Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 12

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 11 June	13 June >

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. Academic Challenger (talk) 17:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Punit Sood[edit]

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

He has an impressive CV, but I can't find any examples of coverage that goes beyond hiring announcements. Some of the provided sources are nominally independent, but are essentially routine coverage that doesn't go much beyond what you'd find in a press release. The best piece of coverage currently provided is this write up of Sood's appointment to RBS India. Searching online, I only found more of the same. I don't think this meets WP:GNG, and he isn't mentioned at Royal Bank of Scotland so redirecting there doesn't seem appropriate. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Impressive CV alone doesn't suggest notability or significance. I'm also not impressed of this write up, as it demonstrates nothing other than the subject having been appointed to a high-level position. Runforlimit505 (talk) 06:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in-depth coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: I was about to !vote keep based on the fact that he's the country head of a multinational bank, but Rosguill is right: here is no evidence of independent notability. He only seems to be notable as the head of RBS India. If RBS India had an article, (which someone should start), this should redirect there, but until then, it can be deleted. --Slashme (talk) 15:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Sarah Rosalena Brady[edit]

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

There doesn't appear to be any coverage in independent, reliable sources; the best I could find was an article written in the student newspaper of the university where she got her Masters ([1]). Falls short of WP:GNG, and I don't see anything that could make a claim to WP:NCREATIVE or WP:NACADEMIC. The grants and fellowships listed in the article were conferred by relatively prestigious institutions, but it doesn't appear that the grants themselves are notable, and thus likely do not comprise a case for WP:ANYBIO. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 22:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete existing sourcing is largely primary. A search finds no WP:SIGCOV. Even the subject's CV only lists two reviews. GNG fail.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 22:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep. Exhibiting in Los Angeles County Museum of Art and National Museum of the American Indian may grant passing WP:ARTISTS. Arthistorian1977 (talk) 23:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not clear to me that she actually had exhibits there; the article simply says that she received a grant from LACMA and "worked with" the National Museum of the American Indian. The CV that ThatMontrealIP dug up mentions a lecture, but not an exhibition, at LACMA and doesn't mention the NMAI at all. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 23:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can clarify that. LACMA has a relatively recent "Art + Technology lab" that is separate from the main art curatorial division. It is a bit of a throwback as LACMA did stage an exhibition of the same name in 1970-71. The current lab gives out money, arranges sponsorhips with companies (which is why article mentions the Jet propulsion lab) and may arrange LACMA sponsored talks and events. It is very much not the same as an exhibition at LACMA. I imagine the same applied to the National Museum of the American Indian, i.e it's a technology collaboration rather than an exhibition. Artists are not shy about telling you that they had a solo show somewhere big; if they did have one it would have been stated somewhere in ALL CAPS! The LACMA and NMAI mentions are both not for what we would call regular "shows". In any case you can have shows at the Guggenheim and LACMA and the Whitney and not be notable if no one reviews the show. I have searched quite deeply and found zero secondary coverage of anything she did at LACMA or the NMAI. Everything out there about these collaborations is a version of a press release or bio. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 23:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per above and the zero references in google scholar. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article uses to many sources that are either (1) connected with the subject or (2) give trivial mentions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 15:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - WP:TOOSOON does not yet meet GNG, PROF nor NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 19:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It makes me sad that we feel we–have–to delete articles on emerging women artists. Yes, they are not-quite-famous-enough-yet. The sources are flimsy, the exhibition record isn't really there yet. It will probably be there, in due time, and when that happens, someone is going to look at this AfD and think that there's something deficient about the subject, and G4 it, or re-nominate. So, just for the record; it's probably too soon, but I have no objections to re-creation of this article once the artist has received significant critical attention. Vexations (talk) 15:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree Vexations, and for the record, if this article is recreated and she has significant coverage, or museum collections, or any of the other qualifiers, I won't hesitate in supporting a new article in the future. Netherzone (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think that would be a good idea. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 18:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ambika Prasad[edit]

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

Non-notable poet. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~SS49~ {talk} 06:38, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:31, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete Not a notable poet Sanyam.wikime (talk) 12:07, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Needs a bit of discussion about why they are not notable.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: per above, otherwise I'd recommend a "no-consensus" close.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. ~SS49~ {talk} 22:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there appear to be at least three people with this name, some living. Without a enough information to separate them, an article is impossible. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just pointing out a page of this name was deleted in 2008. Log. 220 of ^Borg 08:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Daniela Zacherl[edit]

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

Unsourced BLP. IMDb and her own website are inadequate. This has been unimproved for 7 years Spartaz ^Humbug! 21:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She is notable enough by Wiki's biographical standards to warrant herself an article and I'm sure there are several articles out there that can help with the referencing. That being said, I am not keen any longer in keeping the page updated. Since there is not much interest from the community either, I do not object the proposal to deletion. – StreetSoda_{talk 14:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)}[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Austria-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:31, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are no independent references with in depth coverage in the article and while there are plenty of google hits across multiple languages none of them are clearly independent and reliable. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source. A subject's own website is not a reliable source. We cannot keep an article with 0 reliable sources, especially on a living person, and no one has in any way indicated what sources would add up to passing GNG. Actresses do not get articles merely for having had roles.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. Also one of the few facts here is incorrect: she's Austrian, not German. --Lockley (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Natasha Bagration[edit]

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

WP:NOTGENEALOGY, no evidence of notability Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (country)-related deletion discussions. Hemiauchenia (talk) 21:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No demonstrated significance other than a royal family name. Author has several similar entries that are also up for deletion. Runforlimit505 (talk) 05:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep or merge to Charles Hepburn Johnston. Clicking on the google books link does bring up several independent mentions in reliable sources. However, they are relatively incidental. DrKay (talk) 07:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the Times newspaper had a report on her funeral, I think this shows enough notability. - dwc lr (talk) 15:49, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Charles Hepburn Johnston. There are some sources and from a period when all the sources print and not many have been digitised. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:56, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep There is fairly large gbook references, mentions but I think there more here going-on, than is seen. Working for the Yugoslav government in exile during World War II and connected at every level, definitely. Keep to Strong Keep. scope_creep^Talk 09:34, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phool Bane Angaare[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film, sourced only to (non-WP:RS) IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up nothing, not even a plot summary to corroborate the one in the article; nothing resembling WP:RS. Fails WP:NFILM and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 15:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:20, 5 June 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)} 21:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I found no film reviews to suggest passing WP:NFILM Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:NFILM Donaldd23 (talk) 01:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Frontline Foundation to Raymond Castellani. No consensus about Raymond Castellani. Sandstein 07:17, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frontline Foundation[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG and WP:NONPROFIT. run of the mill local non-profit Graywalls (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 12:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 19:17, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Raymond Castellani; independently fails WP:NONPROFIT but its founder seems to merit an article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:59, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment @Eddie891:, Actually it would seem that the target article you suggests needs to be AfD'd ALSO, because it's written based on his own SELF PUBLISHED book; and Frontline Foundation's own materials. Graywalls (talk) 16:52, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 13:52, 5 June 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)} 21:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Stuartyeates:, the redirect target though, appears to be non-notable s well. So I've nominated both as deletion worthy. Do you find the re-direct target meet WP:GNG? Graywalls (talk) 14:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Academic Challenger (talk) 18:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chandan Agarwal[edit]

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

I'm on the fence about this one and thought it would be best to bring it here. I think we're short of GNG. There's some significant coverage in the Times of India, but TOI isn't a great source. Other than that, there's some limited coverage in even more questionable sources. The awards won don't appear to be notable enough to add up to WP:ANYBIO. I wasn't able to search in Indian languages other than English, so it's possible that there's more out there in other languages. But based on what I was able to find, I don't think we quite meet notability guidelines here. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - paid-for spam, quarantine reverted by a new account who is likely to be another spammer. MER-C 17:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - three of the five sources feature different photos taken in apparently the same photo shoot, suggesting a common, non-independent source. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:15, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:46, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:ANYBIO - questionable sources - promotional in tone. Dan arndt (talk) 09:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom. Celestina007 (talk) 10:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Miss Alaska#Winners. Consensus that this is a WP:BLP1E (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 20:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Debbe Ebben[edit]

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

It is well established that state beauty pageant winners are not deault notable. The only thing we have suggesting more notability is that one news organization ran a news story highlighting how she as a person who had shaved her head still won a local beauty pageant. Wikipedia is not a newspaper or a permanent collection of news stories on the slightly interesting quicks of the time. This is not the level of coverage we need to justify an article. John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alaska-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG. Non-policy sidenote: most winners listed at Miss Alaska do not have an article - and rightly so. This one is no different. An item in the list at that page suffices. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Alaska#Winners, seems to be a non-notable beauty pageant winner. There was a fair bit coverage of her shaving her head (Houston Chronicle Tulsa World Sydney Morning Herald), but all that means is that she is notable for one event, not that she passes WP:NPERSON or WP:GNG. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 00:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss Alaska#Winners as above. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:17, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect as above, I already transferred the relevant info to that page (articles about her head shave). --Wiki2008time (talk) 03:04, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Still needs work. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 21:07, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seth Andrew[edit]

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

This article does not show how the subject is notable beyond managing an educational institution. I could not find him in any major publications, such as the New York Times, that typically qualify someone such as him as being notable. This article is like the many others that are created and then deleted about a young executive that may have paid or had influence in the articles creation. I do not think it is appropriate to allow for such people to derive their own notability in public life through the existence of their own Wikipedia page which is sourced from a handful of small publications Thriley (talk) 19:08, 28 May 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 May 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:24, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:30, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete running a network of schools is not a sign of notability. If having 5,000 students was enough for notability, we would have to create articles on hundred superintendents, and probably also on my uncle who was Assistant Superintendent of Clark County (Las Vegas) Public Schools, a postions which was the top academic post, sort of like a vice chancelor in the British university system. My uncle has a middle school named after him, but I will be the first to argue that Theoron Lane Swainston does not meet notability criteria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Despite what the nominator states, an NYT search turns up coverage of the subject, and much more coverage of Democracy Prep; a GNews search turns up significant coverage of his activities. A problem here is that the search function is malformed and turns up virtually no results; a corrected search turns up, many, many results (and the name combination is so common that a great deal of screening is required. The Big Bad Wolfowitz (aka Hullaballoo). Treated like dirt by many administrators since 2006. Fight for freedom, stand with Hong Kong! (talk) 20:18, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 07:06, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The article is a hybrid covering both Seth Andrew and Democracy Prep. There seems to be significant coverage of these in books such as Trendsetting Charter Schools and Making Young Voters. Needs work not deletion per WP:IMPERFECT. Andrew🐉(talk) 13:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero#Toyline. There is a clear consensus that there should not be an article on this topic, but it has also correctly been pointed out that there is a valid redirect target for the title. The need to delete the article history when the title can be used as a redirect with the history intact is frankly ill-defined in policy, but is most substantial where there have been shenanigans at that title (restoration of previously deleted content, introduction of libelous material, etc.). I am seeing no reason in this case why the edit history of the page must be deleted, and there is a reasonable argument that some editor may find some use for content in the article's edit history. Of course, if this edit history is abused by restoration of the content at this title without consensus, then the edit history can readily be deleted at that time. BD2412 T 23:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero vehicles[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN and WP:NOTCATALOG. While Bellomo in the sources does appear to be reliable and independent, Bellomo is referring to each of the specific toys themselves. However, there seems to not be sources that discuss the group of vehicles themselves, unlike how the characters list actually has sources exist that describe it. I image that this AFD will be flooded with WP:ITSNOTABLE !votes, but before you !vote keep; think "Are there actually sources referring to this collection as a unit, or are all of the sources things that wouldn't contribute to WP:LISTN"? Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This is essentially just a toy catalog, and I would say falls into the territory of WP:NOT. Additionally, its entirely reliant on a single reliable, independent source, the Bellomo book. (It also cites the Santelmo book for a few entries, but assuming the title is not lying about being an official licensed book, it would not be independent.) The overall concept of the vehicles in the toy lines is already sufficiently covered at G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero#Toyline, and this overly-detailed mass of cruft does not need to be preserved as part of that coverage. Rorshacma (talk) 21:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: "Cruft" is a code word for WP:IDONTLIKEIT. The "already sufficient" coverage that Rorshacma points out in the G.I. Joe article is two sentences long. That may be sufficient for someone who doesn't care about the history of action figures in general or G.I. Joe in particular, but it's not sufficient for the readers who are interested in the subject and want more detail. I don't own the Bellomo book, but I've read similar toyline books and they always discuss "G.I. Joe vehicles" in general as well as each one in specific. Furthermore, I dislike the practice of deleting and merging individual pages into a massive list, and then nominating the list page for deletion. Like every list page (and most Wikipedia articles in general), this article needs more editing. Editors who want to improve the article should cut unnecessary details, and add more summary and analysis. That improvement will not happen if the page is deleted. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage of the vehicle lines at the main article is considerably more than two sentences, as it is spread throughout the entire section. For example, near the top of that section it discusses how the initial set of vehicles was influenced by contemporary military technologies with examples. Later on in that section, it discusses how in 1983-1985, the vehicle sets became larger and more detailed, again with a specific example. Further on, it talks about how decreasing sales later in the decade resulted in them focusing on releasing more figures and decreasing the number of vehicles. Etc, etc. As in, all of the real-world information and notability of the vehicles in the various toy lines over the years, instead of ridiculous details on every single released toy. Furthermore, my description of the content here as cruft was not my actual argument for deletion. Rather the fact that it falls under WP:NOT and relies entirely on a single independent source were. Also, I might add, its a bit ironic to criticize someone as presenting an WP:IDONTLIKEIT argument, and then immediately follow that with an WP:ITSINTERESTING claim. Rorshacma (talk) 21:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero#Toyline per above comments, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. If there is too much detail, the list can always be trimmed. BOZ (talk) 21:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:NOTCATALOG ur example. There are other places this can go. Nate • (chatter) 22:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Rorshacma. The section at G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero#Toyline already covers this topic sufficiently, there is no reason to have this massive cruft-y list of toys that violates WP:NOTCATALOG and fails WP:LISTN. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero#Toyline. I think there's a less compelling argument for keeping a comprehensive list of these than there is for the characters (those made into action figures), but outright deletion is unnecessary, and would hinder even the possibility of further development by blocking anyone without an admin card from viewing the history (and would also be contrary to policy given the less harsh option of redirection). postdlf (talk) 23:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and redirect- I agree with most above that this is content not suitable for an encyclopedia, being pretty much just a toy catalogue, and I am unconvinced that these problems can be fixed by just editing the article. None of the content would improve the proposed target. Reyk _YO! 10:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. WP:NOTCATALOGUE applies; Wikipedia is not a toy catalogue. Such content is better suited to fan wikis. Sandstein 07:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

