Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 17

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 16 June	18 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 no consensus. I recommend not bundling articles together unless a single rationale can be applied to all of them. Here, each organization stands on its own merits, and it is hard to discern a consensus when several non-equivalent entries are in the mix. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vancouver Furious George[edit]

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

Not seeing WP:GNG. Club teams are pay-to-play and "national championships" aren't really that due to the pay-to-play nature and the emergence of semi-pro leagues that dilute the talent pool. Also nominating other non-notable ultimate entities that do not satisfy GNG. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:36, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:ORG/WP:NSPORT. No relaible source, not a single source describing topic of the article. 4 of the sources seem spam. Drat8sub (talk) 13:41, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 13:43, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (most) The articles are in a poor state, but it wasn't hard to find multiple independent secondary sources (which seem reliable enough) for most of them, which should satisfy WP:GNG. Just FYI regarding the national championships, there are financial barriers to playing any sport; the semi-professional leagues have non-overlapping schedules with the club season (and the dilution of the club talent pool is minimal, if anything its the other way around); most of the cited national championships happened before the existence of semi-professional leagues; the articles also cite worlds level championships. The three clubs here have won major international tournaments held on 4-year cycles, and to quote this line from WP:NSPORT: "that sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" AZ 02:08, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, there were two prior AfDs 1 2 that were consensus keep. AZ 03:12, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To augment comment from AndyZ: The Championships are run by the National Governing Body for Sport in the US, part of the USOPC and World Flying Disc Federation, part of the IOC. These events are analogous to other smaller international sporting events which are part of the Olympic family. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ahgoff (talk • contribs) 21:15, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note this was the user's first edit. Ahgoff, I'm not sure how that six-degrees line of reasoning implies notability. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 18:52, 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 11:40, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The USA Ultimate Club National Championships have been contested for men since 1979 and women since 1981. Vancouver Furious George have won three championships, multiple Canadian national championships, and are still competing at the highest level today. Seattle Sockeye are the defending club national champions and have won four club titles overall. Seattle Riot have won two national championships and are still competing at the very highest level. The statement that "club teams are pay-to-play and 'national championships' aren't really that due to the pay-to-play nature and the emergence of semi-pro leagues that dilute the talent pool" is completely non-sensical. First, there are many "pay-to-play" (read: amateur) sports leagues, teams, and individuals that are worthy of inclusion on Wikipedia. Second, there is no ambiguity about whether the USAU Club National Championships represent a true national championship of ultimate frisbee. Third, semi-pro leagues such as the American Ultimate Disc League are comprised of the same players that compete in the USAU club series. If anything, the AUDL talent pool is diluted by most players preferring to exclusively play in the USAU club series. As quoted above from WP:NSPORT: "sports figures are likely to meet Wikipedia's basic standards of inclusion if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level" [[1]] 13:57, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:55, 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! 22:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In case it wasn't clear from my comment above, I had added multiple secondary sources and cleared a few of the dead links. There are many more secondary sources from Ultimate media, which probably would fall under WP:N but I didn't want to start a debate about that. The previous state of the articles does not imply lack of notability (WP:ARTN/WP:NEXIST). AZ 05:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No media coverage to speak of. I've lived in Vancouver or the lower mainland for many decades and had never heard of these guys until now, and I read the Vancouver Sun six days a week and watch the sports channels every day. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: I've linked to this AfD on Talk:Ultimate (sport) in the hope that the keep side of the debate gets argued more lucidly.— Charles Stewart (talk) 11:51, 25 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) 05:37, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Werewolf Reborn![edit]

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

Non notable film with no independent 3rd party reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of notability. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, Not enough coverage, fails notability Alex-h (talk) 09:09, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Frankenstein & the Werewolf Reborn![edit]

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

Non notable film with no independent 3rd party reviews. This film is a compilation of 2 shorts...one of which doesn't even have its own article, and the other one also of questionable notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete; I agree it doesn't meet notability standard. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 00:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Doesn't pass WP:NFO. Only passing mentions in film directory websites can be found. - Harsh 13:57, 25 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tricky Software[edit]

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

Unsourced since 2008. I'm aware there is no deadline, but this is ridiculous. 11 years, 8 months, 30 days. This is one of hundreds of articles on video game companies that have no sources at all. I have so far held off from nominating them because nominating all of them would overwhelm AfD, and nominating only one of them seems unfair. I'm choosing this one because it's on my watchlist and was recently updated, and the sources that are listed at the only article about a game this article links to (Spore Origins) make no mention of the subject at all. Vexations (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 13:37, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - I added some sources to the article. More are still needed but it’s a start. Balle010 (talk) 18:33, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable company with no notable games. Donaldd23 (talk) 21:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Spore Origins at least has an article. Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added two new citations. Captain Galaxy (talk) 16:27, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please evaluate sources
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:29, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:NCORP. The new sources added are not reliable. The GameZone source is only a company profile page and does not indicate notability. OceanHok (talk) 16:23, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG as there is no significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. It also fails all of the additional criteria at NCORP. Woodroar (talk) 21:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect to Spore Origins. Just insufficient coverage in reliable third party sources. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:42, 22 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⁺⁺ 22:05, 22 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) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Scouting and Guiding in Belarus[edit]

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

Another article related to Scouts-in-Exteris, though I am loath to nominating them as a batch. Here is another non-notable organization, though this one seems to cite secondary sources; look closer, though, and discover that the Kroonenberg book, The Undaunted: Keeping the Scouting Spirit Alive, is hardly an objective secondary source. In other words: non-notable, borderline promotional. Drmies (talk) 00:52, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 01:55, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 02:24, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to International Union of Guides and Scouts of Europe#Member organizations. Per nom, this fails GNG, as it sourced to a book which is a primary source and an interview. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:57, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, I can't see how this is not going to be notable, but the sparcity of English language sources makes it difficult. The book Scouting for Girls: A Century of Girl Guides and Girl Scouts [2] has some non-trivial coverage on page 163 an 164 and there is this article on a Russian language site, but the article is in English. I can't get a handle on how RS compliant that site is (because of the language) but it looks ok as far as I can tell. SpinningSpark 23:26, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Normally I would not be swayed by an argument like Spinning's. If the reference do not exist and people cannot find them, then it fails the notability guidelines. But, common sense tells me that this is very much the case for this article. While references may be difficult to obtain, there is no doubt in my mind that they exist. I will take a gentle stab at finding some, at least enough to tide the article over until someone who cares about Scouting or Belarus pops up. Ifnord (talk) 21:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Ifnord: I think you are misreading what I said. I am not presenting a "sources must exist" argument (although I do think that); I presented two reliable, independent sources that, in my opinion, get across the line of notability. In addition, there are enough reliable primary sources (which are fine to use for verifiability, but not notability) to build a decent article. SpinningSpark 23:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please take the next week to concentrate on sources: evaluating the specific sources presented here, and/or hunting for additional ones.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 14:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, in response to the original nom, sources are not required to be neutral in order to be reliable per WP:BIAS, also explicitly stated in the WP:NPOV policy. So unless the nom has something else against Kroonenberg's book, it is fine as far as I'm concerned. Also, excluding any source that has any connection at all with the scouting movement is just plain ridiculous. That's like excluding all sources written by a scientist in a science article. And I note that this article is not about a specific organisation, it is about scouting in general and covers a number of organisations. SpinningSpark 15:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment/ Very weak Keep - The second site listed by Spinningspark definitely doesn't seem to meet reliability - it seems to be just a pure file upload site with no editorial oversight. The book reference is just a single paragraph, but does probably meet the non-trivial distinction. I've tried to find some other sources, but am having trouble. This PDF from Google scholar seems to be a random student paper, no evidence of publication or editorial review. I have found some Russian sources that seem promising, Classification, Essence And Functions Of Children's And Youth Associations In The Republic Of Belarus, Social Partnership of Institutions of Additional Education for Children and Youth and Children's Public Associations in the Space of Social Education in Belarus, and Youth Diplomacy As a Tool of Forming Positive Image of the Republic Of Belarus in European Political Space, but these are in Russian and not friendly to Google translate. Adding to the Russian delsort list in hopes of reaching a wider Russian-speaking audience. My inclination is that the sources probably theoretically exist to support this, but at this point I can't say for certain, so I am !voting the weakest possible keep. MarginalCost (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@MarginalCost: Thank you for establishing the reliability of the Russian site, but I think that we can still accept the article under the terms of WP:SPS. The authors are shown on the first page of that upload here, one of whom is N.K. Radevich, head of the educational-methodical department of foreign languages of the Minsk Regional Institute for the Development of Education. Scholar returns this paper co-authored by Natalya Kazimirovna Radevich (she is definitely the same person since the institution affiliation is the same). Machine translation of the publication details gives Education of the Minsk Region, No 5 (52), 2014. A prima facie reliable journal, so Radevich is previously published on youth matters thus meeting WP:SPS. And besides that, we still have Piet J. Kroonenberg's book which is the source the article actually relies on, and Kroonenberg is self-evidentently an expert in scouting. SpinningSpark 16:27, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Russia-related deletion discussions. MarginalCost (talk) 15:31, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Extra time when reading and checking sources is occasionally useful
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It feels like we're overthinking this one. If there is a scouting organization in Belarus that was founded in 1909 and joined the World Organization of the Scouting Movement in 2010, then I have no doubt that it's possible to build on the sources that people have identified in the course of this conversation. As far as I can tell from this discussion, nobody who has participated can actually speak or read Russian, and it is slightly painful to see people who can't read Russian second-guessing the idea that a century-old Russian organization would be covered in Russian-language sources. No one is suggesting that this article is a hoax; it's just that it was assembled between 2006 and 2010, when we didn't have strict standards on sources. I know there isn't a policy on WP:PEDANTRY, but discussions like this make me wish there was. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Can someone provide me the correct link to that russian article? I think i can decode what is written there because i'm fairly good at translation. The link seems to be dead. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 07:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pesticide1110: which article are you having problems with? The article on the Russian site I was talking about is actually written in English so doesn't need translating. User:MarginalCost listed three Russian language sources, all of which work for me. If you are still having trouble, you can send me an e-mail and I will forward a copy to you. SpinningSpark 09:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpinningSpark There's a russian source in the article itself. I tried opening it but it didn't open. Btw thanks for these links you provided above. Im going to check these. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 10:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pesticide1110: A copy has been archived here. SpinningSpark 12:08, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

( Slightly better archive copy, this one has the header, but still no pictures archived. SpinningSpark 12:20, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SpinningSpark Which one is this? Is this the reference from the article or one of those that Marginal cost pointed out. P.S. the full translation of all those three articles and my judgement regarding this case is forthcoming. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 12:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's the reference from the article, as you requested. SpinningSpark 12:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: So after an hour of continuous research about the topic, i have finally decided to favour keeping the article. MarginalCost should be given a guard of honor for finding those three sources. I still can't figure out how the hell did he do that.

