in draft, would it be accepted into main space? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No objection here. Agree it needs a lot of work before it's encyclopedic. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 14:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Subject is notable, an article being in poor shape is no reason for deletion.★Trekker (talk) 07:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify? If it were currently in draft, would it be accepted into main space? Feline Hymnic (talk) 10:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bible-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:37, 6 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 09:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination's claim is false as the opening paragraph is reasonably clear and the only jargon-like word – exegesis – is explained in line. Other long words such as "condescension" are not a reason to delete because this not the Simple English Wikipedia. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:21, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - GizzyCatBella🍁 02:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "I don't understand the article" is not a good rationale to either delete or draftify. If you're worried that this article is written in a confusing way, then either learn more about the subject and make some edits, or leave it alone and let someone else work on it. Moving a 15-year-old article into draftspace is functionally equivalent to deletion; the improvement that this article needs will never happen if it's taken out of mainspace. You can help, or you can leave it alone; there really isn't a third option. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:06, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The worst underlying problem is that this article makes a bunch of "in-universe" arguments about how God behaves. Check out the use of the passive voice in the first three paragraphs ("divine revelation is adjusted"; "the manner in which the Biblical text expresses its content"; "descriptions of events... had simply been accommodated to human perceptual capacities"). Who is the actor doing all this accommodation? Unnamed divine forces, that's who. This article describes the behavior of divine forces. That's the NPOV problem the nominator was driving at. I agree and I think it's incurable here. Remove the framework of Catholic belief from this article & you have nothing left & that's what we should do. --Lockley (talk) 07:34, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The issue here is the interpretation of text. We have numerous articles about this issue in a legal context including the plain meaning rule, textualism, letter and spirit of the law, &c. Theologians spend much of their time trying to interpret scripture too and, as they have written a lot about it, the topic is notable. See also WP:PETTIFOG. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course textual interpretation is successfully handled elsewhere in wikipedia. I'd also probably agree the topic is notable enough for a separate article. Nobody in this discussion has claimed otherwise (yet). Invoking WP:PETTIFOG means you think somebody here is using a bunch of legalistic arguments in bad faith and in violation of common sense. I don't see that either. The original core of this article was written by Catholic believers for Catholic believers. The result still uses the capitalized phrase "Sacred Scripture" with utter seriousness, to take one small example of its baked-in NPOV, in a way that's inappropriate for those who believe differently or who don't believe at all. --Lockley (talk) 19:20, 15 July 2020 (UTC)philsophers[reply]

The point about WP:PETTIFOG is that Wikipedians fuss over the meaning of rules and text just like the lawyers and theologians. And then there's the philosophers who spin huge clouds of fog about language and meaning too. As we're an encyclopedia, we cover it all. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lockley, I quote from the scripture of WP:ARTN: "Notability is a property of a subject and not of a Wikipedia article... even very poor writing and referencing within a Wikipedia article will not decrease the subject's notability." This topic is discussed in reliable sources, therefore notable. The POV writing problem can be fixed through normal editing. "And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee." (Matthew 5:29) — Toughpigs (talk) 22:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toughpigs you seem ready for an argument about notability, when and if somebody makes one. Good. But if we're quoting chapter and verse, may I offer this, about the quality of the Catholic Encyclopedia as a source: "While the text is public domain PLEASE do not simply dump text from the CE into Wikipedia without modification. The Encyclopedia was written to serve the Catholic Church and reflect its doctrine, therefore nearly every article has a distinct POV and no article should be included word for word." That's strong support for the nominator's original complaint. What's the source of that radical statement? Wikipedia:WikiProject Catholicism. Does this article really quote the Catholic Encyclopedia verbatim? Yes, in several big chunks. What's the simplest and best cure for a mass of NPOV material? Deletion. --Lockley (talk) 02:12, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. Redirect to Accommodation (religion), but keep this page history if anyone wants to merge the content. This is an important subject in the field of theology, as explained here, for example. However, this page is misleading and useless - as written. I do not think the concept is correctly defined in the lead of this page~~, but this just needs to be fixed.~~ My very best wishes (talk) 16:49, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment/Question: @My very best wishes: The description there was my addition post-AfD, and I am no expert in theology so could well have made a mistake. However, it struck me that there is an ambiguity in the concept and/or terminology, between (1) accommodation in general, referring to the various ways, including but not limited to the Biblical text, in which revelation and divine guidance is conditioned to human limitations; and (2) specifically Biblical accommodation, in which the text of the Bible is held to be literally true (or not), depending on one's view about how the text is adapted to human limitations. I take it that accommodation (religion) is about sense (1), and the reason to have this article was to address the more limited and technical sense (2). If that's not correct, and there is really no distinction between the two, there seems no reason to have this article in the first place—since everything could be covered in "accommodation (religion)" without potentially misleading readers to think that there is a strong distinction between the two senses. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:23, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I simply do not think that the following description (as defined on the page) is correct description based on the source: "Biblical accommodation refers to a number of distinct views in Biblical exegesis, or the interpretation of the Bible. Such views broadly concern the question of whether, or to what extent, the Bible may be said to be literally true." This is not a definition of anything. As described in Accommodation_(religion), "accommodation (or condescension) is the theological principle that God, while being in His nature unknowable and unreachable, has nevertheless communicated with humanity in a way which humans can understand and respond to.". That is something different, understandable, and indeed consistent with the linked source [57]. Is "it literally true" an entirely different question. I can see the reason for confusion because the Catholic Ecyclopedia gives a different definition, but this is hardly a good source here. My very best wishes (talk) 17:36, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does this edit take care of some of those concerns? AleatoryPonderings (talk) 18:57, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like improvement, but I know too little on the subject. I am certain this page should be merged/redirected to Accommodation_(religion), especially because Accommodation_(religion) only tells about this concept in Christianity and also heavily relies on the Bible. I am not sure how and if this works in other religions. My very best wishes (talk) 02:27, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Old (1911) edition of EB gives 3 different meanings in religious context, only 2nd of which corresponds to the one above. This is an addition reason to merge. This WP page is misleading and useless right now. My very best wishes (talk) 18:32, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge (selectively, and identifying the claimant as appropriate) to Accommodation (religion), which already very much about the same concept. BD2412 T 05:06, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close. Article has already been deleted. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:12, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ghart27/Clethra scabra[edit]

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

This page has most likely been created as a test page by a new user. The page Clethra scabra has just been curated through Hughesdarren (talk) 10:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This should be tagged for CSD'd as a duplicate - will do so. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:48, 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. And salting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:12, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abeer Rizvi (model)[edit]

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

Abeer Rizvi - This article is repeatedly recreated and protected for recreation. Now re-created with a different name. - The9Man ^(Talk) 09:40, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Editors should be aware this is the fourth recreation of this article, which has been deleted under Abeer Rizvi three times. That target is protected, which led to this article trying to circumvent the process. The sources aren't RS, and the subject isn't notable. --Kbabej (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I am pinging editors who have participated in previous discussions for this subject. @Saqib, Johnpacklambert, and Power~enwiki: Your thoughts are appreciated. --Kbabej (talk) 15:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 15:33, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete because it still fails GNG and run a CU against the creator of this BLP. --Saqib (talk) 15:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our inclusion criteria for actresses or models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 10:05, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunrise Radio, Ireland[edit]

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

Station broadcast under a temporary licence, the Irish equivalent of a Restricted Service Licence, in 2005 and again in 2006, per [58]. The station seems to have only operated a few months in each incarnation. In 2008, the frequency was awarded to a permanent station, Classic Hits (Ireland). I scrounged up one article on it but I do not think it meets WP:GNG or WP:BCAST. If kept, the title should be "Sunrise Radio (Ireland)". Raymie (t • c) 19:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 19:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 19:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. Comment. I'm somewhat on the fence. As per nom, the "passing mention" in that Irish Times article is not contributory to notability (as the primary topic of that piece is not the subject). However, there does appear to have been some limited coverage where the subject is the primary topic. Like "New dawn for ethnic Irish radio" in Sunday Independent, "Poles crazy for multi-cultural radio station" in Magill Magazine, or "Ethnic radio a huge hit" in Irish Independent. I'm not sure that, on its own, this small number of editorial pieces is evidence of WP:SIGCOV. That being said, WP:BCAST could be met. I'm less familiar with the typical outcomes of discussions under BCAST, but the subject is covered extensively in Broadcasting Diversity: Migrant Representation in Irish Radio (Moylan; 2013; ISBN 9781783202256). In which the author devotes a chapter or more to the subject. And describes the apparent originality of the programming. And notes that "Despite only every acquiring a temporary licence (albeit renewed the following year), to date Sunrise FM remains the only dedicated multiethnic or polylingual radio service to broadcast in Ireland". This "first/only/ever/unique" aspect of the station might at least be contributory to a discussion under BCAST. Probably not cut and dried. ~~Remaining on fence myself for now. Pending more WP:BEFORE efforts myself~~... Guliolopez (talk) 09:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Update. I've gotten "off the fence". It's far from clear cut. Hence I've updated my !vote only to a "weak keep". But there is at least a moderate amount of coverage. In news and magazine and academic sources. And the apparent "originality" of programming and "only/ever polylingual station" claim would seem to be verified and at least somewhat contributory to notability under BCAST. I wouldn't lose any sleep if this were deleted. But my own recommendation leans (if only slightly) towards a "keep". Guliolopez (talk) 11:00, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:26, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - a community radio station that was on the air for a couple of months in 2006 is not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 18:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Sunrise Radio (Ireland): With sources indicated by Guliolopez, article is good enought to pass WP:BCAST (and perhaps WP:NTEMP). ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:12, 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hong Ying Animation[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:ORG. Any sourcing will be in Chinese, but it's difficult to know where to look as I don't know the Chinese name of this company. If this company being a subsidiary of Wang Film Productions can be sourced, then this could probably be merged there. However, I could not source it. Adam9007 (talk) 20:07, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep. If the unreferenced list is true, they did animate a lot of stuff, and they have decades of history. They have a number of GBooks Ghits, including in the index of this encyclopedia (but I can't confirm they have any in-depth coverage inside). They are listed in online ANN encyclopedia: [59] but I know it is half-crowdwritten, and often just bare bones. Although I am very deletionist for companies (I wrote WP:CORPSPAM), I am leaning keep here. Ping me if more sources are found, or good arguments are made for either stance. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:14, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We require minimum three independent sources for WP:ORG. Anyone who is familiar with Chinese language is welcome to update the article, however i also did a google search in Chinese too but returned with "trival mentions" and user-generated contents. TheBirdsShedTears (talk) 07:10, 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 delete. Tone 20:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Paul Thomas Anderson film[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, draftify until it's at least named. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Jerod Lycett (talk) 06:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Especially in this time, we need to be very strict about N on untitled projects. Until there is confirmed and safe filming day in and day out and progress towards a release date and even the naming of one cast member, there's no article here. As it is though, the article is written poorly with large COPYVIO excerpts from other news articles, so it's not acceptable under that state either. Nate • (chatter) 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 deleted as G6. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:22, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hum Do Anjaane[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Three sources listed #1 and #3 are to the same page, which is a movie database entry and the #2 is a photo gallery about the music, not the film. // Timothy :: talk 08:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 08:15, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails NFILM; insufficient coverage in third-party, reliable sources to demonstrate notability. ——Serial 18:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:29, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Although the movie does have notable actors like Jackie Shroff and others to it but it doesn't have enough coverage to make it pass NFILM. --Dtt1^Talk 07:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - The movie does not seem to have any professional reviews or other in-depth coverage, and is only present in the form of basic listings of its existence. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:37, 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) 11:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St. Paul's English School, Bangalore[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NORG. Java Hurricane 09:44, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 16:26, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indication this school passes GNG or meets BASIC. ——Serial 18:05, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 09:41, 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 delete. Tone 20:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Djanan Turan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