St Joseph's College, Nudgee GPS premiership results[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability. There is no evidence that this is is in any sense encyclopaedic. Searches yielded occasional sports reports about individual successes but nothing to suggest that this topic should be in Wikipedia. Far too detailed to merge back anywhere. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 19:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. That page is just serving as a mirror of the school website. We don't give every (non-notable) K12/pre-university school a Wikipedia article for their annual sport event. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SCHOOLCRUFT. Ajf773 (talk) 01:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails on several accounts including WP:SCHOOLCRUFT, WP:COI, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V, and absence of WP:NPOV. Rangasyd (talk) 07:48, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking in depth coverage in independent sources. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:24, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 19:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Artspace in Richmond, Virginia[edit]

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

Spotted this while checking links in another article I AfD'd. Fails WP:NCORP, WP:NONPROFIT. It's a run of the mill local organization for local causes. It is full of unsourced contents and contents sourced from sources that don't meet WP:RS and given the local nature, I don't feel sources exist that satisfies NCORP. Graywalls (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 18:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

comment while the article looks rather nicely written, the sources fail the WP:NORG criteria. Style Weekly is a local source. The books don't pass WP:AUD, so on. Graywalls (talk) 01:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject fails WP:GNG and WP:SIGCOV. This is another of Mitzi.humphrey's articles where she has a CoI. (She mentions herself in the article but doesn't make the required disclosures.) She was clever in writing this because she piled-up a bunch of mere mentions in local papers. Much of the drive-by coverage is actually about the art exhibits but generally nothing about the Artspace, per se. Some of the citations are from the subject. I saw one citation from Virginia's tourism website. Chris Troutman (talk) 00:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete based on current article state. This kind of local artist's society is rarely notable. The article itself needs TNT.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Frankly I looked at the article & thought, wait, well-sourced, well-organized, cogent, what's the problem again? But the more I clicked into Mitzi.humphrey's work, it became obvious she's produced a raft of COI problems, and refused to curb her poor habits after repeated warnings. This article is thorough and detailed coverage -- cruft -- of a non-notable local art gallery. I regret the wasted effort on her part but the article doesn't belong here. --Lockley (talk) 20:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Blackburn. Merging remains possible. Sandstein 07:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Blackburn Urban Area[edit]

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

Non-notable area, no significant coverage. Not mentioned in any of the references except one, which defines it in contradiction to this article as excluding Darwen. --Pontificalibus 17:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've nominated the Blackpool Urban Area for deletion. Nothing to confirm this other than a census and a pdf. No reliable sources from the council or historical research. Just an OS stat only.— Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 18:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. YorkshireLad ✿ ^(talk) 20:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The urban area seems to be Blackburn/Darwen with two parts: Blackburn and Darwen. Blackburn as defined here includes some places outside the borough of Blackburn with Darwen, but the places in Rossendale and most of the places in Hyndburn are not included. Peter James (talk) 22:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect. Surely any valid content here would belong in the Blackburn article. --Lockley (talk) 20:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Chester. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chester Urban Area[edit]

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

Non-notable area, no significant coverage - defined only for census purposes, and WP:GEOLAND states such areas are not presumed to be notable. --Pontificalibus 17:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 17:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. --Pontificalibus 17:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Similar articles exist for areas in the United States; at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Baton Rouge–Pierre Part combined statistical area the only argument for deletion is that it is no longer in use as a statistical area and other editors who participated opposed deletion. Many other articles exist for American statistical areas and some in the UK. If http://chawrec.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/2012/11/BME-Mapping-Report-Complete.pdf is correct the Chester area is smaller than described in the article (which is why it is missing from List of urban areas in the United Kingdom); this needs correcting or a reference to say the definition has changed. It's a valid subject but the content isn't supported by the references. Peter James (talk) 21:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:05, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Chester. Comparison to the statistical area in the US is not apt, many US urban and metropolitan areas, even when not limited to city boundaries are covered within the city/county articles when reasonable, and are only separate when covering a larger combination area. Reywas92^Talk 17:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chester_Urban_Area, Changed the article and gotten an official ONS which as provided by Peter James identifies the article as a built up area. I have changed it around and provided ons sources. I think it should be fine. It is defiantly an official built up area as identifies in the 2011 census of Cheshire. Can someone please respond nothing has been done since my last reply — Preceding unsigned comment added by RailwayJG (talk • contribs) 10:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Faiz Qureshi[edit]

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

The person does not seem notable as per WP:ANYBIO ~ Amkgp 💬 17:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable organizer of events. At least this article got flagged quickly.John Pack Lambert (talk) 21:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ANYBIO. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete paid for spam, non notable. All the sources about this person are black hat SEO. Praxidicae (talk) 12:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:36, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Michael Laurence (Irish actor)[edit]

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

WP:NOTOBIT. I see no evidence he meets WP:NACTOR based on the minimal sources provided and can't find anything else. Mostly seem to be minor roles that never received any sort of attention. Praxidicae (talk) 17:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete looking at this more closely it seems to be a combination of the roles of two or even three actors with the same name so it is either a big error or a hoax. This is the actor its supposed to be about here. None of the sources/links actually work, imv Atlantic306 (talk)
Delete per nom and Atlantic306. After a moderate WP:BEFORE exercise, I can find nothing which establishes that the subject meets WP:NACTOR or WP:ANYBIO. In terms of the content, large chunks of it seem dubious at best. And uncited. In terms of the links offered (or "references" if that's what they are), they do not support the text. Several are dead. And only one contains ANYTHING which supports even part of the text. And that's IMdB. Which is a primary source. Guliolopez (talk) 19:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Atlantic306 and nom – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 19:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Non notable actor. Spleodrach (talk) 08:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 King's Meadow Campus. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:14, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King's Meadow, Nottingham[edit]

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

Obscure venue that only hosted a couple of matches of minor historical interest. Only source given is a statistical site, and that only holds details of three matches ever played there. Seems little scope for expansion beyond current small stub. Jellyman (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cricket-related deletion discussions. Jellyman (talk) 17:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to King's Meadow Campus which is part of Nottingham University. I have no idea if they're the same place or not, but it's an entirely sensible redirect. I'll remove the link from the nav box and we'll see what links remain to the current article and deal with them. If this wasn't up for AfD I would do the redirect right now, it seems that obvious to me. Blue Square Thing (talk) 18:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into King's Meadow Campus given the historical interest mentioned by Jellyman. (see below) The article surprised me when I read it just now because I once visited the ordnance factory. I see it has gone now so the campus is the obvious destination for the article. Without actually knowing, I would think there has only been one King's Meadow but it must have covered a massive area. No Great Shaker (talk) 21:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A look at some old OS maps suggests that there's little or no evidence that they were in the same place. There is a Meadows cricket ground marked much closer to the city than the campus, but there's nothing to say that this was on the same site as this place - which might just have been a handily roped off area of pasture or something. I'm not sure there's anything to merge. Blue Square Thing (talk) 08:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:03, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True, the article itself just says minor or local games only. I can't access the source but I believe it's a statistical site so probably not much there, either. I'll go with you on redirect, then. All I can remember of my visit (a business trip) is the factory itself. I don't know if it was near the university. No Great Shaker (talk) 11:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Judging by this, the cricket ground and the current university campus are not the same place. StickyWicket (talk) 21:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The map in this forum shows where the factory was and, using St Wilfred's Church as a reference point, you can see on this Google map that the factory site is now the retail park just to the east of the university. So, if the article is correct that the old cricket ground was in the land taken over by the factory in 1951, then it was very near to if not actually on the campus site.

It looks as if the Meadows Cricket Ground in the Malcolm Fox article was a mile or so north-east of the factory site. Queen's Walk still exists as a footpath alongside the railway line. Kirkwhite Street seems to have been a long road that, according to this lady, was demolished and redeveloped. There is a Kirkwhite Walk which if extended westwards would meet Queen's Walk just where the Queen's Drive Recreation Ground is, so that could well be the surviving green open space which Mr Fox mentions. No Great Shaker (talk) 04:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - irrespective of whether the former cricket ground is on the same site as the modern campus, the title is a plausible redirect -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 12:24, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 deleted by Deb (non-admin closure) 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CallMeKevin[edit]

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

spammy article about a non notable YTer with no meaningful coverage despite his follower count. time to put this to rest since several SPAs seem hell bent on spamming mainspace with this despite it's repeated creations Praxidicae (talk) 16:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete and salt, this is the 5th or 6th time this has been created under various names (it gets A7'd every time) and 2 million followers isn't enough to constitute a credible claim of significance. Creator is obsessively dedicated to recreating this utterly non-notable and unencyclopedic page and also including a bunch of BLP violations in it. Nuke it from orbit. Spicy (talk) 16:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per User:Spicy. Gazamp (talk) 16:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a case of WP:PROMOTION only. No notability. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete - non-notable. And salt, since the creator has shown they'll use socks to re-create/contest deletion, and it's been deleted enough times. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete and salt. The only reason this AfD entry exists is that the article creator removed the speedy deletion template as a sock puppet (now blocked indefinitely). The article is clearly speedy deletion material.—J. M. (talk) 17:46, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jernade Miah[edit]

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

This article uses instagram and some other trivial mentions as references. I think most of these are not WP:RS. This article should be deleted. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. UserNumber (talk) 13:40, 25 May 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 16:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The first two sources are WP:SPS, and all other sources are either music hosting services, mention the artist only in passing, or are thoroughly unreliable. AviationFreak (talk) 16:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Most of these sources are not WP:RS. - ZLEA _T\^C 16:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. --SalmanZ (talk) 12:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Potentially notable as he is starting to some success but very poor sources.scope_creep^Talk 08:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

May I ask why you have deleted the article on jernade miah Tifin12 (talk) 18:37, 5 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of most-subscribers gained on YouTube channels in 24 hours[edit]

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

Most of the sources for this article are terrible, they are Tweets and links to YouTube channels with no validation of subscriber growth. It's not clear that "Statsheep" provides reliable statistics over time. YouTube has existed for 15 years and it's unlikely that there are any historical sources charting this type of statistic across the board. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 15:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A simple one-liner for the entry at the top of the list can be mentioned in the main YouTube article. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 16:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I see this list as a pain to maintain, especially when there are no reliable sources in the first place. - ZLEA _T\^C 17:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Original research. Ajf773 (talk) 00:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete overall trivial and fails WP:NOT. NavjotSR (talk) 05:28, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete due to the abundance of non reliable sources. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:23, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Per WP:TRIVIA. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't have any words to say in favour but how about creating a new wiki page as Youtube Records? 11:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC) (moving post by Social XD)
Delete as not maintainable, not credibly reported, and not notable. --Lockley (talk) 09:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete You can generate the information of social blaze. You don't need an article for it. Also there is no context for attached to it. scope_creep^Talk 08:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Bilderberg Group. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bilderberg Hotel[edit]

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

The coverage (references, external links, etc.) does not seem sufficient to justify this article passing Wikipedia:General notability guideline and the more detailed Wikipedia:Notability (companies) requirement. WP:BEFORE did not reveal any significant English-language coverage on Gnews, Gbooks or Gscholar. I proposed a merge to Bilderberg meeting few months ago, but the talk page does not suggest a consensus is emerging, so let's speed this up here. Pinging merge discussion participants: @Captainllama, Dmehus, Cristiano Tomás, Abhijeet Safai, Doug WellerPo Mieczu, Daask, and Phil Bridger: _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 15:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Not enough to be notable on its own, but as part of the bilderberg meetings page makes sense, that way in context and not lost. User talk:Davidstewartharvey
I haven't examined the results yet, but these searches should eliminate most sources that are about the Bilderberg meeting or other hotels in this chain but retain any that are about this hotel itself:

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

Phil Bridger (talk) 16:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Do you see any that are not in passing mentions? I don't. The stuff like "Madonna stayed in hotel x" does not confer notability to said hotel, per WP:NOTINHERITED.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 02:14, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, I don't. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Builderberg group is notable for sure. Not sure about the hotel. The first meeting of this group happened in this hotel so the name of the group. -- Dr. Abhijeet Safai (talk) 08:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to group as part of its history. (Minimalizing current status of this building)Djflem (talk) 07:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge or redirect. Apart from this meeting the only things about this hotel that seem to be mentioned by non-directory sources are that it was close to some action in World War II, which is true of very many places in Europe, and that it has hosted an Integrated Natural Resources Management conference (oh, and of course Madonna stayed there). I'm not sure that there's really anything to merge, but whether there is or not this should be redirected to Bilderberg meeting. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:10, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to keep it as I think it adds something in terms of understanding the origins of the group and how it was named. I feel detail will be lost over time if it is merged. John Cross (talk) 19:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Plese see WP:ITSIMPORTANT. --02:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)
Merge and redirect. Looks like the hotel is solely known for its relationship to the Bilderberg Group. --Lockley (talk) 10:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Numerically, opinion is split, with a slight trend towards deletion. But the "delete" arguments are, in my view, not strong enough to establish a rough consensus for deletion. Many "delete" opinions are cursory or difficult to understand. They reference GNG, but they do not address the argument made by the "keep" side that there are in fact several reliable sources covering this topic (not just the individual crimes); as such, their GNG argument falls short. The "delete" argument that this is a fork of Fake news in India appears more defensible to me, but whether something is a content fork or a legitimate spin-off subarticle of another article is a matter of editorial judgment and not something for me as closer to decide. Absent consensus about this argument, the article is kept by default. Sandstein 07:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian WhatsApp lynchings[edit]

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

The article claims that the "spate of lynchings commenced in May 2017". Now in these 3 years, there have about 123,000 murders in India and apparently 47 only 11 of them involved the use of this cross-platform messaging facility. The article also distracts from the subject in question and there are 23 instances of "fake" news, for which Fake news in India exists. Majority of the incidents are easily non-notable and fails WP:LISTN. Since Wikipedia is not a a news channel and it is not a collection of indiscriminate information, there is no reason to keep this article. Tessaracter (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Topic does not violate WP:NOT, the topic has significant coverage in India and world, viz. WP, The Atlantic, BBC, NYT, CNN, rather google search shows how significant the topic is and passes WP:LISTN. Does not violate WP:IINFO in any way, the whole argument seems to be moot. Drat8sub (talk) 19:24, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, for several reasons:

WP:INDISCRIMINATE does not apply to this article. This part of WP:NOT addresses a few problematic types of content: massive data dumps, unexplained piles of statistics, and excessive non-encyclopedic coverage of creative works. The common thread here is that the "indiscriminate data" is non-encyclopedic. This is clearly not the case here. The article, before presenting the list, clearly establishes the issue, its scope, and its context. Then, the list provides more details on individual incidents. This is not "indiscriminate" - the list provides useful details for those looking for more info about what tends to happen in the incidents and those looking for info about specific incidents. Furthermore, it is a useful supplement to the introductory prose - the prose explains the broader significance of the issue, and the list provides details to give the reader a better, more granular understanding of what these attacks tend to entail, as well as a better sense of the sheer scope of the issue. The prose is the forest; the list is the trees. They both complement each other. Furthermore, even if the list were non-encyclopedic, that alone would not justify deletion of the article. It is not a stand-alone list, and the rest of the article, while short, could stand on its own two feet perfectly fine.
WP:NOTNEWS does not apply to this article. That part of WP:NOT begins with this explanation: Editors are encouraged to include current and up-to-date information within its coverage, and to develop stand-alone articles on significant current events. What NOTNEWS applies to is run-of-the-mill news coverage, as well as other related violations of Wikipedia principles such as original reporting, which violates WP:OR. That is not the case here - this article is a very well sourced encyclopedic treatment of a widespread and well-recognized sociocultural phenomenon. It is not written in news style; it is not a diary.
The nominator's mention of the total number of murders is a red herring and should be disregarded. An analogous example helps illustrate this. The US averages about 15,000 murders a year; generally about 20 of those are from school shootings. Should we delete all our extensive coverage of US school shootings? Of course not; that's an absurd suggestion. The issue of school shootings is a very well covered one.
The topic is extremely notable; that should not even be a question here - here are a few of many, many. many examples of international, independent coverage in reliable sources: [2], [3], [4], [5], [6]. It's important to note that all of these articles, even if they use individual cases as examples to introduce the wider societal issue, focus on the issue as a whole, not just individual cases. Clearly, this pattern of WhatsApp lynchings is notable.
WP:LISTN does not apply here either; in fact, it makes the case for this article's inclusion. The guideline states that notability of lists [...] is based on the group. It further states that Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable. Since the overall topic is clearly notable, the criteria are met. Furthermore, because the list is not a stand-alone list, the guideline doesn't even apply to the article as a whole.
Wikipedia is not a paper encyclopedia. There is no limit on size; there isn't some fixed number of printed volumes that everything needs to fit inside. Thus the nominator's concern about this article "distracting" from the Fake news in India article is not an issue. Furthermore, that article focuses on the wider topic of fake news in India as a whole, in the many diverse forms it takes. The WhatsApp killings are only briefly discussed, and this phenomenon is clearly notable enough to warrant a standalone article.

The article covers a highly notable topic, is thoroughly well sourced, has a well-defined scope for list inclusion, and is written in encyclopedic style, not news style. Hence the article must be kept. CJK09 (talk) 19:27, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes this article includes massive data dumps, unexplained piles of statistics, thus it fails WP:INDISCRIMINATE.
WP:NOTNEWS applies to the article because it largely depends on the information which has no lasting impact. I know there is some essential information here but it does not warrant a separate article.
The topic is notable or not, you need to see WP:NOPAGE. Yoonadue (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CJK09, also see WP:ILIKEIT. Tessaracter (talk) 15:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The Evening Standard, New York Times and Guardian articles clearly demonstrate notability of the subject, and the many local news sources referenced in the article give credence to the detailed information. I think the sources that CJK09 pointed to should be added to the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:50, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 02:21, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Merge and redirect~~ to Fake news in India, per WP:NOPAGE. What I am seeing here is the media's interpretation of 2018 Karbi Anglong lynching as "Whatsapp lynching", which may have popularized this term, but overall the sources including those provided by CJK09 are mainly dealing with Fake news in India. I have done cleanup of the article, and removed the content which was unrelated to "WhatsApp" and now I am seeing that the article looks much smaller than what it did before. Yoonadue (talk) 04:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changing my !vote to delete after considering comments by Azuredivay and Rsrikanth05. Yoonadue (talk) 13:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect as a more viable option per above. Currently, the article has been designed in order to put blame on WhatsApp even though there are a number of other means used for provoking killings. Aman Kumar Goel ^(Talk) 05:42, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I was about to vote for delete since a stand alone article isn't warranted for barely 10 incidents where WhatsApp was used, but I am fine with the proposed merge. desmay (talk) 06:47, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Fake News in India is far too broad a topic for this to be folded into it comfortably. There are enough sources to justify a standalone article, as CJK09 demonstrates above. Vanamonde (Talk) 15:00, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Not enough content to dedicate a stand-alone article. If we were to only rely on amount of sources for proving notability then we can also create a Indian Instagram murders [7][8], Tiktok murders in India,[9][10][11] and more unnecessary articles, but per WP:NOPAGE all of this is unnecessary. The Guardian itself deals with Fake news in India than particularly target WhatsApp over the incidents. Azuredivay (talk) 18:28, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Merge~~ Delete. The article is too small to warrant its own page. WP:NOTNEWS coverage involving very few incidents does not sanction an independent page. Neither there is a need to create article about every factor that played a role in some crime. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 19:27, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No longer convinced that the article requires merging because of issues raised below. Capankajsmilyo (talk) 05:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but with a better title. - Hatchens (talk) 06:09, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn’t confirm to WP:GNG. Yogesh Khandke (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG. As the nominator pointed out, only a small fraction of the crimes are actually related to Whatsapp, thus broadly reducing the scope of this article. Fake news in India, Cow vigilante violence in India both exist and both take care of it. At the end of the day, Wikipedia is Not a Newspaper. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 18:29, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete is justifiable since the source deal with a broader subject already covered on other articles, but merge and redirect to Fake news in India could work as well. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:37, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Azuredivay. The article basically says lynching incidents have happened in India due to the spread of fake news on WhatsApp. We already have a Fake news in India for that. I should also add that the article title is ambiguous and even misleading. Don't shoot the messenger! M4DU7 (talk) 21:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per CJK09 and Toughpigs. It only needs to be reframed. Other than that, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:18, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. There are too many problems with content, title, and notability. Zindagi713 (talk) 05:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:GNG and WP:NOTNEWS. Title is problematic as well like others noted. Accesscrawl (talk) 07:09, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article may require some improvement in line with some of the comments above—-however the subject matter is extremely notable and worthy of its own article distinct from fake news in India.Adondai (talk) 14:24, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 5#Indian WhatsApp lynchings
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment A very substantial number of sources has already been provided above, demonstrating that this topic has received detailed treatment in reliable sources, and thus the "doesn't meet GNG" arguments are bunk. Additionally, though, there's at least two scholarly sources I've been able to find focussing specifically on WhatsApp; this article in the Economic and Political Weekly, and this one in South Asian Popular Culture. Furthermore, the NOTNEWS arguments are also not founded in policy; NOTNEWS is about the level of detail used when writing about current events, about the lasting notability of current events, and about avoiding routine coverage; this topic has received coverage in international newspapers in multiple countries over a 2 year period at least. Vanamonde (Talk) 16:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The many, many sources provided clearly show that this passed WP:GNG Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Title is grossly misleading and also per Azuredivay and Yoonadue. Even the new sources added here are more about Fake news in India, and Cow vigilante violence in India than any particular "whatsapp lynching". Dhawangupta (talk) 12:30, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I wonder how some editors have got the unique ingenuity to make up pages when we do not need any. This is due to fake news and must be considered under that. This article doesn't merit a place. This is misleading and motivated in a partisian manner. The fact that we are discussing this is itself comic. Doesn't satisfy WP:GNG, and as perWP:NOT, WP:NOTNEWS it should be deleted ASAP. Trojanishere (talk) 13:11, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Trojanishere[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:24, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:GNG. Article has many instances of unverified news as well as not enough articles to consist of a standalone page --Hari147 (talk) 06:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to meet WP:GNG as has already been demonstrated; there are numerous sources presented which expand upon the phenomenon of mob violence instigated through the Whatsapp messenger app. Most of the delete !votes here are WP:VAGUEWAVE with arguments that are not founded on policy. Tayi Arajakate _Talk 19:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I agree about POVFORK and has been already described on Fake news in India. I also agree that the concept is too unique for encyclopedia that it does not belong here. Siddsg (talk) 14:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per CJK09. Passes WP:GNG and a google search shows the topic is covered significantly by multiple reliable sources which is more than enough for a standalone article. - SUN EYE 1 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 article was removed by admin Jimfbleak under criteria WP:A7 and WP:G11 (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Theo Marquez[edit]

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

Unable to find any significant coverage anywhere on the web. No indication of notability Pairo722 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Pairo722 (talk) 13:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pairo722, Delete. Lacks of WP:MUSICBIO. CommanderWaterford (talk) 13:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calvin Lo[edit]

