Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 23

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 22 June	24 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:07, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Democratic Party (United Kingdom)[edit]

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

Wikipedia is not a Gazetteer of Political Parties (as per WP:NOTDIR and others). Christian Democratic Party was a tiny, insignificant party that fails WP:GNG as it is not widely covered in multiple reliable sources. Citations are plentiful but only prove the party exists, not that the party has achieved anything notable, as required by guidelines. The mere fact of registration with the Electoral Commission is not evidence of notability. Usefulness is not a valid criteria for inclusion on Wikipedia. Article fails all reasonable tests on notability and achievement before, during and after participation in an election. doktorb _words^deeds 23:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. doktorb _words^deeds 23:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I started this article in 2005. I have no memory of why I thought it was notable then, but it doesn't seem to be now. I'd also dispute the claim that citations are plentiful - the bulk of the article is uncited and much of it seems dubious. Mibblepedia (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Delete - not many citations and definitely not enough to establish notability Balle010 (talk) 15:20, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article does not satisfy notability. Nika2020 (talk) 19:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP As an Officer of this party I find it highly offensive and discriminatory that the deletion of this page is even open to discussion, the notability will increase greatly in the coming weeks and should be left online.Josheeley (talk) 16:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment@Josheeley: I notice your editing on the article page and your comment here. I would just like to remind you about WP:COI. the policy Wikipedia has about conflict of interest while editing. You have a direct connection to the subject of the article, so of course you want it to stay, but adding lots of primary source websites and glowing reviews about how brilliant you are runs against our policies on notability, promotion, and neutrality. Check out our policies at WP:GNG and WP:NOTBLOG for two relevant issues here. Also you say that the party will have notability increasing in the coming weeks: that is against our policy WP:CRYSTALBALL. You may well become notable, but you need to prove it in the real world before Wikipedia can reflect that. Make your park beyond Wikipedia, and then there will be second- third- and countless-other sources we can use to WP:CITE that achievement. I hope this helps. doktorb _words^deeds 16:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Doesn't pass the WP:GNG or WP:ORG. Ralbegen (talk) 10:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non-notable organisation. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If the party eventually becomes notable, then it warrants inclusion in the encyclopaedia; not before. --Jack Frost (talk) 12:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Not notable. If it becomes significantly notable in the future and meets WP:GNG then it can be recreated accordingly. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per the nomination. It does not meet WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not here as a political platform for every registered political party. The part is just not independently notable. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Despite Josheeley's passionate appeal, I lean on delete. Not notable enough yet. - Harsh 19:57, 30 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. Seems like consensus has been achieved (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 14:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cracking the Cryptic[edit]

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

This is a Youtube channel that received some attention from some news websites as an oddity at one specific time. There is not significant coverage in multiple sources. hippo43 (talk) 23:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 04:22, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment by creator. The Guardian, USA Today, The National and The Daily Telegraph are not "some news websites"; they are major newspapers, on three different continents. The National isn't mentioned in WP:Reliable sources/Perennial sources; but the other three newspapers are, each with a green tick and the comment "generally reliable". All 5 citations - which, if you read them, are clearly independent of both the subject and each other, rather [than] being a first article and a collection of clones - are specifically about the subject, and at least 2 (Usborne and Lancaster) are very substantial; that is more than "some attention", and to me that counts as "multiple".

2 of the 5 sources were deleted by an IP with the WP:ES "rm source which adds nothing". Demonstrating independent coverage in USA and Africa as well as in UK is not "nothing".

A {{subst:Afd notice|article name|AfD discussion title}} notice would have been courteous, but I didn't get one. Narky Blert (talk) 05:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep wide coverage. We can add
- https://inews.co.uk/light-relief/offbeat/sudoku-solving-aces-simon-athony-mark-goodliffe-youtube-coronavirus-lockdown-430588
- https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8350209/Former-investment-banker-YouTube-hit-posting-videos-completing-SUDOKU-puzzles.html Naraht (talk) 13:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Comment by creator. I had found the Daily Mail citation, but did not use it. It should not be added per WP:DAILYMAIL. Narky Blert (talk) 15:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Comment Thank you, I had forgotten about the Daily Mail prohibition.Naraht (talk) 18:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep there absolutely is significant coverage in multiple reliable sources, as shown by the links here and in the article.—indopug (talk) 14:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep sources well over the bar. Hobit (talk) 16:32, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Multiple news sources discuss this channel. PaulGS (talk) 03:26, 26 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. under criteria A7 and G11. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 03:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dominick Mitchell[edit]

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

Does not pass WP:BIO. Did a cursory Google News and Scholar search and could not find anything on him to satisfy the WP:GNG. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Morbidthoughts (talk) 22:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:53, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Theory of 5[edit]

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

Promotional article. The references are not independent and reliable, per WP:GNG. There does not appear to be significant coverage in any other independent and reliable sources. MapleSoy (talk) 22:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I have found no reliable sources, no reviews. The book was self published, so I agree, looks like G11 candidate.Less Unless (talk) 19:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The article does not support notability, neither has enough third party reliable sources. Nika2020 (talk) 19:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article is promotional both for the book and writing competition, but lacks any real substance. Mtheletter ([[User

talk:Mtheletter|talk]]) 19:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)

Delete This article survived 4 months?! I would have G11ed it by now! Non notable, promotional trash. Eternal Shadow Talk 14:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Deletel. WP:NOTPROMO applies here as does a lack on indepth and independent coverage in reliable sources. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:37, 30 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) 22:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Emerald (company)[edit]

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

Dubiously notable company that I would not have accepted from AfC . Almost all the references are mere announcements, except for ones like number 10, which is a promotional interview where the company says whatever it cares to. Such "interviews" do not meet WP:NCORP.

The contributor declared a COI, without being specific. DGG ( talk ) 21:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as spam. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Press releases, promotions, and mentions-in-passing. Nothing that meets basic notability threshold. Glendoremus (talk) 18:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Page only serves the purpose of advertising or promotion, org is not notable. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 16:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTPROMO, WP:NCORP, WP:GNG. ≫ (Lil-Unique1) -{ Talk }- 18:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:10, 30 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. qedk (t 愛 c) 07:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Times of Assam[edit]

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

Doesn't meet notability requirements of WP:WEB. Some of the references don't even mention the Times of Assam. -- haminoon (talk) 21:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Doesn't meet notability? How come? Still, many citations can be included from published books, though, I have used a few only. Which reference doesn't mention the Times of Assam? Can you please figure out? Or you are just using your seniority power?

I appeal against deletion. --;Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunudoy 02:19, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. and also, just a simple mentioning of name of the site (and, its news coverage) in books and journal doesn't qualify it to pass WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. -Hatchens (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What asked in notability? Citation? It will be a myth always.

OK, delete as you want to. But please clarify some of my doubts. What about this page Gaurav Arya? How much notable? And about Sri Lanka Guardian, Weekly Blitz?

-- 11:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC) Arunudoy 04:53, 24 June 2020 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunudoy (talk • contribs)

Comment Arunudoy, kindly be polite to everyone and put your points as per the WP:GNG and other Wiki Project guidelines. -Hatchens (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment My sincere apology. Actually I was misguided seeing these https://www.fastcompany.com/90471667/how-wikipedia-volunteers-became-the-webs-best-weapon-against-misinformation, https://thegrayzone.com/2020/06/10/wikipedia-formally-censors-the-grayzone-as-regime-change-advocates-monopolize-editing/ and https://consortiumnews.com/2020/06/15/uprising-narrative-control-operations-escalate-as-america-burns/ .

-- 11:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunudoy (talk • contribs)

Delete per nomitor and Hatchens. Note that the other articles mentioned by Arunudoy may be proposed for deletion if they wish, but this discussion page is only about this particular article as every article is judged on its own merits. JW 1961 Talk 21:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP As this says "...just a simple mentioning of name of the site (and, its news coverage) in books and journal doesn't qualify it to pass WP:GNG and WP:NWEB. -Hatchens (talk) 08:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)", now what are the criteria for citation and editing? -- 06:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC) - — Preceding unsigned comment added by Arunudoy (talk • contribs)

Comment: Kindly refer to WP:NMEDIA and also, again refer to WP:NWEB. And from the next time, try to sign your posts appropriately to avoid confusion. -Hatchens (talk) 05:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability; arguments in favour of keeping are nothing better than WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS Spiderone 19:34, 30 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. Any editor can create a redirect if desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Red counties and blue counties[edit]

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

I feel this list isn't useful and cites no sources. WP:LISTCRUFT Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Zero Serenity ^{(talk - contributions)} 20:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I don't see this as being useful either. The editor could just have easily created an article on "red and blue cities" or "red and blue municipalities", etc. While obviously based on the Red states and blue states article, I fail to see why WP needs Red counties and blue counties. It's also completely unsourced. --Kbabej (talk) 02:43, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails notability guidelines, also per WP:NOTEVERYTHING.Less Unless (talk) 20:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above and redirect to red states and blue states. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 21:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is a horribly simplistic article. Counties change over time. Even more fun there are lots of cases where in the same election candidates of different parties have carried different elections in the same county. Time and level matter, and this article considers neither.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:56, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment At the county level especially you also have 3 other issues that are ignored in this formation, actually four. We have the split ticket voting/abstaining in elections/3rd party voting that casues the split victories that I mention above. Even at the state level I can point out cases where one party has won some state-wide elected offices and the other has won others. From at least 1990-2010 even just in Michigan's 4 top ranked state-wide elected offices there was party split. There were also elections where one party won the senate and the other the governorship. At county levels you can have cases where there are so many non-citizens that election participation is not really defining to the population, others have so many people not registered to vote including those who do not vote because of their religion (such as Amish and Jehovah's Witnesses and some members of the Nation of Islam, the first are heavily concentrated in some counties), that voter participation and results is not meaningful.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment as much as I hate the simplistic rhetoric of red state/blue state it is actually used, even though it sometimes elides much more than it reveals, such as obscuring extremely one party leaning counties in states that are dominated by the other party, such as Summit County, Utah, however the term "red county" and "blue county" are not widely used. Most counties do have some sort of elected government and these are usually elected on a partisan basis, however many counties have a non-unitary form of government, and most elect multiple county officials county wide. In Michigan only 3 counties have a county executive, and all three of those counties also elect 4 other executive officers on a county wide level. Just to make things more fun I can name a county executive who was elected by one party and then ran for governorship for the other party. Also 1 entire state, and parts of at least 5 other states exist outside of county government. Trying to extend this to cities would be even more ludicrous because in several states city elections are non-partisan.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT - far to many issues to fix now. Agreeable to redirect per WP:CHEAP. Bearian (talk) 16:46, 30 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) 22:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment[edit]

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

The owner of the institute, 'Dr.' Priya Ranjan Trivedi has been running a fake degree/certificate racket and arrested by cops.^[1]^[2] Following are the reasons:

It claims to offer Master's programmes affiliated with Global Open University. But, a private state university does not have the jurisdiction to offer distance education courses beyond the state territory.^[3]
In 2003, an official complaint was raised against the the Employment news for publishing misleading/deceptive/strange/fraudulent advertisements of this institute among others. The Press Council of India took the decision in favour of the complainant.^[4]
It seems to be like a humble environmental organization, but as per their website they offer courses is 'astrology' , 'urine therapy' and 'sex therapy' and over 800 such bogus courses.^[5]
Its physical address is non-existent as per recent google reviews.^[6]
All references cited in this article are redirecting to a different/dead website.
It's claim that they are supported by Government of India is not backed with citation and the claim of approval by AICTE, is most likely fake.
I think the reason that it is not listed among the UGC fake institute list as the owner seems to have strong political connections with the ruling party in India.^[7]
As per another google review, one visitor was told that New Delhi campus has been shifted to Nagaland. Interestingly, the Global Open University located Nagaland is also owned by the same 'Dr.' Priya Ranjan Trivedi. Now, he has started another institute in Kolkata with the similar modus operandi.^[8]

Conclusion: In my opinion, having an article on Wikipedia, give this so called 'institute' some sort of credibility. Hence, the article should be deleted as soon as possible. User:Muhandes, hope you can help! Thank you.

References

^ https://facts.ibcindia.co.in/index.php/8-facts-home/448-global-open-university-nagaland-police-arrested-the-university-s-pro-chancellor-priya-ranjan-trivedi
^ https://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/police-team-in-nagaland-for-probe-63426
^ https://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/punjab-police-bust-fake-degree-racket-of-global-open-university-nagaland/story-O8qPe7rYULQ0ZHGaAvOXpJ.html
^ http://presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/Decisions/decision05/35.htm
^ http://www.ecology.edu/environmental-courses.html
^ https://www.google.com/search?q=Indian+Institute+of+Ecology+and+Environment&oq=Indian+Institute+of+Ecology+and+Environment&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lrd=0x390ce1e454000001:0xe69f4e884e72add2,1,,,
^ http://www.prtrivedi.com/
^ http://www.ecologyfoundation.in/index.html

Comment The pertinent questions are (a) Does the school exist? (b) Is any of the substantive information in the article true and verifiable (WP:V)? (c) Does the school meet the notability guidelines (WP:N)? While discussion of the school's legitimacy, if it's challenged in reliable sources, is relevant to the article's content (subject to WP:RS and WP:NPOV), it isn't relevant to the article's existence. Largoplazo (talk) 19:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The school claims to exist in Paryavaran Complex, New Delhi, but that is not true, as per 3 recent google reviews. It exists only on website, to fool people and give them online degree/certificate in 'sex therapy' etc. in $45 bucks. I am surprised why this article was not speedy deleted under spam. Neurofreak (talk) 06:18, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again: we aren't concerned with what the school claims. We're concerned with what the article claims. Largoplazo (talk) 10:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some of the false claims of article.

The article claim of its physical location in Delhi is not true, as explained earlier.
The first line of the article, "The Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment (IIEE) is a Government of India sponsored, autonomous" is without any citation. It is in fact a hoax.
The article claim of publishing 'over 150 books and monographs' and 'conducted over 180 national and international congresses' also lack citations.
The article claims to offer "various master's degree courses, in affiliation with The Global Open University, Nagaland' is without citing any link of accreditation agency. It is illegal to provide any degree or diploma without approval of UGC or AICTE in India. The university is blacklisted and unrecognized to offer such courses.

