Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 26

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 25 June	27 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 keep. New (near unanimous) consensus that this should be kept per the new sources found and per WP:DINC (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 14:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Java version history[edit]

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

This steps over the line of WP:NOT. Virtually the entire article is release notes from Oracle. The encyclopaedic content is around the change in release cadence, which can be covered in the main article with a single sentence. Guy (help!) 13:19, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 18:16, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. There may be an article to write on the history of Java; it is a vastly popular and rather old programming language which has seen a lot of change. However, this is not that article. The current article violates Wikipedia is not a directory; listing JEPs and syntax changes is the role of a changelog, not an encyclopedia. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:27, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. I agree that having all JEPS for the article is not useful, but the kind of informations provided in the articles are not available easily. The fact that there is an overview of main changes for major versions is useful IMO. At the beginning, the article listed major changes, but I think that as times passed, editors began to include every small changes in the article, which was not the intent. So my advice would be to remove all the minor updates dates (and those changes which only bring , and only keep the key focus changes. However referring the JEP number is important I think because it is often the only way to source the change. As for the fact that a lot of informations are sourced by Oracle pages, I think that it's just because editors tried to source every release and lazily linked to the more easily available information. BTW, a lot if not all of version history articles here have exactly the same pattern. For example .NET Framework version history , Qt version history, the Ruby history, the version table for Python, the Google Chrome version history, the Firefox version history, etc... If we delete this article, we should delete them too (they have exactly the same "problems") Hervegirod (talk) 22:53, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, affirming what Hervegirod mentioned. We could debate whether this article should be merged into Java_(programming_language) or not, but the same issues others mentioned would still stand, namely not every JEP note needs to be included, and it's heavily sourced in a way that violates WP:NOTADVERTISING. But I think a positive outcome of this discussion should be a clarified policy for all programming language versions going forward, because inevitably the sourcing will be largely singular for each and every small feature update/syntax change. Shushugah (talk) 12:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, if we do seek a rule change/clarity on what change logs are appropriate we should update WP:PLOT part four

Shushugah (talk) 18:27, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 18.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 23:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, support rewrite: Per Hervegirod and Shushugah. The article is in definitive need of a rewrite, but I think the Java verson history is notable enough to have it's own article. Granted, it does go into over detail and sounds like an advertisement at some parts, but the article is salvageable enough to be fixed. SuperGoose007 ^(Honk!) 02:35, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep without a major rewrite, but with more independent sources. The only significant issue with this page is with WP:NOTCHANGELOG (point 4), which states that reliable third-party sources should be used. The information itself should be kept on Wikipedia, perhaps with some minor trimming if it is deemed excessive (as also mentioned in point 4). Modernponderer (talk) 12:45, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Modernponderer. More 3rd party sources should be used, and the level of detail trimmed a bit, but this is verifiable, useful, and notable. No reason to delete it. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 17:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment @SuperGoose007, Modernponderer, and DESiegel: did you have any particular sources in mind? We need actual (reliable independent) sources to argue notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know, BenKuykendall, I haven't looked. but for a a language as widely used and written about as Java, I would be utterly astounded if at least the major versions were not well described in reliable 3rd party sources. Texts on the language seem like a good starting place, I know there are many of those. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 15:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@User:BenKuykendall: There are literally books specifically about new features in different Java versions, e.g. [1], [2], and [3]. And just in case you don't think those are reputable enough, how about some articles: [4], [5], [6] (all from one source but about different versions); [7], [8], [9]... I've already gone 3 times over WP:THREE, so I'll let you look for #10. But it's abundantly clear that WP:BEFORE didn't even factor into this nomination! Modernponderer (talk) 16:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Excellent sources by Modernponderer, easily meets GNG, but article could be improved. Nfitz (talk) 01:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep • Sbmeirow • Talk • 04:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep might need a bit of cleanup, but obviouly notable. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ Merge to Java (programming language)#Versions per WP:NOTDIRECTORY. The article as it is now is nothing but a simple listing of Java versions, which clearly does not qualify for inclusion. Even if it could be improved with added information about Java version history itself, there is no reason why that info shouldn't just be added to the subsection I linked to above. As is, there is very little in the way of WP:RS to expand this article with. A Google Scholar search brings up nothing of relevance and a standard Google search just includes other tertiary listings of version history. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:31, 3 July 2020 (UTC) + changed !vote --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:36, 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 delete. The single keep !vote concedes that there insufficient online sources to make out notability, but does not point to any offsite sources that could assist, and also resorts to WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. The arguments made by the three delete !votes respecting a lack of sources to support WP:N stand unrebutted. Steve Smith (talk) 00:06, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terri (Musician)[edit]