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

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

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

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

After much debate and months of coming back and forth to research, I fail to see how Lo is notable. Yes, he's a billionaire which is impressive but after an in depth look at the sources, they all appear to be press releases, self published or guest posts (and black hat SEO.) I attempted earlier today to clean up and remove sources that were unreliable and was left with, well nothing independent. This is also very clearly paid for spam. An additional search for sources revealed nothing independent - just your typical Yahoo press releases and "partner" postings and black hat SEO. Praxidicae (talk) 13:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ Delete as per Praxidicae's table. After looking at the main sources, I think the article meets WP:GNG. While some sources certainly paint Lo in a positive light, this doesn't inherently violate WP:IS and is not terribly uncommon for tabloid-like sources reporting on celebrities. There's no evidence that I can see of black hat SEO or the first few sources being self-published. This article seems to violate both WP:GNG and WP:IS. AviationFreak (talk) 15:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Which sources would those be? Because all I can find are blatant misrepresentations, like the first source which is a brand post (aka a sponsored post paid for) Praxidicae (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I was looking at the first two sources listed. Is there any evidence that the first source is a commissioned brand post? AviationFreak (talk) 15:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - AviationFreak literally the top of the article states that it's a brand post. Also see below:
      - Praxidicae Apologies. I missed the various disclaimers in the sources. Thanks for your understanding! AviationFreak (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete As per nom, and to add to the table. Checked Web Archive. Didn't see any history for the Readers Digest link, so it's possible that it wasn't there in the first place. — Infogapp1 (talk) 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/322745	brand post (aka sponsored for pay)	anything that has to be paid for to be said to push the "philantropist" doesn't meet RS		✘ No
https://in.style.yahoo.com/billionaire-investor-calvin-lo-190151014.html	as per usual for this part of yahoo, it's just sponsored PR			✘ No
https://londonlovesbusiness.com/the-secretive-billionaire-calvin-lo/	nope, this is a pay for guest post site, used for blackhat SEO	see above		✘ No
https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/business/inside-the-world-of-life-insurance-brokers/	see above, same thing, completely unreliable.			✘ No
https://www.bmmagazine.co.uk/business/inside-the-world-of-life-insurance-brokers/	same as above			✘ No
http://www.tntmagazine.com/entertainment/games-and-tech/how-the-wealthy-uses-social-media	as per their about section, this is user generated/submitted			✘ No
https://newswire.net/newsroom/blog-post/00118664-hidden-billionaire-funding-growth.html	press release			✘ No
https://www.retailnews.asia/hong-kongs-most-under-the-radar-billionaire-calvin-lo/	laughably bad attempt at passing off as legitimate journalism, it's not independent and it's just more PR			✘ No
http://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2019/09/25/2003722855	~	~	it's a passing mention in some generic MILL coverage	✘ No
https://star.ettoday.net/news/1542326	this is a straight up gossip piece			✘ No
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2019/09/25/2003722855	~ same as 9	~		✘ No
https://www.forbes.com/sites/julianvigo/2019/08/14/how-new-technology-affects-our-consumption-of-art-and-media/#2e34a0866eb2	contributor piece			✘ No
https://www.taipeitimes.com/News/biz/archives/2019/09/25/2003722855	~	~	exactly the same as 9 and 11	✘ No
https://expressdigest.com/calvin-los-long-distance-philanthropy-succeeds/	all you need to do is look at their about us section to see why this is completely, laughably unreliable			✘ No
http://www.netnewsledger.com/2020/02/25/r-e-lee-capital-ceo-calvin-los-net-worth-reaches-us1-7-billion/	this is a blackhat seo site trying to pass itself off as legtimate and has been blacklisted			✘ No
https://www.readersdigest.co.uk/inspire/life/the-most-impressive-acts-of-charity-by-famous-people	would love to detail this but it doesn't exist in archives or elsewhere, so i have doubts it ever existed to begin wtih			? Unknown
https://vulcanpost.com/655165/asian-billionaire-philanthropist/	not a reliable source in teh slightest, accepts paid for pr without differentiating and cannot be trusted for being independent			✘ No
https://www.ibtimes.sg/most-impressive-acts-charity-by-famous-people-45093	~ i have doubts about its independence	~ the fact that they don't identify in author leads me to believe this is a generic puff piece with no real editorial review		✘ No
https://www.buzzfeed.com/debbiehuey/billionaire-giving-backsilently-6i9myngwpf	as is well established buzzfeed community posts are not rs and therefor cannot be considered to be actually independent			✘ No
https://www.econotimes.com/Understanding-new-generation-of-charitable-Chinese-Calvin-Los-long-distance-philanthropy-succeeds-1582946	user submitted piece as noted at the bottom			✘ No
https://innewsweekly.com/billionaires-stepping-up-to-fight-covid-19/		no indication of an editorial board or oversight		✘ No
https://www.luxuo.com/the-lux-list/super-rich/hong-kong-billionaire-calvin-lo.html		as has been discussed elsewhere, luxuo is not rs		✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Praxidicae (talk) 15:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Many of the sources used are the same sources used in many other Wikipedia articles. Sure, they may not be first tier publications, but should not be struck out conveniently. For example econotimes.com, accusation of “user submitted as noted in the bottom” is in fact a very common disclaimer used by many big publications. Another example is comment on ibtimes.com.sg, “have doubts about its independence”. Just because it’s published under the IB Times SG Desk, it’s unfair to write this off. Or the Taipei Times article, you said “its a passing mention in some generic MILL coverage”. But if you are aware, Taipei times is one of the most prominent media outlet in Taiwan and extremely reputable. We should not discriminate just because—especially because—this Wikipedia page is about an Asian. The content is useful especially for those in Asia and does not deserve to be deleted. Taipoqueen (talk) 06:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not going to explain again why those sources are not appropriate in the context of this article, yet again, but I would appreciate if you would please redact your personal attack here: Taipei times is one of the most prominent media outlet in Taiwan and extremely reputable. We should not discriminate just because—especially because—this Wikipedia page is about an Asian. Identifying non-notable people and nominating it for deletion is not discrimination and insinuating as much is offensive. Praxidicae (talk) 16:55, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He has coverage by the number of Local News Channels Some from them are here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6. He also has Coverage by local langue new resources you can check here 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18. All the resources are already used by other live Wikipedia Pages.Worrieredits (talk) 06:31, 15 June 2020 (UTC). — Worrieredits (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 16:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC) BLOCKED for WP:PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This article reads like it was created by someone connected to him for PR. The persistent sockpuppetry in the edits raises a lot of questions too. It's also suspicious that a lot of the keep votes on this page are from accounts created very recently, several apparently for the express purpose of voting on this nomination. — YgFZAcpJUJ (talk) 16:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Certainly meets WP:GNG I see many non-trivial coverage which shows that he is respected and noteworthy. For example, International Business Times is used in over a thousand Wikipedia articles. Should be kept if unaffected by previous sockpuppetry issue. JonasLiam (talk) 08:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC). — JonasLiam (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. . Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — Per nom rationale. Celestina007 (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The table compiled by Praxidicae includes just one source (the listicle in the International Business Times) that might possibly establish notability. I strongly share Praxidicae's doubts about this source's independence, and I'll add that, per WP:GNG, it borderline fails the "significant coverage" requirement: the listicle covers one single act of charity, and is mostly just a short bio that I strongly suspect is based on the Wikipedia article being discussed (a prime example of citogenesis). A cursory web search does not reveal the existence of better sources to establish this person's notability. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The references provided by Worrieredits are from Chines Local language news sources that possibly establish notability per WP:GNG, all the sources are national TV Channels and Newspapers which consider Reliable to cover the notability of a person.MNALHR (talk) 04:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC) BLOCKED for WP:PROMO. Britishfinance (talk) 16:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep He is a notable businessman and philanthropist in Asia. Though may not be from top tier publications, he passes WP:GNG as there are some reliable sources used. EddieKear (talk) 13:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC). — EddieKear (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. Britishfinance (talk) 16:42, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Note to closer I strongly suspect this nomination is subject to WP:CANVASSing. Several very new accounts with minimal edit counts voted "keep", contrary to the consensus that is slowly emerging among more experienced editors that there exists few if any significant coverage in independent and reliable secondary sources for this person. Ealuscerwen (talk) 16:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And additionally, I want to note for all these meat puppets, this also appears to at least partially be a hoax. "R. E. Lee Capital" may exist on their own website, but I see no evidence that the company is legitimate nor that it has ever received any coverage. Every single source in a search for this are (self generated) press releases and fake news sites. Not to mention the high improbability of a China based company being named after Robert E. Lee. Praxidicae (talk) 16:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

R.E. Lee Capital check this out too...Praxidicae (talk) 17:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No SIGCOV in any proper quality independent source suitable for a BLP. Lots of references in junk/promo sources (as listed in the table above). I suspect that this article is PAID (hence the number of SPAs at this AfD), and is part of the subject developing their own platform (and using Wikipedia for PROMO purposes). Given his family's wealth and status, perhaps he will merit a BLP in the future, but he has no real notability now. Britishfinance (talk) 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails to meet the sourcing standards we require for a BLP. If there could be an article here, we'd have to blow this one out of the way to make room for it. XOR'easter (talk) 19:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 08:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Janet Mathews (Janet Chethipuzha)[edit]

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

Reviewed as a part of new article review process. No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. The only coverage of her in the sources is a listing on a promotional website. North8000 (talk) 12:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BEFORE shows no indication of notability. Subject fails WP:GNG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 12:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete UnnotablePeasesoon (talk) 13:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Switzerland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the article is kept, its title will have to be changed because Janet Chethipuzha is simply her birth name, at least according to a few sources. Anyway, there is evidence that she won one of the awards listed at the bottom of the article ([12]), though that is a self-produced site, and this award and the others were not noticed by reliable media. Good luck to the young lady as she embarks on a career in which she can use her talents, but charitably it is too soon for a Wikipedia article. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete according to Doomsdayer520's logic and good faith. --Lockley (talk) 23:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Premier World Capital[edit]

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

Non-notable company; page likely created for marketing purposes – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 01:02, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. AllyD (talk) 06:04, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deletion Fails WP:GNG and some of it sources are from the company's own website. Signed,The4lines |||| ^{(You Asked?) (What I have Done.)} 17:33, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As reviewed previously by admin Espresso Addict, deletion should be declined as claims are present. Furthermore, all the statements in the article are supported by sources. Of the sources listed, 9 are from reputable sources such as Bloomberg, Financial Times, Reuters, The Economic Times and Markets Insider. 3lack5tar (talk) 08:26, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources should be used to show notability, but that's not what's happening here. Company information pages -- even from Bloomberg, Reuters, etc. -- do not establish notability. – Broccoli & Coffee ^{(Oh hai)} 17:46, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not all the sources are company information pages. Nevertheless, I have also improved on the article by adding 7 new sources that contain reports on the company's activities to enhance notability. 3lack5tar (talk) 09:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As mentioned previously, this article was reviewed previously by admin Espresso Addict and deletion should be declined as claims are present. Additionally, to enhance the article further, a total of 12 new sources that contain reports on the company's activities have been added to further enhance notability. 3lack5tar (talk) 16:53, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are mostly director listings and self-published sources which merely establishes the fact that this company exists but doesn't mention why it is notable for inclusion. Fails to meet WP:CORP. --KartikeyaS (talk) 12:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~KEEP~~strike duplicate !vote There are at least 15 independent news sources that contain reports on the company's activities (e.g. buying over corporate operations, securing refinance, winning awards for corporate lending performance, penalties for flouting certain regulatory standards etc.). 3lack5tar (talk) 18:26, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability as none contain "Independent Content" as per ORGIND, references are a mix of run-of-the-mill financial announcements and PR, topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Pistols[edit]

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

Doesn't appear to meet WP:GNG, provided sources are mere mentions and credits. Online I was able to find some hype pieces in blogs, but nothing that was independent, reliable, and significant. Arguably meets WP:COMPOSER through songwriting credits, but given how far we are from GNG I'm not inclined to consider that enough. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 01:19, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable songwriter.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:34, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks @Rosguill for bringing this to the community's attention, however, based on the wikipedia guidelines, I want to make the case for this article being kept live.

Overall, this article seems to be flagged based on lack of notability. To start, I'll note that one can immediately see in the Wikipedia:Notability (music) page that Diamond Pistols may be considered notable due to having composer "credit for writing or co-writing either lyrics or music for a notable composition." There are reputable and reliable sources provided showing Diamond Pistols has composed not one but numerous notable compositions, all together acquiring millions of plays on streaming platforms, radio play, not to mention charting on industry standard and high profile charts like Billboard. For example, Diamond Pistols produced a song on Jackson Wang's album MIRRORS, which became the highest charting debut album ever from a Chinese artist ^[1]. Based on this alone, I strongly disagree with the assertion that the Diamond Pistols article should be deleted based on similarity with the Johnpacklambert ( talk ) article.

Secondly, while @Rosguill is correct that Diamond Pistols is lacking significant news coverage, I believe this is more a reflection of the music industry rather than a lack of notability. Music producers/composers are known to work behind the scenes, and thus they rarely receive news coverage mirroring the level of the artist who put out the song the producer composed. What I'm arguing is that Diamond Pistols' notability is reflected in the numerous composing credits shown on sources such as AllMusic and Ascap. Per the wikipedia guidelines on notability WP:GNG, I believe these sources adequately represent "significant coverage" of Diamond Pistols as they "address the topic [i.e., Diamond Pistols/Christian Dold] directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." It's true these websites are not news, however these organizations are the music industry standard for crediting producers, are widely considered reliable, are completely independent from Diamond Pistols, and are comparable to IMDb for the film industry. Thus, I would not consider Diamond Pistols' inclusion on these websites to be mere trivial mentions, but rather represent the best possible avenue for producers receiving notability. I should note that these sources seem to be standard on other high-quality producer articles I've found on Wikipedia (see Andrew Goldstein (musician)).

Overall, I do believe Diamond Pistols has adequate notability to deserve a wikipedia article, and it seems unfair to exclude producers from Wikipedia solely on the basis of news coverage. Should news articles and books really be the only example of acceptable secondary sources? That rational seems a bit outdated in the digital age, and especially in the context of the music industry.