still there is no prove of notability. the sources aren't reliable. fails WP:GNG Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Notable artist performing for decades. Plenty of sources. Article created as part of WIR (Women In Red) project to increase visibility of women on wikipedia through biographies and elsewhere. Please give tghe article time to grow instead of rushing to delete. Thanks Jo Dusepo (talk) 11:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ Delete - The Women In Red project was meant to develop articles on women who are notable but nobody in Wikipedia ever did so due to the usual systemic bias or other oversights. Claiming that this noble effort justifies an article on any woman, regardless of her notability, is not particularly convincing. As for Djanan Turan, she has indeed been around for a long time but she has very little significant and reliable coverage in the music media. The best way to conduct a debate here would be to determine whether the one semi-magazine that has covered her, T-Vine, can be considered a reliable source. Unfortunately, that is still just one publication, and otherwise Turan is only present in reprinted press releases and brief concert announcements. I may change my vote in a positive direction if anyone can deliver any significant coverage in other languages that I may have missed. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 14:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have changed my vote above from Weak Delete to simply Delete based on the convincing additional arguments made by GN-z11 below. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 13:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails all criteria on WP:SINGER, available sources are either artist profiles on bot-run music sites, a few pages on sketchy online tabloids, or her page itself. The "time to grow" argument seems hopeless given there has been zero reporting about a recent release of hers. Not even any previously mentioned sources caught on it. The WIR project had an amazing cause but it does not justify creating articles for every woman whose name is seen online. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:47, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Apparently a former nomination (albeit mostly lacked participation) deleted the article and it now was just re-created? I'm not an admin so I can't see the former version but this could be a CSD:G4. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 08:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom and GN-z11. I looked at the sources, and those available, and "Plenty of sources" is not a valid criteria. Yes, we always want more coverage of women on Wikipedia, but not at the expense of watering down notability requirements concerning WP:BLP's. A criteria is: "reliable, independent, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", as well as "Use sources that directly support the material presented in an article and are appropriate to the claims made." That is where just listing "plenty of sources" can end up being citation overkill. The numerous sources just do not tip the scales of notability. Working with another individual with questionalble notability is not a factor. Giving the article time to grow would be a good argument but in this case that would include giving notability time to grow which apparently hasn't happened in "Decades". -- Otr500 (talk) 18:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. TJMSmith (talk) 20:54, 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. Tone 20:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Virtual Performance[edit]

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

WP:DEL-REASON, new neologism. Just 2 of the sources mention "Global Virtual Performance" and even then only in the title of an embedded YouTube video. A brief WP:BEFORE search shows only other instances of this same video. WP:TOOSOON. Lopifalko (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 14:20, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per extant policy. As noted, possibly will become a recognised phenomona, but Wikipedia follows, it does not lead. ——Serial 17:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Additionally, the article doesn't establish the case that these are qualitatively different from pre-covid live videos. Dan Bloch (talk) 01:15, 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 redirect to Drexel University § Publications. Tone 20:40, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Triangle (newspaper)[edit]

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

Fails WP:N, WP:IS. Student newspaper. Anaglyphic (talk) 15:07, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Anaglyphic (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Anaglyphic (talk) 15:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 16:19, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: though the article relies heavily on primary sources it might have been created based on WP guidelines at the time. The period (2005) when this article was created was part of the early history of WP and editorial policies at this time might be lenient than what it is today. But deleting this article after 15 years of its creation based on today's editorial guidelines and principles would mean giving retrospective effect to the current WP guidelines. Jokolis (talk) 12:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - today's interpretation of guidelines is all that is applicable. There's so much precedent for that, I couldn't possibly pick a particular discussion to point to. The guidelines haven't changed much, but the community's application has. It's been estimated that as many as a million current articles wouldn't become articles today, and as those articles are noticed, they are processed. We make a product. Notability ensures we only write about things we can make a decent article about. Again, today's interpretation of notability is all that matters. This article would have never passed even the most cursory review, something we do now that we didn't do then. I fail to see the logic in your argument. John from Idegon (talk) 08:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Blocked sock. MER-C 08:53, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Selective Merge to Drexel University § Publications, where some content already exists. In my view, the "Current staff" section of this artilcle would not require merging. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:48, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:23, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Nom (optional "Selective Merge"). Lacks significant coverage in independent sources to advance notability for a stand alone article.
Redirect to Drexel University#Publications, does not have the coverage to pass GNG, but the section on the university page is a good redirect target. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - to Drexel University#Publications. Not seeing much of anything worth merging. John from Idegon (talk) 23:17, 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) 11:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ferenc Füzi[edit]

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

Non notable priest that fails WP:GNG. Couldn’t find any good sources either. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hungary-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 19:29, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an article at hu.wiki that seems to have further sources but I don't read Hungarian so I can't comment on whether those establish notability. I will note that notability in en:wiki does not necessarily require English-language sources, so long as those can be verified. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:23, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I tried to translate the 3 Hungarian sources, one of them is a biography on a site that cites no form of reporting, one of them is a profile with no human-written details and one is a 404 not found. No other sources are found in English and the ones available on the web in Hungarian are trivial at best. GN-z11 ^☎ ^★ 09:08, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's no evidence of ongoing veneration of this alleged martyr. He lived, he died. Why did he die? Who knows? Bearian (talk) 20:41, 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:28, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Strassel[edit]

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

I'd fully expect there to be serious sources about someone who has written books, been a columnist for the WSJ for years and is currently on their editorial board. But I'm not seeing any usable secondary sources other than an article in the Oregonian by what looks like a free-lance writer who mainly writes about food (and the article reads like a "local girl does well" thing) and a response to one of her columns (which may count as a review per WP:AUTHOR?)

Anyone have something else? There has to be more. But if not, this should be deleted (or redirected to the WSJ maybe?). Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Conservatism-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Hobit (talk) 20:50, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

