Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 July 9

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 8 July	10 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:00, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hookston, California[edit]

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

Another railroad facility mistakenly identified as a community. Hookston was one of three rail stations serving Pleasant Hill. "Hookston Station operated as a train station on the San Ramon Branch of the Southern Pacific Railroad. From 1891 to 1983, the station was primarily used as a loading dock for shipment of goods, including fruit and lumber." (see pg. II-2). No evidence that it was ever a community or was notable for anything else. Glendoremus (talk) 00:10, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:47, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Negligently mass-produced junk. Reywas92^Talk 18:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Rail station miscategorized by GNIS. –dlthewave ☎ 20:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete,Per above, mass production of non-notable stuff. Alex-h (talk) 14:38, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Nightfury 14:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:59, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scotts, California[edit]

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

A long passing siding on the WP, still extant, unlike the three trackside buildings shown on topo maps. It's at the edge of the mountains in a vast trackless expanse, well, except for the railroad itself, and US 395 off to the east. It's hard to imagine how a post office lasted here more than a year, but at any rate, no town. Mangoe (talk) 22:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:49, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found a few mentions, and there are a few scattered buildings in the area and a Scott Road, but I can't see any solid evidence of a current or former settlement. I did find one strange web page which claimed Netflix was founded here, but I'm pretty sure they meant Scotts Valley. Hut 8.5 19:55, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thavet Atlas[edit]

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

Speedy deletion tag removed by IP editor. I have yet to be convinced of this poet's notability. —S Marshall T/C 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. —S Marshall T/C 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing in the article demonstrates that this poet is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:23, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Estonia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral. Awarded by et:Stalker (auhind). This award may be notable also for enwiki. Also, not so few Google hits, which are predominantly related to his books--Estopedist1 (talk) 18:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 20:50, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not very notable. He has won the et:Stalker (auhind) by reader votes in 2017, but nearly all of his work is self-published. Mention of him in Õhtuleht in July 2015, but seems to be drumming up his own press with controversial claim about the votes for the 2015 Stalker award (claims he should have won). ExRat (talk) 04:49, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Isak Hansen-Aarøen[edit]

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

The Norwegian First Division is not fully professional. While he is transferring to Manchester United, he will be but one in the crowd of child players there. Geschichte (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - he have played for a fully professional club at a national level of the league structure. Corwin of Amber (talk) 05:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The club's status is not the question, it's the league's status. And the Norwegian First Division is far from it. Geschichte (talk) 07:12, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meets GNG, see the sources in the article. Same case as Luqman Hakim Shamsudin, Hannibal Mejbri & many others. More sources to follow in August. --Corwin of Amber (talk) 05:55, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the league the subject is in is not fully professional.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He has made one appearance, but not in a fully professional league. Just because he's joining Man Utd, that doesn't make him notable (as we don't have articles on Man Utd youth players unless they've played in a FPL). No evidence they pass WP:GNG either. Joseph2302 (talk) 14:05, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:08, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Has only played 1 minute in Norwegian 2nd tier, which is not fully pro! Giant Snowman 15:11, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:15, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. He has not played on an international level, fails WP:NFOOTBALL. Alex-h (talk) 14:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Disease Control Boys[edit]

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

A gag band, but beyond once featuring Chris Cornell in their lineup, not a particularly noteworthy gag band. BD2412 T 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The article is most likely fancruft from some insiders who were there and are still talking about it in social media 33 years later. But the band was short-lived and received no coverage beyond insider geek sources. And by the way, claiming that the band predicted not just one but two global calamities via their jokey music is fanboy Postdiction at its finest. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:28, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 11:05, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nine shows, one 7" single, six months playing out. "Non-Impressionist Movement" is not a thing. Ditto Tavern not notable. The George Hackett to Andrea Hackett aspect appears to be true, true enough anyway for The Independent to report facts consistent with that narrative, in a story about the strippers' organizing activities in Las Vegas. The band might be good territory for some social history of 1986 Seattle but not successive or productive enough for us. --Lockley (talk) 08:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater @ 16:20, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Illuminatus Trilogy. This is the redirect equivalent of a WP:SOFTDELETE. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Operation Mindfuck[edit]

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

Despite the claim that this is an important aspect of Discordianism, not much evidence has surfaced to support that. The entire two sentences of this article have already been merged verbatim to Discordianism and I don't see why that shouldn't be sufficient. In the deletion discussion 12 years ago, several people claimed they would add more to the article, but the small bits that were added have all been unsourced and were removed. Definitely seems to lack notability. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. -- Fyrael (talk) 20:58, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not at all sure how one would write much more about it. But given that the nom mentions that the same content exists in other articles, redirect would seem to be the correct course of action, to either the main discordianism article or to the Illuminatus Trilogy article. Beeblebrox (talk) 01:55, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:56, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nancy Balbirer[edit]

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

NN actress, played in a handful of bit parts according to IMDB. No reliable sources providing substantive coverage, fails the GNG and WP:BIO. Created by a SPA for whom this was the sole Wikipedia activity, and notability tagged for over a decade. Ravenswing 21:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 15:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG, and lacking good refs. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 03:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Non-notable person. Normal Op (talk) 20:24, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL. The Intelligencer interview is the sort of gossipy, unchecked, unverified interview style that has made the New Yorker enjoyable, but is not a reliable source. Her only three acting gigs were one-named pieces, barely more that Red-Shirts. Bearian (talk) 01:01, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:14, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Holistic Information Security Practitioner[edit]

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

Alright, enough is enough. Despite never having any sources, this article survived an AfD twelve years ago. There are no reliable sources providing this fuzzy certification the "substantial coverage" to the subject the GNG requires (indeed, there are only four G-news hits even namedropping it). Text reads like a copyvio off of a brochure, and remains unsourced to this day.

Of the three keep proponents in the prior AfD, two -- including the article creator, who claimed to hold the certification himself -- opined that "it exists" was a valid ground to keep, and the third set forth only "Keep but move and add refs" without any ground to keep. Even in 2008, this was a garbage close. Ravenswing 20:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete I'm sure it's real, but it seems that hardly anyone cares about it considering the minuscule number of legit GBook hits I get. Mangoe (talk) 22:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete Original page author here. I'm not sure how relevant HISP is anymore. It was widely discussed back in 2008 when the page was created, but even the HISP website shows stuff "coming in 2018" so doesn't seem to really be maintained. --mariusstrom 02:49, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:V - I was a "keeper" 12 years ago, but we have gotten a lot stricter since. Bearian (talk) 00:57, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:41, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luchy Donalds[edit]

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

It does not appear that any of her films are notable ; ThereforeThe references amount to mere publicity DGG ( talk ) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She hasn't been in anything notable and the article is clearly for the sake of publicity. Plus, the sources in the article are trash bin material by Wikipedia's standards of reliable sourcing. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Doesn’t fulfill WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 07:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:35, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A quick Google search shows more hits about her physical characteristics than her career, I think she's only famous for looking pretty. Oaktree b (talk) 02:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Infocom. Sandstein 13:36, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

69,105[edit]

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

An article about a recurring joke in video games developed by a company. Bulk of article is retelling of appearances in games. I redirected it before, but it was restored, because the main article Infocom doesn't mention it. Better through AfD I suppose. The WP:VG/RS custom Google search engine brings up zero results. "69,105", "69105", "69 105", etc., all nothing. Looking up 'in-joke', 'recurring joke' and 'Infocom', I get some more. And while "Self-Reflexivity and Humor in Adventure Games" or "Long Lost ‘Zork’ Source Code Uploaded to GitHub, But Few People Understand It" are interesting articles, nothing discusses the occurrence of the "69,105" in-joke. Frankly, I don't think it has to be mentioned at all at Infocom. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The lemma is from pre-Google times. A reference in literature is mentioned, I'd assume there are more out there given that Infocom was the leader of the pack. I do have some literature on the topic of adventures but I'm not going through it for an article that's being deleted later on. Kind regards, Grueslayer 07:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 14:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Zero reason this even needs to be an article. This should have been deleted ages ago. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 21:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as WP:TRIVIA. This is worth maybe a sentence in an article about Infocom at its best. A redirect would be completely dubious. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:TRIVIA isn't a guideline for notability and so can't be used as a guideline for deletion. (It's a style guide) It even says "This guideline does not suggest the inclusion or exclusion of any information; it only gives style recommendations." - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I think you were actually looking for WP:HTRIVIA, which isn't a guideline or policy. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is certainly a valid reason for deletion when the whole article is trivia. We don’t have articles full of trivia and trivial subjects on Wikipedia. Red Phoenix ^talk 11:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You mean, like Category:In-jokes, or Category:The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy with my personal highlight, List of The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy characters? Kind regards, Grueslayer 13:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Categories aren’t articles, and you picked a very poor example in the Character list which has multiple tags for in-universe and original research. WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Red Phoenix ^talk 13:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        Sorry for being vague. I listed those categories because they are full of articles that are full of trivia and trivial subjects. Kind regards, Grueslayer 17:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge a line or two to Infocom. Otherwise, delete. BD2412 T 03:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, or if not, Merge with Easter egg (media) and/or Infocom. Easter eggs / phenomenon like this in early computer games can sometimes have an impact (however small) on games / game history (similar to Xyzzy). This came from one of the most well known and influential text adventures - Zork. Yes, I do agree this isn't an incredibly notable topic just by looking at it. But I was able to find at least one significant source on it: A passage analyzing it in the book Twisty Little Passages, and one small mention [1]. There are many passing mentions of it online (although these are not "significant"): [2][3][4][5][6] The fact that it has been analyzed and been reused / mentioned in many other games since Zork makes me feel it is notable enough, at least to be kept somewhere on Wikipedia.
Grueslayer makes a good point too - there is a lot of literature out there about early computer games & text adventures, but 69,105 / Zork emerged in the late 1970s, early 1980s, so the fact that it is not easily found on a Google search isn't that surprising to me, regardless of notability. For any subjects that came before the 1990s or 1980s (especially in more niche topics or from the early history of a topic), I don't feel like a Google WP:BEFORE test is always sufficient for determining notability. - Whisperjanes (talk) 05:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Whisperjanes, thanks for taking the time to reply. This sounds a lot like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES. I agree that the Twisty Little Passages is significant, but the Geektionary is already trivial at best ("The number 69,105 is a running gag in the ZORK games, appearing in many locations. Geek humor, what are you gonna do?"). The rest are, like you said, passing mentions, sometimes not even connecting it to Infocom / Zork ("Finally, I wanted people who wouldn't just be repeating that story about (...) that Jay Wright Forrester book for 69,105th time"). This doesn't meet WP:GNG in the slightest, in my opinion. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soetermans, Thanks for also taking the time to reply :) I didn't mean for it to sound like WP:THEREMUSTBESOURCES - I wasn't insisting that there are other sources out there, but my point is just that it is harder to find sources online on pre-WWW topics. WP:BEFORE isn't a perfect process for older topics, but we have to work with what we have. Bringing it up was my attempt at giving notice to editors that it might be harder to find sources, in a hope that others will read it and dig a little deeper than usual. But on second thought (and seeing as no one has come forward with any others sources that are significant), I think merging it (as others have suggested, with maybe a one to a few lines with sources) is about all that can be done, especially since the article seems to be made with so much original research and primary sources. - Whisperjanes (talk) 00:35, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:OR. It's possible a good amount of this article is wrong as it can't be verified. I'm wary of redirecting it if one editor is just going to override consensus, but I defer to the consensus if a redirect is still appropriate. Jontesta (talk) 19:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete due to the clearly bad sourcing. I'd probably gone with merge, but I don't see the point if it will just be reversed like it was already. Plus, merging would still require sources to back up whatever is merged. Which the topic doesn't seem to have. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge to the Infocom article. There's enough instances and okay-ish background to merit a mention in context,but that stuff ain't worth an article - especially not with that sourcing. BTW, danger of reversion isn't really an issue; an AfD merge outcome is just as good an argument to undo those as it is to speedy an article recreation after a delete outcome. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we are not a web host for insider jokes, nor do we publish original research. Bearian (talk) 01:03, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacks significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. (?) Would be trivia if merged to the Infocom article. czar 04:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Not sufficient independant coverage to warrant it's own separate article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 07:40, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Atlassian. There is consensus that references do not satisfy our requirements for companies and should not be a standalone article. A redirect to Atlassian is a valid alternative to deletion, however. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:19, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bamboo (software)[edit]

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

Typical Corporate Brochure. Wiki is not White paper. No need for separate article for this product. Atlassian company page already exists to cover this. Light2021 (talk) 05:56, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Pouclet, Romain (2014). "Automated builds with Bamboo". Pro iOS Continuous Integration. New York: Apress. ISBN 978-1-4842-0124-4. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
河村康博 (2017-09-27). "第19回　CIツール「Bamboo」で開発プロセスの生産性を上げる（前編）" [The 19th CI tool "Bamboo" to improve the productivity of the development process (Part 1)] (in Japanese). jp:技術評論社. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Jacobs, Samantha; Wortman, Kristin A. (2016). "Solar Probe Plus Spacecraft Flight Software Requirements Verification Test Framework". 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/AERO.2016.7500544. ISBN 978-1-4673-7676-1. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Muhamad, Fachrul Pralienka Bani; Sarno, Riyanarto; Ahmadiyah, Adhatus Solichah; Rochimah, Siti (2016). "Visual GUI testing in continuous integration environment". 2016 International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems (ICTS). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICTS.2016.7910301. ISBN 978-1-5090-1381-4. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Taheritanjani, Sajjad; Krusche, Stephan; Brügge, Bernd (2016). "A Comparison between Commercial and Open Source Reference Implementations for the Rugby Process Model" (PDF). Technical University of Munich. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
Krill, Paul (2011-02-16). "Atlassian eyes agile teams with Bamboo tool upgrade". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
Krill, Paul (2016-05-19). "Beyond Jenkins: 7 devops tools". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

Sources with quotes

Pouclet, Romain (2014). "Automated builds with Bamboo". Pro iOS Continuous Integration. New York: Apress. ISBN 978-1-4842-0124-4. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The book notes:
Bamboo is a commercial product created by an Australian company named Atlassian, also responsible for products like Confluence and, of course, Jira. If you've already been looking for a bug tracker, you've probably run into Jira at least once and may be using it at your company. If that's the case, then you will be happy to know that Bamboo is deeply integrated with Jira, making it super easy to create issues from a failing build, for example.
...
If you were expecting a software based on a less-bloated platform you will be disappointed: Bamboo is written in Java. ...
...
With Bamboo, fetching the content from the repository is a task itself, a task you can configure if you want. There aren't many options for you to play with, but you can tell Bamboo to remove the content and re-clone the whole project every time you build your application. For an application as small as the GitHub Jobs one is, that would not make a huge difference but with big projects with huge resources and dependencies, this could significantly increase the duration of the build. You should leave this option unchecked for most of your builds.
河村康博 (2017-09-27). "第19回　CIツール「Bamboo」で開発プロセスの生産性を上げる（前編）" [The 19th CI tool "Bamboo" to improve the productivity of the development process (Part 1)] (in Japanese). jp:技術評論社. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
From Google Translate:
There are many CI systems in the world such as Jenkins and Travis CI, but this article focuses on Bamboo, a commercial Web application provided by Atlassian. In addition, I will explain Bitbucket and JIRA as the version control system and issue management system linked with Bamboo.
...
Let Bamboo do the work
Build & test
Bamboo sets up a build execution plan in a hierarchical structure called "stages", " jobs", and " tasks" . This may sound a little complicated, but once you learn it, you can set the build execution plan with an intuitive UI using a Web browser, so be sure to remember it ( Fig. 1 ⁠ ).
task
It is a concept that refers to individual processes such as "check out the source code" and " build with ⁠Mavem 3.x " . Tasks cannot be executed in parallel and are executed in the set order.
Jacobs, Samantha; Wortman, Kristin A. (2016). "Solar Probe Plus Spacecraft Flight Software Requirements Verification Test Framework". 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/AERO.2016.7500544. ISBN 978-1-4673-7676-1. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:

Atlassian Bamboo was integrated as a test harness to the heritage Test Framework for use on SPP to create, schedule and initiate execution of test suites. Bamboo also provides a mechanism to automate the configuration management repository check-out process, to provide easy accessibility to test execution reports and to disseminate execution status to test engineers.
What is Atlassian Bamboo?
Atlassian Bamboo is a continuous integration server used during software development to automate the release management process (e.g., compile, test, package, deploy) for software applications [8]. The Bamboo capability to trigger functional tests from a source repository is used to build and schedule SPP SpFSW test suite executions.
After the test package is built and executed, the deployment feature of Bamboo is used to make the test execution artifacts available for viewing via a web server. Bamboo is also capable of generating email notifications to a distribution list containing execution status information retrieved for the completed jobs. Version and initiator information about the scheduled ‘job’ is provided on the Bamboo application interface.
...
Under each Bamboo test plan there is a default job that check-outs the necessary folders from the GForge Subversion test script repository and invokes the main or application-level driver script for the desired test suite execution. For each ‘job’, relevant artifacts are generated, gathered and stored on the Bamboo Server for future use. These test artifacts are retrievable for viewing by the test engineers through the Bamboo Server web interface.
Muhamad, Fachrul Pralienka Bani; Sarno, Riyanarto; Ahmadiyah, Adhatus Solichah; Rochimah, Siti (2016). "Visual GUI testing in continuous integration environment". 2016 International Conference on Information & Communication Technology and Systems (ICTS). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/ICTS.2016.7910301. ISBN 978-1-5090-1381-4. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:

Bamboo
Bamboo is one of Atlassian products that support CI. It can be installed on a local machine or over the Internet. These tools are semi-paid, because it provides a trial in a few days. For GUI testing, this tool does not provide a plugin for using tools of SikuliX and JAutomate. But, there are several guides on the internet which makes Bamboo possible to perform GUI testing. It needs a deep investigation for implementing GUI testing in Bamboo with windows environment.
...
Bamboo and SikuliX
Since bamboo does not provide a plugin for SikuliX, it would require further investigation regarding the combination of these tools. In some internet sources said about the possibility of testing GUI. To integrate both tools, author needs to create repository trigger in Bamboo and push the code into repository so that Bamboo can pull the code and build the code.
Bamboo and JAutomate
It similar with the combination of Bamboo and SikuliX, it needs deep configuration in Bamboo for implementing GUI testing. This build process is possible through the unit testing and direct from JAutomate source script.
Taheritanjani, Sajjad; Krusche, Stephan; Brügge, Bernd (2016). "A Comparison between Commercial and Open Source Reference Implementations for the Rugby Process Model" (PDF). Technical University of Munich. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06. {{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
The article notes:

In this section, we will compare three CI solutions: Bamboo from Atlassian Tools, Travis CI from GitHub and Jenkins. All these three tools are commonly use by developers in different projects. The basic principle behind all of them is the detection of changes in the code repository and triggering a set of Jobs or tasks.
...
The main concept in Bamboo build is Plan. A Plan defines everything about our continuous integration build process in Bamboo. By default, it has a single Stage, but we can use it to group Jobs into multiple stages. A Plan processes a series of one or more Stages that are run sequentially using the same repository. It also specifies how the build is triggered, and the triggering dependencies between the plan and other Plans in the Project. Every Plan belongs to a Project. A Stage maps Jobs to individual steps within a build process of Plan. For example, we may have a Plan build process that contains an Integration step followed by several Test steps and a Delivery step. We can create separate Bamboo Stages to represent each of these steps. By default, a Stage has a single Job, but we can use it to group multiple Jobs. A Stage processes its Jobs in parallel. It must successfully complete all its Jobs before the next Stage in the Plan can be processed. A Job is a single build unit within a Plan. One or more Jobs can be organized into one or more Stages. The Jobs in a Stage can all be run at the same time, if enough Bamboo agents are available. A Job is made up of one or more Tasks. A Task is a small discrete unit of work, such as source code checkout or running a script.
...
A deployment project in Bamboo is a container for holding the software project which is deployed. Besides, plan branches represent a build for a branch in the version control system. When the plan branch build succeeds, it can be automatically or manually merged back into master. Bamboo deployments allow a plan branch to be deployed to a test environment and the feature source code can be tested and evaluated in a real server environment before the code is merged back to master. In Jenkins, there are available plugins to support deployment and branches as well, while in Travis they are supported by Travis’ configuration file. Concluding, all tools support deployment and branches. However, in Bamboo, when build jobs call deployments, it is not possible to go back to the build job to perform some post-deployment tasks. In addition, inability to provide input parameters, especially for deployment jobs, is a problem in Bamboo as well.
Krill, Paul (2011-02-16). "Atlassian eyes agile teams with Bamboo tool upgrade". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article notes:

Bamboo has been used with Amazon's Elastic Compute Cloud to scale large builds in a cloud environment, Atlassian said. The company also is revealing that it has acquired two plug-ins: Jira Workflow Designer, which plugs into Jira and visualizes a workflow, and Bamboo Release Management, which links to Bamboo and combines Bamboo and Jira to automate software release management. The plug-ins were acquired from Sysbliss and will now be offered for free. They had been commercially sold before.
Krill, Paul (2016-05-19). "Beyond Jenkins: 7 devops tools". InfoWorld. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
The article enotes:

Atlassian Bamboo offers a wealth of capabilities, ranging from building and deploying Docker containers to running applications on Amazon Web Services. Dedicated agents can be used to run hot fixes and critical builds immediately. Scalability has been viewed as a thorn in Jenkins’ side; here, Randall Ward, CEO of Appfire, an Atlassian business partner that provides add-ons and services, sees an advantage for Bamboo.
...
Bamboo features code visibility, enabling users to see a full roll-up of code changes since the latest previous deployment. It integrates with other Atlassian products, including the Bitbucket Git code management solution, Jira project management solution, and HipChat team chat application.

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

Cunard (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related AfDs of other Atlassian products: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Confluence (software) (3rd nomination) and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Jira (software). Cunard (talk) 08:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, are you reading those press articles yourself? Problem with this article is - it does not require separate page when the company page already exist. Wikipedia is not a Press, not a blog and definitely not a white paper or brochure for the companies. All articles are motivated by Press/ Digital marketing team. Secondly you can just mention the weblink and all people can ready them. you cover entire discussion with COPY+PASTE from the article and take the full discussion space. Thank you.

Do you call this notability of press? "Atlassian Bamboo offers a wealth of capabilities, ranging from building and deploying Docker containers to running applications on Amazon Web Services. Dedicated agents can be used to run hot fixes and critical builds immediately". Light2021 (talk) 10:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My guess from this and other AfDs Cunard has been involved in is that the answer to your first question is a hard, resounding no. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clearly a promo article that lacks the multiple in-depth reliable sources that it would need to be notable. I'm not seeing anything that would warrant not deleting it. --Adamant1 (talk) 22:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The article is neutrally written. It has a factual description of how Bamboo works. It contains a "Comparisons" section that describes the advantages and disadvantages of using Bamboo. There is enough material about Bamboo to justify a standalone article.

Bamboo has been covered in multiple books and journal articles. An editor quoted "Atlassian Bamboo offers a wealth of capabilities, ranging from building and deploying Docker containers to running applications on Amazon Web Services. Dedicated agents can be used to run hot fixes and critical builds immediately" to dispute an InfoWorld article. This is a review from the InfoWorld author and does not detract from the source's reliability.

Here are additional book sources that provides analysis about Bamboo:

Gonzalez, David (2017). "Bamboo". Implementing Modern DevOps: Enabling IT organizations to deliver faster and smarter. Birmingham: Packt. pp. 99–103. ISBN 978-1-78646-687-7. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
Tak, Rohin; Modi, Jhalak (2018). Mobile DevOps: Deliver continuous integration and deployment within your mobile applications. Birmingham: Packt. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-78829-624-3. Retrieved 2020-07-10.

Sources with quotes

Gonzalez, David (2017). "Bamboo". Implementing Modern DevOps: Enabling IT organizations to deliver faster and smarter. Birmingham: Packt. pp. 99–103. ISBN 978-1-78646-687-7. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
The book notes:

Bamboo

Bamboo is a proprietary CI server developed by Atlassian. ... Bamboo is their proposal for CI activities, and it is quite popular as it integrates fairly well with their other products.
...
You can check the logs of the job to see how many tests were successful and other useful information. If you explore this even further, you can see how Bamboo also offers different types of tasks, such as mocha test runners, which allows Bamboo to understand the result of the tests. At the moment, with the current configuration, if any of the tests fails, Bamboo won't be able to understand which one failed. I'd suggest you to play around with different configurations and even different applications to get yourself familiar with it. As you can see by yourself, the interface is very friendly, and usually, it is quite simple to achieve your desired setup by creating new tasks.
...
In general, Bamboo can deal with every situation, and it has adapted to the modern times: we can even build Docker images and push them to remote registries once the tests have passed in order to be deployed later on. Bamboo is also able to take actions in the post-build phase, for example, alerting us if the build failed overnight with an email or other communication channels.
Tak, Rohin; Modi, Jhalak (2018). Mobile DevOps: Deliver continuous integration and deployment within your mobile applications. Birmingham: Packt. p. 184. ISBN 978-1-78829-624-3. Retrieved 2020-07-10.
The book notes:
Bamboo

Bamboo is a CI server used by software teams worldwide to automate the process of release management for applications and general software. It allows teams to establish a streamlined pipeline for build delivery. Mobile developers can deploy their apps back to the Apple store or Google Play automatically. Being an Atlassian tool, it has native support for Jira and BitBucket, and you can even import your Jenkins configurations into Bamboo easily.
Its key features are as follows:
- Unlike Jenkins, Bamboo has built-in Git branching workflows
- Because it is built by Atlassian, it has built-in integration for Jira and Bitbucket
- Bamboo also supports automated merging to avoid conflicts and differences between the working branch and master branch
- Test automation in Bamboo produces a continuous flow from build, to test, even to releasing the application to the customer when ready
- Built-in support for Jira makes bug tracking in a specific release, and even builds, automated and easily trackable

Cunard (talk) 09:21, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cunard: Your convoluting something being written neutrally for it being written promotionally. They are two separate things, that are treated differently in Wikipedia, and I never said anything about the articles neutrality. I said it was promotional. That's it. It has nothing to do with neutrality. Also, something can be factually correct but still be an advertisement. They aren't mutually exclusive and again Wikipedia treats them differently. You mixing those things up, intentionally or not, and ref-bombing more trivial sources really isn't helpful to this in the slightest. --Adamant1 (talk) 10:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Wikipedia:Spam guideline says, "Wikispam articles are usually noted for sales-oriented language and external links to a commercial website. However, a differentiation should be made between spam articles and legitimate articles about commercial entities." I reviewed the article and consider it largely not to be using "sales-oriented language". I can remove any "sales-oriented language" that editors find.

Cunard (talk) 10:34, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again your miss qouting me.o one except you has said anything about the article being spam. Spam and promotion are completely different and having noyhing to do with each other. Neither does "sales-oriented language." Which again, your the only one talking about. Stop bringing up things that aren't relevant to the AfD, discussion, and no one is saying anything about. Adamant1 (talk) 11:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete That there are reliable sources is not enough. The sources must provide significant coverage. For example, the book chapter cited spends one short paragraph describing Bamboo before launching into a tutorial for how to set it up. This is not enough material to write an article with. Fails WP:GNG. – FenixFeather ^{(talk)(Contribs)} 00:17, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A book article and a peer-reviewed conference paper provide substantial coverage about Bamboo:
1. The "Automated builds with Bamboo" chapter (pages 93–116) in the Apress book contains a tutorial for how to set up Bamboo. But it also provides commentary about Bamboo as well as discussion of its features and concepts. It is this detailed coverage, not the tutorial, that make the book a strong source,
  It has a section titled "Summing up the Basics", which says in part, "Let’s sum up what we’ve just did, because understanding the hierarchy and the pieces that click together is important if you wish to use Bamboo as your continuous integration platform. We created a plan for the Github Jobs for iOS application, part of the Github Jobs project. In this plan, a default stage containing a default job was automatically created. We customized this default job with multiple tasks: fetching the content from our git repository, installing the dependencies using Cocoapods and building the application using xcodebuild." Jobs and tasks are core Bamboo concepts.
  It has a section titled "Bamboo Power user features" where it says, "We covered a very basic use of Bamboo and went a little bit straighter to the point since we’ve already covered some part of the automatic building process in the previous chapter, when we talked about Jenkins. Bamboo is capable of so much more. Let’s have a look at some of the advanced things you can achieve with it." It discusses Bamboo's Rest API and Bamboo's Wallboards. It provides information about how Bamboo integrates with remote agents.
  The book's concluding section says, "The goal of this chapter was to give you a tour of an alternative to Jenkins, because nothing is more dangerous than sticking with your favorite toys without looking at the alternatives. Once again, we didn’t want to tell you that one was better than the other; in fact both solutions come with pros and cons. By now, you should be able to choose which solution suits you best. Bamboo is a full-featured product maintained by a profitable company that comes with a nicely designed interface, powerful add-ons, and well-organized build plans."
2. According to this link, "IEEE requires all conference papers go through the peer review process before publication.". This IEEE conference paper provides over 700 words of discussion about Bamboo's features and concepts:
  Jacobs, Samantha; Wortman, Kristin A. (2016). "Solar Probe Plus Spacecraft Flight Software Requirements Verification Test Framework". 2016 IEEE Aerospace Conference. Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers. doi:10.1109/AERO.2016.7500544. ISBN 978-1-4673-7676-1. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
These two sources are sufficient to establish notability per Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline.
Cunard (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Deletion is not a policy-based approach per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. If there is consensus that Bamboo is not notable, Bamboo (software) can be merged to its developer Atlassian. The content should not be deleted.
Cunard (talk) 05:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:40, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

514 Undiscovered[edit]

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

Article about a community channel (the Canadian equivalent of public access television) television series, not properly referenced as passing WP:TVSHOW. Other than the fact that it exists, the only other notability claim being attempted here is that it was nominated for a minor regional award that isn't a notability clincher, as it can be sourced only to the awarding organization's own self-published website about itself rather than any evidence of media coverage about the awards to establish their notability -- and once you discount that, fully eight of the other ten footnotes are the show's own self-published content about itself, which is not notability-supporting sourcing either. And of the just two footnotes that are real media coverage, they're both local to the show's own media market, and one of them is from a hyperlocal neighbourhood weekly. So there's really only one source (Montreal Gazette) here that has anything whatsoever to do with actually getting the show over WP:GNG, which is not enough. There's also a likely conflict of interest here, as the article was created by an WP:SPA named "Aewiki" and one of the show's presenters has the initials A.E. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Quebec-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:23, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No prejudice against speedy renomination per relatively low participation. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:44, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Younes Jaele[edit]

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

Jaese has created a company which is famous and notable but I could not find sources about him, most sources are interviews with him about the company, from what I see he doesn't pass GNG Mardetanha (talk) 15:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 05:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Shirin Asal Food Industrial Group as he is the founder. SL93 (talk) 23:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: a simple Google search showed several independent secondary sources in which the subject received significant coverage. Maco Paco (talk 11:48, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. For the record, it would help clarify discussion as to *which* sources a !voter feels meets independent, reliable, in-depth coverage. That said, there is reasonable evidence the other editors who argued "delete" have reviewed all presented sources and found them wanting. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brando Chiesa[edit]

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

Sources are press releases, not editorial. Quote: "Disclaimer: This is a company press release. No HT Group journalist is involved in the creation of this content." Exactly. No independent, reliable sources were used in the creation of this article. Vexations (talk) 18:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. All refs are advertising. Johnbod (talk) 00:08, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all I saw were bogus sources. Example: "He is a severe talent which is getting worldwide recognition for his designs and his Instagram account is followed by top Hollywood stars and all his fans wait for his post as they know it will be different than last and new too."ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Yes I saw maximum bogus sources(bogus declaration just for the record) but there two realable source i found then i clear all links. All coming members please help for improved the article IndiaBulez (talk) 07:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
IndiaBulez, you should change "Don't Delete" to "Keep". There's a piece of software that keeps track of these (not)votes that may get confused. The (human) closer of this discussion will still understand it, of course. Vexations (talk) 16:49, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Vexations, Thank you sir.IndiaBulez (talk) 04:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 04:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. PR --Devokewater (talk) 21:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the extremely questionable sourcing in the article and the triviality of the coverage in a few of them. There is one or two sources that might meet WP:GNG, but I don't personally think they would be enough on their own. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Hyborian Age#Nations and landmarks. Tone 14:37, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cimmeria (Conan)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (fiction) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. The PROD was removed with no rationale, so here we go. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:52, 2 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} 01:52, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Cimmeria is the homeland of Conan — he's known in some circles as "Conan the Cimmerian" — so naturally the subject has been discussed quite a bit in the literary criticism of Robert E. Howard's work.
- Howard wrote a poem called "Cimmeria", which was first published in the Winter 1965 issue of The Howard Collector (according to the 2003 volume The Coming of Conan the Cimmerian).
- The Robert E. Howard Guide by Patrice Louinet (Skelos Press, 2018) discusses Cimmeria on several pages.
- Robert E. Howard: A Literary Biography edited by Bob McClain (Pulp Hero Press, 2018) also discusses Cimmeria, including the influence of Howard's hometown in Texas on the creation of the fictional land.
- The Internet Archive has a smattering of issues of The Howard Collector, and there's some discussion of Cimmeria in the Spring 1972 issue and the Spring 1971 issue. Neither is an amazing example, but I think they establish that it's likely that other issues went more in-depth on the main character's homeland.

I believes that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- - Can you tell me how did you access The Robert E. Howard Guide and Robert E. Howard: A Literary Biography? Neither has a preview on Google Books. I'd be happy to withdraw this nom if I can verify that there are sources that discuss the topic in depth and that go beyond a PLOT summary. PS. The existence of Cimmeria (poem) can skew the search results, did you verify that the works you mention discuss the fictional land, and not the poem? And as for The Howard Collector, isn't it a primary source - a compilation of posthumously edited and published works by the author? --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I provided links above to both of those books' Amazon pages. Click "Look Inside" and then search for "cimmeria". The Howard Collector is not a primary source; it's a literary magazine that includes essays about Howard's work. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for teaching me a new trick (Amazon preview). The Robert E. Howard Guide First Edition contains a paragraph on page 133 about Cimmeria, but it is a pure plot summary. All other mentions of this term in the book that I see are inconsequential, usually related to Conan's "full name", i.e. Conan of Cimmeria". the other book is even worse, it mentions the poem Cimmeria on page 137, but does not discuss. On page 139 it quotes Conan describing Cimmeria in few sentences, and there is no analysis of this PLOT at all. Again, all other mentions of the name Cimemria in those books are inconsequential. I stand by my analysis that no source discusses this plot element beyond a very basic plot summary (btw, as far as I can tell, Cimmeria is not a setting of any book or story of Conan, and it has never been even described in depth by Howard, outside a few mentions in passing). As for The Howard Collector, I don't see how it meets WP:RS - it seems more like a fanzine than an academic journal. In either case, you yourself admit those are problematic sources; the second is a very court one sentence mention, the first one is a bit longer but it is again pure PLOT summary. All that you have managed to prove is that we are dealing with an extreme example of WP:FANCRUFT here; no scholar has analyzed the land of Cimmeria, because there is nothing to analyze, the extent of its description in primary sources is few sentences, and trying to make an article out of this is an exercise in futility (and fancrufting). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment "as far as I can tell, Cimmeria is not a setting of any book or story of Conan" It is the setting of Conan of Venarium (2003) by Harry Turtledove, which expands on an Aquilonian invasion of Cimmeria mentioned by Howard. Cimmeria is also the setting of several Conan tales in the Marvel Comics publications on Conan. Dimadick (talk) 15:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The nominator has not followed WP:BEFORE because it seems apparent that they have not considered alternatives to deletion. Apart from articles about Conan and its authors, there are also several other articles about Cimmeria. As the material is quite complex, it's best to keep this aspect separate for clarity and simplicity. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- BEFORE has been followed. Neither I nor anyone here has found a single source that discusses the topic in-depth. Prove me wrong by showing a source that discusses this concept in a paragraph or more and is not purely a summary of a plot. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Toughpigs has the sources covered well enough. The point about WP:BEFORE is that there are numerous other steps specified such as considering alternatives to deletion. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:28, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The sources don't meet GNG/RS (mentions in passing). As for alternatives, there is no referenced content to merge, but I am not opposed to soft deletion (redirect) if this is what you mean. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - And now the nominator violates WP:BLUDGEON as well as WP:BEFORE. The sources are fine as they pass WP:SIGCOV. My !vote stands. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:40, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Look Andrew, when your arguments are refuted, you criticize the person, it looks like you are trying to deny them the right to participate in the discussion.... Not very impressive, really.GizzyCatBella 🍁 04:10, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:BLUDGEON does say that when an individual responds to every single comment that disagrees with them, as Piotrus is doing here, it indicates that they're more interested in "winning" than they are in reasoned discussion. I suggest that Piotrus steps back, allows other editors to look at the article and the sources, and make their own judgment. — Toughpigs (talk) 04:38, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This WP:BLUDGEON is only an essay that appears to talk about choking free speech possibly used to silence critics when one runs out of actual reasoning does not seem like the best link to cite in any discussion, in my opinion. I am still not impressed by the failure of some people to address actual explanations given here. - GizzyCatBella🍁 08:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