The following paragraph explains why i think the article should be kept:

The main two concerns i had, on which i am to base my opinion, about the article were WP:N and WP:GNG. First of all, its impossible to fully read the whole articles given by the sources of MarginalCost. It seems to cover the entire history. So i read only a few important lines. Combining the knowledge i gathered from all of the three above sources, i can say that the movement had a far-reaching impact on people's lives then. And hence the historical and cultural significance can hardly be doubted. It is definitely a one-of-its-kind movement in Belarusian history so for me it passes WP:N. Regarding WP:GNG, we the english wikipedians, can not tell it with that much accuracy since we cannot understand and find most of the sources that are about the subject. But still from the four sources provided by MarginalCost, 2 sources by the article itself and one by Spark, we can cite all the content in the article. And all the citations can be considered reliable. Especially the three provided by MarginalCost is written by the lecturers of Belarusian State University and hence is reliable. Overall the movement is of a very high historical significance and hence it is must to have an article on wikipedia about it. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 13:30, 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. (non-admin closure) Captain Galaxy (talk) 22:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roger Day[edit]

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

Poor references provided despite several opportunities to expand. Article is more of a CV rather than an article. Doesn't fit WP:GNG criteria. - Funky Snack (Talk) 14:24, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:41, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: This nomination has had limited participation and falls within the standards set for lack of quorum. There are no previous AfD discussions, undeletions, or current redirects and no previous PRODs have been located. This nomination may be eligible for soft deletion at the end of its 7-day listing. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2006-05 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think he was fairly famous in the late 60s, I've added some details, but struggling to find sources outside his local area, but I'll keep trying Piecesofuk (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"key pioneer in commercial radio" according to Music Week, also his radio show received a Music Week nomination in 2012 Piecesofuk (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as he seems to be a notable radio dj prominent on Radio Caroline and the BBC as confirmed in reliable sources, so passes WP:BASIC, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, Per above, he seems to be a notable radio broadcaster. Alex-h (talk) 09:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:40, 24 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aeglos[edit]

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

This dab page is not necessary per WP:TWODABS. It looks like this was a dab page from 2007 until 2020, where it was redirected to Middle-earth weapons and armour#Aeglos by @BenKuykendall:. In May, the dab page was restored by @Rich Farmbrough:. A Google search reveals that the spear definitely has primary topic over the plant. Therefore, this should be redirected to Middle-earth weapons and armour#Aeglos, since the spear is the primary topic. Aeglos (disambiguation) should then be deleted per WP:G14, and a hatnote should be added to the section about the spear pointing to the sentence about the plant at List of fictional plants. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Middle-earth weapons and armour#Aeglos; the plant is rather unimportant. I don't think we even need a hat note: the plant Aeglos is barely discussed at List of fictional plants § In J. R. R. Tolkien's Middle-earth which only says Aeglos: a plant, similar to a gorse named for the Elvish 'snow-thorn'. The relevant sentence could even be added to Middle-earth weapons and armour#Aeglos. BenKuykendall (talk) 22:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Change per Hog Farm a section hat note seems reasonable. Let me know and I'll g7 the dab page. All the best: Rich Farmbrough 08:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Redirect to Middle-earth weapons and armour § Aeglos The spear is the primary topic. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per nom and others above. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 09:59, 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 redirect -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kismet (comics)[edit]

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

Set index article consisting of one bluelink, one blacklink, and one redlink. The blacklink and the redlink don't appear to be particularly important/notable, and don't seem to be mentioned anywhere on the Wikipedia, although I may have missed something. Currently, this SIA has only one working target, and this would not make a good base name for that one target, per the comics MOS. Hog Farm (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 21:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment the DC Comics entry was deleted at AfD Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kismet (DC Comics), removing all links. On the fence between a cheap redirect and delete. -2pou (talk) 13:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kismet (Marvel Comics) as the only valid entry on the current disambiguation page. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:06, 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 deleted as G5. (non-admin closure) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hasht Behesht (TV series)[edit]

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

It doesn't seem to be notable. No significant coverage in English or Persian. Hanooz (talk) 14:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:21, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 21:24, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clark Shao[edit]

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

It is a bit of a mystery how this article about a fitness instructor stayed below the radar for so long – there is no claim to notability, and the only coverage in independent sources is in connection with the tragic accident that killed him. (There is also a trivial mention here, but that has no information about Shao, it just lists his name). I have attempted to find sources to confirm some of the claims in the article, but only come up with primary sources and Wikipedia mirrors. bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bodybuilding-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 17:39, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 21:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Lacks the significant coverage that would establish notability. The references in the article don't really do it. The news article is a reliable source, but it really is about the family trying to return the body from Thailand. It's a news item and not an obituary. The second source is a directory listing and is useful to verify a fact but useless for establishing notability. He is mentioned here but that is again useless for establishing notability. The best I could find was his youtube channel in a list of top fitness channels here. That's way too little to clear the notability bar. -- Whpq (talk) 01:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:NOTMEMORIAL now there are thousands of fitness trainers not clear how the subject is notable.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 10:23, 24 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 03:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Underground Gaming[edit]

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

Non-notable e-sports organization from Kuwait. Sources are almost all social media. This is the last remaining of a bunch of articles created by this author on the subject. JTtheOG (talk) 20:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kuwait-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DELETE Prize money is between 30 and 350 dollars. This is just some local thing, not a real tournament. Dream Focus 01:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As long as all resources are reliable, the wiki page is still a stub so it should be fine, but no clarification for prize money on references so remove the prize money numbers Khs17 21:08, 19 June 2020 (GMT +3)
Which references are reliable sources by Wikipedia standareds? YouTube and Instagram don't count. See WP:RS Dream Focus 20:12, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEPAgree with past agreement; As long as all resources are reliable, the wiki page is still a stub so it should be fine, but no clarification for prize money on references so remove the prize money numbers — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baderalfahad99 (talk • contribs) 18:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC) — Baderalfahad99 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment - *sigh* He didn't even try to change the words huh? Just a straight copy-paste. JTtheOG (talk) 19:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails GNG due to no significant coverage in reliable, third-party published sources. Woodroar (talk) 21:10, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom and Woodroar. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:23, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - sources are not reliable when they are self-published, since they can say anything. Also impossible to write a neutral, verifiable article without substantial coverage in third party sources, which is why we have the WP:GNG. Shooterwalker (talk) 13:44, 22 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 moved to Draft:Sabina Almammadova. The article should not be restored to mainspace unless it satisfies normal AfC review. BD2412 T 03:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sabina Almammadova[edit]

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

This article is written like a resume -- no reliable sources.P,TO 19104 (talk) (contributions) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Azerbaijan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete potentially notable academic but there is a distinct lack of reliable sources to pass WP:GNG. Polyamorph (talk) 11:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify I think she might be quite or really heavy-duty. A lot of these Russian, or satellite Russian academics are hard to verify at the best of times. Its contingent on us to a least get somebody, a specialist, to look at it and drum up some refs, if they exist. scope_creep^Talk 19:32, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:38, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Harris Kent[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a body double in a major film is not a significant role, so does not meet actor notability and the sourcing is not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Lacks significant independent coverage to meet WP:NACTOR. Appears to have written an autobiography but that is not by itself notable. Hzh (talk) 14:46, 24 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Karen Hall Stewart[edit]

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

Previously deleted bio of non notable businesswoman, resume-like and lacking sufficient reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 20:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak Keep~~ seems notable between the 2018 Globe reference already in the article and a 2012 Toronto Sun reference that's still online. I don't see any indication that their middle name is Hall though (it surely is, but WP:COMMONNAME). Article should be renamed "Karen Stewart (entrepreneur)" or something. The content of the article itself is dreadful - needs a complete rewrite, so it doesn't sound like a paid advertisement. Nfitz (talk) 00:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus is clear - and a weak keep shouldn't slow it. Nfitz (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:30, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this is a spammy PR puff piece and the subject lacks notability based on the utter lack of in depth coverage. Praxidicae (talk) 16:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real coverage outwith the above puff articles. Couldn't find a single notable ref. Fails WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 20:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per rationale provided by scope_creep. Celestina007 (talk) 00:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:BIO and WP:N. -- Euryalus (talk) 02:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no real coverage, does not pass notability. Alex-h (talk) 09:35, 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. Mz7 (talk) 22:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of pages in Shughni Wikipedia[edit]

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

Per WP:LISTCRUFT, WP:NOTDIRECTORY, and WP:SALAT. Related AFD: WP:Articles for deletion/Pages in Karakalpak Wikipedia. Schazjmd (talk) 20:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tajikistan-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 20:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. Yuck. Clarityfiend (talk) 21:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 00:40, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no reason for this to exist--Jac16888 ^Talk 09:04, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. A list of pages can be found at Special:PrefixIndex/Wp/sgh/ (linked on the test-wiki's main page) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 16:27, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete What is this???!!! I’m suprised it hasn’t already gotten speedy deleted. Red River 660 talk 19:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nom. Wikipedia is not a directory. However, if (for some reason) you were to want a list of all pages on that Wikipedia, it's thataway. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per above ~ Amkgp 💬 17:20, 24 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 The Fairly OddParents (season 6)#ep75. The assessment that the sources are only short blurbs appears correct; therefore the redirect arguments are much stronger in determining consensus, and I don't see grounds for keeping this discussion running longer. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fairly OddBaby[edit]

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

Non-notable TV special. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable The Fairly OddParents TV movie. I didn't found anything that indicates notability. The sourcing in the article relies on databases, but my Google search did not turn up any better. Trivial mentions and databases, forums, Amazon pages and links where you can watch the film/buy the DVD. But nothing that indicates notability. While FOP is obviously a notable show, its made-for-TV specials does not deserve their own articles as they are better suited for a fandom wiki (in fact there is a FOP fandom wiki). This movie has articles on other wikis too but the sourcing is a problem on every one of them (some of them does not even cite any sources, while the rest cites sites like IMDb, TV.com and Big Cartoon Database as sources). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:51, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 14:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 6), I think the summary for the episode in that article I linked is just enough for this episode. Pahiy (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Pahiy (talk) 17:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 6)#ep75 (a little more specifically). Episode redirects are WP:CHEAP and commonly used. -2pou (talk) 18:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I see three reliable sources talking about this film and its notability:
- "Good weekend for 'Fairly Odd'", Hollywood Reporter (Feb 21, 2008): "The show's Presidents' Day special, "Fairly OddBaby," averaged 8.8 million total viewers from 8-9 p.m. Monday, making it the biggest audience ever for an "OddParents" episode... So far this year, the special ranks as the most-watched entertainment program on all of TV in all kids demos."
- "Ratings more than 'Fair' for Nick", Variety (Feb 20, 2008): "Nickelodeon has come up with the biggest audience of the year for a kid show... Because “OddBaby” is an extension of Nick’s bellwether hit series “The Fairly OddParents,” it was able to get a 1 million-hit boost from the “OddParents” website, which began the promotion on Feb. 7. Other online promotions, including a videogame, a streaming video and various message boards, also scored hundreds of thousands of hits."
- There's also another Variety article from 2011 about a Phineas & Ferb film, which says the film's performance "was highest in those demos for an animated program since Nickelodeon’s ”Fairly OddBaby” in February 2008." This means that Fairly OddBaby was still being cited three years later as a standard for kids TV-movie performance.