moved from top of this to the right place. Hobit (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC) Why in the world would you consider deleting this entry? Kimberly Strassel is one of the finest active journalists in the US. The entry ought to be expanded. If something in it is inaccurate, by all means, correct or delete that. But, reading the entry, the only reason I can imagine it would be targeted for deletion is that she's conservative. One of the few remaining organizations I'd expect to resist such cancel culture nonsense is Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kiteykitey (talk • contribs) 23:42, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I can't find sources that meet WP:GNG. That is our standard for having an article. I too find it unlikely she doesn't meet our standards. I just was trying to learn more about her and was shocked by how little there is in any Reliable sources that I could find. I probably should have brought it to the talk page first, but AfD seemed like the right way to see if anyone else knew anything. Hobit (talk) 04:03, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the pillar of Wikipedia is verrifability, and with no GNG meeting sources that is not met.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: I'm the one that nominated this, but I don't think it's reasonable to claim that WP:V isn't met. Did you look at the sources? Hobit (talk) 19:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Seelye, Katharine Q. (2006-06-02). "The Wall Street Journal Names a Columnist". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-03-06. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Smith, Taylor (2014-06-27). "Buxton native and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel wins Bradley Prize". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Massella, Nick (2014-06-19). "WSJ Potomac Watch Columnist Kimberley Strassel Recipient of $250k Bradley Prize". Adweek. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Karuppur, Abhiram (2016-03-03). "Kimberley Strassel '94, journalist and author". The Daily Princetonian. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"Kimberley A. Strassel". Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors. Gale. 2017-07-21. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Cruz, Melissa (2016-02-12). "Strassel Could Hurt Cruz's Chance In The Debate". Bustle. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Schulman, Jeremy (2016-02-13). "Oh Great. A Climate Change Skeptic Is Moderating Tonight's GOP Debate". Mother Jones. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Book reviews for Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws, which Kimberley Strassel coauthored with Celeste Colgan and John Goodman
1. Holtz-Eakin, Douglas (January 2007). "Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws". Business Economics. 42 (1). Springer Publishing. Retrieved 2020-07-20 – via Gale.
2. Crittenden, Ann (2006-09-17). "Do This for Mom". The American Prospect. Vol. 17, no. 10. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
3. "Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws". Publishers Weekly. 2005-11-28. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
4. "Outdated Laws Hurt Women". USA Today. Vol. 135, no. 2735. August 2006. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20 – via Questia Online Library.
5. Howard, Caroline, ed. (September 2006). "Gotta Say". Working Mother. p. 15. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
6. Palasek, Karen Y. (September 2008). "Book Reviews - September 2008: Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws". The Freeman. Vol. 58, no. 7. Foundation for Economic Education. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Book reviews for The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, which Kimberley Strassel authored:
1. "The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech". Publishers Weekly. 2016-04-08. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
2. "The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech". Kirkus Reviews. 2016-04-13. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
3. Klein, Stephen R. (2016-08-10). "Book Review: The Intimidation Game". Federalist Society Review. Federalist Society. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
4. Hyde, Howard (2016-09-17). "The Democrats' War on Civic Participation". National Review. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.

Sources with quotes

Seelye, Katharine Q. (2006-06-02). "The Wall Street Journal Names a Columnist". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2019-03-06. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
The article notes:
Ms. Strassel has been an editorial writer since January 2002 and was elevated to the editorial board in November.
Her signed op-ed pieces indicate that her thinking is in line with the free market philosophy of The Journal's editorial page. She has written extensively about the multibillion-dollar asbestos litigation. And she has questioned the validity of cases brought by Eliot Spitzer, a Democrat, who is the New York State attorney general and is running for governor. She is also co-author of "Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws," which says outmoded tax and labor laws penalize families in which both spouses are working.
Ms. Strassel, who grew up in Oregon, graduated from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University in 1994. She began as a news assistant at The Central European Economic Review, a Dow Jones publication, based in Brussels, and later moved to London where she worked as a reporter covering technology for The Wall Street Journal's European edition.
Smith, Taylor (2014-06-27). "Buxton native and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley Strassel wins Bradley Prize". The Oregonian. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
The article notes:
Kimberley Strassel's journey to Princeton University was something of a leap for the Buxton native, valedictorian from Banks High School class of 1990, and demolition derby driver.
As it turns out, life on the race track laid the foundation for what was to come – a now 20-year career at The Wall Street Journal with positions in Brussels, London, New York, and most recently, Washington, D.C., where she serves on the Journal's editorial board and writes the weekly column Potomac Watch.
Massella, Nick (2014-06-19). "WSJ Potomac Watch Columnist Kimberley Strassel Recipient of $250k Bradley Prize". Adweek. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
The article notes:
Wednesday night at the Kennedy Center, Wall Street Journal editorial board member and Potomac Watch columnist Kimberley A. Strassel received one of four 2014 Bradley Prizes – with a stipend of $250,000 – at the Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation’s eleventh annual awards ceremony. WaPo columnist George Will served as the evening’s master of ceremonies.
Karuppur, Abhiram (2016-03-03). "Kimberley Strassel '94, journalist and author". The Daily Princetonian. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
The article notes:
Kimberley Strassel ’94 became a household name on Feb. 13, 2016, when she appeared with CBS anchors John Dickerson and Major Garrett to host the CBS Republican Debate in Greenville, S.C.Strassel explained that when the camera turned to her so she could ask the first question, she realized the gravity of what she was doing.
...
She has appeared on “Meet the Press,” “Face the Nation,” and “Fox News Sunday” to give her insight on domestic politics, and currently, the 2016 Presidential campaigns.
...
Strassel grew up in rural Buxton, Ore., which was the center of the burgeoning logging industry at the time. Her father was an auto mechanic, and she explained that she and her family would often drag race on the rural roads.
...
Strassel graduated from Banks High School in 1990 and then attended the University, where she majored in Public Policy and International Affairs at the Wilson School, and obtained a Certificate in Russian Studies.
"Kimberley A. Strassel". Gale Literature: Contemporary Authors. Gale. 2017-07-21. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
The article notes:
Born July 24, 1972; daughter of Mike and Annie Strassel; married Michael Rose (a journalist); children: three. Education: Graduate of Princeton University. Politics: Conservative. Addresses: Home: Washington, DC. Agent: Jay Mandel, William Morris Endeavor Entertainment, 1325 Avenue of the Americas, New York, NY 10019.
...
Kimberley Strassel is a member of the Wall Street Journal's editorial board and the author of the newspaper's "Potomac Watch" column. In her books she has written on topics that include women in the workplace and what she sees as the shutting down of opponents by liberals in government.
...
With The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, Strassel puts forth an argument that liberals are quashing speech by conservatives. She details intense scrutiny of conservative-leaning organizations by the Internal Revenue Service during Barack Obama's presidency; many such groups that sought tax-exempt status were unable to obtain it, according to Strassel. Also, she writes, in the name of transparency, liberal activists and government officials have forced conservative groups to reveal the names of their donors, resulting in harassment of those people and overturning an American tradition of being able to support causes anonymously. Campaign finance laws, she says, have been abused to restrict conservative voices.
Cruz, Melissa (2016-02-12). "Strassel Could Hurt Cruz's Chance In The Debate". Bustle. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
The article notes:
Moderator Kimberley Strassel, a Wall Street Journal columnist, will be on hand to help the candidates and viewers make sense of what is starting to look like a very different GOP field.
...
Strassel is an interesting choice for the job. Hailing from Princeton University, she has been a senior editorial writer and member of the editorial board for the Wall Street Journal since 2005. She has won multiple awards for her work throughout the years. The Republican National Committee's choice to make her a moderator is an interesting one, however, considering her characteristically critical stance on candidate Cruz.
Schulman, Jeremy (2016-02-13). "Oh Great. A Climate Change Skeptic Is Moderating Tonight's GOP Debate". Mother Jones. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
The article notes:
In addition to Face the Nation host John Dickerson and White House correspondent Major Garrett, tonight’s CBS debate will feature questions from Kimberley Strassel, a member of the Wall Street Journal editorial board.
While not an obsession of Strassel’s, she’s long expressed doubts: in 2007, Strassel said on CNBC that “there isn’t a consensus yet that [climate change] is actually caused by man or necessarily will be a huge problem,” before adding “it’s real cold out there today.” (It was January.)
In 2009, she deployed scare quotes to claim that a set of leaked emails between climatologists had “blown the lid off the ‘science’ of manmade global warming.”
Book reviews for Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws, which Kimberley Strassel coauthored with Celeste Colgan and John Goodman
1. Holtz-Eakin, Douglas (January 2007). "Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws". Business Economics. 42 (1). Springer Publishing. Retrieved 2020-07-20 – via Gale.
  The book review notes:
  Everyone who cares about public policy toward women should read Leaving Women Behind by Kimberley Strassel of the Wall Street Journal with Celeste Colgan and John Goodman of the National Center for Policy Analysis, (www.leavingwomenbehind.com). It is an eye-opening summary of the dramatic transformation of women and the United States economy.
  ...
  Leaving Women Behind is not a blueprint for all societies and all times. But it is a startling compendium of the outdated laws, regulations, and norms that handcuff the modern U.S. economy and serves as a reminder of the danger of failing to re-think and re-examine economic strategies as societies evolve.
2. Crittenden, Ann (2006-09-17). "Do This for Mom". The American Prospect. Vol. 17, no. 10. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  The book review notes:
  Another recent book, Leaving Women Behind, by conservative policy analysts John C. Goodman and Celeste Colgan and Wall Street Journal columnist Kimberley A. Strassel, lays out the right-wing appeal for changes benefiting “modern families.”
  ...
  Leaving Women Behind eschews the overheated and simplistic rhetoric often coming from the right, but its underlying premise is as ideological and predictable as a Stalinist tract. There is one truth and it is this: Government is bad, taxes are bad, and all things private are good. Fundamentally, all we need to do is to get the government out of the way, cut taxes, throw out a bunch of outdated laws, and privatize everything in sight (the authors' list of public programs to dismantle includes health care, Social Security, and education). In promoting this market fundamentalist agenda, they use a carefully loaded language designed to persuade the uninitiated. Retirees are shunted off into Medicare; defined-contribution pension systems are more “mobile and flexible” than the defined-benefit systems of old; “death” taxes lurk; and getting rid of overtime pay and unneeded perks will free employers to provide higher wages and plenty of comp time when ever you want it.
3. "Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws". Publishers Weekly. 2005-11-28. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  The book review notes:
  The authors, who include a former Halliburton executive and a Wall Street Journal editorial page writer, succeed in proving that conservatives can offer compelling solutions to women's issues. They don't, however, succeed in presenting those solutions in a reader-friendly format.
4. "Outdated Laws Hurt Women". USA Today. Vol. 135, no. 2735. August 2006. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20 – via Questia Online Library.
  The article notes:
  According to Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws, the regulations that govern private pensions did not contemplate the influx of women into the labor market and therefore are not suited to the way modern women live. "Because women live longer than men, they are more likely to suffer the defects of our retirement systems," asserts co-author Kim Strassel. "Because the laws governing private pensions weren't designed for the modern woman, many have little retirement security. If reforms are not made soon, a growing number of women will be denied their 'golden years.'"
  ...
  Moreover, contends Strassel, women are treated unfairly by the health care system. "Health care is routinely near the top of women's concerns, partially due to the fact that women are more frequent consumers of care. However women's experiences with health care, including their ability to maintain a consistent doctor relationship, is complicated by the way we typically attain health insurance."
5. Howard, Caroline, ed. (September 2006). "Gotta Say". Working Mother. p. 15. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  The article notes:
  Regardless of your views of the health-care system, Leaving Women Behind: Modem Families, Outdated Laws, coauthored by Kimberly A. Strassel (right), offers an incisive look at how to meet the health-care needs of 21st-century women. Employer-based insurance can't keep pace with working mothers, the most "dynamic and mobile portion" of the labor market. Too many of us lose our insurance or must switch plans (and often our doctors) as we ramp on and off a career track. The challenge is to find ways to flex our health care alongside our careers.
6. Palasek, Karen Y. (September 2008). "Book Reviews - September 2008: Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws". The Freeman. Vol. 58, no. 7. Foundation for Economic Education. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  The article notes:
  Leaving Women Behind: Modern Families, Outdated Laws makes a convincing case that tax and labor law has been disadvantageous to women—especially married women and married women with children—as compared to men. The authors identify a host of specific areas in which this is true, but some readers may think the accompanying remedies rely too much on government and not enough on the market.
  ...
  Despite recognizable obstacles to implementing its various reform plans, Leaving Women Behind takes an optimistic view. Government regulation has made a terrible mess of the labor market, and working women are the main (but certainly not the only) losers. The book presents an informative and appealing, if incomplete, case for a deregulatory agenda.
Book reviews for The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, which Kimberley Strassel authored:
1. "The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech". Publishers Weekly. 2016-04-08. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  The review notes:
  Strassel seesaws confusingly between diverse political intimidation campaigns and specific election spending disputes around the Supreme Court’s Citizens United decision. She backs up her tales with high-minded election-finance reform proposals. Though often sidetracked by Washington-insider fine points, Strassel draws a timely, convincing, and alarming picture of liberal governance and a Democratic machine that’s eager to bully resistant citizens.
2. "The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech". Kirkus Reviews. 2016-04-13. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  The article notes:
  In her debut, a Wall Street Journal columnist and editorial board member excoriates the left’s use of campaign finance laws to stifle free speech and free association.
  ...
  An eye-opening lesson in the law of unintended consequences: where “a vast new disclosure regime” intended to curb corruption has spawned a corruption all its own.
3. Klein, Stephen R. (2016-08-10). "Book Review: The Intimidation Game". Federalist Society Review. Federalist Society. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  The article notes:
  In The Intimidation Game, Kim Strassel tells compelling stories of Americans immersed in unconstitutional stink, assembling a convincing narrative of an effort predominantly by the left to silence its opponents, subverting the freedom of speech in the process. The book is a welcome and accessible account of the IRS scandal of targeting Tea Party groups, the Wisconsin “John Doe” campaign finance inquisition, and other shameful activities. As a free speech attorney who has been involved directly or close at hand in some of the cases Strassel describes, I was nevertheless taken aback at the breadth of the intimidation game, which stems from an all-encompassing term: “disclosure.”
4. Hyde, Howard (2016-09-17). "The Democrats' War on Civic Participation". National Review. Archived from the original on 2020-07-20. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
  The article notes:
  In her 416-page monument to investigative journalism, The Intimidation Game: How the Left Is Silencing Free Speech, Kimberly Strassel of the Wall Street Journal dissects in enlightening (and at times, excruciating) detail how this epic drama has played out during the Obama era, especially since the most recent strategic inflection point of January 21, 2010, the case of Citizens United v. Federal Elections Commission.