When someone challenges my !vote I have found that, unless I respond, that some closers suppose that the challenge negates the !vote. If my views are still valid, it is therefore necessary to reiterate and reinforce them. In this case, I am very sure that the topic is notable, that we have adequate sources to document and develop this and so the primary policy here is WP:ATD which states that, "If editing can improve the page, this should be done rather than deleting the page." My !vote stands, by Crom! Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or Merge - fictional land of the Conan the Barbarian? Maybe merge to Conan the Barbarian but a separate article? GizzyCatBella🍁 16:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merger is not done by deletion as, if the page is deleted, it is no longer available for reference and attribution. See WP:MAD for details. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've added “or Merge” to the my previous comment above. - GizzyCatBella🍁 11:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Conan is the single most most famous barbarian in fiction. As such, his homeland is notable as the archetypal barbarian homeland, the one on which other fictional depictions of barbarian homelands are often based. His homeland and its culture is such an important part of his character that he is often known as Conan the Cimmerian. This is comparable to fictional homelands of other major fictional characters such as Krypton (comics), Tatooine, The Shire, Wakanda. Like those other locations, Cimmeria has appeared not only in literature, but also on other forms of media such as film and TV. —Lowellian (reply) 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- WP:NOTINHERITED. We are not proposing to delete the Conan article, but about his homeland, which is not discussed in sources in depth. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't claim that notability was inherited from Conan. I argued that Cimmeria has garnered its own notability by becoming the archetypal barbarian homeland, appearing in many media formats and inspiring works of fiction other than Conan, with comparability to other notable fictional homelands. —Lowellian (reply) 06:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have any sources for this assertion? Which reliable source states that " Cimmeria has become the archetypal barbarian homeland"? From what I see, this is our own original research conclusion, given the article still has no sources, and no source presented here states this. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:43, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Conan the Barbarian, per Piotrus all sources are either from unreliable sources or are nothing but in-universe plot description. The sources found by Toughpigs clearly do not cause this topic to pass GNG, and it's association with Conan does not make it notable per WP:NOTINHERITED. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. It is worth noting that Conan wikia/fandom's page on this (https://conan.fandom.com/wiki/Cimmeria) seems to overlap with ours; it is also likewise unreferenced (correction: it is actually referenced to Cimmeria (poem), which is more than what we can say about our current pitiful excuse for an article...). Anyway, deletion of this article will not affect anyone, since people searching for Cimmeria will find this in-universe entry there easily anyway, and there at least it doesn't look so out of place as on Wikipedia. As for those wanting to keep this article here, I still wait for someone to show that there are sources that allow us to have any kind of analysis/reception of this. If you think you know of such a source, please provide a quote here than shows said analysis, because WP:GOOGLEHITS are not cutting it. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 10:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyborian Age as non-notable fictional cruft that is more suited for Wikia/Fandom. It has a mention in that article, which seems to be the best place for it._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 21:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a topic that has insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources to meet the general notability guideline. Fan journals and officially licensed guides are not sufficiently independent of the material to be reliable for all but the least controversial material. This is also an unlikely search term, but I wouldn't object to a redirect if it helps produce a consensus. Shooterwalker (talk) 23:59, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The nomination improperly dismisses out of hand the large body of pre-Internet commentary on the author and his fiction, which includes nontrivial commentary on the sources and historical models for settings like this and the racial/racist political elements of the work. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 15:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- What commentary? Could you cite it? The article is still unrererence and has no 'further reading' section, if this is kept at the very least we should ensure this is referenced. (Polish Wikipedia, which is more inclusionst for fiction topics in general, will nevertheless delete articles that have zero sources...). --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge per discussion between Piotrus and Toughpigs. It's not that the current article has no sources. It's that the only sources that can be found are official guides and other fan service, and what little coverage is just plot summary. The other !keep votes assert notability without any sources. If there is reliable coverage that Howard's setting has racist overtones, it can always be added to another notable article. Jontesta (talk) 20:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would call Robert E. Howard: A Literary Biography a work of literary criticism, not "fan service". Works of literary and media criticism become "fancruft" when you don't have respect for the work. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge to the possible merge targets listed in the AfD discussion. I have no preference for which one, but the article isn't worth keeping due to the lack of in-depth coverage. That doesn't mean there isn't anything worth saving though, just that what is worth saving doesn't warrant its own article IMO. The new source provided by Toughpigs doesn't change that. Otherwise, it's worthy of deletion based on needing a fundamental re-write to meet Wikipedia's standards. Which isn't going to happen anyway with only a single in-depth source. --Adamant1 (talk) 21:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyborian Age#Nations and landmarks - The location's notability is tied entirely to the notability of the franchise as a whole, and there is not enough in reliable sources that goes beyond plot summary that would make this a needed spinout article from the main article on the setting as a whole. It is already covered a bit in that article, and more can be added based on the bits of sourced information Toughpigs brought up in this AFD. Since that sourced information is not actually in this article, though, an actual merger is not needed at this point. Rorshacma (talk) 23:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Piotrus et al. I had originally thought to redirect to Hyborian Age#Nations and landmarks, but when I actually went and read that section I found it was nearly 100% original reasearch. You can tell by all the "perhaps derived from" and similar, without any attempt at sourcing. I think that whole section is ripe for removal or rewrite, so redirecting anything there seems to me to be futile and a bad idea. Reyk _YO! 15:44, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Hyborian Age#Nations and landmarks. There is no WP:SIGCOV for this location and it's already discussed at Hyborian Age as the main article for the Conan setting. I see the delete comments and they're right that the target isn't well written either. A merge is fine but would need a rewrite. A delete wouldn't be that different from a redirect since the real search term is Cimmeria which can be pointed anywhere. Archrogue (talk) 18:57, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Hollow Trees[edit]

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

NN band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND; insufficient independent sourcing providing the "substantial coverage" to the subject that the GNG requires. Beyond that, it's so blatantly promotional throughout that it reaches TNT level. Notability tagged for over a decade, and article creator is a SPA for whom creating and maintaining this article is the sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 20:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ravenswing 20:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, no real RS to be found. Caro7200 (talk) 20:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete under G11 unambiguous advertising. --Lockley (talk) 18:18, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Open University[edit]

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

It's a hoax, degree-mill. As per media reports, the university was recognized by UGC just for 2008-09 academic session to provide distance education courses. Neurofreak (talk) 19:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The articles has listed two recently deleted hoax institutes as its constituent units, Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment and World Laparoscopy Hospital to provide degree certificates. This university along with these two institutes are operated by the same person, Priya Ranjan Trivedi. The university and it's owner are apparently under scanner for running a fake degree racket.^[1]^[2]
Speedy delete Per Hoax. There is lack of sources. I can't find them. ~ Junior5a (Talk) Cont 16:34, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete due to hoax concerns. Ideally, should be removed ASAP Spiderone 08:40, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per Hoax. Nika2020 (talk) 19:45, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life Mel Honey[edit]

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

Three unreliable / promotional sources, with a brief mention as a hoax in a science blog. There isn't enough verifiable information to support an article. And even as is, elevating this hoax on Wikipedia does a disservice to readers. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Jontesta (talk) 19:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 19:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there is some RS available and some reason to believe that the subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 03:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete' The "reliable source" given above is UK Daily/Sunday Express, which - is not one (I suggest installing the source quality highlighter to avoid such blunders); and nebulous "reasons to believe subject is notable" may be great at the Article Rescue Squadron but not at AfD. Of the sources given in the article, the only reliable one (Guardian) hashes it over as a scam. Not seeing sufficient coverage by suitable sources here. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 02:03, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Elmidae: You should definitely do your own research rather than taking shots at me. If I find time I will locate other sources. For now I am rather upset by your disparaging remarks and I will log off this thing. Lightburst (talk) 15:35, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Locating reliable sources regarding Life-Mel.
U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health
Prevention of Chemotherapy-Induced Neutropenia by Special Honey Intake Published in Medical Oncology, vol. 23, no. 4, 549-552, 2006
Book which cites the above study. Diabetes Without Drugs
MDPI: Honey and Cancer: Current Status and Future Directions
Israel 21C
Jewish Post of New York

Additionally there are many sources which speak to the many health benefits of honey - honey is generally considered to be a supplement -and that is where one needs to exercise good judgement regarding claims. Lightburst (talk) 16:41, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's leave out the passing mentions: The Porcza study (one half-sentence), which incidentally you have in there twice, and the book. That leaves the Zidan study and the two magazine articles. Yup, that's probably good enough for notability. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the Med Oncology paper, Zidan et al, which is indexed not published by the U.S. National Library of Medicine National Institute of Health, is a pilot study without a control group from a general medical unit not an academic one. The journal itself is fine, but the paper isn't reliable for any substantive claims. Nor of course are its mentions in the press etc. The other possible RS don't mention this particular brand of honey and shouldn't be used to support it. The Guardian blog describes this product rather well. As quackery. Also, though the producers say their company didn't fund the trial, that doesn't exactly exclude any other conflict of interest. Pretty much any doctor with time on their hands and honey to sell - or with a friend who has honey to sell - could produce a "study" like this. It's worthless and so is this article. Richard Keatinge (talk) 19:45, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trying hard to justify keeping any mention of this product in an encyclopedia: the only acceptable source here is the Guardian article. If we are to keep, it might be appropriate to present a stub clearly describing the overpromotion of the brand and the unreliable nature of the claims. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:42, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have attempted to rescue the article. Getting rid of the promotional material and the irrelevancies and the misunderstandings took a while. As the article now stands I'd still !vote for delete, but with less pressure on the keys than previously. Richard Keatinge (talk) 09:53, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per our talk page discussion I have erased the pilot studies and other information discussed above and on the talk page. I have reinstated other items like the infobox, logo and the claims section. My hope is that we allow the rest of the article until the AfD is decided. Lightburst (talk) 16:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per our talk page discussion, I propose to revert to my last version and await the result here on the only defensible version so far. Richard Keatinge (talk) 18:32, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You want to delete the article here, but also want to delete most of it and leave it as a pointless stub during the AFD. The current version has reliable sources backing up all the information as it is written. Dream Focus 19:26, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - reads like an advert and a single study does not a honey notable make. Honey may well have some beneficial uses, but using those purported benefits to make this one honey brand seem notable fails WP:NOTINHERITED. Appears to be snake-oil and fails GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 20:07, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - and advertisement for a non-notable company. Graham Beards (talk) 20:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP The Guardian gives it ample coverage but calls it a scam. https://www.theguardian.com/science/blog/2008/aug/12/sexsellsbutfearand Then I see https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/is-honey-a-cureall-or-is-it-hype-dzf65gdptmz shows only a 1/4th of the article about it, the rest you have to pay to subscribe to see. It gets coverage at https://www.express.co.uk/life-style/health/959980/cancer-treatment-life-mel-honey-this-morning-dr-chris And if you search Wikipedia for www.express.co.uk it gets 23,438 results. I see nowhere on the Reliable Sources discussion board where it was determined if was not considered reliable source. Dream Focus 23:36, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the news articles in Israel21c, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, I would say that the product fulfils WP:GNG. The health claims are one thing, but the product itself is obviously notable as a product. The last time this article was nominated for deletion, the vote was overwhelmingly to keep, and for good reason. Company notability has nothing to do with the validity of health claims. Patiodweller (talk) 00:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Per the news articles in Israel21c, the Guardian, and the Telegraph, I would say that the product satisfies WP:GNG. Clearly notable. You may not like the health claims, but the company and its product are notable. This article dispassionately discusses the "scam" aspect. WP:Verifiability, not WP:Truth. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 01:28, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Yes, it exists and can be verified, but the honey's sole claim to notability rests in its health benefits for cancer patients. The whole tone and point of the article is promotional. I can't see where that Israel21c piece is any help -- it reads exactly like a press release with no hint of skepticism, no contrary opinion, no disclaimers. If this were a type of honey some of the arguments above might hold water, but this is a brand, with dubious health claims. Allowing wikipedia to promote it feels skeevy. --Lockley (talk) 04:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A notable product, WP:nproduct, according to reliable news sources. Delete any specific unproven claims, but keep this article as a product of note.Behindthekeys (talk) 19:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The Daily Express is a far-right tabloid, whose current articles include such gems as "World War 3: China closes in on military partnership with Iran in terrifying warning to US", "'Suicidal' BBC Laura Kuenssberg's claim mobile charges will surge post-Brexit dismantled", and "Bible verses about coronavirus: What does the Bible say about COVID-19?". I have no opinion on this particular AFD at the moment, but I hope we aren't trying to legitimize the Daily Express as a reliable source here. Rorshacma (talk) 21:43, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - The articles that actually go in-depth on the product, that are not obviously promotional, are from highly questionable sources, bordering on promoting pseudoscience. The only one that does not is the Guardian piece, whose whole purpose is to discredit every claim that could potentially make the product notable. Rorshacma (talk) 00:27, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Grauniad article is a blog, not a bylined piece. The n=30 paper is primary for the fact of its existence and fails MEDRS for its content. Vitamin Global and bee lore are not RS. That leaves only the Telegraph article, which is obvious churnalism. This is bollocks, but it's not notable bollocks. Guy (help!) 22:25, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: JzG was canvassed to this AfD. Lightburst (talk) 23:44, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guy is a particularly well-respected editor, active in WP:FRINGE matters. His comment makes it clear that there aren't enough acceptably-reliable sources to justify an article even about the dodgy promotion. If a strong consensus here nevertheless suggests Keep, the article should be a redirect to Apitherapy. Richard Keatinge (talk) 08:45, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the consensus is to keep then it should be kept, not eliminated anyway and replaced with a redirect. And you deliberately canvassed someone you knew would agree with you on this, otherwise you would not have contacted him. Dream Focus 13:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I contacted him because I knew he'd give a sound opinion based on a wealth of experience. Actually I was rather hoping he'd endorse at least an improved version. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found http://www.jewishpost.com/archives/news/Medicinal-Honey-from-Israel-May-Hold-Promise-for-Chemo-Patients.html Dream Focus 13:26, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More, very obvious, promotional material and churnalism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 14:02, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Any reliable sources you disagree with must be "churnalism" apparently. Should we alter the general notability guidelines to say that reliable sources don't count if you don't like what they say? Dream Focus 14:19, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Analysis of sources for reliability is rather the point of this AfD, and in fact is basic to good editing here. And no, promotional material regurgitated does not thereby become respectable journalism. Richard Keatinge (talk) 15:55, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The Daily Express is generally unreliable per WP:RSP. The Jewish Post of New York item linked to just above recycles a claim from the Daily Express and says, The Jewish Post staff does not have the proper scientific nor medical background to critically evaluate this product. XOR'easter (talk) 00:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sources exist, but even the best of them do not rise to the level of quality necessary for medical topics, and so we have no material to build an article upon. XOR'easter (talk) 04:58, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - we do not publish original research, nor run of the mill health supplements. Bearian (talk) 01:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Non-notable organisation. Number 5 7 11:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Moved to draft. Consensus is that this might be TOOSOON for an article but could have elements worth perserving in draft space. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Garfield Nickelodeon series[edit]

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

WP:TOOSOON, fails WP:NTV, barely sourced at all, and currently very minimal information to warrant an article right now. Article should be moved to draftspace until further information is released. Magitroopa (talk) 19:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 20:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:18, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:31, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinner and Grammarians RFC[edit]

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

Even after reading last AfD (2011, no consensus) I cannot see any evidence of this meeting the notability criteria for sports teams. Boleyn (talk) 18:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Rugby union-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This article was kept at afd in 2011 on the basis that it played in an RFU organized league. This is, however, an extremely low bar as most sunday leagues in football and rugby are organized or at least recognized by their respective governing bodies. However, with no guidleine to say that this is incorrect, it is hard to argue against this. Several of the teams that are in the same league also have articles, so if this is deleted, they will have to be nominated as well. This exposes the need for a guideline on whether rugby teams are notable or not, consistent with other sports. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 22:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I happened to have stumbled across this article, so am not a regular rugby editor, but I don't see how it makes either WP:N or the guidelines for rugby clubs at Wikipedia:WikiProject Rugby union/Notability. While well sourced, only one of the sources appears to match the cirteria of being indpendent and substanial coverage about the topic itself ([7]), and even that probably falls into the category of routine sports/news coverage. FWIW, looking at AlessandroTianelli333's comment, I see no basis of notability for similar clubs in the same league either. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 10:49, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 04:13, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unit 2 Games[edit]