Thank you! Neurofreak (talk) 13:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, now you've put forth a case relevant to a deletion nomination. Largoplazo (talk) 14:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As a hoax. Koridas ^talk? 19:38, 23 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 23. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 19:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 22:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Institute website is not hosted on .res.in or .ac.in or .edu.in domains - which is mandatory for India-based educational institutes. -Hatchens (talk) 08:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hoaxes may be notable. Has there been any coverage from that angle? Rathfelder (talk) 22:28, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete you could get a certificate from your cat! No legitimate institute offers this many courses particularly as few have anything to do with ecology. As a note it is weird they managed to get a .edu email. I googled the person who owns the domain I would check each of these entities. Apparently, the guy PR Trivedi, is a laproscopic surgeon at world laproscopy hospital, "Prof. Trivedi holds Bachelor's, Master's and Doctoral qualifications in Engineering, Management, Human Rights and Environmental Laws. The three Encyclopaedias authored by him on Environment (30 Volumes), Disaster Management (20 Volumes) and Sustainable Development (50 Volumes) are used by all the important libraries of the world."

Speedy delete, for now: Falls under CSD G3. If there is any significant coverage about how this "institute" is a hoax, then recreate the article and rewrite so it talks about the hoax. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 02:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Founder / President / Chairperson / Plenipotentiary of the following Institutions : World Institution Building Programme World Spiritual Parliament World Institute of Spirituality World Initiative for Publishing Encyclopaedias The Global Open University Press Indian Institute of Business Management Commonwealth of Distance Education Indian Institute of Ecology and Environment Dr. Zakir Husain Institute for Non Formal and Continuing Education Indian Institute of Disaster Management National Centre for Developmental Communication Indian Institute of Sustainable Development National Institute of Computer Education Quality Institute of India Indian Institute of Human Rights International Institute of Management Indian Institute of Applied Psychology Computers (India) Limited Indian Institute of Health Dr. Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan National Academy of Educational Planning and Administration Commonwealth of Virtual Education and Research Anand Shankar Madhavan Foundation Vishwa Hindi Vidyapeeth Publications Assistance for Generating Employment" Global_Open_University World_Laparoscopy_Hospital

By the way is that hospital real, I can't actually tell. Couldn't find it in pubmed, unlikely to be academic hospital. I would hazard that any institute here is fake too.PainProf (talk) 23:29, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is completely fake too, all of the doctor's have licenses that don't match the official database and internally inconsistent profiles! PainProf (talk) 00:23, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Total damn hoax. I'm suprised it wasn't G3ed yet. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly! I tagged it initially with WP:SPEEDY under spam. The request was declined, then with WP:PROD, again declined. Hope it gets it deleted soon under WP:AfD. But, the question is why this hoax was created, WP:PAID? and how it survived for 6 years? Neurofreak (talk) 10:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and add to WP:HOAXLIST. (t · c) buidhe 10:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Complete bollocks. All of the subsequent coverage is about the founder getting locked up for fraud; nothing mentions the subject of the article sufficiently to meet the threshold of notability. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Request - Can you please report this hoax organization on google places and save gullible people in future?

Thank you! Neurofreak (talk) 12:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"You" who? No one here is responsible for sending change requests to Google Maps. Largoplazo (talk) 12:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's now marked as permanently closed. Nevermind! Neurofreak (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - hoax Spiderone 19:35, 30 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. qedk (t 愛 c) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2022 in American television[edit]

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

Television in 2020 is still uncertain, let alone events two years out. This page listing events and shows far into the future, all of which are announcements and haven't begun production, certainly fails WP:CRYSTAL. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also- "Do we also need to delete 2021 in American television?" No, because many of those shows and events are already in production, whereas this page is solely about announcements. -- Wikipedical (talk) 18:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Four of the five things listed have their own articles. 2022 Winter Olympics, Super Bowl LVI, House of the Dragon, 2022 FIFA World Cup A list article is valid if it aids in navigation linking to related things. Dream Focus 20:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The only explicit television series you just mentioned, House of the Dragon, actually does not have its own article – it's a redirect because the series has not entered production yet. The 94th Academy Awards also doesn't have its own article – precisely because of WP:CRYSTAL. I'm not against this page ever existing, but at the moment it is way too early to create a television page for 2022. There has to be a line somewhere. The precedent should be that a year should be created once new series have entered production. It's not feasible to create pages just because of announcements, otherwise we could have 2023 in American television and beyond. -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It doesn't have to be a television series, anything on television of importance will be listed. Whether you have the article now or wait and create it later on makes no sense. Anyone interested in the information will find it here, and those who aren't can just ignore it. The encyclopedia isn't running out of space. This page has gotten over 10 thousand views in the last 90 days. Dream Focus 23:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - You didn't address my response. There are no 2022 television series that have entered production yet. And page views don't matter if the article fails policy. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - @Wikipedical: I think they did, It doesn't have to be a television series, anything on television of importance will be listed. By your interpretation of policy, shouldn't the page be allowed to exist by virtuue of 2022 Winter Olympics and Super Bowl LVI; Both can be argued to be "in production". ~Kvng (talk) 14:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        It cannot be argued those two 2022 sports events are in television production, which means filming has begun. They are both in pre-production. The 2021 Super Bowl, Olympic Games, and Academy Awards haven't begun production either! But 2021’s article at least features television series that have begun being made. The 2022 article solely lists upcoming events far in the future, which is exactly the spirit of what WP:CRYSTAL disallows. -- Wikipedical (talk) 15:59, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way WP:TOOSOON and WP:CHILL. I don't care that it's gotten multiple hits since March, it has four known events already explained in their articles, and a GoT spin-off that may not air for sure because of the last season being a PR/writing disaster (and literally the source throws off "My guess is sometime in 2022", and going by how HBO is under AT&T right now, that is definitely a CRYSTAL and that exec might not make it to 2022!). I'm getting tired of the "20xx in American television" articles being created way too early; a hard cap preventing creation until at least April the year before has to be enforced because the WP:CRYSTAL here is beyond ridiculous. See my rationale for last year's nom for Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/2022 in film (2nd nomination); as we know now, an actor's possible death won't be the only thing stopping media from going forward. Nate • (chatter) 06:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Delete 2022 is two years away, [WP:TOOSOON]] and then some.TH1980 (talk) 03:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is way WP:TOOSOON. — YoungForever^(talk) 21:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, especially given the current pandemic that seems to be getting worse in the U.S. What will happen later this year is still doubtful. What will happen in 2022 is even less known. --AussieLegend (✉) 02:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON, per AussieLegend et al. Normally, I'm a big advocate of future X in 2023 articles, but not now. The world is upside down, Bearian (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TOOSOON.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too soon. Bring this back in mid-2021 when it’s not so far in the future. Eternal Shadow Talk 20:37, 30 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. qedk (t 愛 c) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

One/Off Printmakers[edit]

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

This is a local printmaker's association. After removing many event announcements used as RS, it's clear that this is an NCORP fail. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not inherited from artists who have worked there or their affiliations. The sourcing amounts to listings and press releases. Fails WP:NCORP. Netherzone (talk) 20:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 02:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom fails WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Jewels stagings[edit]

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

Unreferenced and per WP:NOTDIRECTORY

I am also nominating the following related pages because they are unreferenced and per WP:NOTDIRECTORY:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Corachow (talk • contribs)

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:25, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU^(T) 23:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete all per Wikipedia is WP:NOTOPERAWORLD and Balanchinecruft. We don't list every production of a ballet. What next? Every Nutcracker? Clarityfiend (talk) 23:38, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment So we’re fine with thousands of articles about the results of every game in every season of a baseball team for every year since 1892, complete with team listings, but we can’t keep this? Mccapra (talk) 06:00, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, and endless articles about TV schedules from past decades. I know OTHERSTUFF EXISTS - by the ton! Why pick on this? Mccapra (talk) 15:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Mccapra. I'm not sure about the baseball and TV schedules situation, but none of the articles I nominated cited any source, which I later added to the reason of the nomination. Also, I think these lists can actually be moved to the ballets' pages, or just name some notable ones, if there are any references. Corachow (talk) 16:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. I think a merger of notable stagings into the main articles would be fine. Unfortunately I don’t have the sources I’d need to do the work over the next week that the article creator should have done, so hopefully someone else does. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sports media examine schedules under a microscope, maybe even an electron microscope, both before and after seasons. Analysis ad nauseum. Baseball is especially notorious for its statistical fixation. Can you say the same for opera? Also, baseball games have an effect on each other (e.g. what pitchers are available, how long a road trip is, etc.). Different productions don't. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:08, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’ve no doubt that’s true of many sports, but many of our seasons articles rely on only one source. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, hi Mccapra, i'm sure you already know this but if there are any books/sources that discuss/review a number of these productions ie. comparing the different groups' versions, that will bring the list in line with meeting WP:LISTN. Coolabahapple (talk) 03:29, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yup. I just haven’t got a hope of doing all this in the next few days. Mccapra (talk) 05:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m pretty sure different ballet companies’ productions of the same show are nearly identical. They have to use the same choreography, sets and costumes, so there’s not much to compare. Whereas in classical productions sych as Swan Lake and The Nutcracker, companies usually have their own versions. Corachow (talk) 08:30, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge into their respective main topics. A lack of sources in the articles does not mean they don't exist. For example, the List of Apollo stagings seems to be taken from this website, which is not ideal as it is from the creator of the ballets. However, many of the individual stagings can be independently verified by looking at local newspapers etc. Mysteryman blue 23:37, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, czar 02:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. We are lacking the sourcing to make any notability claims at present. I can imagine well-sourced lists of notable stagings, either as stand-alone articles or merged up to the ballets themselves. But in their current state, these unsourced and indiscriminate lists are not worth saving. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTDIRECTORY and WP:TNT. Raymond3023 (talk) 17:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete- Poorly sourced directory listings. Reyk _YO! 08:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all per WP:NOTDIR. Wikipedia is not a directory of repertoire. Ajf773 (talk) 20:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 20:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Edge (shaving gel)[edit]

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

This brand lacks the kinds of sourcing required under WP:NCORP. Coverage is, instead, things like churnalism or not significant (including multiple articles about a tie in to Assassin's Creed). Should be redirected to a parent brand given that notability is not inherited. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I have seen that there appear to be some additional sources that could be used to support this article, which I will try to add to the article. I'm not sure what Assassin's Creed has to do with this, since I couldn't find that mentioned in the article at any time in the history. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:57, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was mentioned in several articles I found while doing a BEFORE. I look forward to seeing what sources you bring forth to demonstrate notability. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I've already added some more sources. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Edgewell Personal Care#Brands, its current owner. Nate • (chatter) 03:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 20:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - The content regarding the lawsuits is worth covering. I wouldn't object to the merge User:Mrschimpf proposes if this content was kept.. — Charles Stewart (talk) 15:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as a popular, well-known brand. I note (1) I've used this product, and (2) this product is used a lot by men of color because it helps with Pseudofolliculitis barbae and we are trying in 2020 to expand our articles of interest to POC. Bearian (talk) 16:52, 30 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) 22:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mount Vicious[edit]

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

Subject does not meet notability requirements. Top pocket man (talk) 07:15, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:35, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment WP:NOTTEMPORARY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by mccapra (talk • contribs) 15 June 2020 (UTC)

I suppose the best idea for this would be to MERGE this into another article, or downgrade to a section. There are four associated acts that would lead this to be considered notable, but while the band undoubtedly had no degree of hype for a one year period, it has not sustained. Spotify plays for the band are less than 1,000. The band website has not been updated in 10 years, it isn't mentioned in interviews or press anywhere.

It is only relevant as a "resume item" for other more notable endeavors of the members. The notable related acts include: Bootblacks (http://www.bootblacks.net) (no page), Conan Neutron and the Secret Friends (notable touring and recording act with association with larger notoriety), Replicator (still cited as influential and relevant), and Household Gods . I concluded while listing the associated acts of Household Gods (Pajo's alone is exhaustive!) that ten years out, this band page isn't notable enough to keep around. Top pocket man (talk) 15:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The only way that a topic that was once notable can become not notable is if a source magically unwrites itself, so the nomination doesn't make sense. I doubt that the subject was ever notable. Phil Bridger (talk) 11:26, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Completely disagreed, this nomination totally makes sense!! I don't appreciate being nitpicked on this. This was an up and coming band that flamed out and disappeared. The choices are rewrite the article, merge or delete. Rewriting takes resources better used on notable topics, there isn't anything to merge with... hence: Speedy deletion. Top pocket man (talk) 16:59, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (despite an incorrect nomination) - The nomination's reason is indeed nonsensical because of the WP:NOTTEMPORARY rule. I considered recommending that the AfD be closed for procedural reasons due to that nonsensical argument. Upon investigating, I recommend to the nominator that you adjust the text above to state that this band was never notable at all. This is what I found when searching for info on them. They were only ever mentioned in their own websites, old blogs and discussion boards, and occasional gig announcements. A non-notable band, despite the strange nomination and discussion above. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:13, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability is not temporary. I have never heard about this band but I looked them up and couldn't find anything reliable. Non-notable band, just like the others said. 10:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by GhostDestroyer100 (talk • contribs)

Changed nomination reason to: Subject does not meet notability requirements. Top pocket man (talk) 16:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Now could people please discuss actual notability instead of correcting the nominator about how it is not temporary?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment to Admin - The votes by GhostDestroyer and myself above discussed the originally faulty nomination, and the band's notability. Those are legit votes. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Firstly I agree with User:doomsdayer520 that the comments above did address actual notability rather than just the inadequacy of the nomination, which has been edited since in a way that makes the replies seem like non sequiturs. Secondly I have been unable to find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources, so I change my opinion from "I doubt that the subject was ever notable" to "the subject was never notable". Phil Bridger (talk) 20:06, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A non notable band, as pe above. Alex-h (talk) 13:34, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:17, 30 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 Senedd Cymru. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Senedd on television[edit]

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

This article seems to be more of a trivia article and of low quality and length. I am unaware of any similar articles for other UK legislatures, and I would propose that any content worth keeping be moved to the main Senedd article. Elshad (talk) 14:34, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. I don't think a valid reason has been given for deletion—"I am unaware of any similar articles" is definitely not a valid argument—but equally I don't see any particular reason why we need a stand-alone article on the topic. The Welsh Assembly (as it then was) was once unique among the four UK legislatures in that it used to have its own TV channel whereas the legislatures at Westminster, Edinburgh and Belfast were all covered by BBC Parliament, but that experiment ended a decade ago (and is already well-covered at the existing article on their now-defunct channel). While it probably is theoretically a notable topic in Wikipedia's terms, it isn't serving any useful purpose to have a standalone page just to say "When it comes to broadcasting, the Senedd now has exactly the same arrangements as everyone else". ‑ Iridescent 14:52, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete after merge as article is rather short but comprehensive (I find it unlikely any further encyclopedic content could be added). I suggest that the content of Senedd on television#In popular culture be moved to a section of Senedd building (rather than the main article, Senedd Cymru - Welsh Parliament). Parts of the lede might also be moved to the main article though. Llew Mawr (talk) 15:00, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep but rename as Senedd in popular culture. There's enough scope and content for a standalone article about its portrayal in fictional dramas. But the Senedd features on television very regularly (every day during Coronavirus lockdown) in its role as home of the Welsh Parliament, so the article's current title is too broad. Sionk (talk) 20:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rename as Senedd in popular culture. SethWhales^talk 08:48, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:59, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:46, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with Senedd Cymru seems like the most sensible suggestion since this article is fairly short and the information could be included there. This is Paul (talk) 10:31, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Senedd Cymru. No need to have its own article at the moment. It could be split out in the future if it were to grow. Stifle (talk) 11:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