That said, I will acknowledge I am new to the community, and I would like to learn from you all on your interpretation of the situation. Cluehitch (talk) 18:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Cluehitch[reply]

Cluehitch, have you seen WP:NMUSIC? Are any of the criteria there satisfied? Java Hurricane 12:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JavaHurricane yes, I did check out the WP:NMusic. There does seem to be evidence pointing to notability given he has writing credits on several notable compositions. Please see further explanation in my above analysis (first paragraph). Cluehitch (talk) 16:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:02, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, – Joe (talk) 12:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:BEFORE shows few blog posts only when searched using his professional name. Subject fails WP:GNG.--KartikeyaS (talk) 12:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KartikeyaS343 Yes, there is not much news on him. Please see my explanation above on how notability for music producers isn't traditionally via news articles, but rather through crediting websites as cited on the article. Essentially, just because a music producer has few articles, does not mean he or she is not notable in general. Let me know what you think based on that. Cluehitch (talk) 16:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fails WP:GNG and if I am not mistaken, the SNGs normally don't overrule the GNG. Java Hurricane 16:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G Hall Thu[edit]

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

No significant coverage in reliable sources, WP:TOOSOON also. Zoodino (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Zoodino (talk) 06:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep G Hall Thu is a popular television series and premiering this month on MRTV-4, so it won't be CRYSTAL in the near future. The series is based on Ma Sandar's best seller popular novel G Hall Thu. This TV series has received the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources, G Hall Thu Gets The Audience Interest, [13], [14], [15]. There is sufficient coverage in reliable sources to allow G Hall Thu to pass Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline, which requires "significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject".Cape Diamond MM (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the subject meets WP:TVSHOW. --KartikeyaS (talk) 12:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think this subject have reliable sources now. This series is based on G Hall Thu book and you can see about Ma Sandar's novel book in Myanmar Wikipedia [16] and also about the series in MRTV-4 OTT platform [17] .Shin Khant Maung (talk) 08:22, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 12:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Basu Higher Secondary School[edit]

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

Nothing proving notability here or in Google. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nepal-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 09:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It's a public high school that goes back to 1962-63. To put that in perspective, here's a look at Kathmandu in 1961. This primary source and this secondary one give enough for a stub. I am sure an exhaustive search would yield a lot more. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 10:10, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Usedtobecool. The article just needs a bit better sourcing and a little more info. The information is out there, it just hasn't been incorporated into the article. AviationFreak (talk) 15:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jimi Behringer[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article curation process. No indication of wp:notability under either GNG or SNG. Beside there being no GNG suitable-coverage, there is near zero coverage of him in the listed sources, just a few mentions of his name. Note that the coverage of Cecil Behringer is of his dad, not him. North8000 (talk) 11:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Turns out that he has at least seven solo albums, which is not mentioned in the article. They are listed at AllMusic but with no reviews, and I can find no reliable reviews for a single one of them in any other online sources. His own work is only present in the routine retail and list sites. As for his work with other musicians, he is one of those long-serving journeymen who has made an honest living backing up notable people, but he has no significant and reliable coverage to demonstrate notability on his own. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Very obscure and what is there doesn't support an article on here. Passing mentions. Fails WP:MUSICBIO.scope_creep^Talk 18:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just trivial mentions and no actual coverage of the subject. No clear notability. — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 15:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Toner Buzz[edit]

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

Has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject lacks all criteria of WP:COMPANY. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 11:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I don't see a legitimate claim of notability in the article and a Google search turns up no reliable and verifiable sources to support such a claim. Alansohn (talk) 23:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete Source is BBB, seriously? Then the third one is their own website. Failed attempt at promo. — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:35, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. Looks like it was just created for Self-promotion and publicity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by OXYLYPSE (talk • contribs)

Delete No apparent indications of notability, no significant independant overage is curently cited. Indeed this at least arguably qualifies for an A7 speedy deletion as no assertion of significance, as it now stands. I did not do a separate BEFORE search, relying on the nom for that. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable and obviously promotional. --Lockley (talk) 05:16, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete saw this at NPP, would have A7'd it if it wasn't here already. No independent sources and no claim of notability. Spicy (talk) 04:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. I wasn't even sure if I could withdraw myself, I thought someone else had to. Sorry I've been acting strange lately, this quarantine/protests/pandemic is making me confused. (non-admin closure) Ylevental (talk) 22:26, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shain Neumeier[edit]

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

See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shain_Neumeier#Current_source_review. Most sources are first-person or passing mention, and the others mostly focus on his personal opinions on various topics, which are mostly general in nature. Also, see WP:ONEEVENT

Note: If you wish to add large amounts of sources, I paid an editor to clean up the page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Shain_Neumeier), so it would make more sense to leave suggested edits on the Talk Page since it would be more streamlined this way. Ylevental (talk) 11:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 22:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep we just had this conversation a month ago based on your nomination, and it ended in no consensus. Given that very little of substance has changed, it is likely to end up with the same result, wasting a lot of community labor. @Barkeep49: as you were the closer, can you offer guidance on whether this conversation should go forward, only weeks after the last one was completed? Theredproject (talk) 23:44, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The structure is the same; however, I paid a skilled editor to reduce the article size by half, removing a lot of excess details https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Shain_Neumeier&type=revision&diff=962081351&oldid=960052733. I doubt that any more relevant information/sources can be added, but in case that it is too soon, how much more time should pass before it is re-nominated for deletion? Ylevental (talk) 00:44, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ylevental, I don't think I've ever seen someone pay another editor to take down an article... do you have a WP:COI you need to declare? Theredproject (talk) 14:53, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No I don't, honest. I didn't want to clean it up myself since it would be indicative of bias. I just think it's taking too much space, and didn't want the article to end up as a quagmire like Media coverage of Bernie Sanders. What are the official guidelines for re-nominating? Edit: Just discovered this recommended guideline, that it's usually two months. Wish I had thought about looking that up first Wikipedia:Renominating_for_deletion#Renominating_for_deletion Ylevental (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral I haven't dug deeper into the sources yet, but I'm seeing mainly passing mentions or interviews with the subject (as opposed to extensive coverage of the subject's notability or work). Also, one of the external sites is a deadlink (company site) — Infogapp1 (talk) 14:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep You seem to be saying that since the article is better and cleaner now, it might be more worthy of deletion than the last time you proposed it. We don't delete articles because they were cleaned up, and we don't generally nominate articles for deletion twice in a row because the first discussion had an outcome we disliked. Someone the Person (talk) 15:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question If you have actually PAID someone to "clean up" this article, why are you now arguing it should be deleted? I think you are making an undue effort to "prove" a point that the Wikipedia community as a whole does not agree with. Andrea Parton (talk) 03:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the first discussion, some editors noted that the article was flooded with sources of varying quality, so it was hard to tell which sources were reliable. I wanted someone experienced to clean the article up so I could get a better opinion. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Shain Neumeier. Ylevental (talk) 13:57, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural keep per Theredproject. XOR'easter (talk) 15:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Procedural keep and Block User:Ylevental and User:Podcaster7. You paid a WP:MEATPUPPET to edit the article - User:Podcaster7 it would appear - and then nominated it for deletion? In violation of WP:DISCLOSEPAY it would seem. I can't even fathom ... Nfitz (talk) 20:28, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I did disclose the paid edits at Talk:Shain Neumeier. What happened during the first AfD was that an editor suddenly doubled the size of the article at Special:Diff/957111320, with many passing mention sources. I got overwhelmed, didn't know what to do, and decided to hire someone who I thought was an expert https://www.upwork.com/fl/safaqueafzal2. I wanted the article to be easy to analyze without excess details, as it would be hard to go through numerous sources. That's all. I didn't mean for it to become like this, I thought a month was long enough for renomination. Ylevental (talk) 21:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You may have, but your meatpuppet doesn't seem to have the correct notifications on their account. Also, you both were editing the article simultaneously ... before the notice I think. The previous AFD was no consensus - as such, there's no reason not to nominate right away - I don't think the previous AFD is the issue here, unless there's something else I'm not aware of. By "doubling" the size of the article, you seem to mean added and improved references - isn't that a good thing for everyone in the AFD? That user didn't even vote on the AFD, and has only made one edit to the article! I'm not sure why any further action was necessary. Now we have a completely tainted process. Typically when an article goes to AFD, people add sources to improve it. How could you even suggest that isn't appropriate in the nomination? There seems to be a fundamental lack of comprehension on procedure here. Even now ... you actually are debating this, rather than doing the right thing, and withdrawing the nomination (which certainly doesn't prejudice a future AFD). Nfitz (talk) 22:07, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christine Alix de Massy[edit]

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

There is no indication of notability. The only thing said about her in the article is to whom she was related. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Surtsicna (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. She was at one time in line to the throne of Monaco. Xxanthippe (talk) 11:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

I do not see anything about that being a criterion in WP:GNG. Please see WP:NOTINHERITED. A person is notable if they "received significant coverage in reliable sources". Surtsicna (talk) 13:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being in line to the throne of a micro-state is not a sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lacking in content. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:640e:8d9f:ac29:1db3 (talk) 23:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Europe-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Esquon, California[edit]

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

For once one of the California place name books comes through, in this case Gudde, who states that the rail location is named after a larger locale which was a land grant/farm. That's also what the aerials show: the topos show a cluster of buildings, but GMaps and older aerial views show a large farmstead with a few accessory houses. The railroad is long gone, of course. The fact of the name as a locale is well-established, but it doesn't seem notable. Mangoe (talk) 02:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A few newspaper articles mention Rancho Esquon, Esquon Station and a road that goes there, but it appears to be a locale and not a populated place. No sign that this meets GNG in any case. –dlthewave ☎ 05:24, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable locality. --Lockley (talk) 10:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Currently does not meet GNG. --Mhhossein ^talk 10:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IDealing[edit]

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

The references are not primarily substantial references about the company, and therefore do not meet NCORP. DGG ( talk ) 03:59, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 14:25, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 10:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only considerable reference is Sunday Times, but there is still not enough to meet WP:GNG. ~

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Close. In error (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 12:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulous star[edit]

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

Unreferenced details, seems to be just a definition of sorts could be better suited elsewehre or at Nebula   Kadzi   (talk) 10:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy close, article is already nominated below (next AfD). Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. (non-admin closure)   Kadzi   (talk) 10:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nebulous star[edit]

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

Unreferenced info, looks to be a definition or very basic description that could perhaps be better suited at Nebula or elsewhere.   Kadzi   (talk) 10:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Nebula#Observational history where the term is already discussed. This could have been done directly without coming to AfD. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of New York City Ballet repertory[edit]

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

Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. PJvanMill (talk) 09:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory of repertoire. Ajf773 (talk) 10:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. D4iNa4 (talk) 15:55, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Sandstein 11:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Drowned[edit]

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

Massive issues of WP:FANCRUFT. This should be redirect (again) to The Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask (and even then limited to a sentence or two.) ~ Dissident93 ^(talk) 09:42, 12 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 12. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 09:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Speedy Keep – The work is covered in Gizmodo, Kotaku, Variety, Dread Central, EGM, The Ringer Vice, Nintendojo. Notability is long since established. The "extremely long sections" cited by 2601:192:8800:6F60:7522:61F4:1E14:1166 in their nomination currently unreferenced by secondary sources are only unreferenced at present because the author only started publishing the third installment in the series back in March, and that they have done so has yet to be widely reported upon. All other sections are fully referenced and sourced. Additionally the supposed "paragraphs being cited to Discord chatrooms, Spotify urls, podcasts, and primary-source materials that fail to support the claims" also cited by 2601:192:8800:6F60:7522:61F4:1E14:1166 referred to a single three-sentence paragraph section referencing the wider fan community in the Reception section (there was no Spotify url cited anywhere) which has since been removed regardless. Please look WP:BEFORE nominating, as things aren't always what they may seem to be from just glancing at the page itself. KMWeiland (talk) 16:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the same reasons as listed by the user above. However, there is indeed a desperate need for markup, cleanup, and general improvements. The absence of third-party sources is not lost on me. 74.90.120.94 (talk) 17:08, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per KMWeiland. There are too many reliable sources for this topic not be notable. I do agree with the notion that this page might need a slight clean-up. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:01, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep It needs some clean-up as others have mentioned, but I don't see an issue with it. For its notability, it is an important touchstone in the creepypasta genre and as another user mentioned above has been widely covered by numerous reputable sources. I think there's very little disputing that it's nearly on par with Slenderman in its significance of influencing the direction of how the genre developed as a whole. From a historical perspective on internet culture in the early 10's alone, it seems worthy to me. 97.78.193.35 (talk) 04:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Sure it can use some additional trimming, but it was mentioned by Vice, in detail by Kotaku (on several occasions [18], [19]), Engadget, Bloody Disgusting (though not sure if that's user submitted or by the team), Mashable. If it should be redirected, I think it's more suitable to have it redirected to creepypasta. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 08:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per reasons above. Article needs some cleanup. Other than that, it easily passes WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:20, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Reliable sources give it significant coverage. Dream Focus 01:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Demonstrates notability, just needs improvement. - Bryn (talk) (contributions) 02:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MERGE Although notability is demonstrated, it is bloated by original research, causing the article to be much larger than it should be. It is horribly unencyclopedic in its current state and should be returned to a paragraph at Majora's Mask or List of creepypasta. 76.19.207.82 (talk) 08:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Size, original research and tone can all be worked on, but you agree notability has been met? WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 05:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – per all of the above, article now seems to pass WP:GNG. Videogameplayer99 (talk) 07:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was WP:SNOW keep. There is no reasonable prospect for a consensus for deletion at this point. BD2412 T 22:43, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neferti Tadiar[edit]