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

Current sourcing is includes affiliated sources, press releases and some passing mentions, but nothing that meets the requirements of WP:NCORP. I looked for better sourcing online, but didn't find anything that would meet the expectations. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. GirthSummit _(blether) 18:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your feedback. Unit 2 Games is the creator of the upcoming Stadia game Crayta, about which I'm currently also writing a WP article. I thought the sources on gamesindustry.biz and The Verge would be sufficient to meet Notability requirements (significant, independent, reliable and secondary). As for the Press release and press kit: they are only referenced for basic company details which iirc is passable as a source in that case. Could you please more specifically explain why you think the sources aren't sufficient? Then I can see if I can improve them. For what it's worth; I also think a certain amount of notability will arise once Crayta comes out July 1st and independent reviews start coming out. Yogarine (talk) 22:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The gamesindustry.biz source is a rehashed press release - routine coverage padded out with a few quotes from the CEO. The Verge article only mentions the company in a couple of sentences. Neither of these approach WP:CORPDEPTH. Perhaps notability will be there after the release of the game, but per WP:TOOSOON, we wait until the sources are there before we write an article. Since you've indicated that you're also writing about the game, can I ask you to declare whether you have any connection with the company? GirthSummit _(blether) 10:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the feedback! I've already removed the mention of the investment because indeed there is no source but a press release. I also added an additional reference to GamesRadar+ that includes an interview with Unit 2 Games. If that's not enough, then I guess that currently most of the sourceable notability comes from the game the company is releasing (even if, on a personal note, the company has an interesting history and focusses on inclusivity and employee wellbeing).
There are plenty of other sources about Crayta specifically, although most of those only mention the company in passing, if at all, or are not reputable or independent enough to be included as sources. Is the notability of a game enough to warrant an article for the game's developer, or does that mean that this this article should redirect to the game's article until the company itself has had more significant coverage? If it's the latter, then that does confuse me somewhat considering articles like Rebellion Warwick seem less notable and yet do exist.
Finally, no, I don't have any connection with the company. I'm just excited for Crayta and figured it was notable enough to deserve an article. I created the Unit 2 Games article first for completeness and so I can link to it in the Crayta article. Yogarine (talk) 13:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, interviews don't really contribute towards notability - anything coming out of the mouths of the people involved in the company is primary, rather than secondary. This is discussed in more detail at WP:INTERVIEW. Notability isn't inherited, so a non-notable company might produce a notable game (or vide versa); what we would normally do in those circumstances is set up a redirect from the company's name to article about the game, and include a few lines about the company in the article about the game. The company's history and ethos may be interesting, but that's not a reason to keep an article - and remember, without reliable independent secondary sources, all we know is that they present themselves as having a focus on inclusivity and employee well-being. Maybe they do, or maybe it's a clever marketing stance - I don't know, and we can't say anything about it until a truly independent source says that it is so. As for Rebellion Warwick - that's not relevant to this discussion (WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS), Wikipedia has loads of articles that ought to be deleted, so if you don't think the sources there establish notability then by all means nominate it for deletion. Thanks for confirming you have no connection with the subject. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank's for clearing that up. For what it's worth, Unit 2 Games was named one of the best places to work by gamesindustry.biz, although I doubt that changes much in the context of this discussion.
So, I guess I'll keep an eye open for substantial, secondary sources as they come out. Can you perhaps give some examples of sources I should look out for? E.g. sources that assert notability for similar articles. Thank you very much for taking the time to explain these things. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yogarine (talk • contribs) 15:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Promotional article for the upcoming beta. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 16:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

fwiw, this article is hardly promotional, nor is it for an upcoming beta. The game they are releasing is an official release. Yogarine (talk) 01:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Since this AfD started, Crayta has been released and the company now has extensive news coverage. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doing a search for Unit 2 Games comes up with a lot of stuff on Crayta that only mentions them in passing. If Crayta is notable, then there should be an article for it, but notability isn't inherited and having an article about Crayta masquerading as one about Unit 2 Games isn't really the way to go about it. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Agree with the analysis of sources above. I am also unable to locate any significant coverage with in-depth information on the company and containing independent content, references to date fail the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 14:46, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:19, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep per WP:SNOW. (non-admin closure) —— § erial 10:27, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warren Bradley (politician)[edit]

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

OTRS request - full detail at AfD Darren-M talk 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Darren-M talk 18:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VRTS ticket # 2020070710012291 has been received requesting that this article be deleted. The requester states that the article was set up maliciously, that the content is out of date, and that the content is damaging his likelihood of further employment. As a gesture of good faith, I have advised the requester that I will list the article at AfD. I have set expectations with the requester that such deletions are a matter for community consensus, that being listed here is by no means an indication that the article will indeed be deleted, and that I suspect the deletion may be unlikely to succeed. The requester has agreed for me to share this detail in order to raise this request. Darren-M talk 18:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- query - Darren, has the requester withdrawn his belligerent and blustering legal threat which got him NLT blocked? (See User talk:Warren2922; that was before we blocked him for sockpuppeting to get around the NLT block.) --Orange Mike | Talk 22:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Iff the problems described are present,that is an editorial matter, not a deletion matter. The proper course of action is to to discuss such matters on the talk page, not resort to blanking content, making legal threats, and using multiple accounts to try and force a preferred version. This is exactly why we discourage people from editing content where they have a conflict of interest. Beeblebrox (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A former ~~mayor~~ leader of a major UK city would almost definitely pass Wikipedia:Notability (politics)#Local politicians, even without the coverage in regional and national media surrounding the perjury conviction. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 19:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A person in a similar position who never made the news might be a more marginal case, but the subject made himself notable enough to garner significant news coverage: once notable, always notable. We do not judge the article by speculated motivation of the person who initially created it, but rather by its current condition. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep per WP:SKCRIT 1 and 4; no valid deletion rationale is expressed here, and whilst Darren-M clearly is not a blocked user, the user who they are inadvertently making this nomination on behalf of is subject to a WP:NLT block, as well as a sockpuppetry block. I am not an OTRS user, so do not have access to the ticket - so to be clear, I cannot say for sure that the user making the OTRS request is the same one who is blocked - but WP:DUCK applies. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 20:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet notability. Controversial issues are sourced with reliable sources. I don't see BLP violations here, either, and certainly no reason for deletion. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The page is relevant and we don't remove it because the subject doesn't like the details. Any editorial concerns can be addressed but the coverage/subject is notable. -- Dane ^talk 01:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The precise reason for the requested nomination makes it notable. A politician in his capacity convicted for perjury and that has received ample media coverage leads to notability. If the subject is concerned about his future chances of employment, he shouldn't have done it in the first place. We have presented the facts using NPOV. Oaktree b (talk) 03:04, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Seems to meet notability. Nika2020 (talk) 19:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vinod Kumar Dwivedi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject of article lacks WP:NN. Being merely a Musical Artist doesn't prove his notability. The article does not cite any independent coverage in reliable sources. Lal Singh Chadda (talk) 11:15, 9 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 9. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet our inclusion guidelines for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:26, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this article is not important and also this article does not meet our inclusion guidelines for musicians.Lal Singh Chadda (talk) 08:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by लाल सिंह चड्डा (talk • contribs) [reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:20, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:MUSICBIO, and WP:SIGCOV. This is basically a run of the musician, who has not toured widely, nor won major awards, nor recorded hit records. Coverage is shallow. Bearian (talk) 01:12, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kingsley (YouTuber)[edit]

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

Non notable youtuber, most of the citations are unreliable and a large part of the article is written like an advertisement. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Eternal Shadow Talk 16:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep, Although it have most of the references which are from YouTube but some of them seem to be Reliable one which makes it pass Wp:BASIC. Stonertone (talk) 16:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing just isn't there for this to be notable. There are some none YouTube references, but they are all trivial and/or interviews. Which don't work for notability. --Adamant1 (talk) 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — per rationale provided by Adamant1 & Eternal Shadow. Celestina007 (talk) 20:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there is a total lack of reliable, in-depth, 3rd party secondary source independent coverage needed to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:46, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allegiant (finance services)[edit]

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

This article was deleted on 23 May 2020 after my PROD. It was restored a month later following a WP:REFUND request from a new editor account. The concerns from my original PROD remain, so I am now bringing it to AfD with the same rationale: "An article about a claim management company, without a clear claim to notability. The references in the article show the company being quoted in the wider payday lending context (from which notability is not inherited), but not specific coverage of this company itself. There is also a critical investigation in The Sun (30 August 2019, cannot link here) about high charges but again not specific coverage about the company. Fails WP:NCORP." AllyD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 15:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, insufficient notability. Balle010 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable Devokewater (talk)

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

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

The result was keep. Keep by consensus after improvements. Drmies (talk) 22:44, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stuart Bascombe[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a musician and actor, not reliably sourced as getting over our notability criteria for musicians or actors. The primary notability claim as a musician is that he was a member of a band who certainly clear NMUSIC as a band, but the band's notability does not automatically guarantee the standalone notability of every individual band member: to be notable enough for his own standalone BLP as a separate topic from the band, he would have to redemonstrate that he has notability independent of the band: solo albums, coverage that was specifically about him rather than just mentioning his name in the process of being about the band, and on and so forth — and as an actor, his only discernible notability claim is that he's had a couple of supporting or extra roles, which is also not an instant notability freebie. And as for the footnotes, the reliable sources here are entirely about the band, while every single reference for anything else is a primary source (user-generated content on Facebook or Twitter, the self-published websites of organizations that he's directly affiliated with, etc.) that is not support for notability at all. This is not how you make a musician or an actor notable enough for a Wikipedia article. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 15:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have added Bascombe's songwriters credits to the article. Will continue to try to improve the article. Vannessajg (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Listing songwriting credits isn't what's going to make the difference. Showing a WP:GNG-worthy volume of reliable source media coverage about him, existing independently of his name merely being mentioned in coverage about the band, is what's going to make the difference. Bearcat (talk) 22:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like all Classic Soul/R&B groups of the 1970's and 1980's. The name of the group is what identify the artists in the groups as well. The groups/singers/artists of that era have become legendary. For instance, Al Goodman of Ray, Goodman & Brown (AKA The Moments) never had a solo career, however he has a stand alone Wikipedia page. Robert "Squirrel" Lester of The Chi-Lites, never had a solo career and he has a stand alone page. Bubba Knight of Gladys Knight & The Pips didn't have a solo career, and he has a stand alone page and all of the sources that are referenced on his page are linked to Gladys Knight & The Pips articles. Randy Cain of The Delfonics has a stand alone page as well. My point is that the names I mentioned go hand in hand with the groups they are in. In the classic soul/R&B world the group members are known by name and/or group. Preserving their names are just as important as preserving the groups name, due to having paved the way for artists today.

Please let me know which links are directly going to the subjects twitter, Facebook and website pages. I did have the organization's link that he is a board member of just to show he was a member. I have since removed that. I was trying to make sure that I didn't use Stuart Bascombe's or Black Ivory's websites, FB and twitter pages. I am new to editing and creating pages, so I may be using the wrong sites for references. Thanking you in advance. Vannessajg (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-05 ✗ R2, 2020-05 move to → Draft:Stuart Bascombe

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is sourced and while it could be a lot shorter I think it'd be wrong to wipe it from Wiki. Balle010 (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or redirect > Black Ivory.Djflem (talk) 16:30, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
At the suggestion of Balle010, I shortened the article by removing the acting and songwriter credits sections.Vannessajg (talk) 05:40, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I have cleaned it somewhat but could do with more as a majority of sources are listing sites. But reported to be occasionally brilliant. Noteworthy. scope_creep^Talk 22:43, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Khalid Ali-M Aldawsari[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The article is mainly sourced to primary sources, which is against Wikipedia guidelines. We do not source to charging documents by law enforcement, but to secondary coverage in published accounts. What we have is not enough to show notability. Not everyone charged with trying to do a bombing is notable. We do not have articles on most people who actually succeeded in doing bombings, articles need to be built on coverage that meets GNG and this article clearly does not meet GNG. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete While there may be further secondary sources (see e.g. New York Times[8]), articles fails WP:CRIM ("A person who is known only in connection with a criminal event or trial should not normally be the subject of a separate Wikipedia article if there is an existing article that could incorporate the available encyclopedic material relating to that person.") as the subject is known only in connection with this criminal event and Terrorism in the United States covers the material in this biography. BananaCarrot152 (talk) 01:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Saudi Arabia-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as stated above, articles fails WP:CRIM Balle010 (talk) 16:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete At this point the subject does not reach WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 11:33, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 14:39, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Molesworth Institute[edit]

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

A hoax (or, longstanding in-joke among some librarians) largely presented as fact. Questionable notability. HaeB (talk) 03:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From [9]: "[ Norman D. Stevens ] enjoys being a prankster. He delights in obtaining listings for the [Molesworth] institute or staff members, including himself, Nigel Molesworth, and Timothy Peason, in standard reference books [...] Stevens published an entry on the Molesworth Institute on Wikipedia. The Wikipedia editors questioned some of the information and added to the page an external link to an 'article citing hoax in Who's Who in Library Servies as the source of the name Molesworth.'"

Regards, HaeB (talk) 04:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as Hoax. "absurdist informatics, disjunctive librarianship, and word play" indeed. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, have left a message on comedy wikiproject talkpage notifying them of this afd. Coolabahapple (talk) 07:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment, theres an entry in the Encyclopedia of Library History (allbeit by Stevens), Archives of Library Research from the Molesworth Institute (1985) is held by around 120 libraries and has been reviewed in the Library and Information Science Annual (here), Molesworth Institute "members" (possibly stevens only?) have made presentations at Association for Information Science and Technology SIG/CON conferences (see here), The Serials Librarian has an article "The Molesworth Institute Library Reopens", there is an indepth article on Stevens and the institute in The Laughing Librarian: A History of American Library Humor here, reckon at the very least this is deserving of a "redirect/merge" to stevens. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment If this hoax has been covered in in reliable sources (such as the one discussed by HaeB); then this could still be worthy of an article, with potentially a move to Molesworth Institute hoax. Otherwise a listing at WP:HOAXLIST would of course be appropriate (as this would then become the most enduring hoax there...). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC) blocked as sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 14:07, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It is a hoax library with its own article in Wikipedia. As it stands, it is a delete as it is the hoax presented as fact. Perhaps a future article on the Molesworth Institute (hoax library) could be written, but this is not it. Candidate for WP:HOAXLIST. Britishfinance (talk) 23:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:HEY by Cunard and XOR'easter below. Article is no longer misleading and there is enough GNG to keep it. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline with the sources presented in this discussion and additional sources I found and added to the article. I rewrote the article to remove promotional material and to make it clear that the Molesworth Institute is a fictional institute, not a real institute.
Cunard (talk) 11:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Cunard, I could see a potential for it as Molesworth Institute (hoax library), and with the text re-written to reflect the true facts (there is some GNG for this), but as currently written, it is a hoax being presented as a fact (i.e. a real library)? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 14:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this is not the Molesworth Institute (hoax library) page. I'd favor creating that page. Balle010 (talk) 16:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I removed a couple paragraphs that were written from an "in-universe" perspective (taking the hoax as fact). What remains might better be treated at Norman D. Stevens. On the other hand, the description in The Laughing Librarian is pretty extensive, so it's possible the article could be built back up again, making more clear what's part of the joke. XOR'easter (talk) 17:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for removing that in-universe material that took the hoax as fact. Cunard (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Britishfinance (talk · contribs), Balle010 (talk · contribs), and XOR'easter (talk · contribs), I have further expanded the article with information from the sources (though there is much more content that can be added from The Laughing Librarian). The article says, "The Molesworth Institute is a fictional organization started with the aim of furthering library comedy", so it's not misleading readers into thinking it might be a real institute as it had been before. I am fine with renaming to Molesworth Institute (hoax library) if that changes editors' positions, but would adding a disambiguator to the title be compliant with the Wikipedia:Disambiguation guideline given that the current title does not "refe[r] to more than one subject covered by Wikipedia"?
Cunard (talk) 11:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Very nice job Cunard, and agree/appreciate the renaming as well. I have changed my !vote to keep. Britishfinance (talk) 11:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Changing my vote to keep as well! Balle010 (talk) 16:17, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Decently sourced for an article about a long-running joke, and clear on the point that it's a joke. XOR'easter (talk) 18:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's properly cited with links to notable peer-reviewed journals. Almost a library industry cultural phenomenon at this point, it ceased being a "prank" years ago. From what I understand it's the equivalent of the "Who's On First" sketch to the library world. Oaktree b (talk) 03:20, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. After improvements any previous in-universe quality has been well scrubbed off. Nice work, gotta say. --Lockley (talk) 07:42, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:54, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amir Gharebaghi[edit]

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

All primary sources. Can't identify him nor see why he is notable. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 15:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I can't find any independent coverage of these publications or patents. Balle010 (talk) 16:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unable to locate any third party reliable coverage either. — Infogapp1 (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NACADEMIC due to not meeting any of it's notability criteria. The person might meet the criteria due to their few research papers being cited in books or other places somewhere, but it's highly doubtful. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:23, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michelangelo Galliani[edit]

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

Written by a single-purpose account that claims to be the copyright holder for the subject's work, likely an autobiography. Lots of sources, non-notable wards, but no significant coverage in independent, reliable sources. Vexations (talk) 15:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 15:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete given the apparent COI and lack of independent sources. Balle010 (talk) 16:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment this one is hard to assess as most sources are in Italian. Downsides: the previous collections list included a lot of unverifiable material, which I removed. Possible upsides: I found a few mentions in the press, but I can't assess their value that well, as I have to do so through Google translate. The article is horribly promotional. 18:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
Delete a non-notable sculptor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass notability criteria for artists. The fact that it is a promotional COI or AUTOBIO lowers credibility. Looks like a NARTIST and GNG fail. Netherzone (talk) 00:27, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboarder (film)[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I couldn't find much coverage for this. it certainly don't pass WP:NFILM, I think.