This film was not treated like just another episode of the series — it had specific online promotion including a video game, and achieved ratings beyond what was usual for a season premiere. I believe that this demonstrates notability. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to The Fairly OddParents (season 6)#ep75. The sources shown above are all just short blurbs discussing nothing but the ratings numbers for the special, which all would just support a sentence or two in the main article. That information and those sources can be easily added to the episode list, which would be a far better way of presenting the information rather than having an entire independent article containing only a couple sentences worth of actually reliably sourced content. Rorshacma (talk) 20:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I think the sources makes it pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 09:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 19:59, 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. Will add salt. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vernon D'Souza[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMUSICIAN. WP:REFBOMBed with unreliable sources and was twice rejected at Draft:Vernon D'Souza GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 19:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - If the article was twice rejected during the draft process, I honestly wonder how the reviewers over there failed to notice that it ended up in mainspace anyway. Also note that two editors with suspicious names were primarily involved with both this article and the draft version: one called Vernonsmusic (the singer's first name is Vernon) and another called Prteamthisis (starts with "PR team" which could be an unfortunate coincidence or indicates public relations). In any case, the article accomplishes little more than a copy of the singer's professional biography propped up with unreliable social media sources. He has not received the significant and reliable media coverage that is necessary for notability. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - User:Doomsdayer520 asks how the reviewers in the draft process failed to notice that this ended up in mainspace anyway. The timing is that the draft was declined three times (not just twice) before it was entered into article space. The author gamed the system of auto-confirmation by making more than ten edits to the draft and having been registered more than four days by the repeated submissions of the draft. This is not an uncommon problem. The way to deal with this conduct is to nominate the article for deletion, which has been done, and we are here. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not satisfy musical notability. Has been entered in article space by gaming the system. Robert McClenon (talk) 05:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - If the name of the article creator matches the name of the subject, or if the name contains "PR" or "official" or stuff like that, you know it's a red flag. And if the case of "gaming the system" happens, it's even worse. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 21:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Checkuser note I've blocked User:Johndavis22, User:Paulwebber72, and User:Prteamthisis as Confirmed socks of User:Vernonsmusic. I'm tempted to CSD the article as a WP:CSD#G11/WP:PAID TOU violation, but it may be better in the long ~~wrong~~ run to let the AfD play out then salt it to force all attempted recreations trough the draft process.-- Jezebel's Ponyo^{bons mots} 19:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ponyo I agree that it should play out. An AfD deletion also allows editors to WP:G4 any recreation although salting isn't a bad idea. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:40, 22 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) 03:53, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Dumani[edit]

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

The sources in the article are all affiliated, and I find no applicable coverage of him to satisfy the notability requirements, WP:GNG or WP:BIO. For what it's worth, the article itself doesn't necessarily set an expectation that he would be notable. Largoplazo (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ecuador-related deletion discussions. Largoplazo (talk) 19:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable writer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong delete: Per Largoplazo. Just a wikipedia article and an amazon page about him are visible when searched simply. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 11:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Google Scholar shows only two academic publications and no citations, so WP:PROF is out of reach, and notability through WP:AUTHOR for a single self-published book without evidence of published reviews seems equally remote. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails GNG and doesn't pass notability standards for authors or for academics. Best, GPL93 (talk) 19:09, 23 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) 22:23, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Heroic Origins[edit]

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

This may be a notable episode of the comedy series Community from its gas leak season, with its the article having multiple issues, if it were to avoid deletion, I don’t know it would be best to WP:BLOWITUP as the article has multiple problems that were brought up a few months after the episode first aired. Pahiy (talk) 18:23, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable enough of an episode to justify a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. If the plot summary sucks, fix it, don't take it to AfD, especially when you haven't even given an indication of doing a WP:BEFORE. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as no deletion rationale is given by nominator. Lack of reason to delete is a reason to keep. Renard Migrant (talk) 17:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per PMC. I see no particular reason to delete given here, other than "the article having multiple issues". WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 20:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for the reasons above. I would recommend that if the article needs work, be bold and work on the article. RunningTiger123 (talk) 02:57, 24 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dick Johnson (reporter)[edit]

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

Non-notable 17jiangz1 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 01:32, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:33, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG and WP:JOURNALIST KidAd (talk) 02:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Major news anchor in a major media market. Plenty of sources out there if you look, including pre-death. Suggest expansion of article instead of deleting. Andise1 (talk) 03:47, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:JOURNALIST. I looked for "plenty of sources" and found nothing. GSearch had barely four pages of results and the majority of them were about his death, which does not establish notability. sixtynine ^{• whaddya want? •} 05:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Look, this guy has won a Peabody award and an Emmy. I agree that being a news anchor in a major market is not evidence of notability alone, but winning awards is, and this guy won awards. User 73.36.79.67 23:10, 10 June 2020 (UTC)
Keep He seems to be notable in his field based on the awards he has won. Article needs expansion.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 12:07, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:23, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:ANYBIO #1. --Mdaniels5757 (talk) 02:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:Anybio 1.The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times. He one an Emmy in 2011 and nominated 2013. Found this in a few secs of Google search!User:Davidstewartharvey
Keep Please stop with these ghoulish 'subject has died, let's also remove the article' nominations. Expansion is needed, not deletion. Nate • (chatter) 19:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Some articles need Destubbing rather then deletion. With a little expansion, it could have enough sources to prove notability. Red River 660 talk 19:09, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fraud Allegations in South Korea's 21st Parliamentary Election[edit]

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

WP:POVFORK from 2020 South Korean legislative election. There have been a few attempts to insert this material to the main article by new accounts or ones that rarely edit.[3][4] It seems that when they were unable to, this article was created instead. Prod removed by article creator (after it expired). Number 5 7 08:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:31, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete To the extent that the content is verifiable at all, it appears to be sourced t multiple non-reliable sources, e.g., blogs, personal sites, a press release in a newspaper classified section, advertisements, etc. The only RS I do see cited are all expressly personal opinions of various commentators. There are no sources cited that suggest that this is anything more than sore loser sour grapes or that this is actually a serious set of allegations that are being investigated. In other words, Number 57's analysis of this as a POVFORK is correct. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete As a POVFORK which is unduly based on poor sources (failing WP:V). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 23:28, 25 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 17:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Özge Yağız[edit]

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

Notability ahuR ☘ 15:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete A google search shows there’s a huge PR campaign going on in the Turkish media at the moment to promote her, but that’s not a reason for us to have an article. Mccapra (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, a bunch of PR spam can be found, but no good sources, so she fails GNG. She has only so much as appeared in one “notable” production, (which itself should probably be deleted) so she fails WP:NACTOR. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not even remotely close to having the required multiple significant indepdent 3rd party sources needed to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This subject isn’t notable right now. But if she play notable production then we can add her wiki page again. Baran Ahmet (talk) 17:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:21, 24 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 Myriad (disambiguation). -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Myriad (comics)[edit]

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

Set index article with only one non-redlinked entry. One entry was deleted via PROD in January, the comics series looks NN since the publisher is a redirect. That leaves only one non-redlink in this SIA. Per the comics project MOS, this title wouldn't make a good article title, so this should be deleted. Hog Farm (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 18:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. With only one actual notable, linked entry, this page does not serve much of a purpose. The entry at the main Myriad (disambiguation) page pointing here should also be changed to only link to the one, notable character. Rorshacma (talk) 20:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Thanks for the heads up! There's not much use for a DAB page when there's nothing left to disambiguate. I don't recall what was there the last time I edited the page, but deletion looks like the best option currently. --GentlemanGhost (séance) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or redirect. Comic cruft, the last artc;e is more likely to go then not too. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With only one actual notable, linked entry--May♡♡→♡℃※Talk 13:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom and creator's support. You might even say there are no entries. The only blue link has since been moved to another page. -2pou (talk) 14:06, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Myriad (disambiguation) as {{R from incomplete disambiguation}}: contrary to the implication of other editors there are 2 legitimate entries here. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:31, 24 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Chicago south suburban airport[edit]

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

The article has been tagged for notability issues for 18 months; its content chronology has not been updated in 5 years. The primary topic of the article is about something that does not currently exist (and probably never will at this point). SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Aviation-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. SteveCof00 (talk) 09:40, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and move limited content to Chicago_metropolitan_area#Transportation --Cornellier (talk) 12:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Transportation in Chicago#Proposed airports may be a better location (the subsection already borrows most of the first sentence of the article) --SteveCof00 (talk) 02:11, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per the spirit of Wikipedia:Wikipedia is a work in progress. In my opinion, the project meets GNG and notability doesn't change because a project needs an update. There are plenty of proposed transit projects that have articles. See Category:Proposed public transportation in the United States and Category:Proposed transportation infrastructure in the United States for examples. The idea it is likely not to happen (hell I think it's a bad idea) should not impact if it has an article. If the end result of this is keep, I can commit to improving the article.--Mpen320 (talk) 15:05, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete and condense content to move to Transportation in Chicago#Proposed airports (the subsection already borrows most of the first sentence of the article). To further support repackaging the content within another article, this article has relatively few articles that link to it (although not literally orphaned). --SteveCof00 (talk) 08:37, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- Comment @SteveCof00: You can't nominate and then vote again. So I struck your delete above....William, is the complaint department really on the roof? 13:40, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:09, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Easily meets WP:GNG with a quick source search (I used the search term "Peotone Airport") turning up tons of news articles discussing the proposal and the controversy associated with it. Notability is the only actionable issue raised by the deletion proposal; the fact that it hasn't been updated isn't a reason for deletion and Mpen320 has already volunteered to do some updates. RecycledPixels (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@RecycledPixels: Do you know to what extent I am allowed to make updates while this is being proposed for deletion. Obviously, I cannot delete the deletion notice.--Mpen320 (talk) 21:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320: You can do whatever you want to improve the article during the deletion discussion, at the risk of what you do being deleted if the consensus here eventually tips toward deletion. Of course, improvements to the article may also help sway opinions towards a keep. RecycledPixels (talk) 21:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets notability criteria as a proposed infrastructure project. A simple google search turned up numerous articles on the topic from third party sources. Whilst not a defense in itself other such articles exist such as London Britannia Airport for proposed airports where there is significant coverage of the proposal. If it needs to be updated then it should be updated but not deleted Tracland (talk) 06:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - If the proposal is dead, then the current article name and its category inclusion is inappropriate. That some political activity happened that Wikipedia should document has been effectively argued by the keep side; that it should be an article documenting a thing that doesn't exist and apparently won't has not been. — Charles Stewart (talk) 12:04, 25 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. Mz7 (talk) 21:42, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sandesh Jagtap[edit]

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

Student politician who fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG. Of the seven references used 1 & 2 are passing mentions, 3 & 4 don't mention the subject at all, 5 & 6 aren't working but appear to be to the website of an organization he is a member of and 7 is his personal website. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GPL93 (talk) 18:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not a notable politician as per WP:NPOL or WP:ANYBIO ~ Amkgp 💬 18:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Non-notable politician. LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. As usual, holding a role with the youth wing of a political party is not an "inherently" notable political office that guarantees a Wikipedia article, and India is still not more special than any other country no matter how many times the Indian contingent tries to ignore the established consensus. And as for the sourcing, it's split about 50-50 between primary sources that are not support for notability at all, and glancing namechecks of his existence in media coverage that is not about him to any non-trivial degree, so there's no argument to be made that he would clear WP:GNG in lieu of having to hold a notable political office. Bearcat (talk) 22:08, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wiki2008time (talk) 02:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

April Sanders[edit]

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

~~Does not meet WP:N and minimal WP:RS. Non-notable minor politician and physician. Wiki2008time (talk) 17:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator This was not made in bad faith, I genuinely don't know all the rules in this hostile place but I do feel that such short articles are inadequate for Wikipedia. I still believe they should not exist, but I see the majority disagrees because apparently every politician who has nothing interesting to be said about them still gets an encyclopedia entry, so this AfD will be deemed a "kept" regardless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wiki2008time (talk • contribs) 02:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of British Columbia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:43, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 18:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Clearly passes WP:NPOL as Sanders was a member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. Best, GPL93 (talk) 18:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep. Per GPL93. Sanders served as a member of a provincial legislature. LefcentrerightDiscuss 22:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)*[reply]

Keep Member of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia. One goal of the project is to have biographies of all national and state level office holders. --Enos733 (talk) 16:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This is one of two articles that the nominator marked for deletion before abruptly retiring due frustration at their own articles being nominated for deletion so I believe this is likely a bad faith nom. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Meets NPOL.--Eostrix (talk) 17:41, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as verified legislator. --Lockley (talk) 20:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep While it could use some more sources, subnational legislators are generally held to be notable. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 00:25, 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 redirect to River Blackwater (River Loddon). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

River Broadwater[edit]