'Merge'No need for separate article, as argued previously how is this notable?User:Davidstewartharvey

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Spartaz ^Humbug! 13:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bjarke Følner[edit]

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

Lacks notability of WP:BIO, has not received significant coverage in multiple published, secondary sources that are reliable, independent of each other and independent of the subject CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:38, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Denmark-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:10, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable academic.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:01, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 15:08, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Seems to be a published author, however, would need to do some searches in Danish. Britishfinance (talk) 17:05, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Seems to be reasonably busy. Here is an article for the holocaust museum:[1], [2], Got a review is this journal:[3]. Seems to be an established historian, and author. Got an afterword in here:"Nothing to speak of : wartime experiences of the Danish Jews 1943-1945" There is lots and lots more it. Gbook mentions and so on. scope_creep^Talk 19:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Please keep in mind that you should comment on the version of the article when AfD was submitted and in its current status there is no sufficient notability described. CommanderWaterford (talk) 19:17, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CommanderWaterford per WP:BEFORE, the case at AfD is not made purely on references in the article at a given time, but on any possible references that could be sourced. It is not uncommon for an AfD to be a "keep" based on references that where never in the article, but which other editors found and displayed at AfD. It is an unusual feature of AfD and places an even higher bar on ensuring that a "delete" was not just based on the article (which may have been poor), but against any reasonable search for references. thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 19:32, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neutral at present -- CommanderWaterford is wrong to say this is about the version existing when nominated. Articles are frequently improved during the AFD process. At present the article is so much only a stub, so that i cannot currently tell whether he is or is not notable. I would like to see a list of what he has published, though I suspect that much of this will be in Danish. Peterkingiron (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete after a thorough search, I cannot find any independent sources that discuss him or his work in depth. He seems to be an early career researcher, who may not have his PhD yet (based on this (non-independent) source which lists him as an MA). Scope creep is listing the works that he has published, not published works about him. WP:NACADEMIC is pretty clear that "Having published work does not, in itself, make an academic notable, no matter how many publications there are. Notability depends on the impact the work has had on the field of study." I am not seeing any evidence that this person has had a noteworthy impact or anything besides passing mentions, which cannot be used to build an article. b uidhe 06:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Not enough here for an article. Certainly not enough for WP:PROF (his citation record is almost nonexistent) but we have no evidence of WP:GNG either. —David Eppstein (talk) 04:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Evidence of notability not found. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Delete My search didn't find the coverage required to meet WP:GNG nor was I able to find any evidence of him meeting any of the criteria at WP:NPROF. Papaursa (talk) 23:24, 27 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. Those advocating redirect have failed to show why this list does not belong on Wikipedia or why the issues raised cannot be addressed by normal editing. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of villages and towns in Latur District[edit]

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

The entire article is from one website, and I'm not sure the data actually comes from there. The table's column headers aren't explained. There are a few other articles that list cities, but they don't go below the country level for the most part. Fuddle (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 16:22, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, I see no deletion rationale presented, just calls for improvement. Clearly it is verifiable which district a village or town is in (in a country that conducts a census no less), and administrative subdivisions are a completely standard and obvious way of grouping populated places. Even if other lists like this are not yet developed, there is also a well developed category structure organized in this way, Category:Cities and towns in India by district. The nominator did not follow WP:BEFORE and instead just looked at the current state of the list rather than its potential, nor did they attempt any talk page discussion anywhere that I can find before concluding that this list was somehow unfixable. postdlf (talk) 20:30, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Much better to have lists like this than one-line permastubs for each individual village that could instead redirect here. Reywas92^Talk 00:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Latur district. This article is hardly useful, the single source doesn't contain any of the populations mentioned (so it's original research) and the table is filled of list entries that don't have articles (there are only nine mentioned in Category:Cities and towns in Latur district). Oh and I can't express enough how I hate those useless serial number columns. Ajf773 (talk) 01:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "...so it's original research...." You think the editor went and counted people themselves? You should read my comment above, because it seems you haven't. Maybe the information used to be at the source, maybe they used another source but didn't include it, but it's simply absurd to claim that population figures for populated places in India are not verifiable. I feel like I'm frequently reminding you in AFD discussions that we do not delete content for fixable issues. postdlf (talk) 14:07, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Population numbers change continuously. At the very least they should be referenced with a clearly dated source. A soft redirect still retains its history. Ajf773 (talk) 00:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We also don't redirect content for fixable issues. Yes, it should have references included. That is a goal that should be worked towards. postdlf (talk) 01:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:48, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nom's com: FWIW, here's what I saw when I nominated this article:

"Until 1 August 2014 the district was divided into 10 talukas." The article suggests there are still 10
I don't know what "Sr.Nr." is
I can guess what "sex ratio" is but I don't know what the numbers mean (954 out of what?)
When was this data compiled? The reference suggests 2011, but the data isn't at that website. And even if it is, it's already 9 years old
Why those particular pieces of information? Why not area or number of schools?
Who is going to maintain these lists?
The whole thing looked like it ticked off a lot from WP:NOT

Fuddle (talk) 17:56, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You have legitimate questions (except for #6), but starting an AFD is not the way to find answers, especially not when the content is presumably valid and fixable. I've posted this to Wikipedia talk:Noticeboard for India-related topics to hopefully get some subject-matter expert input, from those who know what sources to search and can understand the language(s). postdlf (talk) 19:10, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sex ratio in India is always calculated with 1000 females as denominator. The data is 9 years old but published in 2014. It takes 3-4 years after census to publish the data. As for who's going to maintain these lists, the situation India-related articles is for everyone to see. - Harsh 18:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Latur district with option of a light merge. Wikipedia is not an almanac. Stifle (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You’re thinking of gazetteer, and yes it is. postdlf (talk) 12:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article can be fixed but there is a census in 2021 so not sure how much work is worth it at this point. The data does not appear to be from the referenced website, it seems to be from a blacklisted site which may have complied the data from https://censusindia.gov.in/DigitalLibrary/Archive_home.aspx // Timothy :: talk 16:47, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect, I agree it's better to redirect this article to Latur district. Alex-h (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Reywas92 et al. Better a list that can be improved and can be a redirect target, than a huge collection of perma-stubs. Bearian (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and delete: All information on sex ratio, literacy, population, village name likely come from [4]. Much of the information is factually incorrect in the article. For instance, on page 111 of the pdf search "Yertar". It is in the Renapur Taluka. But in the article its in Ahmedpur Taluka. Likewise, too many of factual inaccuracies to list here.
Also, the Talukas have many more villages as per the doc which aren't listed inside the Taluka list. The whole article will become twice (or likely more) its size if they are included. The creator most likely compiled this doc or made the article using a derivative work from the census doc, in a hasty and careless fashion. (The next census is in 2021, district-wise demographic data usually gets published in 3-4 years after the census is conducted in 2021 in India. Imagine lists like these for every ~700+ districts in India, updated every 10 years. Every district has tens of Talukas, each Taluka has hundreds of towns/villages.)
Closing admin could do a selective merge, i.e only copy the names of the ten Talukas and paste it in a section in Latur district. - Harsh 18:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

PNC Cognitio School[edit]

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

Most of the sources are the school's own website or Facebook; there is one article in the Times of India, but it is not significant coverage. I've looked for better sources to no avail. As such, it seems to me that this school fails the WP:GNG. PJvanMill (talk) 15:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Falls short of WP:GNG and school-specific notability guidelines WP:NSCHOOL. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 21:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 11:48, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and above Spiderone 14:19, 30 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) 16:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Romario Georgis[edit]

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

Footballer who fails GNG and NFOOTY. Recreated after PROD, after new transfer (to a non-FPL club anyway) --BlameRuiner (talk) 15:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He does fail WP:NFOOTY, but he's currently playing for a club (three-time minor continental cup champion in the last six seasons) that should receive WP:SIGCOV. Not voting for now. SportingFlyer T·C 16:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 10:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Giant Snowman 10:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, Fails WP:NFOOTY and WP:GNG. Alex-h (talk) 13:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:27, 30 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. Consensus is that much better and extensive sourcing would be needed to warrant a dedicated article about this subtopic. The one "keep" doesn't make any kind of argument. Sandstein 06:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Racial views of Karl Marx[edit]

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

Stand-alone article may not be warranted.

Per from WP:OBV,

...while it is agreed that George Washington is indeed notable, adding separate articles called "Childhood of George Washington", "Criticism of George Washington", and "Legacy of George Washington" without good cause could run afoul of Wikipedia's notability, neutrality, and content forking guidelines.

- Harsh 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge. The topic may be notable (see eg. [5]). But I don't see a reason not to include this in the main article unless it becomes too big. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 19:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge any content worth keeping to Karl Marx and leave it as a redirect. Should it become a major object of study or a very fleshed-out article, it can be re-split. No need for a stand-alone article right now. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong objection to a merge proposed by Roscelese and Eddie891. What exactly do you want to merge? A full merge or a selective merge? Please keep in mind Karl Marx is already a GA. A full or even a selective merge would only sully the article. I am not denying that the source [6] cited in the article originally isn't reliable, but there is nothing worth salvageable from the article. I'd like editors well-read on Marx to discuss the topic on their talk page, instead of shoehorning a selective and demonstrably poor interpretation from a single source into a GA. - Harsh 21:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little unclear why you are reacting to this so 'harsh'ly ^[joke], but imo there's nothing wrong with selectively merging one sentence or so into Karl Marx. There's no reason a GA cannot be improved after passing, and I'm somewhat confused why a review that was conducted nine years ago by one (admittedly well-versed) editor is given so much weight. It's very odd to describe this as 'sullying' the article when the topic has been covered in at least one other journal-- suggesting that the content isn't something that should just be thrown away. I see little evidence this topic is 'demonstrably poor', and while the article isn't the greatest, WP:AFDISNTCLEANUP. Your suggestion that editors could discuss the content more on the talk page is a very good one, but that isn't the place of AfD. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 21:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marx's views on race, is certainly a notable topic for a section on the main page and when that section grows large, into a separate article too. I am simply opining that there isn't anything worth merging from the proposed article as of currently. Just cherry picking one sentence over another, as you say, from the proposed article to be pasted to the main article, wouldn't be of any value nor would it give proper context. Sincere apologies if my tone was impudent. - Harsh 21:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OK, that makes a lot of sense and looking again at the article I don't think there's anything worth merging. striking previous vote and changing to Delete as an unnecessary fork, nothing worth keeping. A redirect to the article doesn't make sense because it's not mentioned at Karl Marx currently. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 18:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I think the topic could be worth a mention on the main article, but I don't think frankly it should include this paragraph. We shouldn't have articles on people's views on a topic, except under very specific circumstances where a lot can be written about it and it would be too long to fit into the main article. Otherwise we will end up with 50 articles of Donald Trump's views on Abortion, Immigration, Healthcare etc. which would be confusing to navigate. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 11:46, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Splitting out articles on the views of an individual like this needs lots of justification. That means multiple secondary sources that discuss the person's views in an indepth way. One source is not going to cut it. I am not even sure this level of sourcing justifies inclusion in the main article on Marx but it clearly does not justify creation a seperate article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:54, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep With my improvements, the article should stay in WP.
Delete - while a single paragraph might be added to the main article, a full article is WP:UNDUE. Bearian (talk) 16:57, 30 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) 18:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kurt Parry[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG. A last 48 at the Masters is the height of his career and that isn't enough to make him notable. Dougal18 (talk) 15:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wales-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable darts player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No significant independent coverage to meet WP:GNG and no significant success that might imply notability as a darts player (highest ranking ever was #178). Papaursa (talk) 20:06, 27 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) 18:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Prophet Isa El-Buba[edit]

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

The only cited sources are the subject himself. The article makes unattributed unverifiable religious claims, stated as fact. Vexations (talk) 15:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete article lacks secondary sources indepdent of the subject which are needed to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete promotional nonsense from an SPA. Mccapra (talk) 03:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Hilarious Promotional piece for a non notable subject. Celestina007 (talk) 00:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete None notable subject with a promotional article. Nika2020 (talk) 19:24, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not the purpose of Wikipedia to host advertisement.Em-mustapha ^talk 13:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete completely promotional, unsourced, non notable nonsense. Eternal Shadow Talk 04:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Google reveals facebook, youtube, newsletters, the odd book, and a solitary one-paragrapher about how he predicted a politician would lose an election - not a thing to indicate notability. The article itself is outrageously promotional, bordering on complete bollocks. Nuke it from orbit. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SNOW, WP:SPAM, WP:SOAP, and WP:NOTRESUME. In 2007, we could excuse this, but in 2020 everybody in the world knows we are not a free web host but a non-religious charity. Bearian (talk) 16:59, 30 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 and redirect to Castleknock. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Laurel Lodge[edit]

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

This article replicates almost entirely the content of St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge while not even referring to the latter in its content. It is about an informal, ill-defined district or collection of housing estates. There is no authority to decide which estates are included or not. No citations in the article define the limits of the district. The area is probably co-terminous with the area of the Catholic parish. No part of the district is situated outside the parish. Most of the photographs used in the article were taken by me because I know the district well. Any info that the article contains that is not in the parish article can be easily folded into the latter. Laurel Lodged (talk) 08:01, 28 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't get any of the information (bar some of the photos) for the new page from the Laurel Lodge parish page. Similar to how Darndale is a part of Coolock but is big enough to merit it's own page on Wikipedia I think that Laurel Lodge is big enough to merit it's own page. Darren J. Prior (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 00:03, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You will struggle to find any sources that refer to Laurel Lodge as a field, prior to the housing developements. You will find it even harder to find sources to define its current boundaries. Without sources, I don't see how there can be an article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:48, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I intended it to be a stub. Darren J. Prior (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 08:04, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any reason why it can't stay. There are very similar pages for similar sub residential areas on Wikipedia -e.g. Edenmore which is really part of Raheny would be a very similar example. The article on the parish of St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge seems to contain a lot information relating to the residential area and not relating to the Parish but failing that if you cannot manage to get the residential area page to at least stub level with some reliable references then it should probably be deleted and the parish page left as is. Financefactz (talk) 08:44, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Financefactz. :) Darren J. Prior (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would actually go as far as to say that Edenmore should be used as the template for the Laurel Lodge page.Financefactz (talk) 08:45, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Edenmore page is flagged as "This article needs additional citations for verification. Please help improve this article by adding citations to reliable sources. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.". It will probably be deleted soon as it replicates Raheny to an unreasonable degree IMHO. Laurel Lodged (talk) 09:14, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Edenmore page was created in 2008 so I don't think it is going to be deleted. I actually agree with you Laurel Lodged that the format of that page does not look good as (although I don't know the area) it doesn't seem to merit such specific headings, for information that could be fitted into one or two paragraphs.Darren J. Prior (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 09:54, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Irish language version of Wikipedia Vicipéid has loads of stubs a lot of which are only a sentence long. Darren J. Prior (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 09:32, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a way to get more people to determine whether this page merits staying? I am intending to do a (which will probably be a bit shorter) stub for Carpenterstown also and I would rather know if I am going to run into the same difficulty. (After Carpenterstown I don't imagine creating anymore stubs for residential areas). Darren J. Prior (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It isn't so much the merit of having or not having a page. Almost anything is worthy of a page as long as it is not seen to be an advertisement for a business or person and can be seen to be notable. It is the following points