The first nomination was closed since it was on behalf of a blocked IP Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Isn't notable due to a lack of the serious sourcing that would be enough to pass WP:NFILM. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by Adamant1. Celestina007 (talk) 20:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. G2; "Super base was released in 2021 by The queen of rap known as Nicki Minaj." doesn't need a whole afd. Moneytrees🌴^{Talk🌲Help out at CCI!} 18:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicki minaj sample songs[edit]

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

Only one song, doesn't look like a proper article. I don't know if this is an A10 or not. Also somewhat promotional. For reference, as of 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC), the only content is "Super base was released in 2021 by The queen of rap known as Nicki Minaj". ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 15:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obviously not notable. The title of the article is bad, the "article" is just one sentence which is also nonsense. It could've been speedy deleted imo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreeing with all reasons given above. Balle010 (talk) 16:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete The current content makes this an A10 of Super Bass. Adam9007 (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:56, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frank-Joachim Grossmann[edit]

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

The article, written by an editor who identifies as the subject on commons, per https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Special:Contributions/Schota17 is largerly based on two sources: https://www.rheinpfalz.de/lokal/speyer_artikel a local newspaper with a section dedicated to the town of Speyer (with a population just over 50.0000) and kunstportal-bw.de, which calls itself a portal, but is more like a blog. Their goal is unambiguously promotional per https://www.kunstportal-bw.de/aktuelles/angebot/, if "essentially non-profit in nature". The article is a resume. In fact, his resume links to this article. I cannot find significant coverage in independent, reliable sources that are not hyper-local. Per WP:NOTWEBHOST we're an encyclopedia, not a webhost for a resume. Vexations (talk) 14:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 14:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination. Nothing in the article or the citations demonstrates notability, and I can't find anything online which suggests he might pass WP:CREATIVE. A clear case of WP: NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 18:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia must be vigilant in destroying autobiographies lest they overwhelm and distort the project.John Pack Lambert (talk) 12:53, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Another COI/AUTOBIO of a non-notable artist. Does not pass GNG nor NARTISt. Netherzone (talk) 00:29, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Redirect to Charlotte Sevier. Clear consensus that this guy is not notable, redirecting to his spouse per ATD. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:08, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Henry Sevier[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:BASIC. Also fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:NPEOPLE in general. Reference only seems to mention the subject a few times, which may constitute a trivial mention. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim to notability, poor single source, hardly any content. Charlotte Sevier is much more developed and possibly a redirect target. --Lockley (talk) 03:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Charlotte Sevier. Siddsg (talk) 10:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom --Devokewater (talk) 21:24, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 11:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alassana Jatta[edit]

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

Contested PROD. Concern was Article about a footballer who fails WP:GNG and who has not played in a fully pro league. PROD was contested by the article's creator without providing a reason. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Sir Sputnik (talk) 12:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable footballer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable --Devokewater (talk) 21:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, player on non-professional level. Geschichte (talk) 21:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 15:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:51, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Storehippo[edit]

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

Unable to find significant in-depth coverage in independent and reliable sources for this company. Fails NCORP. The article history shows that it was probably created by a COI editor. M4DU7 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 11:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I can't find anything online about this company other than promotional coverage. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article originally created by WP:SPA Kriti hippoinnovations and sourced to start-up proposition coverage. Searches find more PR-based coverage (e.g. [10]) but not the WP:RS coverage needed to demonstrate notability. AllyD (talk) 14:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:43, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UPE. And promotional writing. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:01, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:52, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Phonic Athletic[edit]

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

Ephemeral garage band, fails the GNG and WP:BAND. No reliable sources added in over a decade (or ever), no independent notability for any of its members or "associated acts." Created by a SPA for whom pushing this band was his sole Wikipedia activity. Ravenswing 11:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - falls far short of WP:BAND. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:05, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Another absolutely non-notable band. I searched first without the quotation marks and I did not found anything besides Wikipedia and Facebook. The rest of the results were not about the band, just sites where these three words appear. Then I searched with quotation marks included but the results are not any better: Wikipedia, Facebook, lots of Wikipedia mirrors and very trivial mentions/name checks. No coverage, no reliable sources, in fact no sources whatsoever. We should really stop single purpose accounts because they do nothing but advertise/promote things, and they don't give a hoot about notability. How this article has managed to stay here since 2009 is a complete mystery to me. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:48, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flame Boiz (producer)[edit]

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

Fails about every known basic notability criteria for inclusion. Fails WP:FILMMAKER, WP:ANYBIO & also fails WP:GNG. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable.Em-mustapha ^talk 15:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:FILMMAKER and WP:SIGCOV. Lapablo (talk) 15:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything about him. Easily fails WP:ANYBIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Presenter umuju[edit]

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

Very non notable article on a subject who falls terribly below WP:GNG. A before search shows 0 evidence of notability in any manner. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 11:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Definitely no way this meets notability. Fails WP:ANYBIO and WP:RS. Lapablo (talk) 11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not notable. Em-mustapha ^talk 15:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a failure of GNG and BIO. Java Hurricane 14:02, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Barely found anything him. Easily fails WP:BIO. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anatoliy Karpenko[edit]

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

Subject does not meet the GNG, and no evidence that he meets any notability criteria has been proffered in over a decade. Article was created shortly before the editor's indef block for account abuse. Ravenswing 11:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. killer bee  11:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K6bee9 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Being the world's one-time fiftieth best ski jumper falls far short of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 13:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails General notability guideline as per above and also has no news coverage whatsoever. CreativeNorth (talk) 14:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:47, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Donna Briggs[edit]

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

25 year old celebrity interviewer. Sourced to homepage, facebook, and talent agency. Independent sources are lacking per my check. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 11:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks proper sources & references. Seems to be a promo. killer bee  11:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K6bee9 (talk • contribs) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Promotional article created by SPA, no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete absolutely no reliable 3rd party source coverage of her.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Sandstein 14:28, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Duffy[edit]

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

this article has no sourcing. i tried to search some sources myself unsuccessfully. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 15:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sources to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 12:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I was not able to find any reliable sources on this person. Fails WP:GNG. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep -- The problem with sourcing might be a result of Duffy's name: he's mostly known as Bull Stanton - it's his gay porn pseudonym - even among bodybuilding fans. There are many sources that could be used in the article and that could prove his article should not be removed. I will improve the article over the next few days, so please don't delete it. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 19:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Giving more time so the changes and sources being added by AOD can be assessed more thoroughly here.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: if you have good sources to prove notability I would withdraw the nomination. thank you for your contribute. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC) hi @AngelOfDestiny:, the sources added so far do not prove any notability. do you have more sources?. thank you. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 08:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean, they not prove any notability? It's clearly stated that he was: 1) a first widely acclaimed bodybuilder to appear in gay pornography, which is remarkable; 2) the US professional bodybuilding champion - not state-level, nationwide. Also: a widely celebrated fitness cover model, and a well-know 90s porn star. If he was only one of those things, yes, it might not be enough but all things considered he's clearly eligible for a Wikipedia article. Beverly Hills Housewives have their own articles - Christian Duffy is okay, too. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: according to WP:GNG, WP:BASIC, WP:ENT and WP:SPORTSPERSON we need secondary sources to state what you say. so far we only have a few primary sources. the idea behind it is that to prove that an achievement is truly relevant we need a secondary source to talk about it. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: Look, if you want me to find analyses or academic writings on a '90s bodybuilding champion, there's not much I can do. Bodybuilding already is a niche sport. The sources I found about Christian Duffy are pretty much all there is on the internet. It clearly gives all the information anyone interested in him should gather, and if that's not enough, I literally can't provide more. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 14:11, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: you said that he was on the cover of a few important magazines, I would than be surprised if none of them has ever written a bio. we don't need much but just a couple of good sources. this is not to satisfy me but to satisfy the guidelines for notability. as I said if you and your achievement are notable someone must have written something about it. this is an enciclopedia after all and if we want wikipedia to be taken seriously and be considered reliable we can not rely on anything but good sources, otherwise the whole project will be considered a joke. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: He was on the cover of the most important bodybuilding magazines but that was before the internet era. Today that would equal with a series of articles on websites of Flex, IronMan or Muscular Development. But it was before mid-90s so everything remains in those printed magazine - which I do not own. Obviously, I can't win this one; I can't provide any sources you want from me. I still think those given are legit. There are tons of bodybuilding-related biographies on Wikipedia and a lot of them are from the "golden age" of bodybuilding ('70s, '80s, '90s). Most of them have the same type of sourcing like this page and there's no drama involved. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: do you believe we can have the exact number or date those magazines were issued? if so we might write to the magazine and try to get a copy of the article. that would take time but i would withdraw the nomination and see if we can prove notability through them... would you be willing to do that? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 16:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AlejandroLeloirRey: I can tell you're judging Duffy on a base of his porn star achievements. He did not win any porn industry awards but is notable as a bodybuilder-turned-gay porn actor, and as an athlete he achieved enough to have his own Wikipedia article. US-level champion on behalf of the NPC federation is a big deal and a definitely a notable success. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AngelOfDestiny: first of all I am not judging a person but an article and mostly I am wandering if its notability has been proven by the sources. what I need is a in depth coverage of the subject in a secondary source. So far you only gave us sources where the subject is mentioned. this is not enough to prove notability. check WP:SPORTSPERSON --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep -- Obiously an accomplished bodybuilding figure, successful enough to being a cover model for the most important bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Famous for his gay pornography work even among bodybuilding aficionados, and probably the very first athlete of such masculine sports to openly admit both his porn history and sexual orientation (homo- or bisexual). Should be kept definitely. Adriano16 (talk) 11:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Adriano16: basing on your personal perception of this subject or on sources? I am tired of people taking AFD as a voting process, we should present facts based on sources not what we think about the subject. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment In order to help those who are adding sources to save the article I will give you my opinion about the sources that have been found so far. 1) this is an interview and generally interviews are not considered to prove notability as they are primary sources. nevertheless, this one is a good interview so I believe that it has some weight but it is not enough. 2),3),4),6),7) totally primary sources, they only proves he wan some competitions, this type of sources have almost no weight at all into proving notability. 5) this is only something that someone has posted. 8) this is a very short bio (about 4-5 lines) stuffed with pictures. this has no weight into proving notability. 9) another interview, see 1. 10),11) mere mentions, they do not says nothing about the subject. 12) it's 2 pics of the subject. 13) IMDb is not reliable, this source should not even be used. 13) another interview and it reads "advertisement". now, if you want to keep this article, in my opinion, you should either add more sources or tell why my judgment on these sources is wrong and point out exactly which sources you believe prove notability. --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 13:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment So far no one showed a reliable source and the arguments for keep are based on the fact that they are sure that somewhere more sources exists. are this type of argument considered here? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:17, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Gene93k: i think there is a problem with the relisting. it doesn't appear in the correct date. can you check if everything is ok? thank you.--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 09:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The 8 July 2020 relisting did not show up in the daily log.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, • Gene93k (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No proper references available. killer bee  11:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by K6bee9 (talk • contribs) [reply]
Keep -- Per WP:ENT and WP:SPORTCRIT Accomplished bodybuilding figure: cover model for the most important bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Search term of Bull Stanton reveals even more SIGCOV Lightburst (talk) 19:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lightburst: cool, basin on which sources please? --AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 20:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete None of the sources are sufficient for notability. Neither is the fact that he was on a cover of "the most important" bodybuilding magazines in the United States. Since pictures are not in-depth coverage. Which is required for notability. Plus, notability isn't inherited anyway. So being on the cover of anything, no matter how "important" it is, doesn't automatically qualify someone for an article. --Adamant1 (talk) 20:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment this article was relisted because AngelOfDestiny said he could find some reliable sources but he needed some extratime. well, no reliable extensive covers of the subject have been shown so far and all the keep votes are based on the fact that "there might be more sources"... might... may be I can fly...--AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 10:16, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't mind a little good faith "criticism", I'm sure everyone can figure that out the crux of this by reading through the discussion. So, there isn't a need to comment after every other vote. --Adamant1 (talk) 11:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry, you are right. it is just that I saw it happening a few times. someone pop out and says wait, give me time, I have some good sources and than he adds a few (or many) bad sources. but, yes you are right. sorry. (i am AlejandroLeloirRey) --79.35.212.95 (talk) 08:15, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. He gets chronicled in Jack Fritscher Gay San Francisco: Eyewitness Drummer, and is listed in Superstars: Gay Adult Video Guide. So even on his gay porn career, he is probably notable. See no reason to delete this. Britishfinance (talk) 12:04, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. He also gets three pages in Michael Alago's autobiography, which I have used to expand the article. Britishfinance (talk) 13:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you for your contribution. I never knew sources like that existed in the first place and they really benefit the article. AngelOfDestiny (talk) 16:18, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 10:01, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bella Karoli[edit]

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

Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. Can't find anything on the subject. scope_creep^Talk 09:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:57, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No evidence of GNG. I didn't find anything at all on one listed book, no reviews on the other (and one book isn't likely to give a pass of WP:NAUTHOR). WP:TNT applies if nothing else to this undersourced and autobiographical-appearing article. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 10:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. There's absolutely nothing to demonstrate that the subject of this page has achieved notability. Looking at the content and edit history, it quacks like an autobiography. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 12:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nomination. Clearly fails notability guidelines. — Goszei (talk) 01:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: If deleted, it should be redirected to Béla Károlyi, as its a misspellings appearing in a number of English language sources. --Rob (talk) 01:10, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 10:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete. Books appear to be self-published and (more importantly) unreviewed, and the article (judging from a mess of repetitive bare-url citations) appears to be purely self-sourced. No notability evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 19:51, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As others have said, doesn't appear to be notable at this stage. -Kj cheetham (talk) 20:07, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per all. -Hatchens (talk) 03:11, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. No consensus to delete this article, and after two relists, no challenge to the keeps. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:26, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated[edit]

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

too soon, short article and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 21:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I started the article and I'd like to clear up some points here re: article is (1) too short, (2) too soon and (3) needs more reference. For (1), I'm not sure if there is a specific amount of words needed for an article when stub articles even exist. For (2), while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this and the other TV programmes being AFD'ed were already announced including the artists who are taking part of the series which leads me to (3) the additional references (as published in Thai reliable sources) are as follows:

It would have also been better if concerns raised were discussed on the page's talk page and WP:BEFORE was done. Other articles being AFD'ed in relation to this are Devil Sister, Military of Love, The Gifted: Graduation‎, Oh My Boss, Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area and A Tale of Thousand Stars. — Emperork (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area that nobody actually knows the premiere date for this show, or the others nominated with the same rationale. The only real rationale given is TOOSOON, but the nominator doesn't know how soon it will actually be. "Short article" and "Not notability" are not acceptable rationales. Keep on all of these thoughtless nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:44, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A Tale of Thousand Stars[edit]

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

Short article, too soon and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 20:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comment~~ Keep: I started the article and I'd like to clear up some points here re: article is (1) too short, (2) too soon and (3) needs more reference. For (1), I'm not sure if there is a specific amount of words needed for an article when stub articles even exist. For (2), while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this and the other TV programmes being AFD'ed were already announced including the artists who are taking part of the series which leads me to (3) the additional references (as published in Thai reliable sources) are as follows:

It would have also been better if concerns raised were discussed on the page's talk page and WP:BEFORE was done. Other articles being AFD'ed in relation to this are Devil Sister, Military of Love, The Gifted: Graduation‎, Oh My Boss, Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area and Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated. — Emperork (talk) 03:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It was established at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area that nobody actually knows the premiere date for this show, or the others nominated with the same rationale. The only real rationale given is TOOSOON, but the nominator doesn't know how soon it will actually be. "Short article" and "Not notability" are not acceptable rationales. Keep on all of these thoughtless nominations. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:43, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Coleg Morgannwg[edit]

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

This university existed up until 2013 when it merged with Ystrad Mynach College to become Coleg y Cymoedd, but how does it meet WP:NOTABILITY besides a notable alumni being a Meteorologist for BBC Wales. Pahiy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 19:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Keep. CFEs are clearly notable institutions. Why propose this for deletion and not all the other CFEs in Category:Further education colleges in the United Kingdom? No consistency there. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into Coleg y Cymoedd where it's a natural fit. That meteorologist shows up over there too. --Lockley (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:09, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. No consensus to delete, however, does not preclude a possible merge with 2gether: The Series (Thai TV series), which has not yet however established a consensus after two re-lists. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 18:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(Still) 2gether: The Series[edit]

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

It's just 5 special episodes of 2gether: The Series (Thai TV series) not a new series or new story, no need to create a new aticle for this because it's same article and details, so we should remove it or merge them together, add about this 5 special episodes in the main article of this series same as Thai Wikipedia page, and you can checking about this special episode details in Thai medias or official details from GMMTV in Thai. So the only one English referrence in this page it's just a translated from Philippines fan who can't understand in Thai, not from English details from GMMTV or Thai English medias. PradaSaetiew (talk) 06:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 06:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Noting that this would be the 2nd nomination of this article. The 2 other sources came from Daily News and NEW18, both from Thailand, picking up the announcement of GMMTV. I also checked the Thai WP version of this article and it hasn't included yet (as of this update) these additional episodes as mentioned above. And given that it does carry a minor difference in title from its parent article 2gether: The Series (Thai TV series) and its director — this one is to be directed by Aof Noppharnach 1 2 and not by Weerachit Thongjila anymore, I would assume that this would be considered as a spin-off despite having only 5 episodes. — Emperork (talk) 04:38, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: :@Emperork: you're Philippines so you can't understand Thai or read Thai, in Thai press or sources, GMMTV PR in Thai and Thai Wiki page for The series said this is special epsisodes of 2gether: The Series (Thai TV series) not a new series or story.

I didn't talk about who are the director, i just talk about this 5 special episodes it's just a special episode for 2gether: The Series (Thai TV series) not a new series or new season, so we can add this too short details in the main article. Anyway your sources like Twitter or IG it's not from GMMTV.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: we can merge this page to 2gether: The Series (Thai TV series).--PradaSaetiew (talk) 10:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do not make bolded !votes on discussions you start. --Paul_012 (talk) 19:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment English reference appears legit. PUSH [11] (the site and organization of the writer of the article) is apparently entertainment news site of ABS-CBN Corporation company which operates TV channels. There is also partnership deal between ABS-CBN and GMM as well [12] --Lerdsuwa (talk) 07:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Given how it's closely related, I don't see why this shouldn't be merged into the main series article. This could have been discussed as an editorial issue without need to resort to AfD. --Paul_012 (talk) 15:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was move to draft. This article was created by a paid editor and so is required to go through articles for creation. As this did not happen, the article has been returned to draft space and requires AfC approval prior to any move back to mainspace. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 08:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamis Kiggundu[edit]

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

This should really be a G11 speedy, however the author seems convinced this belongs in article space without engaging in dialogue and accepting the AfC process. The subject of the article is potentially notable - but it needs substantial work (and probably time) to remove promotional puffery and identify reliable sources to verify most of the statements of about his life. The sources are an array of mere business listing sites, mentions in passing and questionable news outlets (some of which my defenses show bearing malware...). There are some unanswered COI concerns as the author seems to have embarked on creating an array of articles about this person, his business interests and some family members. Some family facts are not mentioned in any sources... they must have come from somehwere. There are a few rejected/deleted AfCs at Draft:Hamis Kiggundu., Draft:Ham Palm Villas and Draft:Hamis Kiggundu. Therefore, propose to delete (WP:TNT). _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 10:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~KeepDeleteNeutralDraftify~~ ~~(revised my opinion. See comment below) (and once more) (and again)~~(see after the (first) re-list. I am striking all the comments I made before that.After some thought I fall back on the fact that the gentleman has notability despite your wise and accurate comments on the references. I consider that the references need a great deal of tidying, paring down, and filtering for quality. Fiddle Faddle 10:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: I see where you're coming from. This is a borderline call. It is probably easy enough to reduce the article to a minimum viable stub. However, I refuse to edit/improve articles that have the slightest whiff of COI/PAID as this would mean that I use my volunteer time for someone else to get paid. Call me weird, I would much rather see this nuked and then I'd write a stub from scratch - with the illusion that payment may then be withheld.... _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 11:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: I also have no intention of working in this borderline article. The rationale for my opinion on keeping is very thin indeed, but I interpret WP policy as driving my !vote. I appreciate that I may be incorrect. I have flagged it for work on the referencing assuming it is kept. Fiddle Faddle 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have revised my opinion. I have seen so many articles around this gentleman created by the same editor that I suspect a paid campaign (broadly construed) to create notability surrounding him. I have placed a warning in the creators talk page to that effect. I have abided by WP:AGF and considered this carefully. If the gentleman is notable let someone else create the article(s). Fiddle Faddle 11:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The editor has left a clear explanation on their talk page. I no longer suspect paid editorship.Fiddle Faddle 19:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justifying my final(!) !vote, I feel that there is sufficient potential in this article to put it into Draft: space for a major edit. It needs to be slimmed down. A great number if Wikilinks need to go. Irrelevant 'references' must go. The creating editor needs time to work on this without being under the time pressure of AfD. Fiddle Faddle 20:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Timtrent: We already have a draft at Draft:Hamis Kiggundu.. Not sure what a second draft would accomplish. The article space version could be merged into it so we maintain the history. AfC would have to be strictly adhered by before moving back. _pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 23:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jake Brockman: I have no issue with that outcome. I hadn't noticed/remembered there was a drat waiting in the wings Fiddle Faddle 06:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment (article author). Hello My Seniors Here: Jake Brockman ,Faddle i have a very big Challenge here, I am a Web designer and Content creator, i have been working on some of the websites for this gentleman Hamis Kiggundu through some agencies. In fact i have very many companies and prominent businessmen and Ugandan Government officials projects i have been working on. However, after checking on Wikipedia, i could not find any information or pages regarding them, apart from a mention which found in the page for Nakivubo Stadium about Hamis Kiggundu which just had (Ham Kiggundu) but without any citations and confirmation external links, i got information from google and other sources then consequently did the necessary editing (Citation and External links) though i saw it was since cleaned by User:Jake Brockman. I was also guided somewhere to avoid indicating the financial/ monetary net worth by one of you on some article List of Ugandans by net worth which i have since understood.