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

I am not convinced this is a real river, for the reasons expressed on Talk:River Broadwater. The section of river it refers to is called River Blackwater by the Ordnance Survey, and Twyford Brook, which is further north, was historically called the Broadwater, but has an article called Twyford Brook. Bob1960evens (talk) 17:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 08:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have just discovered that the current Ordnance Survey 1:2500 map marks the stretch of river below the junction with the Whitewater as both the Broadwater and the Blackwater. I think a sentence on the Blackwater article about alternative names should be adequate.Bob1960evens (talk) 08:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC) I have now added a short section to the River Blackwater article which discusses naming, and am sure that Broadwater was applied to a small section of the Blackwater that was somewhat wider than the rest. Bob1960evens (talk) 07:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to River Blackwater (River Loddon) per Bob1960. b uidhe 18:34, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to River Blackwater (River Loddon) seems to be most reasonable option. Hzh (talk) 16:13, 25 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Wiki2008time (talk) 02:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kona Williams[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:N and minimal WP:RS. Completely non-notable physician. She is not the first First Nations doctor in Canada. She's just the first First Nations person who went into forensic pathology, which is not anything notable. Citations are minimal, there is nothing particularly unique about her career path - standard graduate of medicine who completed a standard residency. This page should also be marked as a medical stub but for some reason was around since 2017 and not stubbed. Wiki2008time (talk) 17:24, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator This was not made in bad faith, I genuinely don't know all the rules in this hostile place but I do feel that such short articles are inadequate for Wikipedia. I still believe they should not exist, but I see the majority disagrees because apparently every accomplishment we have as First Nations people needs to be announced like it's such a surprise some of us are able to become doctors that it needs to go in an encyclopedia, so this AfD will be deemed a "kept" regardless. --Wiki2008time (talk) 02:51, 19 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This is a slam dunk keep. Her accomplishments are clearly deemed notable by very substantial coverage in major reputable national sources, not just local hometown coverage. The TorStar story by itself, is more than enough, but more is visible in Google. --Rob (talk) 22:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I found this through the science deletion sorting list, but as a working pathologist the appropriate notability standard for her is WP:GNG, not WP:PROF, so the nomination remark about citations is irrelevant. Searching news for her name finds plenty of coverage, some of the general-interest who-is-this-person type (e.g. [5] on top of the coverage we already have) but also for her work on investigating deaths of indigenous people [6] [7] and as an examiner in the Murder of Tess Richey (despite the fact that somehow our Richey article doesn't actually mention her; for coverage see e.g. [8]). So there's also no issue with WP:BIO1E, nor with the nominator's suggestion that being the first indigenous pathologist is somehow unworthy of notability (despite worthiness not being relevant for GNG), because she has plenty of other accomplishments to be notable for. —David Eppstein (talk) 06:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 09:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Meets GNG by court/criminal coverage involving her work and profiles of her trailblazing career in forensic medicine (sources pointed out by David Eppstein).--Eostrix (talk) 10:07, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and close the AfD. This is one of two articles that the nominator marked for deletion before abruptly retiring due frustration at their own articles being nominated for deletion so I believe this is likely a bad faith nom. Best, GPL93 (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets the general standards for wiki-notability thanks to the sources provided above. XOR'easter (talk) 00:50, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Sricsi (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

TechHaus Volantis[edit]

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

Non notable vehicle, only ever used once by Lady Gaga as a promotion for her 2013 album, Artpop. Anything that can be said about it is already covered at ArtRave#Press conference. Sricsi (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Sricsi (talk) 17:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Aviation and WikiProject Aircraft, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 17:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Steelpillow. Redirect to ArtRave#Press conference. - ZLEA _T\^C 18:21, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Forgot about that. - ZLEA _T\^C 19:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. First, the rationale is incorrect. Everything cannot be said in the ArtRave article, especially the technical details. Second, the Aviation WikiProject has a longstanding consensus which effectively means that every aircraft to have flown is notable, see WP:AVINOTE and especially WP:NAIR Types criterion 3. As a prototype Personal air vehicle, Volantis qualifies as an aircraft. And it flew. — Cheers, Steelpillow (Talk) 18:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for pointing these out, I didn't know about that. And I can't argue with that. --Sricsi (talk) 22:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sricsi - do you wish to withdraw this nomination? Mjroots (talk) 17:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mjroots, don't know how it's done, but yes, sure! --Sricsi (talk) 21:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sricsi (failed ping)

Here are the instructions. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:53, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The aircraft meets WP:GNG and WP:NAIR for a separate article and, as noted, if merged the technical specs would be lost. - Ahunt (talk) 12:10, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vista Robles, California[edit]

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

Actually the Vista Robles Siding, according to the topos, well, some of them at least: others have just "Vista Robles" a bit to the west, and others have "Hearst". At any rate, a siding is what it was, on the outskirts of Palermo, which nothing much around it. There's no sign it was ever a town of its own. Mangoe (talk) 16:43, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:46, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Doesn't appear to be more than a railway siding. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:03, 12 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)} 14:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as a non-notable locale. --Lockley (talk) 11:22, 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 redirect to State Treasurer of Wisconsin. Although he technically meets WP:POLITICIAN, Bearcat's arguments that we simply don't have enough sourced content to write an encyclopedic article about him are convincing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Clyde M. Johnston[edit]

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

This is not a notable person and so doesn't merit a Wikipedia article. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Factfanatic1 (talk) 14:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wisconsin-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Having held office as the state treasurer of Wisconsin, doesn't this person fall within WP:POLITICIAN ("Politicians ... who have held ... state/province–wide office")? Cbl62 (talk) 15:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep State treasurer is definitely a notable position, and it falls within both WP:POLITICIAN and WP:POLOUTCOMES. Furtherly, per WP:POLOUTCOMES,
Elected and appointed political figures at the national cabinet level are generally regarded as notable, as are usually those at the major sub-national level (US state, Canadian province, Japanese prefecture, etc.) in countries where executive and/or legislative power is devolved to bodies at that level. See WP:POLITICIAN.
Red River 660 talk 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The office of state treasurer of Wisconsin is notable and Clyde M. Johnston was notable-thank you-RFD (talk) 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~:This article would certainly fall under “major sub-national level” in this criteria. Red River 660 talk 16:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Delete actual state treasurers are notable. However Johnston was the acting state treasurer. People who only filled a position as "acting" in general do not gain notability from it. I am surprised no one has ever challenged my creation of the article on the person who was acting president of Brigham Young University during Ernest L. Wilkinson's run for the senate. I forget the man's name, but would consider a deletion nomination if someone brought it up. I do not remember neough of his other biographical details to be sure if he would pass or fail, but I think acting anything is not enough to grant default notability, although in that case there may be enough sources, as I said I forgot his name and have not looked at the article in nearly a decade.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep: As the editors in this discussion have already stated, he is notable per WP:POLITICIAN. Lack of sources can be disregarded here considering that he belongs to the class of early 90s during which online articles were considerably less in numbers. Further, to find a source from that time is like finding a pin from a bush. There's no harm in keeping this article. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have no requirement that our sources be online. We can use print-only sources like newspapers and books and magazines and microfilms, so finding sourcing from the 1990s is not like finding a pin from a bush at all — it's like finding a pin in a pincushion. I don't even have any real difficulty finding sourcing from the 1890s when I need to. Bearcat (talk) 22:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep Technically passes WP:NPOLITICIAN even though they were just in a caretaker role for three months. SportingFlyer T·C 16:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. He passes WP:NPOLITICIAN.
Delete. Temporarily holding a role for a few weeks in an acting capacity is not a notability freebie that exempts a person from having to have some sourceable evidence of his significance in the role. Bearcat (talk) 22:00, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Per WP:POLOUTCOMES. Although Johnston held the post for a little more than three months, he still held an important statewide office. He was the state's (temporary) treasurer. LefcentrerightDiscuss 20:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Changed Delete. Bearcat made a convincing argument. LefcentrerightDiscuss 16:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The thing is, our articles about politicians are supposed to go into properly sourced detail about their political impact in the role, not just to document the technical fact that they held it — they're supposed to be encyclopedia articles, not just directory listings. There are certain roles where it's a foregone conclusion that such an article can be written even if nobody's put in the work yet — so the reason we keep some poorly written articles about politicians isn't that they're exempted from having to have that kind of content, it's that sources are available to add that kind of content with and thus make their article better than it is. But temporary acting holders of political roles don't necessarily have the same improvability, which is why they don't get the same presumption of "inherent" notability as the official holders of the office. The rule isn't that we always have to have a standalone page about every holder of X political office just because they existed, even if it's completely impossible to say or source any content about their political significance — the notability test for all politicians, even in the "inherently" notable roles, always hinges on the ability to write and source some substantive content about their work in the role, and never just on the ability to write "this person existed, the end" in and of itself. No matter what role a politician did or didn't hold, his notability still hinges on the ability to write and source content. Bearcat (talk) 15:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect into State Treasurer of Wisconsin. Not notable on the basis of his own career or actions in office but well worth mentioning there. --Lockley (talk) 20:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep subject passes WP:NPOLITICIAN. The office of state treasurer of Wisconsin is notable Lightburst (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to State Treasurer of Wisconsin. He is not de facto notable for having just been an acting state treasurer for a few months. we have notability to ensure an encyclopedia article can be written (obviously), and here everything worth saying can be said at State Treasurer of Wisconsin. Right now all his article really says is that he was acting Wisconsin State Treasurer from October 1, 1948 until January 3, 1949, was appointed from staff, and had been a Wisconsin state employee since 1916 and had worked in the state treasurer office since 1920. as well as his birth and death dates. The treasurer list tells us that he was acting treasurer from October 1, 1948 to January 3, 1949 and was appointed from staff. Realistically everything worth keeping is already in the article. Perhaps a sentence could be merged into the note with a bit more detail but he certainly doesn't merit his own article. If there was evidence he did anything particularly notable this would be a different story. Best, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:57, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harrison Carter[edit]

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

This is an article about a doctor who was involved in the 2015 junior doctors contract dispute in England. The article currently has 53 references, including to reliable sources. However, my take on it is that Carter himself is not notable outside his involvement in the dispute, or possibly even in that context, as he is not mentioned in the article about the dispute itself. Some of the references are WP:MILL where Carter is quoted - this one (current ref 6) for instance, which does not support the statement it follows, "Harrison was one of the key people involved in supporting junior doctor contract negotiations". He is not always mentioned in the references, such as here (current ref 45) and here (current ref 50). I don't think notability is met. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 23:41, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per the deletion analysis that makes it clear that Carter does not fit our defintion of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:40, 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 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alexis Weik[edit]

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

Candidate for state senate seat, does not meet NPOL. Prior to state senate run she held a position (receiver of taxes) in the municipal level which is not notable. Eostrix (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Eostrix (talk) 14:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is notable. She represents a town of more than 325,000 people, larger than the average State Senate and State Assembly districts in New York.^[1]^[2] Additionally, she meets Wikipedia's threshold, as she "has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject." Therefore, "it is presumed to be suitable for a stand-alone article or list." She has been covered in Newsday and the Long Island Advance.^[3]^[4]^[5] — Preceding unsigned comment added by PoliticsEditz (talk • contribs) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She's not mayor (or Town supervisor in NY parlance). She's Receiver of Taxes (see: Islip, New York#Government and politics, this position is on the municipal ballot but is not a policy making position). Her state senate run has generated some local New York coverage, which is insufficient for notability.--Eostrix (talk) 15:06, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She still holds an elected position which represents more people than the average New York State legislative seat. While her position as Receiver of Taxes or her candidacy for New York State Senate may not be sufficient on their own to merit an article, the two together have provided enough notoriety to merit one. There have been several news articles about her since her announcement which meet the threshold for a notable person. Even prior to her run for State Senate, she received coverage for her job as Receiver of Taxes.^[6] Regardless of the positions lack of policy making ability, the office still maintains a more elevated position to advocate from, as demonstrated. This person has held an elected position for 9 years, and is now running for an elected position at the state level. That qualifies as notable.PoliticsEditz (talk) 15:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to normal Wikipedia standards, she's not presumed notable and the local and election-generated coverage is not sufficient. If she actually gets elected to the state senate, that would make her notable.--Eostrix (talk) 15:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/isliptownsuffolkcountynewyork
^ https://ballotpedia.org/Population_represented_by_state_legislators
^ https://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle/state-senate-republicans-1.39626304
^ http://www.longislandadvance.net/stories/islip-tax-receiver-to-challenge-martinez-for-state-senate-seat,85505
^ http://www.longislandadvance.net/stories/reps-push-for-financial-aid-for-first-responders,85678
^ https://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/bellone-veto-2020-budget-override-1.38837104