It does not seem to have a clear definition. What is the page about? Is it a townland (it isn't) is it a housing estate (it isn't), is it a group of housing estates and if so why are they being grouped together?
It is not cited to a satisfactory degree or anywhere close to a satisfactory degree
It seems to cover a lot of the same information as another page

Financefactz (talk) 12:22, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is about a housing estate- a big housing estate. I don't think the local Catholic Church parish Wikipedia page merits being the only Wikipedia page about the estate. If the estate was a small estate I wouldn't have created a page about it. Darren J. Prior (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I realise the Edenmore page is far from perfect. I was really referring to the fact that it is residential district somewhere between a suburb and an estate and the tone, content and description could be a good basis from which to work off here.Financefactz (talk) 12:29, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Can the delete notification be taken off it now? Darren J. Prior (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 03:27, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. From the above, the reasons for deletion are (1) It does not seem to have a clear definition. (2) It is not cited to a satisfactory degree (3) It covers a lot of the same information as another page. (4) it covers the same territory as an article about a Catholic parish. The reason for retention seems to be the personal bias of 1 editor against articles mainly about the Catholic Church. Laurel Lodged (talk) 07:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I created it as a stub. It has a clear definition- it is about a big housing estate. I am not advocating that the Catholic Church article on the area be deleted but I don't see why the latter has to the the sole or main article on the area. Stubs are either welcome or they are not. Can we have more opinion's on this? currently there is a notice to delete this new page yet only 1 person is calling for it to be deleted. Darren J. Prior (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 07:31, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree with all of Laurel Lodged points apart from point 4 and the personal bias point. It has now been a few days since it has been published and there have been no real improvements to the page or clear responses to issues raised. There is no bias towards the parish page, it is just that it has a clear definition and is better referenced and contains more detail and was created first. The benefits of significantly changing that the parish page and moving a lot of the information to a separate residential area page are not clear at the moment although that might change at some point in the future. Currently however it looks like Laurel Lodge is likely to be an article for deletion. Don't let this discourage you though as it may be the case that you can create something of high quality in the near future which can be of value to the project.
Financefactz (talk) 22:19, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to 4 points: 1) It is about a big housing estate 2) There are loads of citations on it. 3 & 4) Not relevant. The Catholic church do not own the housing estate.

Laurel Lodge is not a small housing estate.

It would be useful if I knew if stubs are generally not welcome on Wikipedia like they are on Vicipéid. ~~Darren J. PriorDarren J. Prior (talk) 00:29, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Discussion page was created without the {{afd2}} template and never transcluded to a daily log. Fixed now--I am neutral on the nomination itself. --Finngall ^talk 14:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. --Finngall ^talk 15:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete (and/or merge to Castleknock). The nominator should probably take a look at the policy they are proposing under. However, in terms of NN (and WP:GNG in particular), any searches for material and references suggest that the principal meaning/use of the term "Laurel Lodge" is in relation to the parish in the Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Dublin. Rather than the housing development/former manor house estate. And, as mentioned by others, this topic (the parish) is already covered in the St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge article. Otherwise, in terms of WP:GEOLAND, as a "populated place without legal recognition", I am not seeing anything which indicates that there is "non-trivial coverage in multiple, independent reliable sources". Where this is the case, the information on this type of place "should be included in the more general article on the legally recognized populated place or administrative subdivision that contains it". In this case this would mean covering the topic in the Castleknock article. If the content is merged there, I'm not sure we need a redirect. As, frankly, I just don't see how a housing estate (however large) needs its own article or title. I have not been able to fully follow the wall-of-text above. But I note what appear to be WP:OSE and similar arguments. Guliolopez (talk) 16:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Castleknock (first preference) or St Thomas the Apostle parish, Laurel Lodge (second preference). I agree with Guliolopez's analysis that there is no evidence of significant coverage of this housing estate and according to general practice it should be redirected to the next-higher entity that does have such coverage. There does not appear to be any significant text worth merging. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Castleknock or delete. I agree with Guliolopez's analysis and was inclined to give the page a chance at the start but it is somewhere between a housing estate and a suburb. It isn't even really at the level of an localities/townlands such as Bayside, Dublin or Edenmore which I believe are easily worthy of articles in themselves irrespective of the qualities of those articles.

Financefactz (talk) 21:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Castleknock. Spleodrach (talk) 21:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - mentions are as passing as they come. Fails my standards for Estates. I won't oppose a redirect. Bearian (talk) 17:05, 30 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) 18:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sekolah Jenis Kebangsaan (C) Tun Tan Siew Sin[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for this primary school. Fram (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC) Can fellow wikipedians go check out other primary school page of malaydia like SJK(c) Damansara or others, because I think theirs is more bland and also no notability. Also, other school's page had no proper information and is a stub. User:Hypersonic man 11 17:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC +8)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 06:41, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No notability for this primary school, and the only source is the school's yearbook. --Kbabej (talk) 17:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NSCHOOL per nominator and Kbabej. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 21:12, 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 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. Black Kite (talk) 20:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deskarga Etilika[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese underground band. I think they are not notable for Wikipedia. The article is very poorly sourced to one of the members' Myspace page and a page which lists obscure punk/metal bands, this one included. I have never heard about them but I decided to look them up. As always, I found nothing of notability or reliability, just the usual, unreliable stuff like Last.fm, Bandcamp, Discogs, Facebook, Spirit of Metal and Rate Your Music. Aside from these sites, the rest are retail sites, blog sites and name checks. This is a very underground band which did not attract any attention from notable media and they eventually split up in 2008. Another underground band who has no reason to be included in Wikipedia. This article also managed to stay here since 2011. The band has no article on the Portuguese Wikipedia. Databases, social media pages and retail sites do not cut it when we are talking about reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:26, 23 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, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2011-02 ✗ A7, 2006-06 ✗ deleted, 2006-06 ✗ CSD A3, 2006-06 ✗ deleted

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Medal of Valour (Somalia)[edit]

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

As far as I can tell neither of the sources mention this, I would CSD but it might be real. Slatersteven (talk) 14:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 14:29, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless sources substantiating existence can be found. Expanding on Slatersteven's point, I too could find nothing suggesting it exists. It was added to List of medals for bravery by the page creator, and is elsewhere mentioned in Odowaa Yusuf Rageh (uncited and sources there only mention that he was awarded awards), in Abdullahi Ahmed Irro (not in source provided— based upon Ctrl+F—and File:IRROSOGW0977.jpg (which has a dubious licence and no sourcing to verify that it is the same award)), and in Mohammad Ali Samatar (uncited, only in infobox). It's possible I'm missing something, but right now it seems the award doesn't exist. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hello, page creator here, the medal does exist, but I did upload an image of it to WikiMedia Commons where it taken down due to copyright infringement, I also would like to stress that I am trying to link all articles and I am still searching for a image of the physical medal that is under Creative Commons and to expand the article itself iamveryshy22 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iamveryshy22 (talk • contribs) 16:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We do not need a image we need a source for its existence, such as a new paper announcing it being awarded to someone.Slatersteven (talk) 16:25, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Iamveryshy22, It would be great if you could provide a reliable source that mentions the medal so we can verify that it does exist. Unfortunately, we cannot just take someone's word for it. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay Eddie, glad to help out in any way I can User:Iamveryshy22 —Preceding undated comment added 16:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete unless some pretty good sourcing turns up; my BEFORE found zippo (although neither Somali or Arabic are native tongues to me!), but there may be some in those languages. However, that would then only prove that it exists and not be a hoax: it would still need to be covered by multiple, independent third-party sources to stay remain a stand-alone article. ——Serial^# 19:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no reliable sources provided; neither heard nor seen of anything of new CDF Rageh being awarded any such medal. At this diff, the page creator says that Cooper, "Wings over Ogaden" explicitly states that Irro was awarded the medal. According to G-Books preview, "Wings over Ogaden" doesn't included either the words "medal" or "valour". I hesitate to write exactly what this means in terms of WP:HOAX. Buckshot06 (talk) 00:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No verifiable evidence for existence, and even if it existed, no evidence that WP:GNG is met. b uidhe 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that state honours and decorations are generally presumed to be notable if they are verified to exist. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  You may presume them to be notable; I don't. b uidhe 00:33, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - True dat. They are generally held to be notable because it is assumed that reliable sources will generally have given them broad, sustained coverage: but if they haven't, they aint. ——Serial^# 06:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    
    Consensus, however, clearly agrees with me. Note that I didn't say this one was notable as it appears its existence can't be verified. -- Necrothesp (talk) 13:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Yet another hoax on topics related to military forces of Somalia Nick-D (talk) 08:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Before we can get to the normal AfD discussion around WP:GNG, we need to get past WP:V. RevelationDirect (talk) 00:10, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not verifiable, not supported by reliable sources. Nika2020 (talk) 19:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete High probability that this is a hoax due to unverifiability, likely doesn’t pass GNG either. If there is someone who speaks Somali maybe they could help verify the article. Eternal Shadow Talk 15:14, 30 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) (t · c) buidhe 13:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mothers of Diyarbakır[edit]

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

Reviewed under new article review process. This is current news event. According to the article, a sit-in started by dozens of people Sept 2019 and at 134 "families" circa March 2020. IMO does not satisfy not:news nor notability requirements under wp:gng or events. Author removed notability tag and is now blocked for unrelated reasons. North8000 (talk) 13:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not blocked, just partly blocked on one article for unrelated reasons as you mentioned. I removed the notability tag (according to its guidelines) after putting some extra notability. I assumed the article reached a sufficient level by now.

It's not a (one time) news event. The protest and the protesters have been visited by government officials, ambassadors, politicians (local as well as foreign). The PKK commented about it (as mentioned in the article).

Newswebsites even have a tag on their own websites about it: Seta (think tank), Independent, Hürriyet, CNN Turk

In the meantime, I will try to improve the article by adding extra notability. Randam (talk) 20:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Lacks coverage in reliable sources. All sources are Turkish newspapers, and it is well known there is no freedom of the press in Turkey. Heaviest coverage is in government mouthpieces like Daily Sabah, giving me the impression that this is a government staged public relations stunt. Khirurg (talk) 21:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. You had me chuckled for a moment by calling ANF (PKK newswebsite) a Turkish newspaper. Nonetheless, I just added additional non-Turkey sources, and deleted "government mouthpiece" source, to meet you halfway. Randam (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete support delete (user withdrew it's delete vote here). It is a theme mainly covered in the Turkish pro-governmental press. There are even SETA sources included. Also I have the impression it is a Governmental stunt, as the Diyarbakir Mothers are allowed to demonstrate but the HDP mostly not. An article about Kurds which is mainly sourced with Turkish owned or Turkish language citations naming a terrorist group is probably not very neutral.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 01:57, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rebuttal. The discussion is about notability. Not about whether it's OK that the protest is being misused by the Government. Also, in general, wiki guidelines allow sources in foreign languages. It also allows sources that some individuals may consider non-neutral, giving that the sources are used in a proper way. Nonetheless, I just added additional non-Turkish and non-Turkey sources to address your complaints. Randam (talk) 12:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Randam, just addressing your comment (not your new sources).... This isn't a question of what sources Wikipedia allows, it is of whether it has the amount and type of coverage specified in wp:GNG in order to exist as a separate article. It requires some in-depth coverage of the topic by multiple indpendent wp:RS sources, with "multiple" usually meanign at least 2. Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 14:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is has good sources and you can find several english sources in google. And many notable events happened, include HDP reaction, Turkish first lady visit and growing numbers etc. Shadow4dark (talk) 06:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - plenty, plenty of coverage. And to be clear, the fact that most of the sources are non-English by no means disqualifies for notability. Article by Anadolu Agency (national press agency) [7] (googling ""Diyarbakır Anneleri" on site:aa.com.tr gives 8,750 hits), here an AA piece on COVID-19 impact on the protest: [8], piece on TRT (national TV channel) [9], CNN Türk piece on solidarity action in Srebenica with the protest [10], another CNN Türk piece on the protest [11] (in fact googling "Diyarbakır Anneleri" on site:cnnturk.com gives 380 hits), Hurriyet coverage on the protest (googling "Diyarbakır Anneleri" on site:hurriyet.com.tr gives 301 hits), coverage by Reuters [12], article in Evrensel (linked to Emek Partisi) on opposition leader/CHP chairman Kemal Kılıçdaroğlu criticizing Labour Minister for visiting the protest site [13] etc, etc. --Soman (talk) 15:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seems to be plenty of Azerbaijani websites having coverage on the protest, such as [14], [15], here an article in Al-Estiklal newspaper [16]. --Soman (talk) 15:54, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Article in Der Tagesspiegel: [17], article in Süddeutsche Zeitung [18], article in Die Tageszeitung [19], article in Libération [20], article in El País [21], article in Avvenire [22] --Soman (talk) 16:14, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I can see 20 independent sources. That is more than enough. Rathfelder (talk) 18:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't analyze the new sources but in the few days since I nominated this for deletion 14 references have been added and the article has expanded significantly. North8000 (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@North8000, did you perform WP:BEFORE before nominating the article for deletion? --Soman (talk) 19:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not that you should be asking that, but Yes. What is your purpose for asking? North8000 (talk) 20:15, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment' If somebody really wants to get this sorted out / establish that it should stay, it's not a matter of count of references mentioning it. They should find and point out 1-2 references suitable for wp:GNG] criteria (in depth coverage by wp:rs independent sources) or establish meeting special criteria at Wikipedia:Notability (events). Sincerely, North8000 (talk) 20:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Did you yourself search for possible sources before nominating the article? All the links in this edit (i.e. the articles in Der Tagesspiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Tageszeitung, Libération, El País, Avvenire) qualifies as 'in depth coverage by wp:rs independent sources'. --Soman (talk) 20:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how much you are into the Turkish/Kurdish ares as editors, but I must say the liberation source is the most respective source for now. It speaks of a Turkish Government propaganda for now, but the editor only uses it as to show an image of protesters before the HDP headquarters. In the image there are people depicted in front of the HDP headquarters protected by police. Protected by police! It is a strong opposition to the fact that people protesting against violence against women, or protesting against the dismissal of HDP mayors are being suppressed with very violent opposition by the police. It is an obvious State propaganda, that should be named as suchParadise Chronicle (talk) 22:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Paradise Chronicle, I'm not sure exactly what argument you're seeking to make, but the article was nominated for deletion for supposed lack of notability. The Yes or No question is whether there is in-dept coverage in independent third-party sources. I'd say that there is, and I think it has been demonstrated both in this AfD discussion. What you think of the politics or context of the event is irrelevant to whether it is notable or not. --Soman (talk) 12:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the AFD discussion, I think that the argument was that as such the sources may not be independent. Also I would imagine that a gauge of true independence of a source and wp:GNG-suitable depth of coverage is that they at least discuss the obvious possibility that this is a state-orchestrated phenomena. North8000 (talk) 15:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, in order to qualify as independent references they must align to your own POV? The term 'independent' is misused in this conversation and I think Wikipedia:Independent sources is a good reading. We wouldn't qualify a press release or a bulletine issued by the protest group as an independent, third party source. But we can't disqualify TRT, AA, Daily Sabah etc on the same criteria. We may use discretion in the way sources are presented, we may use caution in the way data and factoids from these sources are represented in the article mainspace (see Wikipedia:Reliable_sources#Biased_or_opinionated_sources, "Wikipedia articles are required to present a neutral point of view. However, reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective. Sometimes non-neutral sources are the best possible sources for supporting information about the different viewpoints held on a subject.") but they are by no means disqualified from being used to indicate notability. Regardless whether you dislike the protest or consider it politically illegitimate, if it is discussed in-dept across various news outlets with millions of viewers/readers it is notable to have a Wiki article of its own. --Soman (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soman you are crossing the line. You are inventing things I didn't say and don't think in order to try to deprecate me and what I wrote. Neither you nor anybody has done the simple thing that would settle this in the way that you prefer. "find and point out 1-2 references suitable for wp:GNG] criteria (in depth coverage by wp:rs independent sources)" The others could look at and discuss those (including translating them if needed). It should be simple if they do indeed exist. If someone establishes that it has this type of coverage I would change my position to "keep" North8000 (talk) 15:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also you you are mixing up two different criteria. The are that you quoting describes the criteria to be suitable in general for Wikipedia. The source criteria for establishing wp:notability are those listed at WP:Notability North8000 (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, you are the one misrepresenting the concepts. WP:GNG refers back to WP:RS (which I pointed to in the comment above). You nominated the article for deletion, seemingly without respecting WP:BEFORE, based on the argument "IMO does not satisfy not:news nor notability requirements under wp:gng or events". We established here that the protest is covered, not in passing but in articles where the protest is the main subject of the article, by TRT, Anadolu Agency, Daily Sabah, Evrensel, Hürriyet, Der Tagesspiegel, Süddeutsche Zeitung, Die Tageszeitung, Libération, El País, Avvenire, various Azerbaijani media, etc.. So WP:GNG should be an easy pass. So with WP:GNG ticked, what is the rationale to delete the article? --Soman (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:GNG defines the type of coverage required to meet WP:GNG which is a higher standard than wp:RS in several respects, notably in depth coverage and independent. The vague statement "refers back to" could mean dozens of different things none of which affect the previous sentence and none of which or void the definition in WP:GNG. As I said before, if they exist, point out 1 or two sources that constitute such coverage and I would then become a proponent of keeping the article. North8000 (talk) 19:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not "independent", it's "independent from the subject". Let's summarize:

Outlet	Article	Date	Non-Trival Mention?	WP:RS?	Independent from subject?
Anadolu Agency (Turkish national news agency)	Diyarbakır anneleri HDP'lilere tepki gösterdi	January 18, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Anadolu Agency (Turkish national news agency)	Diyarbakır anneleri koronavirüs tedbiriyle evlat nöbetini sürdürüyor	April 1, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
CNN Türk (Private TV channel, local affiliate of CNN)	Srebrenica Anneleri'nden 'Diyarbakır Anneleri'ne destek	October 14, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
CNN Türk (Private TV channel, local affiliate of CNN)	"30 bin lirası olmayan Diyarbakır anneleri" HDP önünde	September 3, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Evrensel (Turkish left-wing newspaper, linked to EMEP, 41st largest newspaper circulation in country)	Kılıçdaroğlu'ndan Soylu'ya: Senin görevin sorunu çözmek	September 15, 2019	Deals with a controversy caused by the visit to the protest site (i.e. article subject) - spat between opposition leader and govt minister. Discussed differences/parallels between 'Saturday Mothers' and 'Diyarbakir Mothers'	Yes	Yes
Axar (Azerbaijan news portal)	PKK böyük qırğınlar törədə bilər - Kürd siyasətçidən xəbərdarlıq	September 14, 2019	Short notice	?	Yes
Der Tagesspiegel (German newspaper)	Der Kampf der Mütter um ihre Söhne	September 22, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Süddeutsche Zeitung (German newspaper)	Zum Kämpfen verführt	September 11, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Die Tageszeitung (German newspaper)	Zwei Mütter, ein Staat	September 27, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Libération (French newspaper)	En Turquie, les manifestations contre un parti prokurde encouragées par le gouvernement	January 6, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
El País (Spanish newspaper)	Las madres coraje que plantan cara a la guerrilla kurda	September 17, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Avvenire (Italian newspaper, Catholic organ)	Svolta storica in Turchia. I ragazzi «rapiti» dal Pkk: le madri curde si ribellano	September 27, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Hürriyet (Turkish newspaper, largest newspaper in country)	'Diyarbakır Anneleri'nin direnişi, PKK’daki çözülmeyi hızlandırdı	March 10, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
	Diyarbakır annelerinin evlat nöbeti 80'inci gününde	November 21, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Karadeniz (gazete) [tr] (Turkish newspaper in Trabzon)	Diyarbakır anneleri 300 gündür evlat nöbetinde	June 28, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Daily Sabah (40th largest newspaper circulation in country - English-language version of Sabah newspaper, the second-largest daily, linked to AKP)	Kurdish families' protest against PKK continues for 272nd day	May 31, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Reuters (news agency)	Syria offensive feeds disenchantment among Turkey's Kurds	October 23, 2019	Brief mention	Yes	Yes
Milliyet (Turkish newspaper, 8th largest circulation)	Bir ailenin daha evladına kavuşması Diyarbakır annelerini umutlandırdı	February 17, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Posta (Turkish tabloid, 3rd largest newspaper circulation in country)	Düzce’den, Diyarbakırlı annelere destek	September 10, 2019	Short piece on local protest in Düzce in support of 'Diyarbakir Mothers' protest	Yes	Yes
	Erdoğan: 'Cumartesi anneleri'ne gidenler, Diyarbakır'a niçin gitmiyor?	September 8, 2019	Report on Pres. Erdoğan commentary on Saturday Mothers vs. Diyarbakir Mothers	Yes	Yes
Sözcü (Turkish daily, 4th largest circulation)	Bir anne daha evladına kavuştu	December 26, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Habertürk (Turkish daily, 5th largest circulation)	'Diyarbakır Anneleri'nin direnişi, PKK'daki çözülmeyi hızlandırdı	March 10, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fotomaç (Turkish sports tabloid, 6th largest newspaper circulation in country)	Diyarbakırlı anneden Galatasaray'a çağrı: Oğlumu terörün elinden kurtaralım	September 11, 2019	Report on appeal by one of the participants to Galatasaray club to support the protest	Yes	Yes
Türkiye (newspaper) (Turkish newspaper, 7th largest)	Diyarbakır anneleri oturma eylemini otelde sürdürdü	April 11, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Fanatik (Turkish sports tabloid, 9th largest newspaper in country)	Annelere milli hokeycilerden destek	September 19, 2019	Short piece on visit by national hockey team to support the protest	Yes	Yes
Yeni Şafak (Turkish newspaper, 10th largest, pro-AKP)	Diyarbakır anneleri yeni yılın ilk gününde de evlat nöbetinde: Soğuktan ölsem de gitmiyorum	January 1, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Middle East Eye (news portal)	In Diyarbakir, Kurdish families accuse PKK of deceptively recruiting their children	September 7, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Al-Monitor (news portal)	Protest by mothers turns up pressure on Turkey's HDP	September 25, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rudaw Media Network (Kurdish news portal, Erbil-based)	Families push HDP for answers on missing family members	March 3, 2020	Yes	Yes	Yes
Rudaw Media Network (Kurdish news portal, Erbil-based)	HDP rebukes Turkish government's ‘black propaganda’ against the party	September 15, 2019	Yes	Yes	Yes
soL (left-wing newspaper, linked to Communist Party of Turkey)	Ayhan Bilgen'den HDP önündeki 'anneler' eylemine ilişkin açıklama	September , 2019	Comment of Kars HDP mayor on protest	Yes	Yes
Jiyan (Danish-Kurdish news portal)	Mødre: PKK har kidnappet vores børn	September 10, 2019	Yes	?	Yes

The circulation ranking of Turkish newspapers estimates originate from List of newspapers in Turkey. --Soman (talk) 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

withdraw delete vote. I have adapted the article. It is a good article to explain the limited "freedom of expression" in Turkey. At first I thought there were no other sources, sorry. But thank you for the discussion.Paradise Chronicle (talk) 20:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

keep Still no identification of 1-2 independent sources with in depth coverage ("non-trivial mention" is not that) but based on Paradise Chronicle's assessment, and that they have found sourcing to add the "more objective overview" material which they added, I've switched my opinion to "keep". Again, 10 week old article has had a burst of new material and sources in the few days since it was nominated and so that also looks like a nice outcome of the process. Note that this is a "keep" and not a "withdraw".....the latter would be an overreach considering the substantive discussion that has occurred here. North8000 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Significant coverage in reliable secondary sources per the above source analysis and my own review. Meets WP:GNG. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:33, 30 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) 18:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

University of Notre Dame Fire Department[edit]

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

Article lacks sufficient independent sourcing to satisfy WP:GNG. Being the oldest of something so specific (a university fire department) is not sufficient to justify an article given the lack of sourcing. The article was created by a single-purpose account likely associated with the organization (User:Ndfd). User:Namiba 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete Small local fire departments are generally not notable, including those at universities. Note this fact in the main article. Reywas92^Talk 17:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The very idea that we would try to use the number of people at football games to show notability shows how much this is just scaping the bottom of the barrel and is not notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:OUTCOMES and WP:CCC. It has been well-established for over 10 years that we don't include every little fire department in our encyclopedia. Bearian (talk) 17:01, 30 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) 18:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anis Bari[edit]

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

No coverage. What is there is passing mentions. Fails WP:SIGCOV and WP:BIO scope_creep^Talk 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete he is not notable as an activist, a businessman, or a writer. The sourcing is not of the depth to show notability, and the award is not one that shows notability either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 14:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:MILL, WP:NOTRESUME and WP:SIGCOV. We are not a resume service for every entrepreneur. Bearian (talk) 17:03, 30 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) 13:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anish Sharma[edit]

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

non notable actor, only had a minor unnamed role as far as i can tell and there are 0 sources covering them. Praxidicae (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Fails WP:ENT. - Harsh 14:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 06:16, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR. Full of unreliable-sources. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:45, 29 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) 13:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nirmal Gehlot[edit]

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

non notable person, fails NPROF/NACADEMIC. The sources are just regurgitated press releases. Praxidicae (talk) 10:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable person with misleading references ~ Amkgp 💬 14:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a passing news reference in relation to covid-19 does not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Don't delete the references including one by Government of India's official news network seem to be strong. If references are less in number, more can be added. Realyaru (talk) 14:26, 25 June 2020 (IST)
Delete the referencing verges on the spurious, and there is insufficient of quality in even that to pass the basic requirements of ANYBIO. ——Serial^# 09:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, Realyaru, what's your connection with Rahul Kumar Si, if any? They wrote the article, but you moved it to mainspace? ——Serial^# 09:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Donation of funds by a non-notable businessman results in a press release repeated verbatim in a half-dozen places over the web. Nothing whatsoever to credibly indicate the hurdle of notability (GNG / NBIO) might be cleared. Buy the man a drink, not a Wikipedia article... --Jack Frost (talk) 11:25, 30 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) 13:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegas Martyrs[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second nomination of this article. This is another case of "a non-notable band managing to stay on Wikipedia for way too long" disease. It has no sources and it has a notability tag since 2011. I have never heard about this band but I looked them up and I couldn't find anything else besides the unreliable databases, streaming service entries, retail sites, trivial mentions/name checks and blog sites. I found some album reviews scattered here and there but those sites do not look too reliable. I have found out that this article survived an AfD back in 2014 and the result was "no consensus". But since this is another example of a completely non-notable band, I sentence it to the second AfD. I said it before and I say it now: underground bands have no place on Wikipedia (of course there are exceptions) because there are no reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FYI/Comment - This article was created in 2008, the dark ages of Wikipedia, when it was tougher to catch new articles for review, particularly stubs merely announcing a band's existence. And it has taken a decade plus to track them all down and who knows how many thousands more are still lurking around. Also, this one survived the AfD in 2014 because it was policy at the time to conclude "no consensus" if nobody voted; that process has since changed as well. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have no sources at all. I have no idea how these articles survive so long in this state.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Like the nominator I also located a few album reviews from unreliable blogs and obscure collector sites, e.g. ([23]), but they seem to have attracted no other notice. An instructive case of WP:EXIST. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - And it managed to stay here since 2008. Wow. But I am not surprised as many non-notable bands manage to stay here for such a long time. Some of them are deleted now thanks to my AfDs, but like Doomsdayer520 said, who knows how many thousands are lurking around. Well said. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing in the current or available sourcing to indicate this band clears the hurdle of notability. WP:GARAGEBAND--Jack Frost (talk) 11:18, 30 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 Freddy Vachha. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2020 UK Independence Party leadership election[edit]

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

There is no reliable source coverage of this leadership election. It fails the WP:GNG, but it also doesn't meet basic standards of verifiability. Ralbegen (talk) 10:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment There's coverage of these clowns here. No doubt there's lots of other press coverage too. Lugnuts ^{Fire Walk with Me} 10:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Freddy Vachha (or alternatively to UK Independence Party#Leadership) - The coverage in reliable sources is of Freddy Vachha, but not the leadership contest per se. See 1 2 3. None of these even say who his competitors were or how many votes he received. This is no surprise as he ran unopposed and there was no vote (and as such, no actual contest). Whilst other leadership contests have ended without an actual vote being held (e.g., Michael Howard's emplacement as leader of the Conservatives) there was at least a contest and a process that arrived at them being declared leader - but in this case if there was such a process it is not covered in reliable sources.