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

No in-depth coverage. Fails WP:GNG. Also Rejected on Draft:Neferti Tadiar, no new changes tracked from draft to main space. DMySon 08:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:NAUTHOR. Her Things Fall Away book has been reviewed several times,[20][21][22], and Fantasy Production has been reviewed at least once.[23] Both books are also well-cited, giving some support from a marginal case for WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article now has seven published reviews of one of her books and four of another, enough for WP:AUTHOR. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:NAUTHOR. Also, just a note to nom, the draft was declined, not rejected. Those are two very different things. Sulfurboy (talk) 22:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Article easily passes WP:NAUTHOR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:00, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep there are more than sufficient sources to establish that the subject is notable. Vexations (talk) 16:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. WP:NSPORT is quite clear in its applicable policies and guidelines section, that "the subjects of standalone articles should meet the General Notability Guideline". The idea that this SNG overrides GNG is demonstrably false. There is no indication that this individual satisfies GNG. Fenix down (talk) 07:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jasper Ameye[edit]

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

Despite passing WP:NFOOTY, he fails WP:GNG with very limited resources. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. HawkAussie (talk) 06:54, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 15:14, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - meets NFOOTBALL and has ongoing career. Giant Snowman 15:15, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Article about amateur footballer who once played in a Belgian top league match. There is no significant online coverage (Het Nieuwsblad has a single article about his time at Torhout which is not in depth at all). Article comprehensively fails the GNG, and accordingly the presumption of notability in NFOOTBALL stemming from that single Belgian league match is invalid. Jogurney (talk) 18:35, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL and as per WP:N and WP:SNG it not necessary to meet GNG, so User:Jogurney's delete isn't valid. (I haven't checked to see if GNG is met - as it's not relevant) Nfitz (talk) 23:51, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nonsense. The GNG is always relevant to notability - the SNG is merely a presumption based on likelihood to satisfy the GNG. Jogurney (talk) 03:50, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure where you are getting this interpretation, User:Jogurney. WP:N clearly says "meets either the general notability guideline below, or the criteria outlined in a subject-specific guideline". So either GNG or SNG is good. This is confirmed under WP:SNG where it clearly says that "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article". And to top it off WP:NSPORTS says "The article should provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." So we need reliable sources, not GNG sources. I think you may have confused the requirement for reliable sources, with the requirement for players who don't meet a SNG, needing GNG sources. Nfitz (talk) 05:18, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You've advanced the same argument at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Yassine Tekfaoui (which is contrary to NSPORTS itself - as it says the SNG is simply a presumption based on likelihood of passing the GNG, so obviously failing the GNG means the presumption is invalid), and I responded there. Jogurney (talk) 22:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SNG clearly says that you don't need to meet both GNG and subject-specific criteria. I've no idea if either meet GNG, as it's not relevant, so no point spending the time checking. Nfitz (talk) 02:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SNG says that there is a presumption of notability. If the article can be shown to comprehensively fail the GNG, the presumption is invalid. That's the case here. Jogurney (talk) 19:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No where do I see the words "If the article can be shown to comprehensively fail the GNG, the presumption is invalid" (though I don't know how one would EVER be able to show that - it's the whole prove a negative thing). But WP:SNG clearly says "A topic is not required to meet both the general notability guideline and a subject-specific notability guideline to qualify for a standalone article". Nfitz (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 07:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: not commenting on the merits of this topic, but I thought I'll contribute to the policy discussion. It seems the general consensus in relation to the notability of footballers is that, while meeting WP:NFOOTY is a strong indicator of notability, footballers who barely clear the NFOOTY threshold ought to demonstrate GNG as well. See, for example, this AfD vote (which was incidentally one of the few ones I got my vote wrong recently), where I was reminded of the need for GNG to be demonstrated for a footballer who technically just passed SNG. Also pointing out WP:WINNEROUTCOMES, which reads: There is consensus that footballers who play a minimal amount in a fully-professional league but comprehensively fail the general notability guideline are not notable. Of course, neither page refers to a policy / guideline, and again what amounts to barely clearing the NFOOTY threshold and playing a minimal amount is a matter for editor's interpretation. --Dps04 (talk) 09:52, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete There is consensus at AfD discussions that SNGs cannot override the GNG. In another deletion discussion about a sportsperson who meets the relevant SNG but fails the GNG, someone mentioned this request for comment. Just meeting NFOOTY really isn't enough. This person seems to fail the GNG: there is only one source that is worth anything. PJvanMill (talk) 10:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But User:PJvanMill, WP:SNG says that it DOES override GNG. I've not even looked at the sources for GNG - why send everyone chasing down rabbit holes if SNG is met, and reliable sources exist? Nfitz (talk) 17:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, have you looked at the RfC I linked? The consensus is really pretty clear on this. Also, the WP:SNG guideline makes clear that SNGs are meant as placeholders for the GNG: they provide a reasonable indication that the subject will meet the GNG as well. When it turns out that the subject outright fails the GNG, an SNG cannot save it. PJvanMill (talk) 18:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This was 3 years ago. If this was binding, SNG would not say that GNG isn't necessary. It also confirmed that " the criteria at NSPORT are useful tools to try to quickly determine the likelihood of an article meeting the GNG". Does this subject meet GNG? I don't know ... haven't checked. SNG tells us that we are wasting our time ... oh and look here, in 3 seconds ... a GNG source. So why do we waste our time once we've established a clear black line? Time and time again, this ends up in a debate on how good the GNG sources are ... we shouldn't be wasting time like this Nfitz (talk) 20:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is one GNG source, the only one in the article. The GNG requires multiple. So, if that is all there is, it fails the GNG and should be deleted. PJvanMill (talk) 13:26, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNG doesn't explicitly require more than one GNG source. SNG is met and explicitly says that GNG doesn't have to be met. And there's plenty of other independent reliable secondary sources over the years such as this and this; and there's certainly in-depth primary sources such as this. You're splitting hairs. Nfitz (talk) 19:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG says "sources". The basic criteria for notability of people, WP:BASIC, which is essentially a reformulation of the GNG, explicitly says "multiple". The sources you just linked don't count much toward notability in my (admittedly quick) assessment. PJvanMill (talk) 19:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BASIC explicitly says "If the depth of coverage in any given source is not substantial, then multiple independent sources may be combined to demonstrate notability" - and I just gave an examples of that. BASIC also refers to additional criteria below. If it all comes down to meeting BASIC/GNG and nothing else, we wouldn't need additional criteria. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You still have to pass GNG even if you technically pass a SNG, that's long established and why it's so difficult to craft new SNGs (since you have to show that there's a presumption GNG is met.) Ameye does not meet GNG and barely passes the SNG with only fourteen minutes played. The three articles are either very routine (youth player being loaned out, only a couple grafs) or an interview, which specifically doesn't count. SportingFlyer T·C 04:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Definitely meets NFOOTY and it may safely be assumed that there is sufficient Belgian media coverage to meet GNG per WP:NEXIST. No Great Shaker (talk) 20:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that WP:NEXIST says once an article's notability has been challenged, merely asserting that unspecified sources exist is seldom persuasive, especially if time passes and actual proof does not surface. This article has existed since 2014 - and I trust Nfitz and others have been doing their best to find more. PJvanMill (talk) 13:45, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NEXIST is referring to reliable sources - of which we have a lot of. The GNG argument centres around how in-depth those sources are. I agree that without reliable sources, the article should be deleted. Reliable source are not the same as in-depth sources. I don't think anyone suggests we don't have reliable sources. Nfitz (talk) 20:10, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete He hasn't played in any category with tracked statistics since 2016, so he's not active or likely to generate any further coverage. He played 14 minutes in the Belgium Pro League in 2014 which puts him into the barely passing NFOOTY category and can't find any specific SIGCOV on him, especially considering he played in a time where SIGCOV should be easily found. SportingFlyer T·C 04:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The topic-specific notability guidelines described on this page do not replace the general notability guideline. They are intended only to stop an article from being quickly deleted when there is very strong reason to believe that significant, independent, non-routine, non-promotional secondary coverage from multiple reliable sources is available, given sufficient time to locate it. There has been no assertion that there exists sources suitable for establishing notability—while multiple sources may be combined where any given source is not substantial, trivial coverage may not be used. Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Softwear[edit]

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

Existing article's sourcing undoubtedly fails WP:NCORP and search turns up trivial coverage, local coverage and churnalism. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 07:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - subject fails to meet WP:NCORP. --KartikeyaS (talk) 12:57, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article are trivial and nothing notable or in-depth seems to come up about them in a search. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Black Kite (talk) 14:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sharifa Love-Rutledge[edit]

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

I understand that this goes against the trend, could get me exposed to false accusations of all kinds of criminal behavior, and I could have left this somebody else to deal with, however, I feel that as a new page patroller I have to nominate this for deletion. This academic, although being black and being a woman, fails WP:PROF by a wide margin at this point. I do not see her passing WP:GNG, currently the article in fact has zero independent reliable sources. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 06:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Hi there, thank you so much for the note and for creating a discussion as opposed to speedy deletion! I would love the chance to dispute this nomination for multiple reasons. First, she meets the criteria of an academic (ie she is a "faculty members (such as professors) at colleges or universities"). Second, I have used "Material such as an article, book, monograph, or research paper that has been vetted by the scholarly community is regarded as reliable, where the material has been published in reputable peer-reviewed sources or by well-regarded academic presses" (from the notability page of Wiki) and thus these sources I have used to discuss her research are reliable sources. Third, Love-Rutledge has "had a substantial impact outside of academia in their academic capacity" as her work directly informed the change of guidelines in the European Food and Safety Authority Guidelines. Fourth, she was a McNair Scholar, this is a Federally awarded honor (honor at the national level). Fifth, the citations that reference the biography of her life are published on multiple institutional pages, which I have cited, and the fact that this story is written on multiple Institutional pages (even institutions she did not attend), I thought this signified it was a secondary source. I have also cited the institutions where she won awards (including her listed as one of the top 100 Black Scientists in America by CellPress), which Wikipedia says is a sufficient source for citing an award. I would love to discuss further, but I also feel that her story and contributions to science are notable enough to be shared on Wikipedia. Microglia145 (talk) 07:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you. I will generally not respond further and let others decide on the nomination, but I want to remark that WP:PROF does not mean that (i) all faculty members of all universities are notable (and in this case, University of Alabama is not a top university, and she is only an assistant professor); (ii) that all authors of publications in peer-review journals are notable (this would make notable suddenly hundreds of thousands of people who had contributed to some research while being for example undergraduate students and not have made any impact outside of one or two routine publications). Btw the article is clearly not eligible for speedy deletion, if you ever see a comparable article nominated for speedy or, even worse, speedy deleted on notability grounds, please let the community know at one of the noticeboards.--Ymblanter (talk) 07:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: doesn’t come close to WP:GNG Vipulsshah (talk) 08:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC) SOCKSTRIKE. Britishfinance (talk) 11:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment just noticed this was nominated for deletion under an hour of the article being created... Kj cheetham (talk) 08:29, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed, I was patrolling the queue of new articles. I usually do it every morning.--Ymblanter (talk) 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Only assistant prof - I'd be looking for a named chair or "Distinguished Professor" appointment. Please see WP:PROF. First black women to gain a PhD in a particular department at a particular uni isn't overly notable to me (though is certainly an achievement), first in the uni overall maybe would be. Publishing citation record is not particularly impressive, especially when just considering the first or last author papers. So it falls to how notable the awards are, and to me they mostly look like academic scholarships and minor awards. It needs more than a passing mention in something published other than the winner's institution or the awarding institution. Either of those might prove it was real, but doesn't show it's notability. Winning a national-level award also won by many others doesn't make it prestigious. Most of the awards don't have their own wikipages I assume. To me, "substantial impact" needs to be much more than a one-time incorporation into an organisation's guidelines. Much as I don't like to for any women scientist, I'll have to say delete at this time, as it's WP:TOOSOON really. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete Reluctantly as well. Looking at the criteria for notability of academics, options 3-8 clearly don't apply in this case. For research impact (option 1) it's hard to make the case quantitatively based on citations/h-index. Qualitatively, the discovery referenced in the current article's summary paragraph about chromium comes from a paper on which she was a middle author. I did go to the journal and downloaded the PDF to confirm it wasn't two co-first authors with asterisks. That leaves criteria 2, the award path. The most notable award listed is the McNair scholarship which is for undergraduates selected based on a combination of academic potential and coming from a disadvantaged background. I just don't think it satisfies criteria 2. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 13:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of Wikipedia:Wikipuffery but no evidence of significant academic accomplishments of the type needed to pass WP:PROF (multiple heavily cited publications, distinguished professor rank, etc). The only thing that stands out as an unusual level of attention is the name-drop in "100 inspiring black scientists in America" but that's only a name-drop on what is essentially a forum posting, not the sort of reliably-published in-depth coverage needed for WP:GNG. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: I'm going to offer a comment that is meant fully in the spirit of WP:HERE, as someone who sincerely respects and has had quite positive interactions at one point or another with almost everyone in this discussion, and I really hope that you will see it as a good faith suggestion aimed squarely at keeping a productively collaborative atmosphere for improving the encyclopedia. I looked around for a long time to find guildelines/precedent about where to put this comment (on the AfD Talk page maybe?) but I couldn't find anything relevant, so please feel free to move it somewhere else if there's a procedural rule about where concerns like this should be raised. I am worried that the framing of this nomination pushes WP:CIVIL, and that the text of it should be reconsidered. What is "this academic, although being black and being a woman, fails WP:PROF" supposed to mean? Is the reference to a "trend" meant to assert that AfD discussants increasingly apply lower standards to black people and/or to women? Writing in the text of a nomination that a deletion discussion may include accusations of "all kinds of criminal behavior" is at least not in the spirit of WP:AGF/WP:AFDEQ, but I worry that in the context of recent discussions it could be interpreted as a pointed reference to specific editors who have taken part in the overall pleasantly collegial discussions at The Village Pump and in some recent AfDs. I am concerned that opening an AfD by talking about how it will make you the target of libel and drawing specific attention to the gender and race of the article subject makes it extremely difficult to build a WP:CONSENSUS. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- It means that AfD nominators are likely to get accused of bad faith when they nominate for deletion articles on people from underrepresented groups. Exactly as you appear to be doing now. And that the nominator hoped to pre-empt that accusation by demonstrating their good faith and by tiptoeing around the nomination rather than being more blunt, but as your long comment demonstrates it doesn't seem to have worked, because the very act of trying to be responsive to these issues is seen as problematic. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Then I apologise for that appearance. I'm happy to plainly state that I have no doubt that the nomination was raised because the nominator believes in good faith that the article does not meet WP:NACADEMIC or WP:GNG. - Astrophobe (talk) 22:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Indeed, thanks David Eppstein. There are enough people around happy to accuse me in racism and sexism, and my real name is easy to find. Fortunately I am not based in the US, but I can still can get into serious trouble if this gets spread by social media in the corresponding mode and for example picked up by mainstream media.--Ymblanter (talk) 16:02, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Probably worth including in the WikiProject Women scientists list of AfDs too? Kj cheetham (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but does anybody know how to do it? The article is edited exclusively by a bot.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good question... I've tagged the article's talk page with the project tag, so let's see if the bot picks that up on it's next daily run. Kj cheetham (talk) 12:51, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Nowhere near passing WP:Prof. Maybe in 10 or 20 years time. Not enough for WP:GNG. Xxanthippe (talk) 08:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adesh Gupta[edit]