Now the only challenge is that the pictures i use here( Wiki Commons) are some of the very Pictures that i use when putting up their sites, the are raw files are always very very heavy and in a diff format: i work on them then generate jpeg/jpg and png formats which i always customize for my personal, some i find the downloaded and reused in the press, but i don't find it offensive given the fact that they always work for the benefit of my third party customers, most of who i have never even met personal. Now you have tagged them for deleting at wiki commons, and i believe at the end of the day i will be flagged or blocked perhaps something worse. i really have many articles for companies, government officials and other business people which i have and ready to work on, some i was still gathering enough information for citations and external links. But i am now frustrated. I was thinking that when these articles are here without any conflict, i have a way of benefiting in future, Now, look at this guys articles, that i have been trying to make. For sure i have tried to do the needful every time i find a notification, the last edits i made, it tried my best to put as many citations as is could, perhaps even if you make a search about him. This is a 36 year old kid with properties around the city center of Kampala, the Guy is working on a mass Agro Processing project of about $200M, He is already having 500 villas with each going for about $500,000 , he was factories, an international School, among very many other business, (try to make a search), the guy has even spread to the UK and US, try to check out (375 Moston Lane, ManchesterM40 9NB, England)^[3], that's his property!!!! the guy has a logistic company in Dallas(Ham International Express Logistics LLC)^[4] and another one California^[5] , others in South Africa i failed to get information hence did not write about them. Honestly This guy is Inspiration. I started giving stalking him online after reading his book, and i learnt alot during this lock-down. It is really not fair for you to say that i am paid to write about him, when it is my dream to really meet him. The guys who give me his work have always denied me the opportunity to meet him. Perhaps i can not make more articles when the first one has issues, i won't be serious at all, i have not even made a month on Wiki media and i always come here when less from from my work, but this kind of first experience has really not been good for me, I request that you please check that article and tell me what to correct about it, so that i make others with good experience. Other than this, i can not sign that i am being paid when have never even met any associates and discuss about him. This means that even the other articles I am planning to make will have the same problems, or perhaps if i Insist i will be deleted or blocked.

It is my Humble request that your give me guidance towards becoming a better contribute. I wish to be like you one day and i really look forward to working with you here. thank you. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)MarkMark Mulwanyi (talk) 18:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mark Mulwanyi, thank you for your comprehensive response. Wikipedia editing can – at least at first – be rather complex as there are many rules and guidelines which take time to fully explore. It is a journey, at least that is/was my experience. I don’t want to go into all details; however neutrality and balance are key principles which are driven through rules and guidelines about notability, conflicts of interest and neutrality, to name a few.

I take conflicted and/or potentially paid editing very seriously. Wikipedia guidelines state that any conflict or external relationship must be disclosed. Editing and page creation is encouraged through the AfC process and suggestion of edits via talk pages.

There are a number of points that don’t add up. In this diff you state that “I do not work for Hamis Kiggundu and never interacted with him personally, However, i have been designing websites for his companies.” On your talk page you consider yourself a social media marketer. just above, you provide further detail and state that your may have worked for Kiggundu through agencies. This may be considered additional detail, it may also be considered contradictory to earlier statements.

You certainly seem to have some exclusive access to contents, if you are able to upload pictures from his website with and without background that a "normal" editor would not have.

If you have worked for Kiggundu through agencies, this does make you a WP:PAID contributor. Even if you do not do those edits for Kiggundu as part of an assignment today, you still have a strong financial stake: either by way of marketing for your own skills or as some kind of pitch for future work. I can only suggest to make all required disclosures and strictly and transparently follow the process for PAID editors, but ideally stay away from subjects where conflicts may arise, such as this one._pseudonym Jake Brockman ^talk 00:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/punjab-police-bust-fake-degree-racket-of-global-open-university-nagaland/story-O8qPe7rYULQ0ZHGaAvOXpJ.html
^ https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/police-team-in-nagaland-for-probe-63426
^ https://companycheck.co.uk/company/10427711/HAM-INTERNATIONAL-UK-LIMITED/companies-house-data
^ https://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0803451056
^ https://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail

Comment I have revised my opinion once more, to be neutral in this discussion. The gentleman of the article is likely to be notable, but I feel I am standing too close to the to have a useful opinion in the deletion discussion. @Mark Mulwanyi: No-one here is your senior. Wikipedia is an assembly of equals who consent to rules and create those rules. I've left you quite a bit of help on your talk page. Most of this should be discussed there. Note to closing admin I think we can view the creating editor's comment as a !vote to keep the article. They may not yet realise that this is a consensus forming exercise, not a ballot. Fiddle Faddle 18:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral verging on delete. This article needs heavy pruning or even WP:TNT. It has the worst case of WP:REFBOMBING I have seen - which AFD participant is going to assess all 75 citations to sift any wheat from the chaff? The Hamis Kiggundu#Court Battle section is pure trivia, about a lawsuit which was filed in February 2020 and hasn't come to court yet. Narky Blert (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have been known to check every reference in the past, listing them and making a comment about each. If it survives I may do that. What about pruning the court battle which has not yet come to pass section entirely and taking a new view? Fiddle Faddle 15:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I have migrated the Court Battle section to the article's talk page in the hope that that may help the survival chances of the article Fiddle Faddle 10:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I'm learning much and consequently improving. Thinking about completely eliminating that Migrated section. Narky Blert, Thank you very much for your assistance and guidance, Faddle. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 20:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral verging on delete. I'd theoretically like for the article to stay, but if it does, it is in need of some serious editing. The information is disorganized, the prose needs heavy copy editing for grammar and tone, and (as has been addressed) the references are a bit of a mess. That being said, WP:TNT might be in order. Noahfgodard (talk) 03:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Updating my opinion: The more I read about the possibility of paid editing here and the more I think about the current state of the article, the more in favor I am of WP:TNT. Noahfgodard (talk) 04:17, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note I believe that without abandoning WP:BEFORE this should be *Kept on grounds that: (1) Noahfgodard , User:RJFJR and many others have done reasonable cleanup, Sofar. (2) Hamis Kiggundu apparently has significant press coverage and he is an author of a book which also has significant press coverage, an award, and is on a national curriculum. (3) With guidance from Jake Brockman , Faddle and other I have Disclosed COI on my talk page, and every created page upon studying and understanding some Wikipedia policies hence i kindly request that you should not consider Deletion is as cleanup please!, Thank you very much. Mark Mulwanyi (talk) 19:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Very borderline and leaning to Delete; try one more relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep on the talk page of this deletion discussion I have performed an analysis for the first six references in the version stated there (permalink quoted). Please visit the talk page here to check my work, perhaps to add your own analysis.

A fair summary is that there is sufficient verification of sufficient elements of this article to ensure its being kept. The referencing overall quality, assuming this sample carries forward to al of the references, is 50% worthwhile and 50% poor to very poor. I chose the first six because that gives editors an easy view. I accept that a fuller analysis of all the 56 (current) references may produce a different view.

I consider this article passes the criteria for a living person. It requires a substantial cleanup of the wording, the content and the references, but this is not a discussion about cleaning the article up. Fiddle Faddle 17:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 9 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 keep. No consensus to delete this article, and a good consensus that the sources provided at sufficiently independent for notability (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 12:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsune Ishida Nachie[edit]

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

A non-notable subject that does not meet Wikipdia's standards for notability, such as WP:BASIC. Source searches have not provided signficant coverage in multiple independent, reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hawaii-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article was "red-listed" as being important enough to be created during Wikipedia Asian Month 2018, I don't see how it can't be notable. Oaktree b (talk) 18:22, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is notable, even if the references are minimal and Deseret News is generally not an accepted source. One strong source can be enough. --Micky (talk) 02:26, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Religious subjects have no presumed notability on English Wikipedia. As such, one source is not enough, and minimal references that do not provide significant coverage do not establish notability. Also, Deseret News is actually considered to be a reliable source; it is the Church News that accompanies it as a supplement which is a primary source, because it is published directly by the LDS church. @Oaktree b and Micericky: could you provide two independent reliable sources that provide significant coverage about the subject here? Significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources is required to establish notability. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is not notable because religious subjects have any presumed notability. Rather, the 2 reliable sources provided other than Deseret News indicate notability. As well, I stand corrected on Deseret News, so that is a third reliable source that provides good coverage. As for whether one source is enough, I have seen articles get AfDs and be kept with 1-3 sources, especially for deceased, historical figures. We have more coverage on the average Joe today than we did on notable figures in the past. If the article was red-listed, that is also worth considering. I stand behind my !vote. --Micky (talk) 03:11, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The three sources presently in the article (perm link) are from Deseret News, Keepapitchinin and Find a Grave:

Deseret News is a reliable source.
Keepapitchinin is a blog run by a single person, and I feel that its reliability may be questionable.
Find a Grave is not considered to be a reliable source, as per Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources, where it states that, "The content on Find a Grave is user-generated, and is therefore considered generally unreliable."

– North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - The internet seems to suggest that a whole chapter of Women of Faith in the Latter Days vol. 3 is about Nachie. This would constitute some considerable coverage but I cannot access the book. BUT it is published by Deseret, so would not constitute as a second independent source. (It may also be worthwhile to have a Japanese speaker search some Japanese sources to see if there are any.) Samsmachado (talk) 04:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since the Deseret News article was published long after her death it is clearly indepdent from her. The nominator has shown a clear animus against The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, consistently nominating articles with many sources while ignoring much less sourced articles related to other religious groups. The sourcing is sufficient to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The bias against any religious subject show above is truly absurd. If something is published by a commercial publisher after the death of the subject than it should be able to be counted as a reliable source. The attempts to blackout whole swaths of sourcing going on here is truly absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – @Johnpacklambert: The ad hominem personal attack above is a cheap shot, and is entirely false and incorrect. I have nominated articles for deletion for a myriad of topics. As I stated above, there is no presumed notability on English Wikipedia for religious subjects. If you or others feel that this should be changed, then a discussion can be started on a notability guideline talk page, such as Wikipedia talk:Notability (people).

The only potential bias here is a situation where people may be making up their own notability guidelines, such as stating that one source for this subject is "enough", for notability to be decreed as inherent. This is incorrect, because again, this subject has no presumed notability on English Wikipedia. Religious subjects do not get a free pass for an article simply based upon the virtue of their status as being a relgious subject.

I have no bias against religious subjects whatsoever. If a religious subject meets notability guidelines, then hey, that's great, no problem whatsoever. Excellent. This Afd nomination is about this subject nominated herein, Tsune Ishida Nachie, and is not a forum for the above user to spout personal (incorrect) opinions about the nominator, nor should it be. Such ad hominem arguments are logically fallacious from the start, and do not address the notability concerns presented herein.

Again, if you want presumed notability for religious subjects, then start a discussion and an RfC proposing such, and perhaps the community will agree with it. Blaming a nominator of an article for deletion will not create the presumed notability that you appear to desire.

So I ask again, are there even two independent, reliable sources that provide actual significant coverage about the subject? If there is, I will gladly withdraw this nomination upon their provision, if they exist. I haven't found such required sources to establish notability for this subject.

Please stop casting WP:ASPERSIONS and making personal attacks, and focus upon content instead. Your personal attacks do nothing to establish notability for the subject, and instead makes it appear that you do not have additional sources to offer, and have instead resorted to an inferior and incorrect means of demonstrating notability, by attacking the nominator. Please read Wikipedia:No personal attacks (NPA), and take that policy into serious consideration, "Do not make personal attacks anywhere on Wikipedia". For additional guidance, also see WP:AVOIDYOU, part of the NPA page.

Sure, I have an interest in the LDS church, but this does not mean that I am biased against it as you have mistakenly stated. Nor does this interest mean that I am then supposedly somehow "ignoring" other topics. I am not required to read articles about other topics if do not want to, and its very suggestion is absurd. In following my interest in LDS topics, sometimes I come across articles about topics and subjects that may lack notability. This is sometimes suggested by articles that are heavily reliant upon primary sources to verify most of their content, and also lacking in independent sources. Furthermore, I perform significant WP:BEFORE searches before nominating anything for deletion. After all of this, an AfD nomination may be initiated. This is a process on English Wikipedia used to better determine whether or not a subject is notable, through discussion about the matter. Now, I could simply WP:PROD such articles, but in some cases, a wider community discussion where input from others is encouraged is more beneficial than prodding. The AfD process can provide more accuracy, which thus can provide a more accurate encyclopedia for Wikipedia's readers.

Again, two independent, reliable sources that provide significant coverage, that's all I ask. No passing mentions, no blogs, no primary sources, just two actual usable sources that establish notability per Wikipedia's standards, rather than your own. If the subject is so readily notable, then said sources should be easy to find. However, it does not appear that the subject has gained enough interest from independent, reliable sources for notability to be established, per Wikipedia's standards. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 22:23, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Deseret News has been accepted as a reliable source for years. The book published by the University of Illinois Press is also a reliable source. Therefore, the article passes WP:GNG. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The added sources help this subject pass notability. There is a chapter on her in Women of Faith in the Latter Days vol. 3, which I used to replace the blog entry (the author of the the chapter and the blog entry is the same). I suppose the question is whether Deseret News, Deseret publishing, and the University of Illinois press source are "independent" of her. I would say they are independent of her, but we may disagree. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 18:35, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Rachel Helps (BYU): Do you have the page numbers for her entry? They should be added to the reference in the article. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The digital edition I used did not have page numbers. Rachel Helps (BYU) (talk) 19:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Makes sense. Thanks! ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: Why do you keep kicking the can down the road? No one but the nominator is arguing for deletion here. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 13:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources clearly demonstrate that this was an important individual shaping the history of a faith with millions of adherents. Sure, most of the sources are religiously tied to the subject, but are independent of the subject even if NPOV should be watched. I see no current NPOV issues with the article. We have a useful encyclopedia article with a)no copyvio problems and b) with Verifiable information well beyond a definition, which was why GNG was created in the first place. How does deleting then improve the encyclopedia? 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 14:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. The "delete" arguments are stronger. The "keep"s only address whether he is a published author, which is not the decisive factor in terms of notability. Moreover, this is an autobiography, which WP:COI prohibits. Mr. Simonsen should wait for other people to find him sufficiently important to write an article about. Sandstein 14:22, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terje Gerotti Simonsen[edit]

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

I am having some difficulty judging the sources there are, but they do not seem all that independent. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Slatersteven (talk) 15:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note the creator of the article has an admitted COI, and is a wp:spa.Slatersteven (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC) (Copied over from the talk page)[reply]

Hi, I am the subject matter of this article, and I can assure I want a balanced and objective presentation. The Norwegian references are from established Norwegian publishers, mostly academic, and also from the Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association (Tidsskrift for Den norske legeforening), which is held in high esteem for it scientific neutrality.

One of the English references is to the homepage of Parapsychological Association, which could of course raise suspicion, but PA is in fact a member of the prestigious AAAS, the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

If the reference to my first English publisher, Pari Publishing, is problematic because their website has also a sales-link, we could remove that, of course. Otherwise, the publisher was founded by british quantum physicist David Peat, who has worked with Roger Penrose and David Bohm, and is generally considered a very clever guy.

Terje — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aureus (talk • contribs) , and moved from AfD Talk page].