Delete Size is not the only factor that makes somewhere notable. Islip is a huge place, with over 300,000 inhabitants, but it is just an indistinct suburb in the greater New York City area. Also, there is no place where the holder of a non-policy position like receiver of taxes would be default notable. If she wins the election she will be notable, if she does not she will not be. Keep in mind Macomb County, Michigan has around 900,000 inhavbitants, but we are not going to declare the county clerk and county tresurer default notable. Even the county prosecutor who has wide disgretion in who to pursue for cimes is not default notale, although there may be enough sourcing for Carl Marlinga, although as much for his involvement in corruption as his role in government.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Well, evidently presentism causes us not to have an article on Marlinga. His successor Eric J. Smith (Michigan politician) does have an article. He also left office due to criminal activities.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Doug Carl of course shows that you do not have to be a crook to get an article related to Macomb County. Of course, we would probably not have an article on Mr. Carl if I had not created it. The article needs more work, since it fails to mention his run for county office on one occasion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Carl is of course default notable because he actually was a state senator. Disctirct size does not matter for state senators because they create law that impacts all the state. So even if they were elected from a 1962 drawn bocket borough in Tennessee or another state that was insanely far from one-man, one-vote they would still be notable. State legislature members though are an extreme case of presentism.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: She is a person of high importance and has a great resumé but fails WP:SIGCOV. This may be helpful. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet the notability standards mentioned above.--Mpen320 (talk) 01:50, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected state candidate, non-notable local politician per WP:NPOL, also seems to fail WP:GNG. If she wins the state election we can always recreate it. SportingFlyer T·C 16:26, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not automatically get articles either for running as candidates in elections they have not yet won or for holding office at the local level, the referencing present here is almost entirely primary sources (raw tables of election results from the county elections office, her own staff profile on the self-published website of her own employer) that are not support for notability at all, and the one reference that is actually to a media outlet is just her initial announcement of her candidacy, which is not enough coverage to get her over WP:GNG all by itself: since every candidate in every election can always show one or two of those, if that were all it took to hand a candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL then every candidate would always get that exemption and nobody would ever actually have to pass NPOL at all anymore. Obviously no prejudice against recreation in November if she wins the state senate seat, since her notability claim will thus have shifted from candidate to officeholder, but nothing here is a legitimate reason for a Wikipedia article to already exist today. Bearcat (talk) 21:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This is a case of WP:TOOSOON. If she wins the primary/general elections, then she can have an article. Candidates don't get articles for solely being candidates. Weik is also a non-notable local politician as she holds a low-profile municipal-level post. Islip is certainly a large enough town, yet the current sources in the article are all primary sources. LefcentrerightDiscuss 21:06, 22 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 -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Tiefenbach[edit]

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

Only one red-linked entry. I have added Peter Tiefenbach (composer) to Tiefenbach; perhaps this could be a redirect to that DAB page. Leschnei (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, non-notable nobody who doesn't pass WP:GNG. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 15:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Juno_Awards_of_1994#Best_Classical_Composition. (That looks unsourced, but the EL to the Junos site checks out: he's there.) PamD 12:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete there are other possible notable/semi-notable people of this name (hence it was a dab) so redirect could cause confusion. Boleyn (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This made sense when the porn guy had an article, given the problem that the semi-obscure real name of a porn performer didn't really have valid WP:PRIMARYTOPIC rights over a potentially notable composer — but now that the porn guy's been deleted under the tightening of WP:PORNBIO, and the composer still doesn't actually have an article at all, there's nothing to disambiguate anymore. Bearcat (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete to facilitate uninterrupted Search. Shhhnotsoloud (talk) 10:18, 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 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Derek Muhs[edit]

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

Non-notable business person. All the sources are passing mentions or WP:MILL coverage of the company. Praxidicae (talk) 13:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:32, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not even close to being a notable businessman.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment:Not notable by wikipedia standards (although he looks like a successful buisnessman). I would say WP:TOOSOON. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete:the subject falls short of wp:GNG. Of the 11 sources cited non of the online sources give WP:SIGCOV. The sources only focused on the companies the subject co-founded. Cryforjustice (talk) 13:31, 21June 2020 (UTC)

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Stifle (talk) 16:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Untitled Brian Fee Project[edit]

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

How can this film have an article if we don't know what the film is about?? I support that this article be deleted if we can't find any sources revealing that the subject of the movie is known. Georgia guy (talk) 11:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete Fails WP:V. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 11:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NFF. Way too early, we don't even have a title yet. Hog Farm (talk) 14:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Jumping the gun a bit on this creation. --Xannir (talk) 13:32, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, it does seem to fail NFF, and it's not garnered enough notable (or reliable) coverage yet (which might warrant its inclusion even if it had a placeholder for a title). Plus, there are no sources on this page to boot. Philotimo (talk) 00:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. Someone moved the article to Nightmare Chapter while this Afd is still going on. This is ridiculous! Not only do I support that page moves should not be done during an Afd, but I did a Google News search on Nightmare Chapter and it revealed absolutely nothing about this film. Georgia guy (talk) 00:37, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found evidence that a Brian Fee project is definitely in the works but no specific details about it. Nothing on "Nightmare Chapter" or "Nightmare Chapter Brian Fee" when I searched for them. Philotimo (talk) 00:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Delete WP:V and WP:NFF aren't the only things wrong here; is this even really notable before it gets it's title? Lots of movies are planned; and it seems weird to have a Wikipedia page before anyone involved in the making of the film is allowed to talk anything about what the film actually even is. ♥ Melody ♥ 22:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)
Speedy Delete I support the deletion of this article. Brian Fee is indeed working on a Pixar feature film, but it isn't known yet if it's going to be released in 2021, 2022 or 2023. No other information about the film is public. This article is all fake info and spam. Should be deleted asap. Fanowaty (talk) 08:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article has been moved to Draft:The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent by $uperFan32. BOVINEBOY2008 20:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And now, $uperFan32 has moved it back to main space, without any explanation of either move. BOVINEBOY2008 22:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Clearly fails WP:NFF. Not to mention it's a weird article to exist in the first place. Itrytohelp32 ^(talk) 02:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete Immediately: I support the article’s deletion. Please delete ASAP as nothing is known about the film. We don’t even have a title, or a plot for that matter. Globbett) (Spl4t Sh3rm4n) 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Delete - Per WP:NFF and WP:V. Good grief! -Jack Frost (talk) 11:26, 24 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 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jon Turley[edit]

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

Not seeing any notability. 3 sources - the first, and only possibly independent one, doesn’t work, the other two are to his own books. Originator editor not edited for 12 years. KJP1 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. KJP1 (talk) 11:25, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I see two instances of coverage in the Worcester Gazette (1 2) but nothing further. Coverage from another reliable source might put him closer to being kept but I wasn't able to find anything in my WP:BEFORE. FOARP (talk) 13:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough information and indepdent reliable 3rd party sources on him to show notability. The last debate basically was saying we should keep the article because there was an ISBN number listed for one of his works. The keep arguements back in 2006 were truly atrocious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:25, 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 16:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HBS Towers[edit]

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

I am shocked that an encyclopaedia has hosted such a page for so long...This is essentially an ad for HBS Towers/Realtors. The project has not even got off the ground, in fact it may even have been shelved as I can’t find any reliable sources. "Ad" and "predictions" tags have remain unaddressed for a couple of years. The one dubious reference provided does not work. In 2018, someone added “This project is currently stopped as builder said he has no funds. He has also stopped paying rents as well to the members and no progress on redevelopment”. Most importantly, the article has been edited (or more accurately, padded) many times by someone at HBS Group, starting here, after a failed deletion request. A blatant case of WP:COI, WP:NOTADVERTISING, WP:NOTACRYSTALBALL. I bumped into it through Category:Postmodern architecture in India, which has a few other articles written like ads or to give a veneer of credibility for stalled/failed projects (see Growel's 101, Kohinoor Square, The Imperial 3). I was less sure about those and if anyone else wants to look deeper, please do so. But this one, here, needs to go! The chaff of Wikipedia... MaysinFourty (talk) 11:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and WP:NOTCRYSTAL. As noted in the amends and tags I'd applied to this promotional guff over the last few years, this article seems to stand only as an example of why we have WP:NOTCRYSTAL and WP:NOTADVERT guidelines. Frankly I think we need to have a broader look at our WP:NBUILDING guidelines. As this project is (in my view) cluttered up with a lot of out-dated information on proposed building projects. Many of these fall between the cracks of WP:SIGCOV. Where, probably because newspapers are reliant on advertising revenue from property developers and the like, we often find a reasonable level of coverage of these planned/proposed development projects in what are otherwise independent and reliable sources. But, in reality, the subject might never even be afforded planning permission. And hence barely even exists "in potentia". Not to mention ever existing in reality. In my view, WP:TOOSOON should probably be applied (in extremis) to these types of subjects. And, even if there does seem to be some coverage of the planned project to the extent that newspapers are republishing the developer's plans and press-releases, we shouldn't necessarily be doing the same. In this case, the article should just be deleted. This project is not improved by hosting an out-of-date press release for a property developer's proposal/daydream. Guliolopez (talk) 12:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fully agree with your points! What's bizarre is that this project allegedly won the "World’s Best Residential Renovation/Redevelopment Project" even before a single brick was laid.. MaysinFourty (talk) 12:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete At least per WP:NOTCRYSTALBALL. Orientls (talk) 03:01, 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 16:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CloudBusiness[edit]

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

Reviewed through NPP. Article on a software company referenced to random no-name websites and primary sources, nothing better to be found through WP:BEFORE. Closest thing to a claim of notability here is that it was a finalist (not a winner!) in a non-notable app competition. Decisive failure of WP:NCORP. See also Synder App. Spicy (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Spicy (talk) 10:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Delaware-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belarus-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom —{Cryptic Canadian} 01:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - references taken from primarily sources on accounting software (Insightful Accountant, Intuit Developer, XU Magazine). The company has also won a grandprize at a large hackathon sponsored by Intuit - a major accounting software developer. Argument for notability within the accounting software ecosystem. Primary sources taken down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seabreeze44 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - the topic does not seem to meet WP:NCORP criteria. The article does cite a number of sources, but some are unreliable and others do not constitute the in-depth, independence coverage required by NCORP. SamHolt6 (talk) 23:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Winning and being a finalist in a couple of niche app competitions does not translate into notability here, falling under trivial coverage at WP:CORPDEPTH. Aside from these competitions, the provided references are a couple of product how-to reviews - again not translating into notability for the developing company. Searches are not finding better; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 06:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ - added Business Insider and Yahoo Finance sources (1.5 Million dollars processed) User talk:Seabreeze44 —Preceding undated comment added 11:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your further comments are welcome in this discussion, but please do not add multiple keep/delete opinions. Also, Yahoo Finance and Business Insider are both labelled as a PR Newswire press release, not WP:RS coverage. AllyD (talk) 11:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User talk:Seabreeze44 Thank you, I didn't know! I thought that the high source validity would add validity to even a press release. —Preceding undated comment added 11:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)

Just FYI, the criteria for establishing notability is not simply whether the source is reliable/valid/high profile/etc but also includes whether the *content* is *independent*. Please read WP:ORGIND for an explanation. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:31, 24 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 16:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Girish Mistry[edit]