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

He has passing mentions in a few news articles but no significant coverage anywhere. Almost every sentence in the article is promotional in nature. M4DU7 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:23, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:09, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:55, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no indication of notability except few routine coverage for being appointed as a CEO of a company. Should have been speedily deleted under CSD G11.--KartikeyaS (talk) 13:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable businessman fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 13:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not a notable person ~ Amkgp 💬 14:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO on all fronts, most likely a promotional article. Runforlimit505 (talk) 06:22, 13 June 2020 (UTC)Blocked sock. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:28, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ravi Navlani[edit]

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

Non-notable businessman. He was arrested last year for fraudulently claiming to be the CEO of a large corporation: [24], so I don't believe that anything in this article is true either. M4DU7 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 14:45, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Non-notable businessman, references are questionable. Google doesn't yield much more either. Jackreed86 (talk) 06:58, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - subject fails to meet WP:GNG. --KartikeyaS (talk) 13:05, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:BIO. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 13:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability as per WP:BIO. Also the tone appears to be WP:PROMOTIONAL to justify some contents of article Surya Group ~ Amkgp 💬 14:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not notable and dodgy claims. One of the sources is 404 and then there's this. — Infogapp1 (talk) 17:41, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 07:35, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Massimiliano Caroletti[edit]

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

The subject of this article does not pass WP:ENT or WP:CREATIVE. Very thin sourcing supporting an article with numerous unsourced claims and no clear notability for anything. Oddly there is no it.wiki article - perhaps already deleted? Mccapra (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Italy-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But he is an actor (important role) and a producer (film with awards). Now I add source and information. --87.13.195.175 (talk) 16:59, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tomorrow I add other informations. --87.13.195.175 (talk) 18:10, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 87.13.195.175 if you are going to add more sources that's great. Please don't add lots and lots of links to Caroletti's own work because that is no help to us. What we need are discussions or commentary about his work by reliable and independent sources - national press, recognised sector magazines etc. Not his own own work, not his own PR, not Youtube, not social media, and not interviews with him. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 18:50, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your help. Now I add new sources and informations. I continue to work for the page. Mary --87.13.195.175 (talk) 09:11, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK there are now 62 references so this is a clear WP:REFBOMB. Most of these are not reliable independent secondary sources so they don’t help us determine notability. This article has to pass WP:CREATIVE in order to be kept. Mccapra (talk) 12:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now I remove 19 sources, then I continue to work and remove. --87.13.195.175 (talk) 13:43, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, I have put sources for informations just for have different sources, but I didn't know it's a problem. I'm sorry, one or two souces for information are ok? I think that is notability: general manager of 2 football clubs, producer (awards including best producer), actor (also in important roles), etc. These informations have the sources. --87.13.195.175 (talk) 13:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok thanks. 19 fewer sources is better but still a lot to go through. Looking again at the first source, it seems to be a gossip column piece and the subject is Adrian Mutu, with Caroletti mentioned fairly briefly. The second source us a press release, so useless for notability. The third is an interview, so again no help in establish notability. I’m not going to go through all 45 of them now. These sources can help verify specific details in an article but only sustained coverage in multiple reliable independent sources demonstrates notability. Mccapra (talk) 14:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can you help me? For example: for award (best producer) it's ok?, for important role in Fallo! it's ok, for important role in Taxi Lovers it's ok? For understand what sources I put. Thanks for your help. Good evening. See you tomorrow. --87.13.195.175 (talk) 17:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok of the three we’re looking at now the BAFF award is good. I don’t think it’s enough on its own to demonstrate notability but it certainly helps. Your second link verifies that Caroletti had a role in Fallo! but for that to help with notability we need an independent critical review discussing his acting in that role. Lots of people have lots of roles in lots of films. That gets them into IMDb but it doesn’t get them into Wikipedia. Again, your third one verifies that he had a role in Taxi Lovers, but that fact is not in doubt. What is in doubt is whether that matters. Who has discussed his role in that film? Where is the commentary about it? The conclusion is that he is not going to have an entry on Wikipedia just because he’s done lots of stuff. He will get an article if he has done stuff that other people have discussed in some depth. What we need to see is those discussions, along with prizes or significant news coverage. Good luck! Mccapra (talk) 18:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And for sport, for general manager and director marketing there are sources (for example 33, 35 or 29,30) ok? --87.13.195.175 (talk) 07:45, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well I'm just going to tell you the same thing again. You really need to be clear about the difference between WP:VERIFY and WP:BIO. Tens of millions of people are mentioned here, quoted there, and get their picture in a newspaper from time to time, but Wikipedia is not interested in that. It is interested only in the very small number of people who have done really important things. Of the references you ask about, 29 and 30 briefly verify that Caroletti was the marketing manager of Szombathelyi Haladas, but the question is, so what? Every football club has a marketing manager, they all do more or less the same thing, and there is nothing inherently notable about what they do. From time to time an individual marketing manager of a football club may do something absolutely amazing, and be responsible for campaigns that double the number of subscribers, triple revenue, or establish a club's brand in a new continent. If they do this, there will be extensive discussion about them in the marketing press and in the football press, talking about the exceptional thing they have done. That discussion could show that they were notable just for being a football marketing manager. A couple of name-checks here and there mentioning them as the marketing manager is of no use for establishing notability. References 33 and 35 are about Caroletti's role as club manager. These are much more likely to be useful in demonstrating notability and if you can add more sources (not just quick name-checks) demonstrating that there is significant independent discussion of his role as manager, that will certainly help support a case for keeping the article. I must say that as I've searched for sources about him I've found a lot, but it is mostly trivia, and he seems to be famous largely in the world of gossip magazines because he is married to Eva Henger. Mccapra (talk) 09:08, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. Ok I understand: director marketing is a minor job; I work on other jobs. Thanks for WP:BIO but I don't try produder (film, video...) and general manager (sport), where are?. Now I put 2 source 1 and 2. Thank you! --87.13.195.175 (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I put this information, I think that it's important. Mary --87.13.195.175 (talk) 11:41, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi thanks for continuing to work on this. I’ve said enough in this discussion so no more from me now and I’m going to leave it to others to share their views. All the best Mccapra (talk) 19:30, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

Keep: Per WP:HEY. Article has been cleaned up and improved, it's good enough to pass WP:CREATIVE. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:39, 4 June 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)} 14:55, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Imho the subject is notable (thanks User:Superastig for cite WP:HEY); before I had written a small article (with few references) but now I rewrote the page and I think that it’s a complete article, look differences here. In his career he was awarded best producer here (reference 7). There are important jobs as general manager or owner (football) (references 15, 34-35-36, 37-38), producer (with his films participated to important festivals for example this (references 17, 9), this (reference 16) or producer television programs, sit-com or others), he have important roles as actor. There are main jobs and minor, considering everything, the subject is notable (imho). I write "keep" now because now I have finished working for sources and informations but I add "stub" because I don't know if I added all informations. Thanks for all (for patience and explanations - User:Mccapra). Mary. --87.13.195.175 (talk) 10:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is not clear to me which criteria of WP:CREATIVE Superastig is claiming the subject meets. The many references in the article means that it would likely take some time to review, but as of revision 963434051, the references consist of 1. Press release 2. Interview 3. Interview 4. Database entry of film 5. Ditto 6. Yearbook (also database-ish) 7. Award, but does not appear to meet well known and significant 8. Film nominated for award 9. Ditto. (I think I'll look at the rest sources in 4 batches of 9) Alpha3031 (t • c) 05:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm more or less convinced now that there's insufficient coverage in usual places (google news results, etc) that isn't passing mentions, tabloid stuff about his wife or essentially directory listings of his films. re. it.wiki, it's been speedied twice there, but I don't think that's relevant, since our version is certainly improved and does not meet speedy criteria, theirs or ours. I am unable to verify that any of his films have been the primary subject of a notable work or of multiple substantial independent articles or reviews, or that they have otherwise attracted significant critical attention. Nor does he seem to meet the other two criteria of WP:CREATIVE. I don't see how this person can be notable per our criteria, and I don't think restoring the redirect to Éva Henger is appropriate either, even though that seems to be the source of most of the passing mentions. I see no option but delete. Alpha3031 (t • c) 06:16, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 09:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dacian fortress of Pisculești[edit]

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

One sentence, an infobox, and no references. You have | Failed | This Universe | 20:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Archaeology-related deletion discussions. You have | Failed | This Universe | 20:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Cannot verify this at all, and I note that the linked Romanian article points to a completely different location (though I cannot tell whether they are about the same place). Mangoe (talk) 02:46, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:50, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The alternative name given in the infobox yields a few sources, such as [25], [26] and [27]. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (or redirect to a list) without prejudice to re-creation if substantive content can be provided. Peterkingiron (talk) 17:38, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename to Tinosu (archaeological site). Phil Bridger's sources verify that the site exists and as a former populated place it is notable per WP:GEOLAND. I've expanded the article a little with these sources, but since the site was excavated in the late 1800s I imagine most sources will be in Romanian and inaccessible online. – Joe (talk) 09:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Clear pass of WP:GEOLAND. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:46, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Also mentioned in these books. Razvan Socol (talk) 17:34, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename as above. It has been shown that there are academic sources covering this topic, but the title may have been mistaken. I really wish that deletion nominators and others who support deletion would come back to the discussion when sources are offered and re-evaluate their position rather than just restate it. Phil Bridger (talk) 18:32, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As per WP:GEOLAND Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:NGEO, with appropriate rename, plaudits to above editors who found sources showing wikinotability. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:14, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NGEO. At first I was dubious that there is more information out there, but appears to be. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 21:23, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 - after three relists, nobody here has made a strong policy-based argument that's backed up with either sources or an indication of a thorough BEFORE check. No prejudice against a renomination. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 19:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meghan Miller[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