Are they the publishes of your work?Slatersteven (talk) 17:18, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References to your book publishers and parapsychology associations aren't applicable here. We need WP:FRIND (i.e. independent) sources for a WP:FRINGEBLP. I did find one article in Aftenposten translated here. We'd need more examples like that to meet WP:AUTHOR for a standalone biography. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I did examine the book review in Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association translated here, and am a bit puzzled. As a book review, it argues that physicians should adopt a more sympathetic open-mindedness about paranormal claims. This is certainly a fringe view within mainstream medicine. It's worth noting that the review author is engaged in complementary and alternative medicine. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @LuckyLouie: it would be more apropriate to say that the review author is the director of the National Research Center in Complementary and Alternative Medicine, a branch of the University of Tromsø. Studying a field could be rather different than being engaged in a field. Bw, --Orland (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Norway-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not meet the standard expected per WP:AUTHOR. XOR'easter (talk) 21:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @XOR'easter: I'd say he fits into criteria #3: significant or well-known work. He's been reviewed, awarded and interviewed. Bw --Orland (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The above arguments from the author do not change the fact that this article does not have sufficient evidence of notability to exist. --Micky (talk) 02:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Micericky: please note that the article has been edited and new sources have beeen added since your vote. Bw --Orland (talk) 07:58, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Published by two major norwegian publishers, Mr Simonsen does fit well in Category:Norwegian non-fiction writers. --Orland (talk) 10:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to lack of reliable independent secondary sources that are actually about the subject. We cannot write a verifiably neutral biography without these. Guy (help!) 13:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @JzG: there are now references to norwegian newspapers Morgenbladet, Aftenposten and Journal of the Norwegian Medical Association. Could you be more specific about what other kind of reliable independent secondary sources you were looking for? Bw --Orland (talk) 20:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added ISBN on one of the books. Both books are available at Oslo Public Library. Trygve W Nodeland (talk) 07:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. I would encourage User:XOR'easter and user:JzG to return to this discussion and reconsider their votes. This article has been reworked since they first gave their opinion, and new sources have been added. Bw, --Orland (talk) 08:22, 7 July (UTC)
Delete No impact outside of regional Norwegian coverage shows it is WP:TOOSOON for a stand-alone article on en:wiki. - LuckyLouie (talk) 12:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:58, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LuckyLouie: I disagree with your description of "No impact outside of regional Norwegian coverage". He's been awarded a literature prize in USA, and are listed in an international research bibliography. Bw --Orland (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 20:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Pirro (director)[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (biographies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. PRODed by User: Lopifalko. Expansion since does not convince me the subject is notable, the best source is [13] and it is a WP:INTERVIEW on some niche website. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 08:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Couldn't find enough independent sources to prove notability. The most I could find were just lists of his films with little information about them. Suonii180 (talk) 11:20, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable filmmaker.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Speedy keep per WP:Speedy keep#1, the nominator withdraws the nomination and no one else recommends that the page be deleted or redirected. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harry L. Wilson[edit]

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

He doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR and although a professor, doesn't seem to meet WP:PROF. Most of this article is about gun rights rather than him and it is a blp with no references - those perhaps can be addressed if he is found notable. Doesn't seem to have the coverage for WP:GNG and I couldn't find a suitable WP:ATD. Boleyn (talk) 08:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 08:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The subject is a political science professor at Roanoke College, director of a research center at the university, has written multiple peer-reviewed articles and several books released by traditional publishing houses, which is gun control. He also received a Fulbright Lecturing Award to Russia. He is often interviewed by media across the country for his expertise on the topic of guns. While the article is not in the best of shape, that does not mean the subject is not notable. I cleaned up the article some but it requires more work. A Google search turned up multiple sources available about him. The subject easily meets WP:PROF and clearly passes WP:GNG as well as WP:BASIC. -AuthorAuthor (talk) 05:04, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wuthdraw nomination per above. Thanks for your clear and insightful summary, user:AuthorAuthor. Boleyn (talk) 06:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 and rename to Death of Jill Phipps. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:10, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jill Phipps[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

The subject (Jill Phipps) fails WP:NBIO and this is basically a WP:MEMORIAL about an accidental death 25 years ago that made the news. The subject seems to be known only by her death. The 11 year old Wikipedia article has never had any content showing notability of this person while she was alive. Even changing the title of the article (per WP:SINGLEEVENT) wouldn't then pass WP:GNG. Normal Op (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Normal Op (talk) 07:49, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 20:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)

Keep, but rename to Death of Jill Phipps. The incident was notable, generating protests decades after the event: [14][15]. Quite a collection of books cover this: [16][17][18][19] and many more. Phipps has become a martyr and symbol for these protests.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 13:41, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I have updated the article somewhat, and that gave me an even more in depth viewpoint of the subject. Of your suggestions of 4 books: Book#1 is not a reliable source (self-published book by not-notable author); Books #2-#4 have no coverage ABOUT Phipps. Book#2 covers the issue of transport of calves and covers the types of activities the protesters had been doing during their entire campaign. Phipps is mentioned only as an unfortunate accident and that other people piggybacked the accident's media coverage to catapult THEIR message into the news (RSPCA and ALF). Book#3 talks about dangers during protests and briefly mentions the Phipps incident as an example of how wrong things can go (death). Book#4 covers group dynamics of CROWDS, starting with a mob of footballers and then mentioning the death of a protester (Phipps). But mentioning Phipps' death over and over and over again while discussing "activism subjects" makes Phipps neither famous nor notable. I draw your attention to WP:SINGLEEVENT and Pseudo-biographies where this article has gone off the rails by padding this pseudo-bio, attempting to turn this page into a WP:MEMORIAL about Phipps. Phipps' mother continues to use her daughter's death to piggyback her own activism messages in the media, but the newspapers have ONLY been regurgitating the same content they wrote back in 1995. There is no new content added about Phipps or the accident; just new coverage about new protests. This does NOT "make" Jill Phipps (or her death) notable. If we took your suggestion to change the name to Death of Jill Phipps, then we would have a single news story about an unfortunate death of a young woman. (See WP:NOTNEWSPAPER.) The ongoing mentions of Jill Phipps' death are recycled news; no new content or coverage. It's just piggybacking on old news. On the other hand, there are an unlimited number of articles one COULD write in Wikipedia where Phipps' death could be mentioned without violating Wikipedia guidelines/policies, like an article about safety during protests and the risks of injury, or an article about England's veal industry. Normal Op (talk) 08:37, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There are several other newspaper and book hits. Variable quality wise, indeed, but the coverage of the death itself has been persisting for decades. Heck, there is even resulting coverage such as this book that mentions in 2016 a "JILL PHIPPS R.I.P. ALWAYS REMEMBERED '95" slogan inscribed in Scotland, with the local farmer there being clueless. Looking up who "Phipps 1995" is a reasonable encyclopedic query. I agree that the death itself is what is notable, not Phipps herself.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 09:34, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See WP:NOTDIRECTORY. Better yet, see the entire Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. The family seems determined to continue to use this poor woman's name into eternity to promote their AR agendas, but this adds not one bit to Phipps' alleged notability or martyrdom. It would be appropriate to have Phipps mentioned within an article discussing — pick a topic; see my prior comment — and then have a redirect titled "Jill Phipps" directing to that content within an article. And that's the closest to a directory for 'farmers clueless of the meaning of local activist graffiti' that Wikipedia need get. Normal Op (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The relevant bits could go into Eastern Animal Liberation League, with a redirect from "Jill Phipps". Scrap the bio. Cover the accident. Normal Op (talk) 06:06, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to Death of Jill Phipps. Very notable incident. -- Necrothesp (talk) 12:59, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. The sourcing is not the best, but it's sufficient to pass BASIC (although I accept that it would not be of a BLP was involved). —— § erial 08:26, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename per above. For anyone who was around at the time (I then worked in Coventry) the protests were national news, and the death of Phipps was a big deal not only per her death in itself but in bringing the issue to national attention. There are a number of references to her long after her death, showing enduring notability. I even found references to a groups in the USA [20] and Brazil [21] protesting on the anniversary of her death to this day. The incident is still regularly referenced to this day in articles in RS about animal protests. Incidentally, if the depth of coverage of someone's death is sufficient, there is absolutely no requirement that they be notable beforehand. See, for example, Rachel Corrie. Black Kite (talk) 10:18, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as per comments above. — Czello 10:53, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:04, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peopledesign[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, with a lack of significant coverage in independent sources. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:50, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, This article is a promotional mess, sourced to passing mentions, 404’s and primary sources. Fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:39, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Pure promo. Also UPE. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 16:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:02, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Budelmann[edit]

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

I don't see evidence of this person meeting WP:GNG. Most of the available coverage seems to be in the form of interviews and press releases. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Cordless Larry (talk) 07:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:02, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 16:52, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Procedural close, nominated on behalf of a block evading IP. Doug Weller talk 15:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Snowboarder (film)[edit]

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

I am nominating this article for deletion bacause it is non-notable. 122.60.80.64 (talk) 06:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 07:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: this IP's edits are block evasion by CityOfSails. Graham87 12:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I couldn't find much coverage for this. it certainly don't pass WP:NFILM, I think. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:10, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 this is in fact fancruft. The "keep" opinions only amount to WP:Other stuff exists. Sandstein 13:43, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Characters in the Mario Kart series[edit]

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

A huge table of characters from the Mario Kart series of video games, without any actual information. That is trivial WP:GAMECRUFT, No. 6, trimmed for readability: "Lists of characters lacking secondary sourcing: (...) excessive in-game details on characters is strongly discouraged. Standalone lists of video game characters are expected to be (1) written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (2) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information. (...) it is instead more appropriate to reduce the list to one to three paragraphs of prose within the "Plot" or "Synopsis" section of the game or series article. (...) soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 06:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 07:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep No reason to delete it. Either delete all of them; Characters in the Super Smash Bros. series, Mario_Party#Playable_characters, List of Tekken characters etc., or none. I agree it needs work, it's mainly Mario Kart Tour that ruins the page with a ton of irrelevant characters, maybe mobile games should have their own section or could be removed altogether. Aquatic Ambiance (talk) 08:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Aquatic Ambiance, I think me pointing to WP:GAMECRUFT No. 6 actually is a very good reason to delete it. Why should we keep it? Where are Mario Kart characters "written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (...) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information"? You're saying that WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and it's WP:ALLORNOTHING. But we're discussing this list article, not similar ones. The Mario Party one is a section on a main article (which is in need of a good trimming too) and I'd argue that at least Tekken is its own franchise and isn't a fighting game from other Namco Bandai games. (but also needs more secondary sourcing on creation, development, reception, etc). soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - it’s the definition of WP:GAMECRUFT, split out into its own article. Sergecross73 msg me 14:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I would argue that falls under WP:NOT, particularly WP:GAMEGUIDE (which specifically mentions avoiding extensive lists of video game concepts) and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. As every source being used is simply the official websites for a handful of the games, there is no reliably sourced information that needs to be preserved, either. Rorshacma (talk) 15:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is fancruft by every definition. There's nothing here that can be used for other articles, as the refs are all primary and come from company websites. I don't see this being of use to anybody. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:15, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Mario Kart, per the above arguments. ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 22:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Category:Lists of Nintendo characters and Category:Lists of video game characters have plenty of articles like this. A discussion should be done on the video game wikiproject's talk page to discuss what to do with them. This information wouldn't fit in the main article for this notable series. Best to have it as a spin off article for a character list, such things common for notable media. Dream Focus 05:07, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C'mon Dream Focus, I think you know that's WP:OTHERSTUFF. WP:VG isn't the authority on video game-related articles, so why shouldn't we discuss this here? And lastly, again, where are Mario Kart characters "written in an out-of-universe style with a focus on their concept, creation, and reception, and (...) cited by independent, secondary sources to verify this information"? soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:52, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The very definition of WP:GAMEGUIDE, as it is only of use to players of Mario Kart and no one else would have a reason for wanting to compare characters across games. Transwiki if you think the info is useful, but it's not fitting for a general encyclopedia._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 13:30, 10 July 2020

Delete - Pretty trivial material along with GAMECRUFT. What makes it encyclopedic to have if it doesn’t have notability independent of Mario Kart or the individual characters themselves? Red Phoenix ^talk 22:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I see people overwhelmingly want to delete this, but I see the comment from Aquatic Ambiance. What's the difference here between this and the Super Smash Brothers character list? Both of them are games without much story, and so you won't find much analysis or reaction about the characters. Is it possible to fix this to get to the standard of that article? Can we start by removing the duplicate entries / costume changes from Mario Kart Tour? Archrogue (talk) 17:37, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could just very well be that Characters in the Super Smash Bros. series itself could be a valid candidate for deletion itself, since WP:OTHERSTUFF does not usually hold much sway in AFD discussions. Though, I rather suspect that there is more coverage in sources to be found on that topic, due to the nature of the game and its fanbase. Regardless, removing duplicate entries would not really help matters here, since as you said, you really can't find much in the way of analysis of the characters in reliable sources, so this can really never be expanded to be more than a WP:GAMEGUIDE. Rorshacma (talk) 18:18, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Smash is kind of defined by it's characters and new additions to the roster have to be noted. Mario Kart simply is not as it is mostly cosmetic. (Oinkers42) (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. It's just a table so there's no sourced content to merge. I don't think there needs to be some referendum on other articles before this article is handled in isolation. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There is a general consensus that the rank of Brigadier meets the requirements of WP:NSOLDIER. (non-admin closure) —— § erial 10:33, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Narinder Singh Sandhu[edit]

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

I am not sure whether AfD is the right place to discuss about bulk deletion. But Siddsg has been continuosly created pages which do not comply with WP:SOLDIER and also fails WP:GNG. Some of them also contains copyvio content. Most of the articles the user created is about single time Mahavir Chakra awardees , Maha Vir Chakra is the second highest honor only, not the highest honor that is Param Vir Chakra. Can someone help about how to deal with this. Should I tag all of them for CSD, as taking each article to AfD seems like a waste of time for me and all fellow editors, or should I tag all such articles for deletion citing result of this AfD, because of their similar nature. Zoodino (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment first, check if they meet WP:SOLDIER. This guy may on rank grounds because he was a brigadier, but few of the others do on that or other grounds, and in the first instance, PROD them. If dePRODed, AfD a few, and if the general consensus is delete, then AfD them all. CSD isn't suitable, as they will almost certainly be contested. In the meantime, I strongly recommend to Siddsg that they do not create any more articles on MVC recipients unless they clearly meet WP:SOLDIER, and concentrate instead on adding citations the existing articles to clearly reliable sources to try to ensure that they meet the GNG. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67:, Thanks for your input on the issue. Can you tell me where it is written specifically in WP:SOLDIER that : "a brigadier (or above rank officer) follows the WP:SOLDIER, even if they are awarded the second level gallantry award (which is MVC in this case)". I am not able to find any line in WP:SOLDIER related to this statement. Zoodino (talk) 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Zoodino. Specifically, under criteria #2: "Held a rank considered to be a flag, general or air officer, or their historical equivalents" The rank of brigadier is often considered a general officer rank (ie one star general), although in some countries a brigadier is considered the highest field rank rather than the most junior general appointment. So it is a grey area. There are many articles on brigadiers on WP, even FAs. In this case, his possible qualification is on the basis of his rank (although that is indicative rather than definitive, and frankly no SNG is), not the MVC. A single award of the MVC doesn't meet the bar of criteria #1. Of course, the GNG trumps SOLDIER, so if under examination of available sources he doesn't meet the GNG, he is not notable. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Peacemaker67, So the #2 criteria of WP:SOLDIER can apply even when the subject is flag officer (which is Brigadier and above level officer in India), or should the subject also show some notability in accordance to WP:GNG.

In this article, reference #1 and #3 can not be considered secondary source. #4 is an article about another topic, having a brief mention about the subject. I can likely say that the subject does not passes WP:GNG. Zoodino (talk) 06:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An article only has to meet one of the SOLDIER criteria, and in this case #2 is sort-of met, as brigadier is line-ball for that criteria. But SOLDIER is only indicative, GNG is definitive. If there isn't significant coverage of this chap in reliable sources independent of the subject, then it doesn't meet the GNG and should be deleted. #1 is reliable and secondary to the subject, I don't know anything about scoopwhoop.com (#2), but it seems a bit youth-oriented clickbaity and tabliodish to me, #3 - well this chap was a trustee of the trust, so I don't think it is independent of the subject, #4 is a passing mention of the action, and #5 seems reliable. I'm not sure if there is significant coverage of this chap's life in the two clearly reliable sources plus the passing mention in #4 to meet the GNG. It is a close-run thing. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Commonwealth brigadiers meet WP:SOLDIER as general officer equivalents. -- Necrothesp (talk) 17:35, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SOLDIER his rank is only indicative of notability and he fails WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 03:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.

Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:22, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I've requested the relevant pages from Stories of Heroism: PVC & MVC Winners to see if this can be rescued. It seems to be the only reliable source not already used in this article. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:55, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional comment I've now removed all the dubious sources and rewritten it with the reliable sources to hand. I suggest this isn't closed until I've received the pages from RSX and had a chance to add any additional material available from it. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, I've now expanded the article with a few new reliable sources, including some reliable news sources mentioning his funeral, and quite a bit from Stories of Heroism: PVC & MVC Winners. I've submitted it for assessment by Milhist, but it clearly meets GNG now, and this should be closed as keep. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:39, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this one. Being a Brigadier probably meets WP:NSOLDIER, and Peacemaker's cleanup indicates that he is sufficiently notable. Other MVC recipients are not immediately notable. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:21, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:02, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the Shadow (2010 film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, all sources are reprints of press releases, no significant coverage of the actual film, and no evidence the film actually saw release, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 15:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for missing all three inclusion criteria for a film: not a major studio, no participation by a notable person, not a major advancement in film art. As mentioned above it also lacks independent coverage as all of the citations are industry sites which will list a production of just about anything.Blue Riband► 05:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per RibandBlue. Exhaustive database scrapes don't count towards notability. Reyk _YO! 13:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:35, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gennadii Vykhodtsev[edit]

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

I don't see significant coverage of this source, although I might be missing non-english sources. Sources currently linked in the article aren't reliable sources and a search online turns up more of the same type of non-reliable and/or non-significant coverage in sources. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:13, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are you joking? Vykhodtsev is founder and owner of the retail chain, that took the sixth place among Ukrainian retail chains and 76th place in the rating of the largest Ukrainian companies.