There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow Kimberley Strassel to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".

Cunard (talk) 09:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've got to say that only the first source really strikes me as much of anything. The book reviews are either very short, for co-authored work, or feel like PR (the Federalist Society one in particular is really bad). But yeah, as the nom I'm moving to "neutral". If I could have found more than the handful of those I found, I wouldn't have nominated it. Hobit (talk) 16:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Cunard's accurate and detailed analysis. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It would be nice if there was more critical commentary about Strassel out there, but she is certainly notable. I guess this is all one needs to know, and it is neutral and objective: "By October 2019, President Trump had tweeted about Strassel or retweeted her commentary more than 20 times, including calling for a Pulitzer Prize for her."--Milowent • ^hasspoken 18:36, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As User:Cunard has demonstrated, Strassel clearly meets WP:GNG. --1990'sguy (talk) 18:05, 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 20:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ellwood Walter (businessman)[edit]

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

Does not meet notability guidelines for people. The primary sources are matter of ordinary business transactions that were put in newspaper in the local area before the advent electronic records and the internet and do not contribute towards notability. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 21:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:22, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Ellwood Walter was President of the Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company in New York for 28 years. There is significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources that supports WP:BASIC and WP:GNG requirments. The New York pilot boat Ellwood Walter, No. 7 was named after him. He was a trustee for the Nautical School for the harbor of New York to educate boys in seamanship and navigation. He was Vice-President of the New York Seamen’s Association. He was awarded a silver medal and money by the American Benevolent Life Saving Society of New York. --Greg Henderson (talk) 22:49, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment Please disclose, if any, conflict of interest you may have with the subject. The disclosure on your page is unclear as to which articles you have a conflict of interest with. Graywalls (talk) 19:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added I have no conflict of interest with Ellwood Walter. BTW, the disclosure only displays 9 items.---Greg Henderson (talk) 17:39, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decent amount of hits at Newspapers.com. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 18:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment I'm not convinced. WP:UNCHALLENGED essay in Google Test section suggests you shouldn't use this argument. Mention matches on text isn't a useful indication of notability without substantial context. Graywalls (talk) 12:45, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable. Meets WP:GNG. WP:Not paper WP:Preserve. Ellwood Walter was President of the Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company in New York for 28 years. There is significant coverage in reliable, independent, secondary sources that supports WP:BASIC and WP:GNG requirments. The New York pilot boat Ellwood Walter, No. 7 was named after him. He was a trustee for the Nautical School for the harbor of New York to educate boys in seamanship and navigation. He was Vice-President of the New York Seamen’s Association. He was awarded a silver medal and money by the American Benevolent Life Saving Society of New York. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 17:11, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Ellwood Walter was President of the Mercantile Mutual Insurance Company". Is that supposed to mean something? That company doesn't have much written about and primary source government docs which are plentiful under Google Books don't count. What about being the president of this company make the guy notable? Graywalls (talk) 02:06, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I am adding newspaper articles to the article, there are many I added a Wisconsin newspaper (1862), and his obituary from the Philadelphia Inquirer (1877). Notable businessman who passes WP:N I will continue. Lightburst (talk) 22:12, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
keep coverage in multiple reliable sources indicates WP:BASIC is met.PainProf (talk) 13:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was moved to Draft:I'm in Love! (RuPaul's Drag Race). I have retargeted the original title to the unpunctuated disambiguation page, as an exclamation mark is not distinguishing for an exclamatory phrase. BD2412 T 16:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm In Love![edit]

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

Delete per WP:GNG. The information is already contained at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes. This article adds nothing new and serves as a synopsis of the episode. It's almost word-for-word identical to the prose from the series page. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 21:12, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Other episodes of drag race (Rusicals S9-12, Makeover S10, Queens behind bars & divas lip sync live) all have the same format and they were not deleted. Why is The B*tchelor & I’m in Love! episodes being considered for deletion? It is just examining the episode in further detail and having all episode info in one place (synopsis, lip sync [including lip stic choice] and queens placement).

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a valid reason for keeping the article. It re-hashes the information already contained at RuPaul's_Drag_Race_All_Stars_(season_3)#Episodes and there is also another article called List of Drag Race Episodes to which covers this topic. It is overkill and not notable for its own topic. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:56, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about the other episodes of drag race episode that have their own Wikipedia page?