The party remains significant in as much as it still has councillors elected in various local seats around the country. Obviously "other stuff exists" isn't a great argument, but the other zombie parties of British politics (e.g., the Liberals, the BNP, and the SDP - all of whom hold/held local seats) no longer warrant articles for their leadership elections as no reliable sources covers them any more. Probably we are approaching that point with UKIP. FOARP (talk) 11:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect the election did not exist. Reywas92^Talk 17:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I added a little more to the page, including a citation. I personally think we should have a seperate page with all the leadership elections, as people usually stand unapposed. Naihreloe (talk) 14:08, 28 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 Moonspell#Experimenting (1998–2000). If desired, content can be merged from the article history. (non-admin closure) Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dæmonarch[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Portuguese black metal band which was formed by the members of Moonspell. While Moonspell is obviously notable, I think Dæmonarch is not. The article has a no sources tag on it since March 2008. I did a google search and the results were the following: the usual, unreliable sites like Discogs, Metal Archives, Spirit of Metal, Last.fm, BNR Metal Pages, Dark Lyrics, semi-reliable sites like Sputnik Music and Metal Storm, and unreliable stuff (again) like name checks, trivial mentions and blog/download sites. I also found an Allmusic biography which is a reliable source and a review of their only album on Metal.de, I am not sure about that site any more since I was told there is nothing reliable about it. I always thought it was reliable, it looks like a notable, reliable site but I am sidetracked now. So if Metal.de is notable, then with the Allmusic biography we have 2 reliable sources and I gladly withdraw my nomination. But since I am not sure about Metal.de anymore and one reliable source is not enough, therefore I sentence it to an AfD. It has an article on four Wikipedias as well but the sourcing is crappy on all of them, except the French one which cites some album reviews and the Allmusic biography. The best solution would be a redirect to Moonspell but I don't think this is notable for its own page. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Portugal-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 10:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Moonspell then redirect. Metalstorm and SputnikMusic are both reliable sources as is AllMusic but there is hardly any content to the present article so unless someone expands it (if so please ping me) it could be merged to Moonspell with the addition of the aforementioned references, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Moonspell is a good answer. --Lockley (talk) 22:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - The reason I said that Sputnik Music and Metal Storm are "semi-reliable" is because I think both of these sites are reliable only when the staff reviews an album of a band/interviews a band. Both of these sites contain user-generated comments/reviews as well which makes these sites unreliable. That's what I have heard (and I know these sites). But feel free to correct me if I am wrong. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Moonspell#Experimenting (1998–2000), merge isn't needed because this page isn't cited and the info is already there. Username⁶⁸⁹² 04:01, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hamed Ghashghavi[edit]

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

Claim to fame is he (and his organisation New Horizon) were named in a sanctions list by US Treasury Dept. No significant coverage elsewhere. Not notable per WP:1E - Harsh 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being on a sanctions list is not enough on its own to show notability. Otherwise there is no notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Lots of people end up on sanctions lists. Bearian (talk) 17:06, 30 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) Eternal Shadow Talk 15:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Rothman[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 09:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I have added new refs and amended non encyclopedic language. Definatley meets wp:creative as created a large body of work. User:Davidstewartharvey

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:59, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - at the moment, this is a clear pass of GNG. matt91486 (talk) 10:43, 27 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. Guy (help!) 10:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pawan vyas (record holder)[edit]

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

Not notable for an encyclopedic article. Lacks reliable sources and the articles seems like an advertisement. It was recently rejected at Afc since does not meet WP:GNG. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:17, 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) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retford Times[edit]

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

Was deprodded but no reason given. I can't see how this meets WP:NOTABILITY. At best a redirect to Local World or Retford. Boleyn (talk) 07:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Wikipedia:Notability (media) says on Newspapers and magazines: 2.have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history. It is is a paid for newspaper not a free advertiser and has been a news outlet since 19th century.User:Davidstewartharvey
Keep It's a historic newspaper. For some details of its long history see here. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:34, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment it is 150 years old, but I don't think this means it meets 'served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history.' Thousands of local British newspapers would meet this criteria if it is mainly based on age, but not if on significance. Boleyn (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Old-established local newspaper. Clearly notable. -- Necrothesp (talk) 11:41, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: It seems like the Keep votes are based on a variation of WP:ITSACASTLE, i.e. ITSANOLDNEWSPAPER. Local newspapers are cultural institutions, and if they last for 150 years, they have historic significance. It's not easy for an AfD-style search to turn up good sources, because the search results are choked with books and articles that are citing the Retford Times' coverage of something, like this one and this one. But ITSACASTLE. — Toughpigs (talk) 14:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As explained by DSH above, WP:NMEDIA specifically says that "Notability is presumed for newspapers ... that ... have served some sort of historic purpose or have a significant history". It's the nomination that wants to delete because WP:ITSLOCAL. Andrew🐉(talk) 16:58, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I agree. I'm saying that the spirit of ITSACASTLE also suggests that notability should be presumed for a 150-year-old newspaper, "local" or not. – Toughpigs (talk) 17:31, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. This well established newspaper is clearly notable. Mirrorme22 (talk) 16:31, 29 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. While I see a weak consensus to delete, I wouldn't assume that a mass nomination would automatically succeed. Per WP:SSEFAR, there is no apparent difference in notability between this and any of the other codes, so I recommend a mass nomination to achieve a consistent result for everything. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 06:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EBCDIC 389[edit]

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

There are many pages of this type, this nomination is only for this one. If succesful, a mass nomination of similar ones may be necessary.

This seems something that is well suited for Wikisource or something similar, but not for Wikipedia, as it just reproduces a code page, but doesn't provide commentary on it from secondary sources. Which is logical, as such a codepage is not the kind of thing many books, articles, ... are written about. Basically, this topic lacks all notability. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 07:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge Into a new list "List of EBCDIC code". The subject language is notable so a list is best place.User:Davidstewartharvey
- I can imagine a list which states that 389 is Italy or some such, but I hope you aren't suggesting merging the actual code tables? Fram (talk) 07:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Turns out that such a list already exists at Code page, so no need to merge even this tiny it of information. Fram (talk) 12:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment There are many code page and character encoding articles; see for instance the navbox at the bottom of the page and the code page article. If this AfD is meant to be some kind of referendum on this class of articles, it would be better to have a discussion or RFC about what to do with these, perhaps in WP:COMPUTING, than an AfD on an new article few have watchlisted. Better to try to gain consensus first before a mass transwiki or a mass deletion. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 12:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Each article must be able to stand on its own. If this one turns out to be lacking notability, then it may be time to look at the many other similar ones and see if they have the same problems. If this one turns out to be notable, then the sourcing provided to establish this may perhaps be useful for the other ones as well (assuming this one isn't an exception). We don't really need an RfC to deal with articles which don't meet the most basic standards (significant coverage in independent sources), RfCs are more useful for things where separate standards may be needed or a dispute about which sources are acceptable exists (e.g. WP:PORNBIO). This doesn't seem to be the case here, yet. In any case, my intention wouldn't be to get the other similar articles speedy deleted based on this precedent, but to bring the ones that seem to be similar to AfD as well, but then as a goup nomination. Fram (talk) 12:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are my thoughts on deleting code page articles...

I'd like to raise the visibility of this item, at least to a few users that regularly work on code page articles (@Alexlatham96:, @Spitzak:, @HarJIT:). Ideally I think it should be raised higher, maybe to the editors that watch the Code page list article.
I think EBCDIC 389 should be marked a stub rather than deleted. That would provide time for others with more expertise to "provide commentary on it from secondary sources" if that's a requirement. (That could apply to other articles with only the code page number and name in the lede.)
Another option might be to group detailed info (like the chset chart) of related code pages together. For example, code pages 382-395 (and a few others) are described as "EBCDIC Publishing" code pages. If someone can come up with commentary on what defines a "publishing" code page, they can become one, presumably notable article.
I think even the slightest of these articles don't just "reproduce the code page" but also provides information on the relationship between this code page and Unicode. Information that isn't always available elsewhere. I know it's a niche topic but it's well sourced and is notable at least to an old computer software engineer like me. As my generation retires, and as all the old technical manuals and books get thrown away, this information will just vanish. I think it's useful to have the code page article available.
Lastly, I have information/sources on around forty of the red linked code pages in the Code page list article. I think they should at least be stubs with code page number, name, and chset chart. I have no way of knowing which will be deemed notable. I guess I'll hold off until this discussion comes to some conclusion.

DRMcCreedy (talk) 16:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per DRMcCreedy. If not notable enough to stand on its own, redirect to EBCDIC 361, a similar code page. ~~There are enough sources I call this notable.~~ I will make this item visible to other users who work on code page articles: (@Matthiaspaul:, @Rowan03:). Alexlatham96 (talk) 21:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the sourcing concerns; now I'm unsure if this is notable or not. If articles like this one are deleted, then pages like this one should transwiki to Wikisource or Wikibooks. I would prefer to see a redirect to Code page over a deletion. Also, I added another source showing more information. Alexlatham96 (talk) 20:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am still confused where does this show notability against wikipedia rules? WP:Nsoft It is long established that Wikipedia is not a primary source, nor a free wiki host. Wikipedia articles are not intended to be locations where primary source documentation for software packages is hosted, WP:Product - When discussion of its products and services would make the article unwieldy, some editorial judgment is called for. If the products and services are considered notable enough on their own, one option is to break out the discussion of them into a separate article following WP:Summary style. However I agree with DMCready, as the code needs to be retained, and without the code the EBDIC page is lacking the detail. However at the moment The code page is not exactly great. The code page covers more that just EBDIC, so making it way to long.User:Davidstewartharvey

Note to closing admin: please check the WP:CANVASSing of keep votes in this AfD. Fram (talk) 07:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Breakdown of the actual sources used in the article now. The first one is from IBM, so not helpful to establish notability here.
- This is just a line in a table, nothing more, no additional information or commentary
- This again is from IBM, so not helpful for notability
- This is a gif reproducing the codepage. How this is supposed to show notability is not clear at all. Certainly not when you realise that this is the main page behind that. Not a reliable site, just a personal website.
So what we have here that are supposedly "enough sources I call this notable" is one line in a table in a reliable, independent site, and that's it? Whch is not a surprise, given the total lack of sources for this otherwise[24][25]. Fram (talk) 07:33, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I generally avoid creating new character encoding articles, on the basis that they often aren't strong enough to stand on their own, and on the basis that the first article I ever created, many years ago (3D Starfield) finished up being deleted, which put me off from creating new articles ever. Mostly, I've been working on the coverage of encodings with existing articles, and maybe covering variants of other encodings in the same article as the more widespread or standardised variant (vide, Code page 866, ISO/IEC 8859-5, JIS X 0201), creating appropriate redirects. Where possible, I'd much prefer to see articles merged and redirected, rather than deleted.

The sole exception to this is Code page 1057, which was previously a mistaken redirect to Symbol (typeface) (i.e. Code page 1038), and I figured that even if it did get deleted, that would still be better than a factually misleading redirect.

Regarding transwiki: the suggestion of Wikisource isn't really appropriate (the articles / tables are not reproducing a public domain text). Wikibooks or Wikiversity might be more sensible transwikis (since a lab handbook style textbook of character encoding mappings is a valuable resource, even if it does not constitute an encyclopedia). Although there is a Charset Wikia wiki, it is only in Korean, and not really in Wikia's rebranded "Fandom" scope anymore. Archive Team's File Format Wiki might also be an interested party worth contacting, since it has some rudimentary coverage of several character encodings, mostly just linking to the Wikipedia articles for the time being, although I daresay Archive Team of all groups would want the information to remain available even if it proves out of scope for Wikipedia. --HarJIT (talk) 11:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The policy WP:NOTREPOSITORY applies: "Wikipedia articles are not merely collections of (...) public domain or other source material such as entire books or source code, original historical documents, letters, laws, proclamations, and other source material". This is further explained in the guideline WP:NPS: "Wikipedia is not a mirror of public domain or other primary source material." Sandstein 13:20, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete this and the many other similar codepage reproductions, per WP:INDISCRIMINATE: this is not an encyclopedia article and so it does not belong in the encyclopedia. —David Eppstein (talk) 22:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to List of Honda motorcycles. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Honda Hawks[edit]

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

List of Honda motorcycles already exists. This list is too specific and likely non-encyclopedic per WP:SALAT. - Harsh 06:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 06:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with proposer. User:Davidstewartharvey
Redirect to List of Honda motorcycles, not notable for a stand-alone list. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 23:03, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fictional deities[edit]

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

This is totally unreferenced, and what makes it meet WP:LISTN/WP:NFICTION? Anyway, the list is a mess since it also lists 'real' deities like Chernobog (through I suggest not discussing here the fine line between a 'real' and 'ficitonal' deities, lol - but more seriously, it is worth noting that Fictional deities is just a redirect to this list, and the term is AFAIT not defined properly anywhere, too). _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 05:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:47, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Passes WP:LISTN. For example, see Any gods out there? Perceptions of religion from Star Wars and Star Trek; Melting the Ice Gods: The Creation and Destruction of Old and New Gods in British Fiction, 1880–1955; Filming the gods: Religion and Indian cinema; Heathen gods in Old English literature; Dying gods in twentieth-century fiction; Do the Gods Wear Capes?: spirituality, fantasy, and superheroes; &c. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The list is plainly notable and of encyclopedic interest, even if its current citation state leaves, ahem, much to be desired. Notability, as always, rests on the availability of reliable sources in the world for the article's subject (there are plenty), not on what is already in the article, and still less on what other articles ought to be (better) written. Chiswick Chap (talk) 10:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. It's in a poor state at the moment, but it could and should be pruned entirely to fictional deities with actual Wikipedia pages._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 10:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've pruned the redirects and links to non-fiction deities. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As an addendum, it seems better to rename this to List of deities in fiction, since an atheist would consider all deities fictional._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 11:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A fair point, but I think that would implicitly broaden it to include depictions of deities from actual religions in works presented as fiction. postdlf (talk) 19:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP A list article does not need references when the information it claims is in the articles it links to. Perfect valid list article, aids in navigation, links to related articles. Dream Focus 11:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point of order - Wikipedia is "not a reliable source", so no, lists always need references. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles need reliable sources, not lists linking to those articles, nor do categories have references in them. Dream Focus 11:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lists are articles (the operative phrase is "anywhere in article space"), and the category thing is a smokescreen. Try taking a list to FLC if you think otherwise and see for yourself! Chiswick Chap (talk) 12:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think some editors need to read WP:LISTN. Notability guidelines also apply to the creation of stand-alone lists and tables. Notability of lists (whether titled as "List of Xs" or "Xs") is based on the group. One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list. The entirety of the list does not need to be documented in sources for notability, only that the grouping or set in general has been. Because the group or set is notable, the individual items in the list do not need to be independently notable, although editors may, at their discretion, choose to limit large lists by only including entries for independently notable items or those with Wikipedia articles. There is no present consensus for how to assess the notability of more complex and cross-categorization lists (such as "Lists of X of Y") or what other criteria may justify the notability of stand-alone lists, although non-encyclopedic cross-categorizations are touched upon in Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not. Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability. Editors are still urged to demonstrate list notability via the grouping itself before creating stand-alone lists.User:Davidstewartharvey