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

Subject of the article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy per GNG. Furthermore a WP:BEFORE I just conducted shows subject is very much non notable & is currently still an up and coming artist. Subject doesn’t also seem to satisfy WP:SINGER. A glance at the sources presented in the article are mere announcements of the subject releasing new music. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep the subject is currently notable in nigeria, he may not have enough online coverage but offsite he's well known in nigeria as a musician, this subject is signed to Starboy Entertainment, only artiste signed by Wizkid, arguably the biggest afrobeats musician in Nigeria, there alot of Nigeria musicians on wikipedia that have same coverage and notability rate as his.Amosflash (talk)

Comment — it should be noted that the editor above is the article creator. Celestina007 (talk) 08:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. If you hang around the Bands/Musicians AfD page long enough, you will see many articles on up-and-coming Nigerian musicians that look suspiciously similar. Here young Terri follows the usual path: a whole bunch of short media notices in publications that reprint press releases in that country, such as "Pulse" and "Guardian" (which is not the reliable British newspaper). This Wikipedia article is part of that same publicity push. He has not yet received reliable press coverage that actually reviews his works with a critical eye. Good luck to him but he is not yet eligible for Wikipedia. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We do not keep articles because of unsourced claims of "he is well known". Show us sources, they do not have to be online but they need to be both reliable and independent of the subject.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:13, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sound Explosion[edit]

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

No notability, no sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:44, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:55, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:56, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Well, the article does not contain any sources and the Greek Wikipedia does not have an article about this band either. But I agree with you FOARP, this guy need to slow down with the AfDs about Greek bands/musicians. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:23, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Basically agree 100% with GhostDestroyer100. --Micky (talk) 01:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to The SoundEx, a different band that also is known by this name, and is also probably not notable. The article is currently unsourced, so there is no sign of notability there, and all a search found was a paragraph at Discogs. No evidence they pass WP:GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:03, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment The Soundex is not a notable band either. I think I will start an AfD because I found nothing about it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep There is pretty wide and substantial coverage by Greek music and cultural websites/portals/magazines of the group, its history, productions and activities [10], [11], [12], [13], [14], or at personal sites of well known music reviewers [15]. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 00:57, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Chalk19, who has actual Greek sources. I suspect that this string of deletion nominations for Greek bands was not done with due care and attention, ditto the non-Greek speakers who claim there are no sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per the multiple Greek reliable sources identified in this discussion so that WP:GNG is passed and deletion is unnecessary imv, Atlantic306 (talk) 00:23, 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 no consensus to delete, default to keep. This was already re-listed once, and generated no further discussion, so I'm closing it. It could arguably have been closed as keep, but, on balance, I'm not convinced that discussion has reached the point of consensus. However, the Korean language sources cited by both keep !votes are unrebutted. Steve Smith (talk) 00:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Point Blank (2008 video game)[edit]