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

Presumably an autobiography, as created by User:Girishtry, who has made a total of 5 edits, all of which were to this article in 2012. Does not satisfy WP:GNG, WP:NBIO, WP:ARTIST, nor a subject-specific criteria. The scant claims it makes are not sufficient to indicate a credible claim of important or significance. The article has 1 source, a primary source as it is all interview. WP:BEFORE comes up with no independent reliable sources. Has had a notability warning on it since 2016 and a references needed warning since 2018. Lopifalko (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Photography-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lopifalko (talk) 10:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, rather obviously. (Unless somebody can produce previously unnoticed sources, but I think this unlikely.) -- Hoary (talk) 22:20, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 08:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Myspace or LinkedIn. We specifically ban people from creating articles on themselves. We really need to have much better criteria on who can create articles. I still think absolutely every new article should have to pass through the articles for creation process.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I'm not finding anything in the way of significant coverage in reliable sources to substantiate notability. GNG fail. Netherzone (talk) 20:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:21, 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. Fenix down (talk) 09:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2019–20 Gheorghe Hagi Football Academy teams season[edit]

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

Academy season ranging from under-8 to under-19... no way this passes notability. Refs are all from the clubs website anyways. JTtheOG (talk) 09:57, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All informations are correct because I took them from club site. Gheorghe Hagi Football Academy teams are teenagers teams from under-8 to under-19. User:Velniceri Geo (talk) 13:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Clear WP:NSEASONS failure. Number 5 7 11:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:54, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - as above, season article for youth team is not notable. Giant Snowman 11:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clearly not notable SFletcher06 (talk) 10:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete - please don't delete my article. I have worked a lot. All informations are correctly, you can verify that. User:Velniceri Geo (talk) 13:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear failure of WP:NSEASONS and WP:GNG -- ChrisTheDude (talk) 16:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Don't delete~~ -Hello! All informations are correctly. You can verify that. Please tell me what do you want to change, but please, don't delete my article becouse I have worked a lot.With friendship and respect, Geo.User:Velniceri Geo (talk) 10:15, 22 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) 17:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Art6[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:NONPROFIT, WP:NORG. Currently sources do not pass WP:ORGDEPTH as many are local papers, local library and unacceptable primary sources. The purpose of this article appear to be promotional as it was created by user Mitzi.humphrey who also happens to be one of the six founders named here. Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 08:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as non-notable per Graywalls. The OP, now banned, produced a number of articles that look legit and thorough at first glance, but don't stand up to analysis re: COI, self-promotion, notability, and good 3rd-party sourcing. It's artful cruft. But it's cruft. --Lockley (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources in the article appear to be exclusively local small papers. The majority of the sources are actually about the artists they were involved with, and not about the gallery. (N.b.:I have to say I am shocked at how long MH managed to churn out self-promotion and COI articles on Wikipedia. I found a draft in her user space for an article on her daughter!)ThatMontrealIP (talk) 05:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Gallery notability is not determined through inheriting the notability of the artists it shows. One of a hundred-thousand other alternative spaces in the U.S., there is nothing that makes this one particularly notable. Sourcing is primarily blog-like Style Weekly, and covers the artist's shows, not the gallery itself. Does not pass WP:NONPROFIT, WP:NORG. Netherzone (talk) 20:47, 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 delete. Speedily deleted under G5, created by a banned user User:Amarjeetpardeep. —usernamekiran (talk) 21:57, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rich punjabi singers salary songs and subscriber[edit]

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

Currently as it is, a massive BLP violation. Possibly one could salvage this article by adding some context and referencing, but I would say if it does not happen during the nomination a deletion would be fully justified. Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ymblanter (talk) 07:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. Completely original research. Garbage article. Ajf773 (talk) 09:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Ajf773 (talk) 09:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - full of WP:OR without any references; do we have similar lists to this or does this one fail WP:INDISCRIMINATE by being too focused? Considering this top-class article also created by the same editor, the stats may well be fabricated outright. Also needs to be heavily copyedited with the currency converted to Western units if kept. Passenger pigeon (talk) 11:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OR and WP:INDISCRIMINATE. शिव साहिल/Shiv Sahil (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 14:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Per WP:TRIVIA and WP:OR. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable topic, original research, bad article title, bad grammar, bad spelling... do I need to say more? (Sorry if I sound harsh) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 08:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deleted Anthony Appleyard (talk) 12:51, 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 redirect to Ashok Leyland. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 18:36, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

JanBus[edit]

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

No secondary sources to prove notability. May have to be redirected if possible. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 06:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Ashok Leyland. It does seem to exist but the current article as is is written like an advert. would recommend redirection to the builder of said bus. Nightfury 07:19, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:14, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 16:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dom K. Diogo[edit]

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

Bio of non notable 19 year old ‘socialite turned to businessman, singer-songwriter, Instagram star and philanthropist.’ Previously deleted, now needs deleting and salting. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nicaragua-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Please note that the article creator is an inexperienced editor and I’m copying here a post they just left on the talk page for this discussion:

” hey, i’m sorry you don't know me and i don't know you but yes i am a 19 year old (soon to be 20) and i am all that. my album comes out next week actually, i have music on spotify (and every other streaming service), i am a brand owner and record label owner, and yes i know i am "too young" but i try to manage everything as good as i can. this is a major milestone for a Nicaraguan with such a short age. what is wrong with article per say? i mean i've used every resource i have but in Nicaragua there are not many, all my tv interviews are not online and if they are they are on my dad's facebook page and i’m not going to cite my dad's facebook lmao that's unprofessional af. and i've been to those shows, i've participated on them and i have photo evidence to prove it. I was also named Latin America's youngest fashion designer at age 17 by Fashion Week Nicaragua. so can u tell me why are u submitting this for deletion?”

Mccapra (talk) 06:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There is a possible conflict of interest here. Check Special:PageHistory/Dom K. Diogo, as well as Special:Diff/963001314. The IPs from the diff and the page history match _{186.77.196.28 (talk · contribs · WHOIS)}, and a registered user with possible username violation _{Domkdiogo (talk · contribs)} has edits with the article. The registered user and the IP have been both warned. Ntx61 (talk) 09:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Definitely WP:PROMOTIONAL with WP:COI involved. The author should make his own wiki website instead. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Not notable. Probably a candidate for WP:CSD? Darren-M talk 18:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No real claim to notability. definitely a WP:G11 candidate. Best, GPL93 (talk) 20:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not a platform for self promotion. It is not a place to place autobiographies. We need to institute much stricter control on new article creation. Our new rules need to incluse: A-ideally making all new articles go through AfD. B-we also need to require at least 100 edits and at least 2 weeks of being on Wikipedia before the creation of ones first article. We also need to more widely broadcast the knowledge that under no circumstances should one ever create an article on ones self. This is the worst example of this I have ever seen.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I thought we had gone to making it so only registered users could create articles. How in the world was this article created by an IP address. I thought we had ended that abuse of process over a decade ago. Why is it still allowed to happen?John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Johnpacklambert: I thought the answer to that was that the article was started as a draft, and simply moved into mainspace by someone, but I checked the move logs, the history, etc, and the IP somehow actually created a page in the mainspace, so I'd say it's more likely someone screwed up the permissions. Time for a trout slapping? EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It was started as a draft. See [9]. Phil Bridger (talk) 09:38, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Absolutely no claim to notability, and the conflict of interest only makes it worse. EggRoll97 ^(talk) 21:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete:No coverage in any kind of source at all. Completely fails all the notability guidelines he can probably be linked to. The one that created it should be dealt with politely and praised for his efforts while being welcomed. Because no matter what, creating an article is still a tough job. And he/she has done it with dedication but just didn't plan it well. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 10:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, no, we should not praise the efforts of the creator. It was an act of self promotion in violation of all the guidelines on Wikipedia. People who are going to seek to turn Wikipedia into myspace in this way should not be welcomed.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as G11 self-promotion. --Lockley (talk) 20:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete, as it appears to fit speedy deletion criteria G4 and A7 in addition to the aforementioned G11. - Sumanuil (talk) 22:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sumanuil Your comment implies that it is a case of "Speedy delete" and not "Strong delete". I recommend you to make amends to your vote. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 14:51, 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) 05:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benard Odoh[edit]

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

Unsuccessful candidate for elected office. Does not pass WP:NPOL. Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 05:52, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The subject was a Secretary of State Government, I suggest the article is invaluable. Buike20 (talk) 07:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Subject of the article fails WP:GNG. Being just a former secretary of state government does not make him eligible to warrant a standalone article. The article was created to promote the subject by a now blocked sockpuppet. —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬
Delete A non notable politician who doesn't meet any of the general notability criteria for inclusion.Em-mustapha ^talk 14:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete an unelected candidate for public office. His postion as secreatary to the state government was not such to create notability. I did start an article on the person who defeated him in the senate race. That we did not already have an article on a current senator of Nigeria is something that indicates how systemic bias creates an over abundance of articles on Americans, even including mayors of places with under 10,000 people, but yet we lack articles on current senators in Nigeria.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NPOL as Odoh held a non-notable state government post and lost an election. LefcentrerightDiscuss 23:28, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Odoh as a Politician has significantly gained press coverages both while in office and out of office. @Johnpacklambert: you can tell that in America articles are created for the Secretaries of State Governments. As a secretary to the state government, He was the third highest executive officer in Ebonyi State. The office is a notable one.Buike20 (talk) 05:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buike20 (talk • contribs) 05:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet —Nnadigoodluck🇳🇬 14:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep He would pass WP:NPOL if the secretary of state in Nigeria is similar in stature to other state positions around the world, but through a quick search he also appears to pass WP:GNG with lots of local news coverage. SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He wasn’t a Secretary of State, he was a Secretary to the State Government and that isn’t a post that confers a presumption of notability. Mccapra (talk) 15:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wasn't precise enough with that keep !vote. Secretary to the State Government appears to be third or fourth ranking in terms of Nigerian state governments, making it similar to a Secretary of State position for a state government in other countries with state or provincial governments. I think this clearly qualifies for WP:NPOL. SportingFlyer T·C 22:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the case of Nigerian states this office position is neither third nor fourth it is only a political office appointed by the governor of a state, we have state house of assembly speaker and state attorney general are the only third and fourth positions.Em-mustapha ^talk 22:35, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 17:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retro-juice productions[edit]

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

Dissolved company,[10] no references given to establish notability, created by an editor of the same name. -- The Anome (talk) 05:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete weather it exists today is not relevant to notability, but we cannot have an article sourced only to an organizations's own website. Wikipedia is not a web-hosting service or an online directory.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: An article sourced only to a contentless Wordpress site. Its previous operational existence can be confirmed from some 3rd party listings ([11], [12]) but I see nothing to indicate the company itself ever achieved notability. AllyD (talk) 06:32, 23 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. Requested move was closed as "not moved". (non-admin closure) P.I. Ellsworth ed. ^put'r there 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mani Majra[edit]

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

This article is no longer needed. All its contents have been moved to "Sector 13" Wikipedea Page. And also all the links to this page i.e. linksto:Mani Majra or linksto:Manimajra have been shifted to linskto:Sector 13. This can be verified in search box by using "linksto:" term. All the broken links have also been fixed. So now there is no need of this Redirect page as it is directly linked to Sector 13 page. I henceforth nominate this page to be deleted. Taal Saptak (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Taal Saptak (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Taal Saptak (talk) 04:40, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep redirects are kept based on their usefulness, not on the number of incoming wikilinks. Mani Majra is a plausible search term, so it should stay. Technically this should be listed at WP:RFD instead, but there's no point moving this discussion there as it would quickly be WP:SNOW closed. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 04:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep. I have moved the article back to Mani Majra, as Sector 13 is meaningless. Try a WP:RM if you want it moved. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:51, 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 no consensus. Fictional characters in well-known universes are always difficult; they are often covered in length in multiple reliable sources, but a full analysis also requires evaluating the nature of the coverage which can be highly subjective. Here, I do not see a consensus developing even after substantial discussion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tsathoggua[edit]