The nice thing about standards is that there are so many of them, and they all say different things. Any list that includes non-notable items is in peril (to the point of certainty) of including fancruft and other types of nonsense. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is the only stand alone list standard on Wikipedia - as it says the list of subjects have to be notable. At this moment in time I do not see any notability of this list. If a Wikipedia article on the list already proves its notability within its own page it does not need to be referenced.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:37, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No, LISTN doesn't say that it's the only standard, quite the opposite: "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group [emphasis added]...Lists that fulfill recognized informational, navigation, or development purposes often are kept regardless of any demonstrated notability." We have many articles on fictional deities, as seen in Category:Fictional deities. So this would seem to satisfy WP:LISTPURP (and that caveat in LISTN) as a navigational list. And where we have a list of articles, complaints about sourcing within the list are irrelevant to deletion, because the sole question is whether citations should be migrated over from the linked articles or not. Obviously they can be if editors want to, and if they don't want to we still know the sources exist, and so can't pretend the entries are unverifiable and use that as an excuse to delete the list. That's not using Wikipedia articles as sources, that's policy. postdlf (talk) 18:24, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, satisfies WP:LISTPURP as index of articles and complement to Category:Fictional deities per WP:CLN regardless of whether it also satisfies WP:LISTN. postdlf (talk) 18:26, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:ARTN. I think that this page should be more focused on the concept of "Deities in fiction", with the list items serving as examples of some larger themes of how deities are used in fictional works. The current list is choppy and uneven, and I understand the point of view of the people currently saying Delete. But WP:ARTN says that the current state of the article does not diminish the subject's notability, and I think that it's obvious that the concept of "Deities in fiction" is a notable subject for an article. — Toughpigs (talk) 19:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, it links to existing articles of a useful topic. Pikavoom (talk) 07:32, 30 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. Not going to relist for a 3rd time, last comment was on June 12th. Seems pretty stale to me. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 20:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Egoleech[edit]

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

I couldn’t find any in-depth sources for this album, just a few mentions. Dronebogus (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Dronebogus (talk) 04:56, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 02:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nom. Couldn't find any RS. The sites that reviewed this album look like blogs. Other than those the usual stuff came up: databases, streaming service entries, retail sites, song lyrics sites and Wikipedia mirrors. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:35, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the abum: [26], [27], [28], [29] and [30]. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:09, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Good reviews presented above (admittedly in the most noxious way possible). --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 20:45, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:32, 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 04:43, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sebastian Cruz Couture[edit]

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

essentially an advertisement for a remarkably trivial compoany; the refs are PR. DGG ( talk ) 04:28, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:44, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Simply an advertisement. Was originally illustrated with copy-vio images . Now simply a promotional piece. Sources are trivial including one of the partners talking about his company and how being really rich meant that they didn't have to worry about the banks - yeuck! Fails WP:GNG. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:19, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the article is a stub and is being worked on further. The brand is known and has been worn by a number of known public figures. I will suggest that contributions be made to make it much better rather than deleting it as it is a stub. Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 09:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Tripplehaze7: Assuming for a moment that being worn by "known public figures" is of encyclopedic concern, just who are these people (according to specified, reliable, independent, published sources)? -- Hoary (talk) 09:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Answer to Hoary: According to what I have gathered from some featured articles and mentions in articles, they are a luxury brand that has been around since 2013. Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 10:57, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Tripplehaze7, you haven't even started to answer my question. -- Hoary (talk) 11:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hoary, please can you rephrase the question for me? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 11:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I withdraw my question, because the claim I was asking about is no longer in the article. Farhan gazi has replaced it with "The brand's full head-to-toe looks have been worn by some famous place in Florida its establishment" (sourced not independently but instead to the company's own website). -- Hoary (talk) 12:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Alright then. Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete "I help companies market their brand" (Suzie Ocie for Influencive) means "I write promotional text for money". Vexations (talk) 11:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question for Vexations: How does that equate to being paid for money? Isn't that a bit too conclusive of you? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 11:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tripplehaze7, Unless she meant "I volunteer to write promotional text". No, not at all. Vexations (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Vexations, so per your assumption, all her articles published are paid promotions. How do you prove this?--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 12:49, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Tripplehaze7, She admits it. The sources for this article are all promotional garbage, written by hacks, not real journalists. If Suzie ever writes a piece of pullitzer-prize winning investigative journalism, I bet she'll be adding something else than "I help companies market their brand" to her byline. Reputable news sources do not "help companies market their brand". Vexations (talk) 12:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Vexations what basis are you saying all the sources were written by hacks? Are you saying Suzie is a hack? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment- Tripplehaze7 this becoming an unhelpful "ad hominem" argument. When digging a hole, it is wise to know when to stop. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 13:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tripplehaze7, well, it's pretty simple: When I wrote "hack", I meant that in the sense of "working for hire especially with mediocre professional standards" or "a person who works or writes purely for the purpose of earning money." [31] was written by Suzie Ocie, whose bio says: " am a women’s rights activist, running junkie, and eternal marketing student. I help companies market their brand to millennials and gen z. ..." [32] is a press release. Note the mention of "vast high-profile media coverage".[33] was written by Saqib Malik, the "Chief editor" of clout, who "is an established technical expert with 9+ years of background in Web Development and Digital Marketing. His passion for helping people in all aspects of online marketing flows through in the expert industry coverage he provides..." [34] was written by Cormac Reynolds, for the Los Angeles Post-Examiner, who are reluctant to tell us who they are, per [35] "So who are we? Stay tuned." If you do your own search for Cormac Reynolds you'll find several people by that name. None of them is a real journalist, but we do find a "Content Marketer and SEO Link Builder" who has worked for the Baltimore Post Examiner, the parent company of our source. [36] barely mentions the subjec. It doesn't come close to what WP:NCORP requires. Best to just Ignore it. Now what's really interesting is the degree to which these tree article by Ocie, Malik and Reynolds, are the same. They copy each other or a template that was provided to them. That's how these PR/SEO writers operate; they don't investigate and do their own reporting. So yeah, hacks is a fair and accurate description.

Vexations this explanation is well understood. Thank you. Kindly take a look at the sources I dug up too. Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Velella well understood.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations here are some sources I dug up: https://www.essence.com/how-to/style-your-guy-essence-live-video/
Delete - not a notable company, sources mentioned in this AfD don't meet standards. YouTube videos and self-published blogs don't really get us close to notability. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.thedrum.com/profile/mdo-s-de-rl/news/a-road-to-success-in-the-fashion-industry http://www.publicitymag.com/prom-contemporary-fashion-trends/ https://burningbowtie.wordpress.com/2014/04/10/style-essentials-sebastian-cruz-couture/ https://bespokeandbeloved.com/blog/whiteandivorysuitsandseparates https://everyonesamodel.com/2014/11/10/power-of-women-canadian-breast-cancer-foundation-with-sebastian-cruz-couture/ https://lovestoriestv.com/wedding/fashion-designer/groom-or-bride-suit-designer/sebastian-cruz-couture/ Do these convince you enough? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No. Don't waste our time suggesting that we consider sources that are written by "MDO S. de R.L. Full digital/nomad Marketing Agency". Read WP:NCORP and provide only sources that meet those requirements. No press releases, self-published sources and blogs. Vexations (talk) 14:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations I also came across these TV shows on YouTube: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=S-r0faiWlV4&t=12s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7A_-ERpiPE https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yq9k8YGzMF0&t=7s Are these enough to convince you please? Thanks.--Tripplehaze7 (talk) 13:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. Fails notableVViking_TalkEdits 12:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as this article is a stub and needs further improvement on it. —AlikotoSam (talk) 13:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as half the history is about a machine the company bought, and the last sentence makes no sense. I consider this a classic case of WP:TOOSOON. David notMD (talk) 15:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or move to draft. Even Tripplehaze7 has conceded that further work is needed to bring it to an acceptable state. Maproom (talk) 21:50, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There's very little of the article; what have been proposed as additional sources aren't worth consideration. -- Hoary (talk) 22:15, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails WP:GNG, WP:CORP and WP:NOT. Without question, this appears to be WP:UPE. John from Idegon (talk) 20:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete this is obviously a spammy paid for piece with no substance and exactly 0 reliable sources here or elsewhere. Praxidicae (talk) 12:19, 27 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⁺⁺ 21:25, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per HighKing. Nothing to indicate it clears the hurdle of notability at present, and nor am I able to find anything. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV and WP:SPAM, per DGG. Run of the mill by any measure, the sourcing is just terrible. In 2007, we could have excused this mess, but in 2020, everybody knows generally about Wikipedia requirements. WP:SALT. Bearian (talk) 17:10, 30 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 redirect's undeletion. Black Kite (talk) 20:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shashibhushan[edit]

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

A police station exists, the source says it was opened. Nothing to indicate that this, rather recent, police station is significant or notable. The sources do not support either. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. Vinegarymass911 (talk) 04:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is translated from bn wikipedia. I have added may references. So the deletion process should be removed. Thanks. Emdad Tafsir (talk) 05:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I don't know about Bangladesh specifically, but I have encountered articles referring to South Asian towns serving as tehsil-level district headquarters as "police stations", as in [revision of article] (I've since changed the wording to reflect this). So this article's subject may actually be a populated place and not just a police station. I'll have to do some digging and see if this is the case.3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 22:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Doh, the article itself says that the police station is located "at Shashibhushan village". And yes, the article is definitely talking about a literal police station. I don't know if the police station itself merits an article, but if so then I think it should be moved to "Shashibhushan Police Station" and in any case make the article "Shashibhushan" itself about the village. However, I couldn't really find anything about the village itself via Google (note that I also found it spelled as "Shashibussion", "Shashi Bhushan", or "Shashi Bhusan", and there may be other variants as well), so I'm not sure what the actual content of the article would be. Of course, there may well be other sources out there that we could use (especially in Bengali; I only searched in English), so I'm on the fence.3 kids in a trenchcoat (talk) 23:15, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

According to this source, Shashibhushan is one of the two Thanas carved out of the Char Fasson Upazila in 2012, consisting five union councils. That makes it an urban administrative unit, equivalent to Gulshan Thana or Halishahar Thana. Although the article seems to be only about the actual police station, it could serve as the page on the administrative unit since we don't have any other article on Shashibhushan Thana. In that case, the article has to be moved to Shashibhushan Thana per WP:BDPLACE. Pinging Emdad Tafsir to clarify. --Zayeem ^(talk) 17:15, 29 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:55, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephanie Brookes[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm not sure how this article scraped through the first AfD. There is nothing in this article which meets WP:BIO. She's a radio contributor. If all radio contributors had articles, the majority of the world would have articles.- Funky Snack (Talk) 18:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Comment I'm not sure being on the radio is her main claim to fame. She's a successful writer who's written about spirituality, food, and travel. I believe WP:NAUTHOR (and of course WP:ANYBIO) would be the appropriate guidelines for this discussion. pburka (talk) 19:54, 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 02:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I do not know how someone looked at the last discussion and closed it as other than delete. By the standard we have now in 2020 Brookes is clearly not notable, although she may have just barely passed notability back in 2008 when this was last discussed and when we had much less rigours notaiblity guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:55, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of passing gnG or any applicable SNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete since Pburka's comment hasn't really been addressed I did some research. There is no evidence that Brookes' books have received any of the type of coverage or recognition necessary for her to qualify under NAUTHOR and I say that as someone whose primary content area is literature. The best sign of notability I could find is the Evening Standard calling her a food expert [37] which might be worth something if combined with other sources. But it doesn't seem like that has been and so I agree with those suggesting she is not notable. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. There appears to be a clear consensus that the article satisfies the guidelines on notability. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 10:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Glasgow City B.C.[edit]

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

I could find no coverage from the Herald Scotland and Glasgow Times which is a big red flag for notability. I could also find no other indication of notability from other sources. All of this is not too surprising given that the leage that they are a part of a third tier of UK basketball - third tier basketball teams might not be notable in countries with stronger basketball cultures than the UK so this too is a sign that they are not notable. Was accepted from AfC otherwise I'd have tried a redirect to Scottish Basketball Championship Men an alternative to deletion. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Scotland-related deletion discussions. Barkeep49 (talk) 19:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The coverage that is referenced in this article is available on the sites mentioned above. It is often difficult to track because the name of the club, as mentioned in the coverage, changes with the club's sponsor, those sponsors being companies of one of Scotland's forefront businessmen. Searching for "Brightsiders" , "Glasgow Sports Division" and "Glasgow d2" brings up much coverage, especially during their most successful spell in the 1980s, 1990s and 2000s. Recent coverage is less available because this club has only recently reformed at this level. The club may be in the third tier presently, however they have previously won four national titles in Scotland including the league and the National Cup competition on multiple occasions. Murdeigh (talk) 20:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep As Murdeigh points out, the team has altered its name throughout its history due to sponsorships changes. A search under those names do turn up considerable sources. While a third-tier team today, it was one of the best basketball teams in Scotland during its height, winning the national title and several Cup titles. Alvaldi (talk) 08:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep seems to pass WP:GNG with the sources in the article alone, I would have accepted this from AfC. SportingFlyer T·C 15:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have no issues with you saying this should be kept since it meets GNG. But accepting at AfC simply means that it's "likely" to survive at AfD. This is a far lower standard than even the presumed notability which causes us so much angst. Some number of AfC accepts can end up deleted and that AfC reviewer would still be doing a good job. Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 15:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Barkeep49: Just to be absolutely clear, my AfC comment has no bearing on whether it's notable - it's notable since WP:GNG is met. Since you noted in the nom that it was created at AfC, I was simply trying to note that I agree with whoever accepted the article, if they were to see the AfD - not that this should be kept because it was accepted at AfC. (I think I've mentioned to you before my general standard for accepting articles at AfC - interpreting the "likely to be kept" standard - is if I would !vote keep on them at AfD. There are some minor exceptions, but anything less and you're better off leaving a comment on how the article could be improved.) SportingFlyer T·C 03:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Evidence of notability now in place. User:Davidstewartharvey

Keep - Looking at the article as it currently stands it would seem the team meets notability on its historical achievements as Scottish champions and cup winners. I think, as has been said elsewhere, an issue is that the team has gone under other names in the past and this has caused some confusion. Dunarc (talk) 20:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Looking through the article I think it does satisfy the guidelines to stay on this site. HawkAussie (talk) 03:08, 27 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 Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science Directorate. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earth Science and Remote Sensing Unit[edit]