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

I believe this game does not meet Wikipedia's notability policy. I was unable to turn up any reviews from reliable publications, nor do the three sources used in the page come from non-primary, reliable websites. Could also find nothing on MobyGames (it doesn't even seem to have a page for it) or the Wayback Machine. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:41, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Spiderone 18:02, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment There is an in-depth coverage at 4Gamer.net [16] [17], will try to find more. Seems there was a tournament revolving around this game [18], [19], [20].Jovanmilic97 (talk) 19:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Sources exist, if they are not in the article then that can be rectified for anyone who is so inclined, but that is not a reason to delete in the meantime per WP:DINC. --Micky (talk) 02:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Could you point me to these sources? If you're referring to the ones that Jovanmilic uncovered, it's a good start but we'll need more coverage from other sources. Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 02:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Probably referring to those mentioned in the post above his. Dream Focus 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Coverage in Japanese/Korean sources seems significant. I searched for English sources and only found a passing mention at https://www.vg247.com/2020/01/17/next-gen-light-gun-games-shooters-ps5-xbox-series-x/ "there are a lot of thirty-somethings with disposable income and enormous amounts of nostalgia for things like Virtua Cop and Point Blank." The Korean sources are enough though. Dream Focus 14:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "I searched for English sources and found only a passing mention, therefore it makes the game notable." Namcokid47 ^(Contribs) 16:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - btw, the source you provided is talking about a completely unrelated Namco lightgun shooter of the same name, not the Korean browser game. Not like it makes that big of a difference, since we have yet to see any reception for this game or any actually significant coverage. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I didn't say that passing mention made it notable. I said the Japanese/Korean sources proved it was notable so it didn't matter if English sources were found. Dream Focus 16:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - We need reception, though. This game has gotten released in the US and in many other countries, so surely some has to be found for this. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 16:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I agree with Dream Focus that the existing Korean sources are enough. For reception in English, I think the above-quoted statement that thirty-somethings are nostalgic for Point Blank indicates that the game is well-liked and memorable. The game was produced in 2008 and the magazines that reviewed it may not be immediately accessible. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The English source is useless because it is talking about a completely different game. This is not the same as the unrelated arcade game of the same title. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found another coverage of the game in Smithsonian Magazine (which is very surprising) [21], and Yahoo! [22]. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 18:20, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:50, 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 delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:12, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Religious community[edit]

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

This article is based on the ambiguity of the word "community". Much of the article appears to be WP:OR. The lede seems like a dictionary entry (See WP:NOTADICT.) The body is a apparently a typology of Catholic institutes of consecrated life. I realize that the term "religious community" is widely used, but I don't see it described and defined in quality sources in any consistent way. Daask (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Daask (talk) 05:13, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~. (Added 20 June) Changed to abstain following discussion below. The criticism of the article as it stands seems reasonable (I haven't considered it in close detail), but the article is potentially valuable. It's an incomplete stub, needing adding to and editing. Perhaps a start would be to create empty headings on Tibetan Buddhist, Japanese, in antiquity, etc. communities? I don't see a problem with the ambiguity of the word "community"; I personally think that the article should focus on things like monasteries, with a brief mention that "community" is often taken to mean people with a shared attribute living in the wider world - I don't think there's a great deal to say about this wider use beyond possibly a link to the different religions. Pol098 (talk) 10:17, 12 June 2020 (UTC) Added: I've made a start, rewriting the OR (as my OR), separating out Catholicism, and adding stub sections for Buddhism and Orthodox Christianity. Pol098 (talk) 10:56, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pol098: Where does the article title come from? Where is it defined? We can't just pull together things that seem similar to us and join them in an article. What sources describe the subjects you are discussing together? What is the difference from this article and Institute of consecrated life? or Monasticism? Daask (talk) 13:27, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources added to article. I don't want to get into a discussion with one editor so may not respond further here; let's see the consensus. Best wishes Pol098 (talk) 13:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:29, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article does not currently draw a meaningful distinction between a religious community and a monastery, the latter already being amply covered, and the other uses (eg. Mennonites) appear to be in the same generic sense of "community" that one might say "the Jewish community" or "the Muslim community." @Pol098: can you please elaborate on how this page is not redundant to our coverage of monasticism? –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 14:58, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have the knowledge to go further, and don't have an opinion strong enough to try to make a case. If there are "religious communities" that don't fall under monasticism (I don't know if there are), maybe the article is justified; if not, perhaps not. If not justified as a separate article, possibly a disambiguation to Monasticism on the one hand, articles on the wider use on the other? Certainly present content (with my additions, just empty stub sections for different religions) isn't satisfactory. Best wishes, Pol098 (talk) 20:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, sorry for misunderstanding (perhaps) your role in the article. I'm inclined to say that the best course of action is probably to redirect this title to Religious order, since, when used as a term of art rather than the generic sense of "a community of people following the same religion," this appears to be what it refers to. I don't know if any kind of disambiguating hatnote at that target would be helpful, since I don't know what articles we have that cover the idea of people in a community following the same religion. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 17:07, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning towards using some WP:TNT I think there is some reason for having an article on the history of communal living in various religions, but this article is definitely not going down that route and its current direction, towards cataloging every type of non-parochial body in the Catholic and Orthodox churches, is redundant. Mangoe (talk) 16:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Beyond the monastic orders, there has been various groups living in a community based upon a common religious outlook (e.g., Oneida Community, Rajneeshees, Hutterites, United Order, Branch Davidians, et al.) But as noted, the article would need serious work and better focus.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:28, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 22:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but allow mass cleanup of everything unsourced. Tessaracter (talk) 15:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agree with Daask. The subject is really unclear, and the term 'religious community' is too broadly used to have a meaningful article. --hippo43 (talk) 21:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This article uses two opposing definitions for "religious community". Using both of those definitions at the same time is not really an option, so if this is to become a useful article, one of them should be chosen. If we choose the one definition, we might as well redirect to religious order, as noted above by Roscelese. If we choose the other definition, we might as well redirect to religious organisation, though currently that article is focused on legal aspects and does not discuss the sociological aspects. I do not see the need for a separate article named "religious community". PJvanMill (talk) 20:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This afd reminds me of a similar recent afd - Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Aurat (word). It's mostly OR and will lead to content forking if kept. - Harsh 23:22, 4 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. Steve Smith (talk) 00:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gold (Bonnie Tyler album)[edit]