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

What makes this fictional minor Lovercraftian entity notable? I don't see anything out there outside WP:PLOT and lists of which works this appeared in or was referenced. Seems to fail WP:NFICTION/GNG. Can redirect to Cthulhu Mythos deities, maybe merge some referenced PLOT content there, through nothing here seems particularly important (and Tsathoggua is minor enough he doesn't even have a subsection there, and I can't even figure out where we should add a subsection for him if we were to merge anything). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It 's easy to find more sources for this such as The Dream World of H. P. Lovecraft; An H.P. Lovecraft Encyclopedia; The Ashgate Encyclopedia of Literary and Cinematic Monsters; The New York Review of Books. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE; WP:NOTCLEANUP; WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE, &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- See WP:GOOGLEHITS. As usual, there is no shred of evidence that Andrew did anything outside of entering the subject's name in Google search and listing the hits that 'sound nice'. A cursory check of several, which took me longer than it took for him to list those sources, confirm the mentions are in passing (see for [13], [14]) While [15] has a paragraph, it is half-plot summary and half-publication history, no analysis to speak of. Same for [16]; virtually the only analysis to speak of related to this topic is the sentence or so that the entity was not invented by L. but by another, less famous writer, whose creation L. adapted into his works. Interesting, but we can't build an article on two sentences of trivia. GNG requires in-depth discussion, and as usual, this is lacking.--_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:20, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - WP:GOOGLEHITS refers to the number of hits reported by Google which, in this case, is "About 259,000 results". Per WP:STFW, the nominator is supposed to look through these but this due diligence doesn't seem to have been done. I browsed and listed a few and consider them quite adequate to establish notability. As the number indicates, there's plenty more to be found. For example, I'm liking this podcast by Michael Shea but am still working through it. But that's just for fun and personal illumination as my !vote stands regardless. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as above. Plenty of sources. -- Necrothesp (talk) 09:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Cthulhu Mythos deities the sources cited by Andrew D are either passing mentions or in-universe material, nothing that would actually contribute to notability. You can wikilawyer off as many random policies as you want, doesn’t change the fact that this fictional deity is not notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, to Cthulhu Mythos deities. Of the sources presented by Andrew above, only The Dream World of H. P. Lovecraft actually has any kind of coverage, and even that isn't particularly extensive. The other two books are nothing but extremely passing mentions (particularly in The Ashgate Encyclopedia and Literary and Cinematic Monsters, which is basically a name-drop with no coverage). The link to the The New York Review of Books is, in fact, a letter to the editor, and thus not a reliable source. The character, in question, is already covered in the master list of deities, and it does not appear that the current version of this article has any actual reliable sources to merge. The one entry in The Dream World of H. P. Lovecraft can be added to Tsathoggua's entry at Cthulhu Mythos deities as a source, but nothing in this current article needs to be retained in order to do that. Rorshacma (talk) 20:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Donald Tyson, the writer of The Dream World of H. P. Lovecraft: His Life, His Demons, His Universe, is not a reliable source. He is an occultist who created a magical system based on the Necronomicon.^[1] ―Susmuffin ^Talk 10:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Matthews, Carol S. (April 15, 2018). "Letting Sleeping Abnormalities Lie: Lovecraft and the Futility of Divination". Mythlore. 36 (2): 178–179. doi:10.2307/26809310 – via SWOSU Digital Commons.

Comment Ah, thanks for that. I guess you can strike my recommendation for adding that book as a source to the master deity list, then. This is a good reminder, though, that just because a subject may have been covered by a published book, that doesn't necessarily make that book a reliable source. Rorshacma (talk) 15:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. If WP:PLOT is the rationale for deletion, then against that there is Weird Realism: Lovecraft and Philosophy and Slime Dynamics both of which have some out-of-universe discussion, although I have to say it is hard to fathom what the latter book is talking about, or indeed, the whole purpose of the book. The Cult of Alien Gods: H.P. Lovecraft and Extraterrestrial Pop Culture also clearly has some substantial discussion, but only in snippet view. SpinningSpark 14:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Spinningspark: I don't see how the first source you link goes beyond PLOT? Tell me, could you use this content to make a single non-plot line we could add to our article? I tried this, as a mental exercise, and failed. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 04:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - This is commentary on plot, not a summary of plot. That Lovecraft gave a different backstory to the creature is out-of-universe encyclopaedic comment. We could say that Lovecraft linked the myth to the "real-life" Hyperboreans myth to make the creature more believable. We could say, that according to this author, Lovecraft made the creature, while still horrible, more sympathetic to the reader by making its minions more ghastly. We could say (again, according to this author) that Lovecraft's use of "star-spawn" is deliberately ambiguous over whether the creatures are just aliens or actually made by stars. That's four lines. I don't see how you couldn't like at least one of them. SpinningSpark 11:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - It's all good, but not a single one is in-depth. This fictional entity got a few sentences of analysis, yes, but few sentences are not in-depth treatment. And GNG requires in-depth coverage, not a passing mention here and there. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Piotrus' moving goalposts. "Could you use this content to make a single non-plot line?" somehow turned into "a few sentences are not in-depth treatment" in record time. I tried to attribute this discrepancy to anything besides pure IDONTLIKEIT, as a mental exercise, and failed. — Toughpigs (talk) 06:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are no goalposts moved; few sentences is not related to notability. Please don't make straw man arguments, I never said that a topic is notable if you can write a few sentences about it. The point is that few sentences are the most one can write on this topic, outside pure plot fancruft. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Ha ha. You set a goal and then refused to concede the point after it had been met four times over. That's not so much moving the goalposts as refusing to acknowledge that (your owm) goal even exists. A bad case of WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT. Bearing in mind that you singled out this source as being particularly devoid of encyclopaedic information, I've surprised myself that we are able to get quite so much out of it. Four sentences directly on-topic is most definitely more than a passing mention. Besides which the source contains way more than that. It actually begins at the start of the page previous to the one linked with a quote from At the Mountains of Madness and then proceeds to analyse it over nearly two pages. Since four encyclopaedic sentences are not enough for you, let's try a fifth. We could say that Lovecraft tries to lure the reader into believing in Tsathoggua by opeing with more well known and believable myths, like the abominable snowman, and then placing Tsathoggua at the bottom of the list. We could say this is part of the beginning of Lovecraft welding his stories into a single universe. Oops, sorry I just added a sixth sentence. Strike that and I'll add it back after your next denial. I would further argue that not all the discussion by a source need be usable in an encyclopaedia article for that source to establish notability. It is enough that the source has discussed the subject in detail at all, whether usable or not. SpinningSpark 11:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - I'm sorry, but this fictional figure is not notable for a separate Encyclopedia article in my judgment. I agree with others that redirection to Cthulhu Mythos deities is the correct choice. - GizzyCatBella🍁 15:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect Keep supporters are unable to find any examples of significant out of universe coverage. Wikipedia is not a repository of plot summaries. b uidhe 05:51, 24 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. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dar El Menia[edit]

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

As far as I can tell this topic is just a commercial hotel, and does not meet the guidelines for notability (WP:NOTE). The only two references provided don't support a claim of its historical notability (e.g. claim of dating from the 14th century) or of architectural notability (since there are many, many similar riad hotels in Fes and across Morocco). One source link is now defunct and the other source is a commercial listing (Expedia). I've been unable to find any references that mention it other than commercial listings. It is not mentioned in any scholarly sources I'm aware of (I did a Google Scholar search and consulted a variety of references I already have access to). It is not even mentioned in one of the main books about houses in Fez that date from this period (Revault et al, 1985, "Palais et demeures de Fes. I. Époques mérinde et saadienne (XIVe-XVIIe siècles"). Robert Prazeres (talk) 04:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I agree with the nominator. Nothing but travel listings found. Mccapra (talk) 04:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Morocco-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. -TheseusHeLl (talk) 05:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:41, 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 Redirect to A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science of man[edit]

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

A very broad title, although the content is solely about philosopher David Hume and has nothing that is not in David Hume. The aricle is therefore redundant; it is also unlikely to get updated along with David Hume. The title is both antiquated (18th-19th century) and sexist. Errantius (talk) 02:47, 17 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 17. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 03:05, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:12, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature#Introduction, where it is mentioned. Antiquated and sexist are not good reasons for deletion, but being redundant is. The concept is discussed in context in the section A_Treatise_of_Human_Nature#Introduction and with such a well known philosophical work, I can believe that Science of man is a plausible search term. I don't see much worth merging, so suggest a redirect. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mark Viking. Mccapra (talk) 04:34, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Mark viking (thanks) looks good to me (deletion proposer). I'll give it a day or two, to check there is consensus. Errantius (talk) 07:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong keep. The topic of the article is an aspect of Hume's philosophy, so it is hardly surprising that it is only about Hume. At worst, it needs renaming to Hume's science of man to make that clear. Whether or not Hume's conception or naming is sexist, I don't know, but that has bugger all to do with the notability of the topic; and of course the title is antiquated, Hume was born in 1711 (antique is >100 yers). Redirecting would be a travesty; Hume's article only briefly mentions it in passing. In support of notability I offer Fritz Heinemann, David Hume: The Man and His Science of Man, the second half of which is entirely about the subject in hand. Reviews of Heinemann's book in scholarly journals here and here. David Hume and the Culture of Scottish Newtonianism has a very substantial chapter on the topic and this chapter also discusses it. This book also has a substantial chapter on the topic and further discussion in this section. Other books with substantial discussion of this topic include The Origins of David Hume's Economics and Hume's Philosophy of Human Nature. SpinningSpark 18:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You don't refer to any "science of man" apart from Hume's, so what problem is there with substituting (as I now agree) a redirect to the article on his book? Errantius (talk) 05:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is a viable article on a notable topic. Hume's book is not a synonymous topic. There is no pressing need to redirect. SpinningSpark 10:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I will refer to the WP article naming criteria. I think that "Science of man" fails on all of these but conciseness.

Deciding on an article title[edit]

Article titles are based on how reliable English-language sources refer to the article's subject. There is often more than one appropriate title for an article. In that case, editors choose the best title by consensus based on the considerations that this page explains.

Shortcuts

WP:CRITERIA
WP:NAMINGCRITERIA
WP:RECOGNIZABILITY
WP:NATURALNESS
WP:CONSISTENT

A good Wikipedia article title has the five following characteristics:

Recognizability – The title is a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize.
Naturalness – The title is one that readers are likely to look or search for and that editors would naturally use to link to the article from other articles. Such a title usually conveys what the subject is actually called in English.
Precision – The title unambiguously identifies the article's subject and distinguishes it from other subjects.
Conciseness – The title is no longer than necessary to identify the article's subject and distinguish it from other subjects.
Consistency – The title is consistent with the pattern of similar articles' titles. Many of these patterns are listed (and linked) as topic-specific naming conventions on article titles, in the box above.