Draftify. Currently unsourced, so move into draft space to give editor some time to improve. If not improved, the draft page will be deleted. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:09, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify. Another Believer stated it well. In the end, if improvements aren't made with sourcing, it'll be deleted. --Kbabej (talk) 01:56, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, easily meets GNG. AfD is not clean-up, and this article can be improved through normal editing activities this should never have been put up for deleting.
I’m personally not a fan of underdeveloped articles but Wikipedia has a lot of them. So we base not on if an article has no sources, which is annoying, but if sourcing exists, which in this case they unquestionably do. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the sourcing to establish notability undoubtedly exists as claimed above, then it needs to be brought forward. There are no sources in the article. All I am able to find is episode recaps which is run of the mill coverage for any reality TV show episode. -- Whpq (talk) 01:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 06:21, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per Nom. Draftify is a possible alternative. Merge to RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5). Draftify may still be an alternate solution. See comments and rationale below. An argument the article passes (easily meets) GNG is not substantiated. There are no references (parent article is only sourced by a "VH1 TV Schedule"), issues of content forking, and concerns of original research. WP:GNG states: If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. Being "notable" is one thing but does not mean a subject deserves a stand alone article because it exists. When notability is questioned there is a "burden of proof" that must be satisfied. NEXIST states: However, once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. Concerns of notability is evidenced by tags and certainly concerns brought up here. One cannot actually check for adherence to any of the core content policies. The second paragraph of the lead of VERIFY states: All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. it further states: All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material.. I don't see a valid argument for a spinoff and it doesn't appear to be size. -- Otr500 (talk) 09:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I’ve found a few reviews of the episode that not only verify everything in the article but also provide for extra content so the article can easily increase exponentially in size and quality. What remains is Wikipedia’s normal editing processes to improve the article. AfD is not intended to present a finished article but simply show Basic has been met and a good article is possible.
McCallion, Paul (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Recap: Man Crushes". Vulture. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"A Frontrunner Emerges and Cracker Crumbles on 'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' [RECAP and RANKINGS]". Towleroad Gay News. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"Two of the fiercest Drag Race queens in HERstory faced off this week". GAY TIMES. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Season 5 Episode 2 Live Stream: Watch Online". IroniqMedia.com. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Dzurillay, Julia; Articles, More; June 13, 2020 (2020-06-13). "'RuPaul's Drag Race: All-Stars 5' Episode 2 Recap — 'I'm in Love' With..." Showbiz Cheat Sheet. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Sheehan, John Benutty,Paul; Benutty, John; Sheehan, Paul (2020-06-13). "'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5' episode 2 recap: Which queen returned as the 'lip sync assassin' in 'I'm in Love'? [UPDATING LIVE BLOG]". GoldDerby. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
McCallion, Paul (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Recap: Man Crushes". Vulture. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' Season 5, Episode 2 recap: Everybody sing 'Love'". Xtra Magazine. 2020-06-13. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"Shocking elimination rocks 'RuPaul's Drag Race All-Stars 5' episode 2". EW.com. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars' ode to celebrity crushes needs a remix". TV Club. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Carreiro, Justin (2020-06-13). "RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars Season 5 Episode 2 Review: I'm In Love". TV Fanatic. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5' Episode 2 power ranking: Verse-atility". Xtra Magazine. 2020-06-14. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
"Here's 'Drag Race: All Stars' 5's Episode 2 Lip Sync Assassin". www.out.com. 2020-06-12. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Fitzgerald, Christine. "RuPaul's Drag Race All-Stars 5: Episode 2, 'I'm in Love!'". Socialite Life. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Dixon, Marcus James; Dixon, Marcus James (2020-07-13). "Lip Sync Assassins spoilers for 'RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars 5'". GoldDerby. Retrieved 2020-07-20.
Hopefully these plus others yet to be identified meet the expectations of other editors. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Someone help me out here. There is sourcing that shows the subject is notable. A problem is that there is RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars and List of RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars episodes. The subject is already covered in RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5) (a very large stub class article) that makes this an unnecessary split. As presented this becomes a content fork that would be redundant with a solution to merge the newer article back to the main article.

Looking over List of RuPaul's Drag Race episodes it has (an example) a start class article RuPaul's Drag Race (season 5). This actually appears as a list of a lists that would allow the expansion of individual episodes. I do not see this as any form of WP:FANCRUFT just over expansion that could be resolved with reorganization. Currently there is navigation issue along with the redundant coverage. Considering this I can't see an argument for keeping this without resolving the issues of an improper split. -- Otr500 (talk) 11:37, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. None of that sourcing indicates notability. A bunch of episode recaps that always comes out with each episode constitutes routine news coverage. Where is the enduring coverage. See WP:NOTNEWS. -- Whpq (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify I saw a message about this article at the talk page for RuPaul's Drag Race All Stars (season 5) and replying here. As a WP:NPR if I would come across this article I would move it to draftspace and advise the editor on how to improve and resubmit the article via WP:AFC. It has the makings of a good article but the recaps would be better suited as inline citations. I do work a lot over at WP:TV and one of the key points for a standalone episode article is Reception. Most episode articles that lack a reception section usually become redirects or deleted if not improved. Since RuPaul's Drag Race is widely covered by reliable sources it is possible there are articles that would add value to the reception section. It is also possible that the summary in the episode table needs trimmed to fit within 200-250 words. The MOS:TVPLOT has a limit of 200 words for articles using the Template:Episode table and Template:Episode list. Competition reality shows are usually given *some* flexibility as they need to summarize the plot while also giving brief descriptions of tasks/challenges and/or any temporary format changes. For reality shows most hover around 250-275 words. The plot summary for episode articles are usually limited to 400 words. My recommendation is 1.) Trim the episode summary at the main page. 2.) Move the article to draftspace and allow the editor time to format the article with inline citations. 3.) Advise the editor to add a Reception section. The Unauthorized Rusical while start-class is a good template to go by and gives the editor an idea of what a Reception section could look like. Alucard 16_{❯❯❯ chat?} 00:36, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- These are valid suggestions, and all within normal editing processes not requiring deletion or draftifying. The entire reception section can be built from sources already identified. Gleeanon409 (talk) 01:00, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: I am leaning more towards draftify. After reading the comments of Whpq and many are "recaps" (recapitulation) as opposed to original reviews. The reliability is questionable as to why not use a source that is not a recap? There is still the issue that the article currently is a duplicate split with no inline citations. Even if a subject is notable we have to correct duplication or merging to the parent article is still the only real option.

I randomly looked at four of the sources to start. Some of the source authors are not actual reviewers or critics but entrepreneurs that have found a way to make money advertising on Wikipedia. It works exceptionally well when a person includes advertising links on a website that does not even require clicking on an ad to get paid but just visiting the link. One example is TV Fanatic. The site is an "Exclusive Member of Mediavine Food". Mediavine is a programmatic advertising campaign and owns Hollywood Gossip, TV Fanatic, and Food Fanatic. When freelancer authors load an article with Mediavine advertising it is published, of course with the advertising, and there you go. They get paid per visitor to the site without having to click on any ads. An editor adds the site to Wikipedia and the author gets paid for every visitor. Another advertising site is the TV Club hosted by A.V. Club, owned by Great Hill Partners that also owns The Onion, Gizmodo, and Kotaku among others. Anyone can produce a recap site (advertising 101 teaches one how) as freelancers. Ironiq Network is owned by WBLZMedia that states, "This is a media channel, by the fan for the fans, period.". GoldDerby has an Editor-in-Chief and an editorial staff so it appears one out of four would be acceptable. Looking further, Gay Times and ew.com appear reliable. The bottom line is that "draftifying" will allow some corrections so the article can have a viable stand-alone status with a review of some of the "not so reliable sources" with inline citations used for actual verification. -- Otr500 (talk) 13:34, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All useful insights and interesting, and again bolstering that neither deleting or draftifying is needed. All the cited issues can be resolved through regular editing just as they are on all the other thousands of articles that need work. There is zero indication the creator or anyone else will ever see or work on the article again, whereas in main space the public will do both. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:42, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Gleeanon409 With all due respect, the Nom made mention "The information is already contained at...", and I have also mentioned this, yet you have commented more than once eluding to points that you claim are not relevant to AFD, without addressing the issue that is relevant to AFD. A subject does not need coverage in two articles. To split an article unnecessarily, or start an article when the subject is already covered elsewhere, is redundant coverage. Currently the article is still a WP:SPINOFF: Spinoffs are intended to improve readability and navigation, not to evade Wikipedia's content policies. -- Otr500 (talk) 12:02, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no evading going on, an episode article should delve into details more and this is where those extra details can be added, whereas to do so at the parent articles would likely be Undue. This article’s creator should have also expanded the article but we’re not on a deadline. This is all to be fixed by our regular editing processes.

I too wish that it was largely distinct from its parent articles but many stubs start off in exactly this way. We need to look at the obvious potential article, not dismissing solely on the present version. All articles are in a state of being improved. Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:46, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Otr500. To answer Gleeanon409 I feel like yourself and some of the other active project members missed the point. Spin off articles should only be created when there is a specific need and content goes beyond the synopsis of the episode. I think some projects get wrapped up in the idea of creating tonnes of good articles an an article for every possible related topic. - I'm not saying that the RuPaul project members are doing this but I have seen this in other entertainment wikiprojects. The aim of editing this topic should be to ensure that the information reaches as many of the readers as possible. Aside from the fact that content is already covered, very few people actually know the names of the episodes as they're not shown during broadcast. The very search term is niche. If I was a reader unfamiliar with the the topic, I would search for the season to see information about the episode or look for the list of episodes. A standalone article about the episode adds an additional layer of unnecessary navigation. I would understand if the episode had received coverage that wasn't trivial i.e. news coverage over its subject matter, an incident during the show, its filming/production values etc but it hasn't. The page views show that the topic isn't noteworthy for a standalone article and the coverage is largely sypnosis already covered. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 20:18, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I hear you, I simply disagree. The obvious example is every episode article for the Simpson’s. RPDR episodes get at least three times the coverage. The only thing this article really needs is a reception section and that’s easily possible to add given the sources already identified. So again, regular editing processes not requiring AfD or draftifying will answer those concerns. These articles are in the same boat as all other Wikipedia articles, they need someone willing to do a little work. Gleeanon409 (talk) 00:30, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFF is not a good reason to cite. I'm absolutely firm coming from a UX point of view, that this is an unnecessary content fork and even if enough reception exists to make a critics reception/review section it would still be better served elsewhere. I disagree that articles should be created for the sake of it. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 08:32, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UX?

Otherstuff is completely valid when it points out community standards. I think everyone agrees that ideally these articles were more fully formed when created but quite often articles start with much much less content than what is here already. Our job is not to judge on what is there at the moment but what easily can be there through normal editing.