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

This compilation album is not notable. It did not chart worldwide, there is little information about this release elsewhere. Skyrack95 (talk) 21:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Fails WP:NALBUM. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:02, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect unless additional sources discussing the album are added. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:18, 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 redirect to Disney Cruise Line#Future. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Disney Wish[edit]

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

Does not comply with WP:FUTURE. The ships aren't even named? Also has poor references... all P.R. We could bring this back when this cruise line is actually launched. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 21:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disney-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Disney Cruise Line, coverage demonstrating notability does not appear to exist yet. _signed,Rosguill ^talk 21:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Rosguill. As it is a confirmed future ship of the Disney Cruise Line, it is likely to be searched between now and the time it becomes notable. - ZLEA _T\^C 21:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney Cruise Line#Future. When and if this ship does launch it’ll definitely warrant a page, but we aren’t there yet—and I’d be surprised if the ship launches on schedule. — Narsil (talk) 03:18, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney Cruise Line#Future. Notability not established. It may be notable by class. Spshu (talk) 12:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Disney Cruise Line#Future. In the future it can possibly be it's own article. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:54, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oporadhi[edit]

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

Failed WP:NSONG and WP:GNG also. ~Moheen ^{(keep talking)} 19:57, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:07, 10 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) 00:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2019-09 Arman Alif ✗ delete

Logs: 2019-04 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:44, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The song and its music video have received some coverage, both in English and Bengali. The sources indicated in the article are reliable. Though the artist doesn't have his own article (which is my concern), I believe the song is good enough to pass WP:NSONG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete With one exception, all the sources cited are only demonstrating it was highly-ranked in a non-reliable chart that fails WP:CHARTS. The exception is a source demonstrating the singer was nominated for an award that debatably qualifies as "significant awards or honors", which the singer does not appear to have won. None of this complies with WP:NSONGS as that standard is written. No obvious merge or redirect target appears to exist. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 20:39, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Although it has reliable sources, it fails WP:NSONGS. - ZLEA _T\^C 22:00, 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 delete. Sandstein 06:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aiobahn[edit]