The sources that you cite look like (I can't check them since libraries are closed owing to Covid-19) they do not use Hume's phrase but only mention it as used by him. There was a discipline known in English as "science of man", in the 18th and 19th centuries: Kant called it Anthropologie, and maybe see the history of the Australasian Anthropological Journal which was titled or partly titled Science of Man up to its expiry in 1913. But there is no longer such a discipline or "subject area": it has broken up and its former elements are now found in more specific disciplines such as philosophy, psychology, sociology and maybe anthropology (as that name is now used). The name "science of man" is now recognisable only to readers already familiar with Hume or his milieu: a redirect to his Treatise would therefore be appropriate. The material in the present article that refers to An Enquiry Concerning the Principles of Morals is poorly written and in any case the Treatise article refers to that Enquiry and to the article on it. Retitling the present article as "Hume's science of man" would only preserve a duplication. I remain of the view that this article should be replaced with a redirect to A Treatise on Human Nature. Errantius (talk) 04:15, 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 Tyler courthouse shooting. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Alan Wilson[edit]

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

The victim of a "minor" by American standards mass shooting only notable for attempting to intervene. While his actions were certainly brave and his death was certainly tragic, since the names of the victims of much more prominent mass shootings (some of whom were shot while doing similarly heroic things) redirect to the page of the incident in which they were killed, I suggest this page be merged with Tyler courthouse shooting, which has a section on Wilson almost as long as his own article does. HawthOffHead (talk) 02:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. IntoThinAir (talk) 03:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Tyler courthouse shooting per WP:BLP1E and nom. Only notable for this event (and subsequent resolution honouring him, which was part of the same event). FOARP (talk) 07:34, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Li Jian (art historian)[edit]

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

Subject fails WP:ANYBIO. This article isn't about the subject because only one citation actually talks about her. The other citations are about various exhibits and some don't mention her at all or briefly quote her. Some of the citations are from VMFA where she works, so those citations aren't independent and in this case, could be considered self-published. This is yet another article written by Mitzi.humphrey so we can assume she had an undeclared CoI. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Chris Troutman (talk) 02:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The claim of notability is essentially that the subject was the curator of a temporary exhibition and I don’t see how that argument can be sustained. Everything described in the article is run of the mill work for all curators. Mccapra (talk) 04:38, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the notability guidelines for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom & Johnpacklambert. Celestina007 (talk) 19:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment She appears to hold a named curatorship at a major museum. Should we consider this to be equivalent to a named chair for WP:NPROF? pburka (talk) 17:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That's a good question. I'd be inclined to say "yes", but I'm not convinced either way. XOR'easter (talk) 22:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. This fits the pattern of Mitzi.humphrey's contributions: apparently well-sourced articles that don't stand up to scrutiny. --Lockley (talk) 02:57, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:42, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Business builder[edit]

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

Unsourced and promotional, topic appears to fail WP:GNG. Article was created by a since blocked account who previously removed COI and PROD templates. HaeB (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. HaeB (talk) 02:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - It is impossible to identify any clearly defined way in reliable sources in which this differs to the dictionary meaning (i.e., someone who builds businesses or business in general). The only use I could find in reliable sources is in this sense. As such it fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 09:30, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Stifle (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Problematic content without reliable sources. We would better off without this material even if the COI concerns didn't pan out. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:30, 25 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) 03:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Roomy Pak[edit]

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

GNG fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject fails WP:NARTIST. Another case where article author Mitzi.humphrey included herself in the article but never made the required CoI disclosure. The citations are content Mitzi wrote, or mere mentions. Chris Troutman (talk) 01:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:26, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per both. Johnbod (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. Lyndaship (talk) 15:31, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Does not pass GNG or NARTIST. Netherzone (talk) 19:18, 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. Stifle (talk) 16:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eratosphere[edit]

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

Not a notable website. Wikieditor600 (talk) 13:17, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:48, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 13:49, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete: I've found four passing mentions of the Eratosphere as "a poetry forum", over a longish period of time. None of these satisfy WP:GNG since they are just passing references, often in conjunction with mentioning another site, but they do suggest that this website might have a meaningful userbase of some kind. My finds: 1 2 3 4

I was able to access this journal article to find this passing mention: "One sees evidence of the diminished role the university plays in contemporary poetry merely by listing some of the most influential recent developments in American literary life, most of which happened off campus. ... notable changes include ... the creation of electronic networks and journals like Poetry Daily, Contemporary Poetry Review, and Eratosphere, linking individual writers across the nation" (45).

I was not able to access this article which also came up in my search and might have some more detailed coverage of Eratosphere.

If the article stays, I'd recommend describing the site as a "forum" (as these sources do) to better explain what it actually is. The number of passing references, and their context, makes me wonder if some proof of notability might still be lurking out there somewhere. But without two good sources for GNG at the moment, I say delete. ~ oulfis 🌸(talk) 07:22, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting because the nominator has been blocked.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:19, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. a Google search indicates that this item is referenced in several published books and publications. I feel that this does meet WP:Notability. --Sm8900 (talk) 17:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Able Muse. --Lockley (talk) 09:25, 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 keep. Appears to just barely meet the bar. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muddy York RFC[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an amateur sports team, not properly referenced as clearing our notability standards for sports teams. Three of the five footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all, such as their own self-published website and a YouTube video and the self-published blog of a photographer -- and the two that are from real media are (a) a webzine article about said photographer winning an award for a photograph of the team, which is not evidence of the team's notability since they aren't the subject of the article, and (b) a newspaper photoessay by that same photographer. But notability is established by the existence of written third party, third person analysis of the subject's notability, not by the existence of photographs or YouTube videos -- so none of the sources here are doing anything at all to get this over WP:GNG or WP:ORGDEPTH. Just to be clear, this is not an attack against the team -- I have personally known people who've been directly associated with it, including two people whose names are in the article. But Wikipedia is not a free publicity platform, so organizations aren't automatically entitled to have an article on here just because their own self-published web presence verifies that they exist -- making them eligible to have a Wikipedia article would require evidence of much more coverage in reliable and independent sources than this. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 16:16, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Following a source that may best have demonstrated notability, the StarObserver, the team isn't mentioned other than as part of a list of participating teams. Which is not the focus of the article. It is notable that there's a 'rugby tournament that tackles homophobia' and this is being covered by a longstanding third party source, but I'm agreed that this wiki-article is advertisement from that fact for a specific team that doesn't met those criteria itself. Nic T R (talk) 07:50, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:21, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete, most of the references have incidental mentions of the club, although the reference to this article from the Globe and Mail is a strong one; from a reputable source and directly about the club. I don't think it's enough to meet the notability bar, however. PK T(alk) 17:51, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (vote changed), the Globe and Mail coverage and references for the photos are substantial enough to meet WP:GNG in my opinion. PK T(alk) 12:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - a second GNG reference is the award-winning photojournalism piece here. While at first glance, it's just some photos ... but it's first prize (sports) winner in the 2017 World Press Photo of the Year as documented in the (London) The Telgraph, World Press Photo, Daily Hive, and Toronto Star. Oddly, a photo of the Muddy York players appears in the paper edition of the Star (on the third page! - A3), and in that PressReader version, but the online version omits that photo. Article meets GNG in combination with the G&M source that User:PKT notes above. Can PKT review this with the additional source(s)? Ping @Bearcat: @Nic T R: Nfitz (talk) 19:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A photoessay winning a photography award may speak to the potential notability of the photographer — but it is not evidence of the potential notability of the photo subject, because the team is not who the award was given to. Bearcat (talk) 16:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

True Bearcat, but an internationally-published photo journalism report is in itself a GNG, the other references merely speak to the international status of that piece. Part of the difficulty is, is that 2016 photoshoot is from the same person as the 2015 piece that was in the Globe and Mail ... and I didn't notice that until later. But there's other GNG sources out there, in particular I added an in-depth 2007 National Post reference today. Nfitz (talk) 01:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, a photoessay is not in and of itself a GNG-making source either. To count toward GNG, a source has to verify information, which can only be done by using words. Bearcat (talk) 01:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think you are wrong User:Bearcat, as the photo-essays do include words (as most do). But what has that to do with the extensive, detailed, National Post article I added that is all words, and one picture? How is that reference not good enough for GNG? Nfitz (talk) 04:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A source has to include substantial prose content, not just a brief paragraph of text — which is precisely why, for example, news blurbs don't count toward GNG, glancing namechecks of a subject's existence within a source whose primary subject is something else don't count toward GNG, sources which merely quote a person as a giver of soundbite don't count toward GNG, and on and so forth. And also, GNG still isn't passed by the existence of one "extensive, detailed National Post article" — GNG requires several sources of that calibre, not just one. Bearcat (talk) 04:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is the paragraphs of in-depth text in the National Post article just "a brief paragraph of text"? Please just apologize for the WP:BEFORE failure and move on. Nfitz (talk) 06:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please go back to remedial reading comprehension class. I didn't say the National Post article was "a brief paragraph of text" — that sentence was clearly and unmistakably a response to the claim that a photoessay containing one paragraph of prefatory text renders the photoessay into a GNG-assisting source. I specifically said the problem with the National Post source is that GNG requires a lot more than just one source of that calibre. Bearcat (talk) 20:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nfitz, I would agree that coverage of the World Press Photo of the Year 2017 award in respected papers such as the Telegraph and the Toronto Star meet the notability bar. Coverage in the GayStar News doesn't, at least not by itself. Please update the article to cite a couple of the reliable sources and I'll be happy to change my assessment. Cheers, PK T(alk) 13:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Both the G&M 2015 article and the photoessay were already referenced in the article. Though references could certainly be improved. Either way, we judge the notability of the subject - not the contents of the article - as per WP:NEXIST. But I'll improve the references. Should be some others too - there must be some coverage given I was already aware about the team. Nfitz (talk) 17:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PKT I've now improved those references, and added three more about the competition. I also just noticed a very good 2007 GNG source in the National Post that definitely puts it over the GNG top here. (perhaps that *Treker removes the 'weak'). Nfitz (talk) 00:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep based on Nfitz sources.★Trekker (talk) 00:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm just commenting on this because I'd really like to keep this article, but I don't think I can justify making a keep !vote. If not for the fact this is an inclusive club, this would be readily deleted - there are only two articles on the club that I can see which gets them towards WP:GNG, the Globe and Mail feature story and the National Post not-quite-feature story (which features contact information), written eight years apart. The photojournalism does not lend itself to notability at all. Bearcat's right on this. SportingFlyer T·C 15:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are essentially correct on the two articles - but I don't necessarily agree on the reason. Have we ever had a good discussion on photojournalism - is WP:PictureIsWorth1000Words or WP:PictureIsNotWorth1000Words :)? In retrospect though, it's probably moot, as the problem with the 2016 award-winning photo-essay is that it's from the same author as the 2015 G&M piece ... so it isn't necessarily a second source - but rather an extension of the first ... but the 2015 G&M adds (barely) enough text and context to be in, itself, a source, and we should be (barely) at GNG with the 2007 National Post piece (and for context of foreign editors ... both National Post and the Globe & Mail are national newspapers ... not local). There's plenty of other trivial mentions about matches, tournaments, etc., in the media, that I haven't bothered referencing. Nfitz (talk) 17:20, 23 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. (non-admin closure) b uidhe 05:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eleven Eleven (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable film, showed at minor film festivals but did not get significant coverage by independent coverage, not enough to merit a stand-alone article, per WP:NF BOVINEBOY2008 17:23, 2 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 01:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 19:32, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep. The sources look notable enough to me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Janitor Joseph (talk • contribs) 16:25, 10 June 2020 (UTC) struck confirmed blocked sockpuppet, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:23, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for now, the sources look reliable. Captain Galaxy (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Captain Galaxy:, the reason I brought this to AFD is not because of unreliable sources (although I do see a blog there now which is not reliable). My concern is that the sources that talk about the film are primary sources or trivial listings, neither of which speak to the notability of the film. Per WP:GNG: "If a topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject, it is presumed to satisfy the inclusion criteria for a stand-alone article or list." The sources in this article, in my view, do not speak to the significant coverage or the independence of the subject. Do you believe these sources do? Or are there sources that I have missed that do? BOVINEBOY2008 19:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I do believe this is significant coverage. Captain Galaxy (talk) 20:03, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:58, 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 soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Stifle (talk) 16:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Day I Ran Into All My Ex Boyfriends[edit]

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

Non notable film with no independent, verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:17, 24 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.

[1] ttps://www.census.gov/quickfacts/isliptownsuffolkcountynewyork

[2] ttps://ballotpedia.org/Population_represented_by_state_legislators

[3] ttps://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/spin-cycle/state-senate-republicans-1.39626304

[4] ttp://www.longislandadvance.net/stories/islip-tax-receiver-to-challenge-martinez-for-state-senate-seat,85505

[5] ttp://www.longislandadvance.net/stories/reps-push-for-financial-aid-for-first-responders,85678

[6] ttps://www.newsday.com/long-island/politics/bellone-veto-2020-budget-override-1.38837104

[7] Matthews, Carol S. (April 15, 2018). "Letting Sleeping Abnormalities Lie: Lovecraft and the Futility of Divination". Mythlore. 36 (2): 178–179. doi:10.2307/26809310 – via SWOSU Digital Commons.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[1]