A reception section on this article would be inappropriate on any other article. Gleeanon409 (talk) 08:57, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- UX = user experience (sorry I used some tech lingo there). UX meaning how it feels from the user's point of view, where they access the information etc. Otherstuff is never a valid reason because it doesn't justify or mean that other articles have followed the rules either. Go off rules, guidelines, GA and FAs etc. ≫ Lil-Unique1 -{ Talk }- 09:09, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

With the helpful link provided below to a list of Good articles, it’s obvious that hundreds of episodes have been promoted, The Simpson’s has nearly 300 alone. And several series like The X-Files obviously have one or a few editors devoted to the process. So normal editing can take stubs to GA even for episode articles despite the UX potentially not readily getting them at the correct article. Normal editing can resolve every deficiency cited, and this is more than an acceptable stub in the meantime. Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Question. @Another Believer:, is there currently any Good-rated episode articles? Gleeanon409 (talk) 14:25, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Gleeanon409, Specific to RuPaul's Drag Race? No. Good articles about television in general can be found here: Wikipedia:Good_articles/Media_and_drama#Television. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 14:27, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! Gleeanon409 (talk) 15:48, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 11:10, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rupert Bell[edit]

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

Absolutely nothing to suggest notability apart from an advert for his company. - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:31, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is promotional and source is not reliable.WikiFixer337 (talk) 19:04, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) - Funky Snack (Talk) 08:44, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunny and Shay[edit]

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

No sense of notability. The links mainly point towards awards and articles which only contain a passing comment. Probably potential, but as it stands, I stick by the AfD until WP:GNG is met. - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:03, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Their own show on major UK radio station, awards, media coverage: notable. PamD 08:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would add that just because Sunny and Shay (or anyone for that matter) are on the radio station doesn't make them notable. - Funky Snack (Talk) 10:09, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PamD. Gamaliel (talk) 12:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per PamD. Plus the article has a significant number of independent references. Rillington (talk) 13:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdraw Happy to withdraw the nomination - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:03, 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 redirect to JoAnne Good. Tone 20:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Late Show with JoAnne Good[edit]

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

An advert for a BBC radio show. No notability. Looking at the schedule for BBC Radio London the show doesn't even exist anymore? - Funky Snack (Talk) 06:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:14, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to JoAnne Good per WP:RPURPOSE (and subject now works afternoons for same station). Nate • (chatter) 21:56, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to JoAnne Good: Barely found anything about the show. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:30, 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. Company is notable. Relevant tags regarding the tone of this article are also there. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andersen Corporation[edit]

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

Please delete, or at least draftify, this article. Here's why.

A)

The article is more like a press release than an encyclopedia article. It's mostly just poorly-sourced fluff and hot air.

The article includes discussion about lots of non-notable awards that Andersen has won. But the discussion does not belong on Wikipedia; please see WP:ORGAWARDS. The article also discusses competitors that Andersen has bought — but these discussions are mostly unsourced or poorly-sourced.

Wikipedia is for encyclopedia articles, not press releases. Please delete, or at least draftify, per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION.

B)

It doesn't matter if Andersen is the biggest US window manufacturer, controlling ~15% of the US market.[60] Unfortunately, I still suspect that Andersen fails WP:GNG. I Googled for acceptable sources which we could use to help us write a new, non-spammy article about Andersen. Sadly, I don't think I found any. If you believe I missed some: Please show me your best two or three non-local sources which each provide sufficiently-deep background on Andersen. Sources which are independent; trade publications usually don't count.

If Andersen ever goes public in the future, more will be written about it, and then it will likely become notable. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 05:57, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by nominator.
I looked for a sufficient set of acceptable sources. I was disappointed by what I found. Let me explain.
This Crunchbase profile, as well as this Gale / Encyclopedia.com article, are both full of puffery. I suspect that both may be based on content originally contributed by Andersen.
Andersen's Bloomberg profile and Forbes profile are probably both too shallow.
—Unforgettableid (talk) 05:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The Gale source cited above looks fine and it's easy to find more such as the Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands. All that's needed is improvement per WP:ATD while WP:IMPERFECT makes it clear that articles are welcome in mainspace even if they are not perfect. Andrew🐉(talk) 07:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Dear Andrew: A) The Gale source doesn't look fine to me. Possible puffery includes: "over 1,100", "nearly 120", "revolutionized the window industry", "success from the start", " ’Jack of all trades’ and master of every one", "the most monumental innovation", "environmentally state-of-the-art", "the Cadillac of the window industry", and more. Do you still believe that the Gale source is independent and unbiased? B) We don't know that the Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands even covers Andersen. C) The article was originally created by a spammer, and is still spammy. I think that the company is non-notable and therefore its article is insufficiently watched. So, I think, we should follow WP:NOTFORPROMOTION rather than WP:IMPERFECT. We should delete, stubify, or draftify the article until a non-spammer fixes things. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Encyclopedia of Consumer Brands covers the company in volume III – Durable Goods – pages 11–13. Q.E.D. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 06:46, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Andrew Davidson: touché. The encyclopedia is in the Google Books catalog, even though Google Books only offers "snippet view" of the tome. So now we have one possibly-unbiased source. However, we need a total of at least two in order to prove notability. —Unforgettableid (talk) 07:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly not a well written article but it clearly meets the notability guidelines. Here are some articles from the Star Tribune, the largest newspaper for the 2.5 million person metro area. -Eóin (talk) 14:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Andersen Windows and Doors launches multimillion-dollar rebranding effort
- Andersen windows looks to expand again in Cottage Grove with $35M project
- Andersen Corp. to build $105 million complex in Arizona
- Andersen Corp. to sell large window and door division in $190 million deal
- Andersen Corp. expanding again in Bayport
- Andersen to buy Quebec-based window and door maker
- Andersen Corp. employees will split $17 million in profit-sharing.
- Feeling the economic pain, Andersen Windows lays off more
- Andersen recalls 180 workers because of window tax credit
- Andersen Windows debuts VeriLock, its integrated home security technology for windows and doors
- Andersen to add 300 workers, spend $45M in Minnesota expansion
- Andersen Corp. to distribute employee profit sharing for first time in five years
  - Comment. Dear Eóin and others: A) I think that the aforementioned Star Tribune sources don't meet WP:CORPDEPTH, and may not meet WP:AUD either, and therefore Andersen is non-notable. B) Even if Andersen were notable, I think that, per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION, it would be best to delete or stubify or draftify the article and then possibly start over. ❧ What are your thoughts on both points?

I would not be opposed to stubbing the article and starting over. Many of the citations are for non-notable awards and are not significant coverage. I appreciate you looking through the article history and discovering some clearly paid editing.

Using a quote directly from the policy you cite "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary.". I tried to make it clear that the Star Tribune is regional coverage. The paper is distributed across 4 states, is the largest paper for a state of 5.5 million, and in 2015 had the 10th largest paid circulation in the United States. Similar coverage is contained in the St. Paul Pioneer Press. The articles are significant coverage in reliable sources independent of the company. - Eóin (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Eóin: A) Thank you! B) Although I think I was wrong regarding WP:AUD, and the Star Tribune probably is regional coverage — I still think all twelve of your sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. If you believe I'm wrong, please do correct me. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 16:34, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Clear WP:SOFIXIT case; one of the largest window manufacturers in North America, and 'going public' on a stock market is not a standard for any article here, nor should it be (and I'd assume after 117 years as a private concern, that isn't going to happen). Nate • (chatter) 22:01, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment. Dear Nate: It doesn't matter whether or not a company is the largest US window manufacturer; it also doesn't matter how many decades the company has existed. All that matters is whether or not it meets WP:GNG. I think that Andersen does not. If it did, it might have a reasonable number of watchers and less promotional text. Do you truly believe that Andersen meets WP:GNG? Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 22:20, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Their products are used in a good number of North American home and small businesses (my home has multiple windows from this company, for instance). They have multiple franchised installers who advertise every single day on American and Canadian television and in daily newspapers. The company more than meets GNG. Remove the WP:PROMO tone, and we have an easy keep. Nate • (chatter) 02:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Dear Nate: It's true that their windows are quite popular in the US. Still, a company only passes GNG if there are qualifying sources. Could you please point me to two unbiased sources which meet the WP:CORPDEPTH criteria? I don't think anybody has yet done so. Kind regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just noting two previous unsuccessful deletion discussions. The articles looked very different back with not nearly as much promotional content. -Eóin (talk) 23:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andersen Windows Corporation
- Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Andersen Windows
  - Comment. Eleven years ago, the "trivial coverage" rule was not yet fully developed; see this historical guideline revision. So, at the time, perhaps it was perfectly okay for the article to be kept. —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep - extremely well known company that makes windows, with plenty of coverage, but they were ripped off if they paid for this junk. It's borderline WP:TNT. Bearian (talk) 20:45, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Bearian: People keep claiming that there's plenty of coverage. But Andrew Davidson has only found one non-biased source, and I think all of Eóin's sources fail WP:CORPDEPTH. So we have only found one valid source; I'd like to see at least one or two more. —Unforgettableid (talk) 14:59, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep If we're seriously debating the notability of a manufacturing company with 100+ years trading history, $2.5B revenues and 12,000 staff, that's as good an illustration of the abusability of WP:GNG as you're ever going to find! By all means let's improve the article, it could do with some of that, but let's not throw the baby out with the bath water. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 06:40, 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. This article's fate is in the hands of others to clean it up. As raised in the discussion this isn't a place for cleanup - but if others feel it is necessary, they can re-draftify this (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

China railway signalling[edit]

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

Insufficent information about safeworking and signalling in China. No annotation of different types of signals, no section diagrams, no annotation of absolute or permissive signals, nor shunting signals. The comment "There are four observer countries" suggest the topic is really something else. Whiteguru (talk) 05:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Whiteguru: Railway signalling in China, especially modern electric types are, based on OSShD standards.