And yes, you are right — you are missing non-english sources. Google search gives 3 000 000+ results --Perohanych (talk) 12:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 17:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of People-related deletion discussions. More specific delsort category added. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Save Sources, that confirm WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO were added. --Perohanych (talk) 09:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Sam-2727 and Scope creep: There are thousands of reliable and independent sources about Vykhodtsev in Ukrainian and Russian. But here are a few also in English:
- https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/588783.html
- https://en.interfax.com.ua/news/economic/584167.html
- https://ukranews.com/en/news/630694-gennadii-vykhodtsev-foxtrot-is-25-years-old-and-it-s-an-expert-brand
- https://www.unian.info/economics/10551927-valeriy-makovetskiy-how-foxtrot-pays-taxes-and-teaches-ukrainians-how-to-control-the-state.html --Perohanych (talk) 10:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Perohanych, can you add some of the ukrainian and russian language sources? I have limited internet to view those articles currently, but from what I can tell, they seem to be press-releases or paid-for mentions (or otherwise written in advertisement-like language). Sam-2727 (talk) 02:59, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:19, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Nathu La and Cho La clashes. T. Canens (talk) 01:39, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harbhajan Singh (military officer)[edit]

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

Doesn't meet the WP:SOLDIER SNG, as the MVC is a second tier award and this is a single award, only the Indian government website is reliable and has little more information than his name and the citation. Can't find any other reliable sources for anything other than the citation and bare details of name and rank. It therefore doesn't meet WP:GNG and should be deleted. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 05:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The subject played a historically significant role in the Nathu La and Cho La clashes. He is, for example, a significant character in a movie on this topic. Most recent Maha Vir Chakra recipients have articles. Be careful of WP:RECENTISM. ~Kvng (talk) 16:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Then he should be mentioned in those articles, it doesn't justify a separate article on him. This isn't about recentism at all. It is about our well-tested SNG on military bios (WP:SOLDIER) and the GNG. What reliable sources have you located that provide significant coverage of this individual's life? The recent creation of articles on single MVC recipients is unencyclopedic, it is a second tier award, and per WP:SOLDIER only multiple recipients should have articles unless they clearly meet the GNG (there are only six of them, as opposed to 218 total MVC awards). This is a long-established bar right across military bios. We would not, for example, have an article on every recipient of the British DSO for gallantry (which is the equivalent in the British system). There have been over 16,000 DSOs awarded. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: if that's your approach, shouldn't Harbhajan Singh (military officer) redirect to that topic. What is your justification for deleting it? ~Kvng (talk) 17:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm happy with a redirect. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 22:43, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough significant coverage in scholarly sources[22][23] and media sources[24][25] for passing WP:GNG. Srijanx22 (talk) 06:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, no. The first one is from the Indian Ministry of Defence, and provides little more than his name, where he was born, and a brief para about his MVC action. It is the only one of these four that seems reliable, I'm not sure what makes it scholarly, and it doesn't contain significant coverage of this guy. The second one is some sort of travelogue (it isn't at all scholarly) and is talking about a different guy anyway. The third one is a youth blog (not RS), and the fourth one is a website called Gazab hai, which doesn't look reliable to me. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nathu La and Cho La clashes, there's mention of his role in the conflict (India Times), and he is mentioned in a list there. I'd agree with Peacemaker's analysis, second-level recipients are largely not-notable unless they clearly meet GNG, which he doesn't seem to do. The best coverage is in Stories of Heroism, but it doesn't distinguish him from the other MVC recipients listed in the book as particularly notable. The best case for his notability is for NSOLDIER #4, but it doesn't seem that there's enough to say about him for a stand-alone article. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment OK, I've removed all the unreliable sources and the information sourced from them (including the puffery in the description of his actions), and retained the two reliable sources and put as much information as is available from them in the article. It is my view that this is pretty much all that is going to be available on this chap, and there still isn't enough about his life to meet the GNG, he really is a WP:BIO1E example, and as it says "The general rule is to cover the event, not the person". So a redirect to the event is the best course of action. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Agreed Mztourist (talk) 04:29, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Nathu La and Cho La clashes, per Eddie891 and Peacemaker67. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 15:22, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above. Not seeing any reason for a standalone article per any notability guidelines. -- Necrothesp (talk) 22:36, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy delete under criterion G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 22:05, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

REE Automotive[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This page had an AfD back in June and the result was delete. The page was recreated three days ago, and then tagged for G4, and then untagged by another editor. I am bringing it here to hopefully re-delete and possibly salt. Let me know if this is the wrong venue and we can resolve this elsewhere. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. BenKuykendall (talk) 06:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tagging for speedy deletion per WP:G11 because it only seems to promote the entity. A a s i m 17:48, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leonard, Lassen County, California[edit]

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

A farm situated below an artificial pond which acquired its name from a forest service map: topos show the pond, a building, and a road leading to the latter, but do not label any of this until commanded to do so by GNIS. I get no hits whatsoever that I can identify as relating to this place, other than the usual clickbait. Mangoe (talk) 04:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:24, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No sign of a settlement here. Appears to just be a farm, not a community. –dlthewave ☎ 17:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete Mass-produced junk lacking significant coverage establishing verifiability and notability. As usual, could be prodded, but it would be helpful if you could provide a link to the topo you reference so I don't have to pull itup myself. Reywas92^Talk 18:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I don't think it's worth it to relist a third time. General consensus is that this subject has received significant coverage by multiple reliable sources and meets WP:GNG. (non-admin closure) ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 05:43, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abigail Seldin[edit]

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

Non notable as individual entry. Sources are trivial mention. Listing on forbes 30 under 30 is not the onlyonly criteria for notability I think. It is wrtitten as an advertisement of CV only. Can be redirected to her organisation College abacus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rebellion65 (talk • contribs) 09:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Not sure why this was marked for deletion. Subject is the topic of numerous articles in mainstream media (The New York Times, The Washington Post), and sold a software company that is separately the subject of numerous articles in mainstream media and reputable trade publications (CNN, The Chronicle of Higher Education, The Wall Street Journal). — Preceding unsigned comment added by A112484011388 (talk • contribs) 12:27, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion was not previously transcluded in the main deletion list; I just added it. Calliopejen1 (talk) 17:08, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businesswoman. The "30 under 30" listing from Forbes is more like a sign that she may at some point become notable than that she already is.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep* WSJ, NYT, Huff post, Forbes are not the forums that cover a subject without a decent achievment. Also, She sounds like a promissing success story. If it sound like she will be more notable in near future than why not now. the subject have media coverage, necessary for credibility. I vote "Let it stay". AleksandarVicky (talk) 11:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Wow, how is this a question? She's been featured in the Washington Post. Being listed in Forbes' "30 Under 30" absolutely is a notability-conferring source. Definitely demonstrated notability with existing sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. In-depth articles about her in The New York Times and The Philadelphia Inquirer, both high-quality sources. Narky Blert (talk) 10:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Note that Soft Delete is not available as the article has had a previous AFD. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 22:58, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chaostar[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is this group notable? Septicflesh is, but I think Chaostar is not notable for its own page. The article's sourcing is bad - Myspace and one of the members' official site does not establish reliability. I also did a Google search but I did not found too many reliable sources. Metal Archives, Facebook, Discogs, Spirit of Metal, Last.fm, No Clean Singing, Reverb Nation, LinkedIn, MusicMap, Rate Your Music, shop sites, download sites, other databases... all are dreadful and does not establish any notability. I found some album reviews/interviews/news but they are on sites of dubious reliability (they look like blogs). I also found a Blabbermouth page but that's just about them releasing a new album. An ad basically. So, in my opinion, Chaostar is not notable on its own. It could be redirected to either Septicflesh or one of the members' articles imo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:43, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Dalip Singh Saund. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:09, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Sikh members of the United States Congress[edit]

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

LISTN failure and useless list. Java Hurricane 03:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, kind of pointless having a list with only one entry. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sikhism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

QUESTION Why do these list exist? List of Buddhist members of the United States Congress List of Jewish members of the United States Congress List of Hindu members of the United States Congress List of Mormon members of the United States Congress List of Muslim members of the United States Congress exist as well, but no Christian ones strangely enough. Does someone's religion have anything to do with this? What about race, sexual orientation, red haired people, blue eyes, or red hair? Dream Focus 08:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, lists like this are based on a pass of WP:LISTN, and some of the other lists you mention do exist, because they pass LISTN. Presumably, because the vast majority of congresspeople have been Christian, a list is not necessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: One's religion can often have a lot to do with their political career, yes. These lists also exist: List of African-American United States senators, List of African-American United States Representatives, List of Hispanic and Latino Americans in the United States Congress, List of Asian Americans and Pacific Islands Americans in the United States Congress, List of LGBT members of the United States Congress... --Yair rand (talk) 18:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article is better sourced per entry than many list articles we have. If we are going to cast these lists off we need to have good reason to do so, and no good argument to scrap this one list is given.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints are Christian, so the above assertion that there is no list of Christians in Congress is false. Why we lack lists of Catholics in Congress, list of Eastern Orthodox Christians in Congress, etc, I can not answer easily, but the assertion above is false.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Well sourced article about a notable and growing group of Americans. Has room for expansion in the future, too.Pennsylvania2 (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As long as WP:BLP and WP:LISTN is not violated, I assume it is alright to have such a list. NavjotSR (talk) 16:00, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalip Singh Saund. Could recreate when another is elected, but one item is not a list, and all content is already there. WP:LISTN is violated because one item is not a "group or set", and if it were, it is not covered as such by RSs – Saund is. Reywas92^Talk 19:22, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete A "list" with only one entry is not really a list, is it? There only has been one member of Congress who was a Sikh, and I don't think that the article would be of interest until there have been at least a couple of other Sikhs in Congress. I agree with the suggestion above that people who look for Sikhs in Congress simply can be redirected to the article on Congressman Saund. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 05:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Dalip Singh Saund per Reywas92, I agree, a single entry doesn't make a list, as soon as there is another elected Sikh then it can be restored and updated, but at the moment this violates LISTN as a single entry is not a group. Govvy (talk) 11:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect to Dalip Singh Saund if that will help navigational purposes. A list with a single entry is not actually a list. If a second Sikh congressperson is elected, this would be appropriate to recreate, but for now it does not actually serve a purpose. Rorshacma (talk) 19:07, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a WP:CFORK of Dalip Singh Saund. By definition, a list of one is not a list. Sandstein 13:33, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a list with one entry is silly, even if it passes LISTN. Hut 8.5 18:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:55, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Hindu members of the United States Congress[edit]

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

Fails LISTN. Further, I don't see the point of having these types of lists. Java Hurricane 02:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Similar articles exist for other religious and ethnic groups should be no exception for Hindus. See List of Jewish members of the United States Congress or List of Muslim members of the United States Congress. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 03:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hinduism-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 04:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Fulfills Wikipedia:CSC & consistent with above-mentioned.Djflem (talk) 05:43, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per reasons given by User Pennsylvania2. Whiteguru (talk) 11:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep A summary of this Hindu members of Congress is a valuable source of information. Its scope is appropriately encyclopedic. The list is exclusively of notable people.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:33, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 03:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Similar lists exists and the list is encyclopedic, but beyond that, the list is specifically defined. --Enos733 (talk) 05:18, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep There now have been enough Hindu members of Congress to make such article useful and interesting. AuH2ORepublican (talk) 04:55, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 13:34, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

High school ice hockey in Michigan[edit]

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

Just not notable. Entirely sourced to WP:MILL directory-style coverage. Zero entries on the list (hockey programs) are notable by themselves. Borderline WP:CRUFT. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ice hockey-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 02:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability whatsoever. And "High school hockey" is not the same thing as hockey played by by high school kids. Why are there amateur teams that don't compete in the MHSAA in this list? Trying to shoehorn in something not referenced to the MHSAA perhaps? This is all copied from the MHSAA website and that's where it should stay. John from Idegon (talk) 05:07, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this does not meet any criteria for notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:18, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails to meet WP:LISTN. Individual schools may be notable, but grouping them by programs is not discussed by multiple reliable resources to notability for a standalone list. This violates WP:FANCRUFT also. Flibirigit (talk) 00:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm having a hard time justifying this, but it seems like a very reasonable list. So IAR I guess. Hobit (talk) 18:12, 13 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 20:11, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph Pascoe[edit]

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

This article could possibly redirected to No Wyld, one of his bands. The article attempts to position him as a notable producer but his work, while fairly voluminous, is only mentioned in the form of basic credits for the items he produced. He has not received significant and reliable coverage as a producer in his own right. Searches under his real name or stage name reveal a few brief mentions in magazine articles that were actually about bands he was in, and even those are quite rare. Otherwise he and his own bands, not to mention many of the acts he produced, are only found in the usual self-promotional and streaming sites. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:00, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable record producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable. Also the creation of a single-use editor, which usually means promotion or self-promotion. Let's see, where does the photo come from? Oh, of course, the same user. How many photos did that user upload to Commons? ONE. --Lockley (talk) 08:10, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Closing due to lack of participation/consensus. A merge, whether through formal proposed merge or BOLD merging, could be attempted. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC) Barkeep49 (talk) 02:20, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019 AFLHCC season[edit]

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

This article fails WP:GNG as the sources are local to the season. HawkAussie (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 02:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: In any case the league itself is notable; and there is discussion to be had about whether this should be merged somewhere or whether it is a valid subpage.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 00:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 01:52, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to AFL Hunter Central Coast#2019 Ladder - although this is the first (and only) year of the new competition, there's room in the main article to expand the description of the 2019 season beyond just a listing of the ladder and include the sourced material about the grand final (which does have broader NSW media from what it appears). This is at third division competition so there's no need for a separate page on the individual season at this stage. Deus et lex (talk) 10:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to The House (restaurant). Barkeep49 (talk) 02:17, 19 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cliff House Hotel[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG, WP:NOTTRAVEL, WP:NPLACE. Required to have multiple reliable independent sources to merit and article. Merely containing a Michelin star resturant does not justify an article. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 00:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The House (restaurant). Or possibly delete this one and rename that article to the Cliff House Hotel instead. The hotel's main notability comes from the restaurant, and pretty much all reliable sources that mention it are actually talking about the restaurant. However, sources seem to use the name "Cliff House Hotel" to refer both to the restaurant itself, and the hotel as a whole, so I'm not quite sure which title would be the proper one to have an article under. Regardless, though, we don't need two separate articles to cover the same topic. Rorshacma (talk) 02:53, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to The House (restaurant). Per Rorshacma, the two subjects effectively "share" notability. The restaurant perhaps being the most appropriate primary topic/title. Guliolopez (talk) 09:56, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Merger is reasonable but this should remain as the main page because it is more general – the restaurant is just part of the hotel and is comparatively recent (2008) while the hotel goes back to 1932. See also Cliff House Hotel, The Cookbook as an example of preferred usage. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Yeah, that was my thinking when I suggested that perhaps the current article on the restaurant could be renamed to "Cliff House Hotel" instead, as it is currently the more complete of the two articles. The current content of this article is basically just linking us to the Restaurant's article anyway, so it would probably be easier to just move the one source here to that article and rename, than it would be to merge all of the info/sources in the other article to here. Rorshacma (talk) 16:51, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Replace deletion discussion with merge discussion? Bogger (talk) 16:23, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge & redirect to where the Michelin star is. --Lockley (talk) 23:21, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - merge The House restaurant to Cliff House Hotel. Spleodrach (talk) 16:16, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It would be reasonable to merge, but I think the better path is to keep the hotel separate from the restaurant. The Michelin Star relates just to the restaurant as I understand, for instance, though they can be given also to hotels. Often restaurants inside hotels are run completely independently (staff, management and PnL) from the hotel itself. And the citation for the hotel is indeed notable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Finsterlives38 (talk • contribs) 22:35, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I agree that the one citation being used is significant, but articles generally require multiple reliable sources to pass the WP:GNG, and there really don't seem to be much else out there on the actual hotel portion itself - its notability in sources seems pretty much entirely due to the fact that it hosts the restaurant. Rorshacma (talk) 15:33, 18 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Early close by WP:SNOW, there is a clear consensus that this currently belongs as part of the larger Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign article, and this redirect can exist until the outcome of that discussion is made clear. Will re-open discussion if this is considered too controversial but given the way this is trending I don't see it being an issue. (non-admin closure) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 14:39, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Birthday Party (U.S. political party)[edit]

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

Informal political party with no official organization or platform. KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 00:11, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is an organization that does not exist outside of Kanye's imagination. Fails WP:GNG. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. I doubt that the Birthday Party is a registered organization. lovkal (talk) 00:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. WP:GNG fail. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 00:41, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 00:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC); Edited 01:44, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice4What, and if that article is deleted before this AfD closes? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:02, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would be surprised if the article gets deleted, considering it will either reach "no consensus" or "keep" because of the recent Forbes peice. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Thanks ♥) 01:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign, this party does not exist outside of that campaign, and I do not see what is worth merging to that article from this one. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign, or maybe to the relevant section of Kanye's page if that article goes before this is settled. As far as I can tell there's no evidence the party actually exists as yet and every reference I can find loops back to the same interview. All of the information here so far is basically just copied over from the Kanye 2020 page, so there's not really anything to merge. FN17 (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign, and if that gets deleted then there can be another redirect from there. Not notable, and not intellectually distinct from the 2020 run at this point. TimeEngineer (talk) 02:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign because (a) this organization does not appear to have been formally established yet and (b) if it is established, it has not yet been confirmed as having an existence separate from Kanye West's presidential campaign. Obviously, consensus can change, and the article can be re-created if the party is formally established and then goes on to run other candidates as well. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:16, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign unless that gets deleted, if it does, merge with Kayne West#2020 presidential campaign.--Rockchalk7 17 08:12, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign per Metropolitan90's reasoning. mike•owen ^discuss 19:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It's a political party known all over the world right now, I think it deserves an article. Salvabl (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect for now to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. If it gains independent notability in the future (be it a FEC registration or party logo released), this can be recreated. The C of E God Save the Queen! (talk) 16:31, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Much like The C of E said, we can bring this back if it does gain recognition. But until then, I suggest redirection. --108.205.159.35 (talk) 22:01, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign, or to Kanye West if the former is deleted. Fails WP:GNG and WP:V. There is no party; it’s just something that Kanye mentioned, and he hasn’t said much about his personal run yet, let alone about the party he supposedly plans to start. Furthermore, it is pointless to have an article about a party which only has one member who’s the founder. It exists entirely within his mind at the moment, so it only needs to be mentioned on pages specific specific to him. — Tartan357 ^(Talk) 03:30, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Redirect definitely not necessary, clearly too soon. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:39, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect: This may be a political party that may have one member who may be running for President of the United States soon. DÅRTHBØTTØ_(T•C) 16:06, 12 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kanye West 2020 presidential campaign. Lots of overlap. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 00:04, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect or delete. WP:TOOSOON, does not qualify for a stand-alone article at this time. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 07:26, 15 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:51, 17 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Tiangco[edit]

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

Im requesting for someone to nominate afd on this articles on Andre Tiangco Zaijian Jaranilla Victor Basa Lito Pimentel John Medina (actor)‎, as they contain only a single sources and far to be notable. 70.113.36.219 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles nominated by the same IP:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NACTOR. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 16:48, June 21, 2020 (UTC)
Delete as non-notable performer. --Lockley (talk) 21:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this person is a non-notable actor.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: He's talked about in this article, which talks about his TV & theater career, including portraying as one of the priests in hit series May Bukas Pa and landing on a role in Bourne Legacy. He's also mentioned in this article, where he directed a play, and here as well, where he directed a concert. With these reliable sources, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to allow for commentary regarding sources presented later in the discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Obvious fails WP:GNG. the other articles are now notable, Thanks to the person who expanded it. 87.228.1.89 (talk) 09:35, 6 July 2020 (UTC) Based on https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion&oldid=966302943, possibly same person as the IP nominator --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:34, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I think analysis of presented sources is necessary still.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- puddleglum^2.0 00:01, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not really sure what the first source is. It might be a blog post or something, but either way it's extremely trivial. Same goes for the second one. Which is just a basic cast listing and only mentions this person once extremely briefly. A few articles about him came up in a search, but they were either interviews or about up coming small roles in probably not notable TVs and the like. So, there's nothing about him that passes the WP:GNG or notability guidelines for actors. --Adamant1 (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Non-notable actor. Sources are not available to prove notability. A minor role in a popular show is not enough. Sources presented in this discussion, I think, are passing mentions only. HiwilmsTalk 19:27, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence that he meets NACTOR or BASIC. The sources presented in this discussion are: an article in which Tiangco talks about his career; a mention that he’s from San Fernando and a director of a play; and a mention that he’s a director of a concert. In the article itself, the first source goes nowhere, the second tells us he appeared as Macduff in a production of Macbeth. My BEFORE finds nothing better. --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:50, 16 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

[1] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/punjab-police-bust-fake-degree-racket-of-global-open-university-nagaland/story-O8qPe7rYULQ0ZHGaAvOXpJ.html

[2] ttps://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/police-team-in-nagaland-for-probe-63426

[3] ttps://companycheck.co.uk/company/10427711/HAM-INTERNATIONAL-UK-LIMITED/companies-house-data

[4] ttps://opencorporates.com/companies/us_tx/0803451056

[5] ttps://businesssearch.sos.ca.gov/CBS/Detail

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]