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

I did a source search and couldn't find indicating notability here. A bit hard to tell with the abbreviation though. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Astronomy-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 22:04, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science Directorate. It's a thing, but not a really notable one - basically a mid-level organizational subdivision of NASA. I don't think we should treat this differently than a similar center at an academic institution; which means that it can be treated to a suitable extent in the article on the parent (in this case, whatever higher-level NASA division is considered notable - seems to be the one I linked), but it needs independent coverage for a stand-alone article. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 01:43, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Astromaterials Research and Exploration Science Directorate per Elmidae's good merge target find. Basic facts are verifiable, but I agree coverage doesn't rise to the level of GNG. Remote sensing is a part of the ISS mission and gets some coverage in mainstream publications.[38] --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 03:05, 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 delete. qedk (t 愛 c) 07:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bhauji Maay[edit]

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

Donaldd23 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 02:22, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. This article is apparently about a film, but barely has any information. Only the director's name is mentioned -- none of the cast or other crew are identified, nor is any description of the plot given. The only source provided is the film's IMDb page, which is similarly lacking in information (no cast or crew other than the director), but which contradicts this article about the film's year of release. This article says the film was from 1965, while IMDb says it was from 1985. The bulk of this article appears to be, if I understand it correctly, a list of other films which happen to be in the same language (Maithili). --Metropolitan90 (talk) 15:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This should have been speedy kept as there was no rationale given, but since there's now a proper argument let's keep the discussion running.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:48, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- I found a trivial mention in an article on the director in the Encyclopedia of Indian Cinema, but it only confirms that this film exists, its director, and its release date. Note how the WP article even gets the release date wrong, and fails to even mention that it's a movie. Also, what's up with the fancrufty WP:COATRACK list of marginally related movies in the article? Ealuscerwen (talk) 03:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:40, 30 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. Already been relisted 3 times; lack of participation in discussion. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 19:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ontario Council on Articulation and Transfer (ONCAT)[edit]

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

Semi-advertorialized article about an organization, not properly referenced as passing WP:ORGDEPTH. Six of the ten footnotes here are primary sources that are not support for notability at all -- for example, funding a research paper is not a notability claim if your source for it is the research paper itself, rather than journalism or analysis being done about the research paper to establish its significance -- and three more are just glancing namechecks of its existence in books that contain no significant or substantive content about it. There's only one source here that's actually both reliable and contains an actual full paragraph of content about the organization -- but one decent source is not enough all by itself if all nine other footnotes are non-notability-supporting junk. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 17:10, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 23:24, 29 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 00:16, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, coverage of this organisation is limited to primary sources and passing mentions, even a paragraph is not significant coverage. Fails GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:13, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG - seems to get a lot of media coverage one, two. three. Nfitz (talk) 22:55, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:02, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, the first of the three sources seems to be a press release, while the other two are passing mentions. Not anything that would contribute to GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Second seemed to have enough coverage. First is indeed a press release - I missed that. Lots more references though - four - Canadian Journal of Higher Education, five - North Bay Nugget - which is also available here, six - Toronto Star, seven - Niagara Falls Review, eight - Guelph Mercury nine - Macleans 1996. I could see a case of merge to Ministry of Colleges and Universities - but I don't see how delete (User:Devonian Wombat) would be the best action, as there are more than enough reliable secondary sources that describe it's function. Nfitz (talk) 23:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aleen N. Johnson[edit]

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

The article appears to be unfit for Wikipedia from the standpoints of both WP:N and WP:TABLOID. Within the article itself, there are four citations from three websites, all of which are either tabloids or tabloid-adjacent. I do not believe that her social media use, activism, tattoo collection, modelling, proclivity for (vegan) pizza, or her general eccentricity merit inclusion on Wikipedia due to a lack of credible coverage outside of tabloid fodder, and therefore a lack of notability.

Furthermore, the account who created the Aleen N. Johnson page, Ndweasf (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log), has not made any edits to Wikipedia outside of direct association with the Aleen N. Johnson page. The fact that a single-purpose account is behind the article harms the article's viability here.

Her relationship with Playboy could carry notability, but is so far the only implication of such. If Johnson must be proven as Wiki-notable, there needs to be a heavy expansion to her article that includes plenty of cited information from non-tabloid, non-social media sources. Otherwise, toss it. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 02:09, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete the tabloid nature of the sources disqualifies the article. It is also so far past time we make it so single purpose accounts cannot create new articles this is just unacceptable. Creating new articles should not be the first edit anyone does. We really need to start making every article go through the articles for creation process. It is way past time we stopped making it significantly easier to create articles than to delete them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good idea overall. I like that, for example, IPs cannot make articles anymore. I do believe, however, that the Articles for Creation process should be made optional for experienced editors who have proven through competence and a history of positive contribution to Wikipedia that they are here to build an encyclopedia. I believe the qualifications can be similar to editing semi-protected pages (only upon autoconfirmation, when four days and ten edits have transpired); the qualifications could possibly even be taller than that. Mungo Kitsch (talk) 05:00, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The playboy magazine might have been notable attention, but the content is just interviews - it seems all of the sources I can find on her are tabloids and/or non-indpendent/non-secondary interviews, so she doesn't seem to meet WP:GNG. She has international coverage too, so it's possible some of those sources could be reliable, but I doubt it from all of the English sources I've seen. - Whisperjanes (talk) 01:13, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wicks Corner, California[edit]

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

This one has a strange pattern of GHits because the interchange is routinely referred to in anything having to do with the highways which meet there. Otherwise there are clickbait levels of hits, except that there are a few news items mixed in which tell the story. The key is this story about erecting signs naming the intersection, in which it is revealed that Wicks had a ranch here, and in later years a tavern/stage stop. A year ago the house burned down. This all adds up to a place, all right, but it's not a community. Mangoe (talk) 02:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - some minor notability as a historical location but no evidence it was ever a Community". Glendoremus (talk) 18:39, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Can find some mentions of the location as mentioned above. Nothing to indicate it clears the threshold of notability, presumed or otherwise. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:03, 30 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 List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thunder (G.I. Joe)[edit]

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

This is a minor character, and there does not appear to be any significant critical coverage on him specifically. The sources in this article are trivial coverage (minor appearances in story arcs, lists of all characters). Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:58, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:BOZ User:Davidstewartharvey

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 10:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sci-Fi (G.I. Joe)[edit]

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

This is a minor character, and there does not appear to be any significant critical coverage on him specifically. The sources in this article are trivial coverage (minor appearances in story arcs, lists of all characters). Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 01:51, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:56, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:05, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with User:BOZ User:Davidstewartharvey

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:54, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alimjan Bolumsizmu[edit]

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

Non notable film with nothing to support it having its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very regretful delete - At a time when the language and culture of the Uighur people of Xinjiang are being eradicated by the Chinese government, I do not like to delete any article about any aspect of Uighur culture. As an example of the oppression I am talking about, I understand that the director of this film - previously someone who supported the Chinese government - has been imprisoned simply for having (in 2005) signed a petition about protecting the Uighur language. However, unfortunately I cannot find any coverage in reliable sources of this film at all. Perhaps if the Chinese name could be identified then reviews in Chinese might be found, but I could find nothing in English or Uighur. If any sources are found please ping me so I can come back and change this vote. FOARP (talk) 12:22, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, agree with FOARP; unfortunately we don't even have a link to a screening at a notable film festival. Nor do director Kamil Tursun, producer Huret Obulkasim or film studio Tengritagh Film Studio seem to clear even a lowered notability hurdle. — Charles Stewart (talk) 08:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Black Kite (talk) 20:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agyakoo Gbegbentus[edit]

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

Non notable film with nothing to support it having its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ghana-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:20, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - No WP:SIGCOV found in my search. FOARP (talk) 12:08, 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 redirect to Anirudh Ravichander as an alternative to deletion. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chancey Illa[edit]

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

Non notable songs that fails WP:NSINGLE. Signature 13:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Signature 13:23, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:32, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:19, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:37, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Only found passing mentions in reliable sources and/or interview quotes. No WP:SIGCOV and as such fails WP:GNG. FOARP (talk) 12:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Anirudh Ravichander: The song was mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. It is partially discussed here, but that's not good enough for the article to pass WP:NSONG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:21, 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. Low participation despite multiple relistings. Editors are also encouraged to look up the links provided and attempt to improve the article before speedy renominating. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Electrek[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and is certainly no more notable than the other news sites in the 9tp5 network (9to5 Apple, 9to5 Google) EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:31, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is safe to say that since I created the article two years ago Electrek has evolved differently than I had expected. I am however unsure whether this means that the article is not notable. Regarding its actual reporting Arstechnica has something to day - and mainstream media cites Electrek often enough: [39], [40], [41], [42], [43]. Since the article creation also some notable, negative sentiment about Electrek has surfaced, [44]. Looking forward, I am concerned about Electrek as a news media when its main writer inserts themselves into some kind of pro- vs anti-Tesla debate with an op-ed like this [45] - which does not contribute to seeing its future reporting as objective. But these various observations seems to me to establish notability, rather than the opposite. Lklundin (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I agree that the site does not appear to be the subject of reportage or discussion by independent reliable sources which calls into question how notable it really is. I would also like to call attention to the point that I made earlier regarding how Electrek's editor in chief admitted to owning a number of shares in Tesla. Therefore, the purported "divestment" statement currently on the Wikipedia entry is inaccurate. If we were to remove that sentence, the article becomes even more meager. QRep2020 (talk) 17:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very Weak Keep My gut feel is that any site that is quoted as much as this one and is discussed by others, even in controversial terms, is probably notable. I don't think the site is reliable and if Tesla goes under it might follow. But my general feeling is Wikipedia can err on the side of keeping topics alive vs not. Another way to put it, my gut feeling is there is enough RS content about Electrek to justify an article even if we currently don't have enough in the Wikipedia article to justify it's current existence. Springee (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:37, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 18:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Synical[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non notable band. I just found out that the article survived an AfD back in 2010 and the article stayed because there are "good sources". Well I did not find any. The article itself has abysmal sourcing, nothing that indicates any notability - their Myspace pages and the site of their record label. I did a Google search and I found nothing about Synical at all, only stuff that has the word "cynical" but not about the band itself nor is it spelled with an S. They seem to have released a single album in 2000 according to Discogs but it seems like this album have gotten unnoticed, and Discogs is not a RS anyway. (By the way I find it weird that a band that is supposedly active since 1989 only managed to do one single album which have gotten unnoticed, I have a suspicion that this group actually split up a long time ago). I also tried searching with quotation marks but the results are still not any better. There are now a few sources that are about the band but they are also the unreliable stuff like Spotify, Discogs and Rate Your Music. The rest of them are an Amazon page, dictionary definitions, SoundCloud, song lyrics and lots of mentions of this word (in this form) but not about the band at all. The article states that they released their debut album in 2012 - I did not found anything about it either, and second, they released a self-titled album in 2000. This is really confusing to me now. Maybe that album was just an EP and this 2012 album is their studio album... I don't know. Still a non-notable band anyway. :) The article also has multiple issues, which is not a good sign either. Frankly I don't know how this article managed to stay here in the first AfD. So I think this is not a notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:45, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it was previously discussed at AfD and the result was Keep. --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Previous discussions: 2010-11 ✓ Keep

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No refs on page other than cleopatra, as per ghostdestroyer only on sites that other editors have voted on as dubious, only notability I can see is that Eric Griffin was in the band, but notability is non transferable.User:Davidstewartharvey
Delete - Per David and Ghost. Non-notable band. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:01, 30 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. Justlettersandnumbers (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gran Mastín de Borínquen[edit]

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

Fails GNG. No sources on the page, no mentions of the breed could be found in many books on the subject and a search of Google revealed nothing attributable. Cavalryman (talk) 01:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Animal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not recognised by any kennel club as per article on https://www.mydogbreeds.com/pumi-vs-gran-mastin-de-borinquen User:Davidstewartharvey
Delete. Google Scholar and Google Books delivers nothing. William Harristalk 08:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - One line mention as the "Puerto Rican Mastiff" is the only reference I can find. Fails WP:GNG, and to a lesser extent, WP:V.--Jack Frost (talk) 05:57, 30 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. qedk (t 愛 c) 07:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Taras Dron[edit]

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

An article about a Ukranian filmmaker that seems to be native advertising. It was created by a sockpuppet of a now blocked undeclared paid editor and also edited by the sockmaster. None of the director's films have Wikipedia articles and the sources of this article are mainly from the minor film festivals that played his films with hundreds of others. Any reliable sources coverage is minor and not significant and therefore WP:BASIC is not passed, and WP:PROMO is also a factor. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Atlantic306 (talk) 00:35, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ukraine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:39, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable filmmaker as described indetail by the nominator.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom fails WP:GNG and WP:CREATIVE.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator. No sources available to indicate the threshold of notability is reached. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Reeves[edit]

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

I've looked for reliable sources to establish notability of this subject, to no avail. I think it fails the General Notability Guideline for people. Regarding the subject-specific guideline for music and the phrase "multi-platinum", the subject isn't the named celebrity on these works--they're support personnel. Notability isn't inherited. Let's discuss. Scottyoak2 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Scottyoak2 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Scottyoak2 (talk) 00:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete -- Fails WP:GNG. Only thing I could find on this person, apart from his own site and trivial mentions, was two press releases. Ealuscerwen (talk) 01:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete -- Nothing that meets basic threshold for notability. No in-depth articles from reliable, independent sources. Glendoremus (talk) 19:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Fails notability guideline for biographies and general articles. --Jack Frost (talk) 10:59, 30 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://facts.ibcindia.co.in/index.php/8-facts-home/448-global-open-university-nagaland-police-arrested-the-university-s-pro-chancellor-priya-ranjan-trivedi

[2] ttps://www.tribuneindia.com/news/archive/features/police-team-in-nagaland-for-probe-63426

[3] ttps://www.hindustantimes.com/punjab/punjab-police-bust-fake-degree-racket-of-global-open-university-nagaland/story-O8qPe7rYULQ0ZHGaAvOXpJ.html

[4] ttp://presscouncil.nic.in/OldWebsite/Decisions/decision05/35.htm

[5] ttp://www.ecology.edu/environmental-courses.html

[6] ttps://www.google.com/search?q=Indian+Institute+of+Ecology+and+Environment&oq=Indian+Institute+of+Ecology+and+Environment&aqs=chrome..69i57j69i60l3&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8#lrd=0x390ce1e454000001:0xe69f4e884e72add2,1,,,

[7] ttp://www.prtrivedi.com/

[8] ttp://www.ecologyfoundation.in/index.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]

[6]

[7]

[8]