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

No significant coverage, only sources available and presented are of the musician's work, all of which do not have independent notability. Not inherited from appearances on notable record labels. Fails WP:MUSICBIO. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Korea-related deletion discussions. Jalen Folf (talk) 15:17, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:14, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not sure if they are notable or not but coverage of their music definitely counts for WP:NMUSIC and the record label is a factor as one of the criteria is to have two albums on a major label, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If this is the label I'm thinking of, then all they've released on that label is singles. Aside from singles and remixes, only a single extended play. No known original albums at this time; a quick check at the artist's MusicBrainz profile shows a remix package listed as an album. Jalen Folf (talk) 22:22, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now - the only major source I can find in Japanese is widely published [23], but it originates from PR Times. I also couldn't establish if any of his releases charted. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:27, 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. Sandstein 06:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Its Lilli here, could you please re-evaluate my page? Let me know what else I would need to provide. I have published articles in a few publications, I'm also verified on Facebook & Twitter, and have over 4 million followers between my platforms. Thank you

[24]https://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-6491403/Model-28-lost-weight-faced-backlash-fans-like-better-plumper.html

[25]https://www.thedubrovniktimes.com/news/dubrovnik/item/5025-famous-plus-size-model-touched-by-the-kidness-of-people-in-dubrovnik Blargedyblarg (talk) 10:50, 6 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Lilli Luxe[edit]

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

Tagged for notability since 2016, not fixed. References are differently reliable. Guy (help!) 11:36, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:28, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment What do you mean by "differently reliable"? If there are high quality references we should keep the page. pburka (talk) 12:38, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the references are not enough to meet the notability guidelines for models.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 21:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Her notability in the press seems to stem from the fan backlash in 2018 to her weight loss (i.e. a single event and not ongoing notability) - otherwise a quick search couldn't source any reliable material on her. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:32, 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. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 15:25, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A.J. Beirens[edit]

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

Lacks clearly WP:GNG CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 20:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @CommanderWaterford:: What do you mean with “clearly”? Can you explain a bit of your WP:BEFORE? SportsOlympic (talk) 21:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known in Belgium as a VRT reporter. He also started on the pirate radio stations which liberated the Dutch radio and television for other broadcasting stations, and he wrote a stack of books. Clearly notable. KittenKlub (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KittenKlub, well there have been references added meanwhile so now I would delete the word "clearly", it is on the borderline, not every book author is notable and the point that he has liberated the dutch radio was not very clear out stated in my opinion. CommanderWaterford (talk) 21:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Radio stations caused it, not an individual DJ. His main notability is as a reporter for more than 30 years. He is notable in Belgium.KittenKlub (talk) 21:48, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Well known reporter and radio broadcaster. I think it complies with WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable radio producer. Have always been good references in the article. I still don’t understand the reasoning with “clearly” of the nominator. SportsOlympic (talk) 18:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He has received some coverage. Sources in the article are reliable, it's good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:57, 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. Sandstein 06:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rangeen Raten[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film without even a plot summary sourced only to non-WP:RS site IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a couple of likely WP:COPVIOs on YouTube, but nothing else worth mentioning. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 19:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 20:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:13, 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 delete. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tankhah[edit]

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

An article about a Bollywood film without even a plot summary, sourced only to non-WP:RS site IMDb since its creation in 2016. A WP:BEFORE search turned up a plot summary, and that was it. Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFILM. Narky Blert (talk) 19:31, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:12, 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 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. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Record Makers[edit]

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

The article does not seem to pass WP:GNG and WP:CORP. The article is not supported by any WP:RELIABLE sources. Looks WP:PROMOTIONAL only ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 26 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, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create, 2010-02 ✗ G12

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jason Garnar[edit]