AGT contestant. Nothing else out of the ordinary. Fails GNG. Was saved at AFD 13 years ago with the keep vote rationale that sources may exist and RS will be added to her page. 13 years have passed, no RS added. MistyGraceWhite (talk) 23:33, 18 May 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 19:27, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable beauty queen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:52, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Theatre-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:09, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The nomination here is extremely misleading. This person was the first winner of Miss America's Outstanding Teen, a national beauty pageant. Also, the discussion centered on her beauty pageant win, not on the state of the sources, which is still poor. This is quite different from what the nomination says, and I think that people should give a fair and balanced summary in the nominations. -- Ssilvers (talk) 07:51, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: No consensus to delete, but it would help if participants favouring keep could list some sources to show this subject meets GNG
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Dps04 (talk) 10:06, 26 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nominator was blocked as a sockpuppet, however I am leaving the nomination open because it has some merit. MER-C 17:11, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I have to agree with Ssilvers. Per WP:GNG.BabbaQ (talk) 22:51, 27 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, A a s i m 00:29, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:BASIC along with WP:ENT and WP:ARTIST. Drat8sub (talk) 03:19, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 06:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ThinkPalm Technologies[edit]

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

Fails to satisfy NCORP. Coverage is limited to press releases and routine announcements. M4DU7 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 04:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Not notable, per nominator. Bingobro (Chat) 10:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete : Searches find a listing as one of "India's Top 50 Great Mid-Size Workplaces" [28] and routine announcement coverage of product launches and office site openings, which verify this as a company going about its business but is short of the level of coverage needed to demonstrate notability here. AllyD (talk) 12:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm not seeing anything unique or notable about them that warrants an article. Everything seems extremely trivial and could apply to any company. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:42, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I am 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⁺⁺ 12:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amber Sharma[edit]

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

A non-notable director, producer and photographer with no significant coverage in reliable sources. Fails WP:CREATIVE. The prod was contested by user Jhonfarhman after citing a bunch of unreliable sources. GSS ^💬 04:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 04:36, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invitation: Jhonfarhman, their quality aside, that's an impressive number of references. Start by choosing perhaps three of them that appear to be from independent, reliable sources (not mere PR puff, blogs, etc), add what they say to the article, and for each addition, cite the specific source. Then I'll take a look at the result. But as it is now, I'm inclined to agree with the nomination. -- Hoary (talk) 05:00, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable filmmaker, fails WP:CREATIVE and WP:GNG. - FitIndia ^{Talk Commons} 13:48, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable film producer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. - Hatchens (talk) 12:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AXLOIE[edit]

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

The subject lacks in-depth coverage in independent reliable sources and current sources are just product launching announcements. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH. GSS ^💬 03:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to my comment above - apart from product launching announcements most of the sources are reviews. GSS ^💬 04:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 03:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep - The deletion reason is inaccurate. None of the sources are product launch announcements. All are independent reliable sources and there are countless articles of less notable companies on Wikipedia. Isenta (talk) 03:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC) — Note to closing admin: Isenta (talk • contribs) is the creator of the page that is the subject of this AfD. [reply]

See wp:other stuff exists. GSS ^💬 04:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, exactly. And as it says: "When used correctly, these comparisons are important as the encyclopedia should be consistent in the content that it provides or excludes." I'm using it correctly. The standard of notability in practice is much lower than the subject of this article. Isenta (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - the topic does not seem to meet WP:NCORP. The article cites sources (and more, similar sources can be found online), but none contain the level of in-depth, independent coverage needed to establish the company as meeting NCORP. The large part of the sources cited are all product reviews or are press releases, and contain next-to-no information about AXLOIE itself. In addition, none of the sources cited make a credible claim for the long-term encyclopedic notability of AXLOIE when compared to similar companies, a run of the mill indication. The workaround would be to shift the focus of the article to a notable product the company sells, but in this case I doubt any individual AXLOIE product is notable enough to meet WP:NPRODUCT. SamHolt6 (talk) 13:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete maybe there is enough coverage of their products for an article about one of them, but it mean the company itself should have an article. In this case there are articles that talk about the company in-depth, only their products. So, the article should be deleted as failing the notability requirements. --Adamant1 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as lacking the in-depth independent coverage. Stuartyeates (talk) 22:33, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:GNG, all of the coverage is from press releases/advertisements or the company itself. - Aoidh (talk) 05:29, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Houston–Texas football rivalry[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

WP:GNG requires If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list. "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content." Since 2018, only game citations and exceedingly thin WP:PRIMARY sources been located. Web searches do not readily turn up necessary citations, even via the blog networks. The most recent game dates to 2002, so other historical sources might offer support. Two prior AfDs trend to deletion (August 2018, October 2018). UW Dawgs (talk) 02:24, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as nom. Fails GNG. UW Dawgs (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction, the 2nd AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston–Texas football rivalry resulted in delete. Therefore this vesion is elligible for Wikipedia:Speedy deletion via Template:Db-g4. At this point, it's easier to let this AfD play out. UW Dawgs (talk) 04:20, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I only see one prior AfD, but I !voted delete in that AfD, and absolutely nothing has changed since then. Might be worth a salt. SportingFlyer T·C 02:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the third. The first can be seen at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Houston-Texas football rivalry. Cbl62 (talk) 04:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cheers, I was confused because there's something wrong with the link-box, but apparently the article was renamed in between AfDs. SportingFlyer T·C 05:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The difference is subtle. One uses a "hyphen" and the other uses a "dash" and that results in different characters in the titles, therefore a less typical AFD progression. Ugh, character encoding is hard.--Paul McDonald (talk) 15:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah yes, the em–dash from hell. SportingFlyer T·C 16:18, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the article was recreated by Nomel6510 with an edit summary that noted Recreated page due to WP:N. This was at odds with the previous AfD, which ended in delete due to the non-notability of these teams' purported "rivalry". Nothing much has changed since then in my eyes. PCN02WPS (talk | contribs) 16:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete per WP:G4 Recreation of a page that was deleted per a deletion discussion. There is no new rationale nor new information provided.--Paul McDonald (talk) 12:52, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete on procedural grounds as noted above by PCN and Paul. No new grounds presented for recreating the article after prior AFD resulted in "delete" decision. Cbl62 (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Cex (musician). (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miami Mansions[edit]

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

I can only find info about this album on discogs, which is WP:USERG. Cannot find any other sources that suggests this passes WP:NALBUM or WP:GNG. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 02:27, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Cex (musician) – a redirect to Maryland Mansions is also plausible, as this EP consists of two remixes of songs from that album, but that's not obvious from the song titles, so maybe a redirect to the artist would be better. Richard3120 (talk) 17:29, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Cex (musician): Barely found anything about the EP. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:00, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Charak[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

This article was previously nominated for deletion 14 years ago with the result being a keep. Even if the article states that he has done sketch comedy and co-created a web series, I don’t think this is enough to satisfy WP:NACTOR as well as WP:ENT. Pahiy (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 02:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 02:25, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete one recurring role in a soap opera is no longer considered enough to make someone notable and beyond that these is just nothing substantial.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete My vote is based on the subject's notability, irrespective of who created the article. Now, I tried to look for reliable external sources (as the current version is poorly sourced), I couldn't seem to find any. — Infogapp1 (talk) 23:04, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 04:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scott S. Weiss[edit]

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

From BLPN.[29] by Spellmonger (talk · contribs). Does not pass WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Citations in the article show trivial coverage and a Google News and Books search does not reveal much. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable businessman. Fails WP:GNG Jackreed86 (talk) 06:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails notability, sources don't focus on the article subject. Ravensfire (talk) 13:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Passing mentions of the subject. No notability at this stage. — Infogapp1 (talk) 15:12, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Zero notability, written like advertisement. 132.60.240.129 (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is WP:NOTLINKEDIN. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Abdi Garad[edit]

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

Notability questioned since September 2012. Reliable coverage is limited to threats and quotes related to the Maersk Alabama hijacking. He wasn't actually involved in the hijacking so a redirect to there is improper. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 01:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable pirate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:17, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 11:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adel Holding[edit]

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

This holding company appears to fail WP:NCORP. My Google search does not turn up any significant coverage in independent sources. I note that the article was moved to mainspace by User:Elmademi, an SPA editing topics related to Elmedin Ademi, Adel Holding's CEO. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Macedonia-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 00:50, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: This is akin to a company web page with a promotional tone to match ("create added value... fostering a mind-set"). The references include a Chamber of Commerce award for fastest growing company in a sector but that is not innately notable. I am not seeing evidence of notability. AllyD (talk) 06:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 Whataboutism. Since some of the delete voters are suggesting a possible selective merge, I'm going to close as redirect to WP:PRESERVE the content in case anyone finds it useful to merge, per WP:ATD. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Whataboutery in India[edit]

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

This is way too specific for an article, and Whataboutery is not specific to India. I, however, do not support a merge with Whataboutism.
This article also seems to be taking a jab at the Indian "Narendra Modi" government and some right-wing political parties. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 00:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 00:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and merge any worthwhile content into the main page on whataboutism. This is not unique to India, nor does it seem unusually prevalent.As such its hard to see why we need a separate article.Slatersteven (talk) 06:16, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, I can’t say I disagree with the content of the article, but it’s still a POV fork that has no reason to exist. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:28, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What about the whatabouttery in other countries eh? This article doesn't talk about that! (This means I think this is a WP:POVFORK BTW). FOARP (talk) 07:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No it doesn't - this is a geographical "fork", which in itself is fine. Please read policies before citing them. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Merge. I have no idea why it was done separately from the main article Whataboutery, . The nom in saying we should not merge seems to be saying we should discuss this as it applies everywhere except in India. I do not follow Indian politics, but if the content is onesided in some political fashion, additional content can be added. DGG ( talk ) 18:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge. per DGG. Johnbod (talk) 20:33, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I'm sure you can get examples of whataboutery (or indeed any kind of logical fallacy) in any country in the world, that does not mean you should have an article about on any specific country. Country-specific examples of whataboutery is not a notable subject by itself unless it can be shown that it is something widely discussed. There is also an element of original research as well as POV issues for any entry. A line or two can be added to the main article whataboutism for specific examples discussed as cases of whataboutery (but frankly, the inclusion of many of the entries in "Whataboutism" are excessive), but merging the article is pointless. Hzh (talk) 13:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete nothing to see in this original research. 27.57.173.221 (talk) 12:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 03:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oroleve, California[edit]

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

An object example of how WP:GEOLAND has people creating articles which flagrantly fail to meet WP:GNG. I literally can find nothing on this supposed place beyond its appearance on a few topos. The highway department thinks that it is part of Clipper Mills; every reference I can see refers to the creek or other geologic feature. Wells's history of Butte County doesn't mention it. I just can't see notability. Mangoe (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. dibbydib ^boop or _snoop 00:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with this proposal as there is no evidence of this town existing beyond a few weather forecasts. Additionally, this article hasn’t been edited since 2009 and it’s unlikely anyone can find enough sources to build a proper article. There is no properties at the coordinates I can find and those surrounding it are listed as ‘Clipper Mills’. kieran2001

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:53, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Oroleve appears on all 12 of the topo maps of the location in the USGS historical map explorer tool. Some of these maps show a small cluster of buildings around its position on the map. Oroleve Creek is a creek whose headwaters are in that area. Going to do more investigation to see if Oroleve was ever a community as opposed to just a locale. The fact that it's been referred to by half a dozen spelling variations means this will take a little while. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 03:37, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't find a source for that list of names. Mangoe (talk) 04:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GNIS lists the variant names, sourced to "Dunn, Forrest D. A Collection of Places in Butte County. Chico, California: Association for Northern California Records and Research, Occasional Publication #3, 1977."

Delete The only source I could find was that Oroleve Creek was polluted. This was probably a place name for the crossing of said creek.

SportingFlyer T·C 05:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No coverage beyond maps and gazetteers. Typical erroneous GNIS stub. –dlthewave ☎ 15:06, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a non-notable locale. --Lockley (talk) 11:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 01:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vichy shower[edit]

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

I forked this article 14 years ago, and in that time it has not grown at all, and it doesn't seem like a term that is widely-used enough to merit re-merging. Prod was removed by User: Spinningspark with the edit summary "Decline prod. If you didn't think the article was viable, why on earth did you fork it. Merge ti back might be a better solution" The Moose 00:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edit: Spinningspark was kind enough to suggest possible sources to the talk page, but didn't add them to the article. I have now done so. I'm not sure whether to merge the article or not. The Moose 01:07, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 19:43, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Seems to be a distinct thing worthy of its own article, and there are multiple independent non-trivial descriptions out there (searching on "douche vichy" as well as "Vichy shower").--A bit iffy (talk) 20:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Perfectly fine stub now; those are good sources. I don't think it would sit very well at Vichy - if it needs to be merged, it probably should be to shower, but I don't think that's necessary. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:51, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:35, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

^ https://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8543059/jackson-wang-mirrors-album-review-finds-his-voice-chart-success

[1] ttps://www.billboard.com/articles/columns/pop/8543059/jackson-wang-mirrors-album-review-finds-his-voice-chart-success

[1]