Chinese railway signalling is increasing in importance as this system is used in various countries such as Ethiopia, Nigeria, etc.

There is a category called Category:Railway signalling by country which has 25 entries, but the entry for China, and OSShD for that matter, is/was missing.

There are files on the internet which are difficult to find.

The prime aim of the topic China railway signalling is to link wiki to these internet files, and tie in the ORRShD standard on which these are based.

With this link, there is no immediate need to reproduce the internet file in Wiki.

The wiki article is necessarily short, for the time being. It can be added to.

One change that I would like to see change in the internet file, is to be able to print it in Black & White, which is cheaper on a Black & White only printer than a color printer. Such as the HL2132. This is easier said than done.

I found the article about Chinese signal aspects by searching for Russian signals. :-( :-( I thus learned about the OSShD organisation.

I haven't checked to see if there is a wiki on Railway signalling in Russia.

If more info can be found, then the article proposed for deletion is a good place to start. :-) :-)

I think that these reasons are good enough to OPPOSE deletion of Railway signalling in China. MountVic127 (talk) 07:15, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week keep This article isn't very good in its current state, but this is a problem that normal wiki operations can solve; no notability concerns have been raised, and it is highly unlikley that there are no sources discussing Chinese railway signalling. Therefore, per wp:before, deletion should not take place. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 15:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep As Alex Noble said, there is potential, and AfD is not cleanup. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep improve the article, it could be quite useful --Devokewater @ 23:59, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Rollback to Draft while more material is assembled is a workable solution.Whiteguru (talk) 22:55, 24 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
procedural keep as the article has moved from main space to draft, also no policies were quoted for deletion. There are a lot of concerns that need to be addressed with the article but there does sound like a topic here although I wonder if the scope of the title is to narrow. Govvy (talk) 10:56, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have moved the page back to mainspace while this AfD is open. In this case, per WP:AFDEQ, AfC is not cleanup just like AfD is not cleanup. The comments suggest that the topic itself should be preserved, but AfC won't do that if AfD decides it wasn't notable for mainspace. — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:34, 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 by an admin per WP:G5. (non-admin closure) ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 18:47, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jevon (musical artist)[edit]

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

Non-Notable musical artist. lack of significant, reliable resources that are independent of the subject. Fails WP:GNG, WP:MUSICBIO DMySon 05:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:28, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON and WP:BLP1E. Note that there is a completely different rapper also named Jevon, who has an AllMusic entry at [61]. That is a different guy. As for THIS Jevon, he got some media coverage for a song inspired by current events, but that is all he has received for his music career overall. There is not yet evidence that he will be known beyond his current connection to something everyone is talking about. If it wasn't for that one story, he would only be found in the usual social media and self-upload sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:13, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete - while he got some coverage, only GRID might be considered a reliable source. It might just be too soon. Bearian (talk) 20:43, 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) 02:26, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

XCOMP[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. // Timothy :: talk 00:04, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It does not seem to pass the notability criteria. Ktrimi991 (talk) 23:27, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:27, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:49, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 13:13, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete insignificant.Light2021 (talk) 22:52, 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 no consensus. No evidence has been shown that he meets GNG, PROF#4, or PROF#5. However, only one criterion needs to be met, and I see no consensus that he fails PROF#1 on the strength of his citations or even a weak consensus that he does. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:48, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert L. Birmingham[edit]

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

No secondary sources to establish WP:PROF or WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:54, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Kaszper (talk) 23:59, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete merely teaching at one institution for 40 years is not in and of itself a sign of notability. Nor is this time even close to record breaking. Richard O. Cowan was a professor at BYU for 54 years, and he does not even hold the record as longest serving faculty member at that university, he only holds the record for his department.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:01, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:38, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 16:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The subject's top-cited article has over 400 GS citations, but citations drop off steeply after that. The article could surely be cut down severely. @Bearian: I'd be interested in your thoughts on this law professor. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets Wikipedia:Notability (academics) 7&6=thirteen (☎) 15:57, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Can you explain which criteria? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. ...William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 16:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (edit conflict) passes WP:PROF#5 Also authored quite a few articles so passes WP:NACADEMIC#4 published at Indiana University School of Law, published Duke, published Minnesota Law Review, published Hastings Law Journal etc. I question the WP:BEFORE Lightburst (talk) 16:32, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I checked on his status as the longest tenured and found that it is correct. i added a notes section which is now collapsed. Lightburst (talk) 16:02, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Hmmm, PROF#5 is "The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment " but I am having trouble seeing this in the article, could you help me and quote the relevant part? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on his scholarship and to a lesser degree, longevity. Bearian (talk) 16:42, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete. I think we are too strict when it comes to academics, but I don't see what makes him notable. The only special thing is the one solo authored article that has 400+ cites, his other wor is much less impactful. I am not seeing him being written up and called influential and such by his peers, so he fails GNG/NBIO, and has very little help from PROF :( Ping me if new arguments/evidence/sources are found. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:54, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I have respect for the professor who has put years of his life in education, but unfortunately this does not make him notable. Nika2020 (talk) 12:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I don't think a single paper that is well-cited but not exceptional beyond that can be enough for WP:PROF. And there seems to be nothing else. Certainly being the next one to reach retirement age is not notable. —David Eppstein (talk) 17:58, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning keep. I believe that WP:NPROF #1 is satisfied by having hundreds of publications on Google Scholar, the leading one having over 400 citations. BD2412 T 02:25, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A number of comments here are making assertions without supporting evidence; relisting to allow discussion of the significance of his citation record and specifically whether he meets WP:PROF#4
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Vanamonde (Talk) 04:42, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Specifically whether he meets WP:PROF#4"??? No. One does not meet #C4 by working for roughly the normal length of an academic career at a single place rather than moving. #C4 is very rarely invoked, for good reason, but the normal way one meets it is by writing textbooks with documented evidence of use at many universities. In particular #C4 explicitly includes the wording "substantial number of academic institutions". We have no evidence of that in this case. We have nobody even trying to claim that in this case. Maybe this was a typo and you really meant #C1? —David Eppstein (talk) 07:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just being a professor for a long time isn't enough to be notable. WP:PROF#C5 is about named chairs, which he does not hold, and superlative titles like Distinguished Professor, which likewise. One well- but not outstandingly-cited publication isn't the kind of substantial body of work that WP:PROF#C1 is about, either. XOR'easter (talk) 20:34, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NPROF C1. Subject is notable for originating the idea of efficient breach of contract (in his highly cited GS article), which has gotten a fair bit of discussion in the legal literature. The article here needs some cleanup and trimming, but as usual, AfD is not cleanup. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 21:16, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. First of all, no one provides any serious argument that the subject doesn't meet PROF#1; the idea that he fails it merely because he achieved the impact through a single paper is inane. Second, I have no idea why a project which aspires to be the sum of all human knowledge has such antipathy toward knowledge workers; if one widely reviewed album is enough for a musician, then one widely cited paper should be enough for an academic. Third, none of the delete !voters bothered to look behind the scandal-sheet local coverage and recognized the existence of a high-profile academic freedom controversy, reported at many sources including [62], [63], [64], [65], [66]. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Hullaballoo Wolfowitz: Actually, I added the scandal-sheet local coverage in support of keeping the article. Please feel free to improve the representation of that matter. BD2412 T 23:34, 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 speedy keep per WP:SK#1. No rationale for deletion has been provided. See WP:DEL-REASON for examples of valid rationales. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:33, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ford P platform[edit]

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

Carmaker1 (talk) 03:35, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:55, 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.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. A very even split regarding analysis of the sources. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 23:45, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stone Table[edit]

Previous AfDs for this article:

(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. Old AfD from 2008 was keep, but back then as we all know, the guidelines on notability were not really applied to fictional entities. Times have changed, and I think this would be a likely uncontested PRO these days, but it is not eligible, so... let's discuss. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 20 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} 02:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:04, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Linking to old AfD's under the former title, Aslan's How. I'd recommend delete if consensus is against keeping, since this title is too generic. –LaundryPizza03 (d c̄) 04:19, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is all to the primary sources, there is no showing that this receives significant enough discussion in secondary sources to justify an article on it. Wikipedia has a horrible record of creating excessive numbers of articles on minor details in fictional works, and we have an even worse record of letting some of these articles on non-notable things and places exist for over a decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:59, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete primary sourced article without substantial enough coverage to improve this into an encyclopedic article. There's no way to turn this into something that meets the WP:GNG, with substantial detailed coverage in third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I could only find blog posts and other media on the subject of the books or a few chapters of the books, excerpts from The Lion, the Witch, and the Wardrobe, a well-written fanfic that got some publicity, and one source that gave a few sentences to what the stone table respresents. Fails WP:GNG and is an example of WP:PLOT. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 19:27, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Danre98: Which source discusses what the table represents? This could actually be useful. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: here.--Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 12:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for linking the source, through I find two sentences in a minor news outlet (Copley News Service?) to be not sufficient per GNG as it is hardly an in-depth analysis. I'll review the new sources below in a minute. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. The amount and quality of sources listed by Daranios below are good enough to merit a keep (and the one above I referenced). WP:PLOT does not apply due to the analysis Daranios listed. The article should also be moved to Aslan's how, as Stone Table is too generic. --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 19:48, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and move to Aslan's How (I agree with LaundryPizza03 that Stone Table is too generic, even though that's probably the only instance where that appears capitalized): There are secondary sources, I am, again, surprised that noone has found them when using Gscholar and Gbooks rather than simply Google, but granted, it took a bit of digging:

A Guide Through Narnia relates it to elements in paganism and especially Christianity; The Good Guys and the Bad Guys - Teachable Moments in the Chronicles of Narnia does so even more extensively. WP:GNG should be fulfilled by those. HISTORIOPHOTY IN THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE has a shorter similar comparison; The A-Z of C.S. Lewis: An Encyclopaedia of His Life, Thought, and Writings is a secondary source which mainly has plot-summary information (which also contributes to notability as long as not only such sources exist), but also explains the word origin of Aslan's How; there are a number more secondary sources which have only plot-summary information, like [67] and [68]; [69] and [70] have short bits (white magic association, and film rendering); and then there is Virtually Sacred: Myth and Meaning in World of Warcraft and Second Life, which has a very extensive section about a different "Aslan's How", which is inspired by the one from the article and would fit into a real-world related section; and there are still more sources out there, including those already found in past deletion discussion.

I ask all who voted deletion based on "no secondary sources exist" to review the ones presented here. Daranios (talk) 14:17, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Daranios: Thank you for listing the sources. The sources are reliable (btw, correct link to your second source [71]), through the discussion of the Stone Table as a biblical metaphor is limited to 2-3 sentences in each. The book source you link on this page has a dedicated paragraph entry to the ST, but it consists of a 4-sentence long plot summary, and two sentences of analysis, one on ties to paganism, one on ties to Christianity. The second linked source which you say discusses the issue "even more extensively" really has only so much to say about this: "On the simplest level, the cracked Table recalls the stone that rolled away from the tomb at the Resurrection of Christ. On a deeper level, it recalls the Veil in the Temple which miraculously tore in two from top to bottom when Christ was crucified." So a two-sentence long analysis on ties to Christianity. The analysis in the third source is, as you note, even shorter: "After that, the Stone Table will crack and even death itself will turn backwards. These situations same with Jesus when rose from the death and witnessed by his disciples." Given that none of this is present in our current article (the section on Stone_Table#Symbolism_and_theological_significance is very short and totally unreferenced), I'd suggest that the sources you find can help write a new paragraph about the Stone Table at Religion_in_The_Chronicles_of_Narnia#Christian_parallels, but I don't see why we need a dedicated article to a fictional object that is discussed only so briefly in reliable literature (not counting the plot summaries). I'll note that only the first linked (book) source has a dedicated paragraph on the topic, all other sources just discuss this object in passing. Again, I think the Christian symbology of Narnia is a notable topic and the linked article should mention the Stone Table - but I am not convinced we need a stand-alone article based on the two-sentence-long analysis in 2-3 sources that are nearly identical, as, in the end, this article can be just a plot summary with a 2-3 sentence of analysis, 4 if we are generous. Is this enough per GNG/NFICITON? I am afraid I still think it is not. PS. If this article is deleted and no-one has done so yet I'll use the sources here to add a note to the linked Religion in Narnia article, probably 1-2 sentences long since it seems impossible to squeeze more value from the linked sources (outside of a plot summary). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:36, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Piotrus: Thanks for looking at the sources and thanks for your offer to incorporate the should this turn out to become a merge! I agree that target site can benefit from the found sources. But I can find more in these sources than what you mentioned:

A Guide Through Narnia: I think you have only looked at p. 214, which has plot summary and 3 sentences of analysis, linking the Stone Table to paganism (and similar symbols in another of Lewis' books) and the veil in the temple, allowing for 2 sentences in the article, as you said. But in additon, p. 159-160 has three paragraphs, linking it to Old Testament Law and how it has to be overcome for salvation in Lewis' Christian world-view ("the Stone Table will crack ... What a marvelously succicnt expression of New Testament message of...") - material for several sentences in the article. P. 165: comparison with the communion table, + more plot summary from Voyage of the Dawn Treader, which is not yet in the article.

The Good Guys and the Bad Guys - Teachable Moments in the Chronicles of Narnia: Also relates it to the veil in the temple (as you said), but goes beyond A Guide Through Narnia in explaining its symbolism. Compares it to the stone that rolled away from the tomb at the Resurrection of Christ (as you said), which A Guide didn't. There's also two more points that you didn't mention: "On a yet deeper level", like A Guide.., compares it to the Law, but more specifically the Tablets of Stone and what that signifies. And in just one sentence compares it to the cross.

HISTORIOPHOTY IN THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE also links the Stone Table to Christianity, as we both said, but has a new element: Linking it to Golgotha

Then one bit each, which together would be more then one sentence in the article: The A-Z of C.S. Lewis, a better source for the word origin, already present in the article. 3: Association with "white magic". 4 technical treatment in the movie.

Virtually Sacred: Myth and Meaning in World of Warcraft and Second Life, as I said a different Aslan's How, but definitely related. That extensive section would need at least two sentences to explain and include this instance of real-world (well virtual real-world) impact of the fictional location.

So together that should beat your four sentences, I stay with my keep opinion. The fact that we sometimes have multiple sources for the same thing should be a plus not a minus, right? Should I look for more?

Whatever the outcome, I think that deletion definitely is not self-evident in this case, and that it’s better to have this discussion than deleting the article after a prod. Daranios (talk) 11:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The sources identified by Daranios are good enough for notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:16, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 04:30, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Daranios has found sources to prove notability of this. Dream Focus 03:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a respectful review of Daranios's sources. We already have an article about Aslan and the Christian overtones in his death, which is covered again in Religion in The Chronicles of Narnia. This article talks about Aslan's death as a story sequence and barely mentions the table at all. This chapter is also about the moral and spiritual overtones (it's great stuff), but it barely focuses on the table, and only mentions it in passing. Official guides like this only ever give us a few in-universe details (and if you turn every entry in that guide into an article, you'd have hundreds of short articles with no real explanation or context). There's already two articles that talk about the religious overtones of Aslan's death and this starts to feel like overkill. Archrogue (talk) 19:05, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Indeed. It is more useful for readers to find relevant information in those two articles, it is unlikely anyone actually searchers for the Stone Table which is a very minor plot element. In the end, this article can be expanded beyond a paragraph of analysis, and is only de-stubbed due to an overly long PLOT section. IMHO readers would be much better served if we had the paragraph of analysis in the Religion of Narnia article, and plot summary, well... for a minor element like this (a table!) is simply non-encyclopedic and very fancrufty. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I can understand that argumentation (as compared to "there are no secondary sources"), but I still think keeping would be better for several reasons: First, "a table!" is like saying "Newgrange is a hill(!), so why should we care" (in a fictional version, of course). If something is encyclopedic is generally decided on the interest of secondary sources in a topic, and I am still convinced the secondary sources fullfill WP:GNG. Also, WP:NOTPAPER, so what's the drawback of having the article? Of course the article should not detract from the other, more prominent topics Archrogue has suggested, but having the article in itself does not do that. It is hard to imagine to me how the existence of the article will confuse a reader into not finding the others, if they want to. (I have also added a link to help.)

As for "it is unlikely anyone actually searchers for the Stone Table", it seems about 30 people a day do. Or look at the bottom of first deletion discussion for something Wikipedia can, and I think should, do.

As "fancruft" is a non-argument in itself, the only real one I see is WP:CONTENTFORK, but I think the other arguments outweigh that.

Lastly, if one should follow Archrogue's argumentation, usefullness would surely be better served by merge and redirect, while deletion may lead some readers to not finding the information Archrogue want's to keep easily tractable. Daranios (talk) 11:06, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: an average of 4 people searched for Aslan's How per day (see here). --Danre98^{(talk^contribs)} 11:57, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Christian or Biblical symbolism of the Narnia novels is an aspect of the work as a whole, not of individual elements, and deserves coverage in the context of articles about the whole work. Apart from this, this article is indeed fancruft. Sandstein 16:41, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The delete !voters focus mostly on the current state of the article, and therefore are not grounded in policy. There's an extensive body of commnentary on Lewis, more than enough of which has been identified as relevant to make the case for notability, The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:04, 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. TheSandDoctor ^Talk 05:34, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John J. Flood[edit]

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

WP:BLP with no verifiable references from reliable sources. All refs appear to be self-published (the subject runs ipsn.org). User:JJFCCPA appears to be the subject. See also the deleted history of John J Flood. PRODded, deleted, contested, and restored. — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Advertising-related deletion discussions. — Jeff G. ツ 01:43, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination; non-notable. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 10:38, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:BIO and WP:GNG. Seems like a vanity page and nothing more. Ə XPLICIT 00:48, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the very tone is unencyclopedic in a way that usually indicates the article was drawn and sourced from promotional materials of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 22:15, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It may be 100% true, but if he's not covered significantly in reliable sources, he's not notable as we define it. Zero news articles on Google, passing mentions in a book, few citations to his work (if it's the same person). Bearian (talk) 20:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: see also this edit. — Jeff G. ツ 04:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Jeff G.:, you may like to use Special:Permalink/969628247#POLICE_UNION_LEADER_JOHN_J_FLOOD instead; the link above has been broken ~ ToBeFree (talk) 17:41, 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 Mustard Plug. Consensus not to have a standalone; redirecting as WP:ATD. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:08, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rick Johnson (musician)[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSIC John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. John from Idegon (talk) 01:10, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the band he plays with may be notable, but there is no true notability for him.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:58, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — basically what Johnpacklambert said. Furthermore no in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources could be observed for subject of our discussion. Celestina007 (talk) 16:36, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater @ 09:57, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Mustard Plug, the band for which he played. Bearian (talk) 20:52, 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) 00:50, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Bibee[edit]

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

Non-notable author. Dronebogus (talk) 00:50, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 00:50, 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.