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

Very local politician fails WP:NPOL. Page also appears to be a clear WP:PROMO piece. KidAd (talk) 19:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete county politician isn't notable unless they've gotten a lot of coverage-- Garnar hasn't Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 19:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article lacks the sourcing needed to establish notability, and the page reads more like a promotional biography.TH1980 (talk) 02:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. County legislators generally do not get articles, unless they have received WP:SIGCOV. The article has a promotional tone. LefcentrerightDiscuss 05:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, A local legislator does not count as notable. Alex-h (talk) 09:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable county executive.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per WP:NOTCV. Fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG as well. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Politicians at the county level are not "inherently" notable just because they exist — to clear the bar as notable enough for Wikipedia, he would have to be able to show a lot of reliable source media coverage supporting a lot of substantive content about his political significance. This, however, is just a résumé supported only by his primary source profile on the county government's own self-published website about itself, which is not what it takes to make a person notable for this. Bearcat (talk) 22:50, 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. Clearly not enough participation to decide on this despite multiple relists (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:18, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Warfare Noise[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM. DePRODded and two additional sources added, but I still don't see how this passes WP:NALBUM. The original (only) source was a link to an empty AllMusic entry, the two sources added are a review from Metal Injection, which isn't generally considered an RS, and a link to the record label's Bandcamp site hosting the album, which isn't independent or demonstrating any notability. There's a promotional press release on Brave Words [26] (no author byline, so probably uploaded by the record company itself, and therefore not independent or notable), two passing mentions in books (in Portuguese) which literally say nothing more than "it was released" [27], [28], and slightly more in an Italian book [29] but unfortunately this appears to be self-published so may have to be discounted as a source. So even if the Metal Injection review is considered reliable, this is still the only in-depth source in the article. As all four bands on this split album went on to be notable, there isn't an obvious redirect target, per WP:XY. Richard3120 (talk) 19:33, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:34, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Richard3120 (talk) 19:35, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per lack of independent reliable secondary sources. Bolhones (talk) 20:57, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep While the sourcing isn't best, the subject is still seemingly notable enough for having own page. Wareon (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Could you please show how it is notable according to WP:NALBUM? Richard3120 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources which talk about the album: [30], [31], [32] and [33]. With these sources, the album is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:00, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Only Ultimate Guitar is a reliable source, and in none of those sources is there anything more than a one line passing mention. Richard3120 (talk) 16:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:37, 11 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) 22:52, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:53, 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 delete. It appears that other editors have cured the WP:BEFORE objection by engaging in the requisite search. BD2412 T 01:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OtherView[edit]

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

Another unknown band on Wikipedia with unreliable sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:39, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:58, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:58, 11 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) 19:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:V, WP:N. Even after 3 weeks of AfD, the article cites no reliable sources. Sandstein 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing is miserably insufficient. PJvanMill (talk) 20:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete The band does exist; their youtube content has decent views. But I can't find a single english source while checking through search engines. Keeping in mind that the band member's article is also nominated (I understand that cannot be the reason to delete this article), I am leaning towards delete because it doesn't meet notability req. Maybe there is local sourcing but it hasn't been presented. So weak delete- Harsh 23:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Sandstein 06:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kabhi Saas Kabhi Bahu[edit]

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

Non-notable series 17jiangz1 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 13:36, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

On what basis this television series is deleted. You have no stable proof of deleting this series, then this series should not be deleted. Kaitudi (talk) 13:37, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 17:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV, which says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." This is a comedy series that aired on DD National in India, a national channel. There are three sources currently cited in the article which the nominator did not mention in their two-word deletion rationale. Why does the nominator believe that this show is not notable? — Toughpigs (talk) 02:52, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have overturned the previous "keep" closure of this discussion. See Special:Permalink/964632624#NAC. Best, Kevin (aka L235 · t · c) 17:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 18:52, 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 keep. Withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Viking Crown[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Anselmo is notable, obviously. But not everything he did is notable. Viking Crown is an example. I could not find anything besides unreliable databases such as Metal Archives, Discogs, Spirit of Metal, Rate Your Music and the like. The rest of the results were retail sites, blogs, trivial mentions, name checks and stuff where only the words are used, which does not make anyone/anything notable either. The article of the first album have no sources whatsoever, while the second one is sourced to an Allmusic review only. The band has an Allmusic biography page which establishes notability. I also found a review of their second album on Metal.de. But I still don't know if that site is reliable or not. The article itself is also poorly sourced to Rockdetector and Encyclopedia Metallum. I don't know about the former, but I know for a fact that the latter is not notable. The band's name is mentioned in books about metal music, but that's it (for example: "Vision of Disorder, Viking Crown,...") so it seems like there is no reliable sources whatsoever. I also searched with his name included but I could not find anything more besides trivial mentions (during interviews with Phil, mentioning it during his career etc.), name checks and shop sites. So it seems it did not have any notability outside of Phil Anselmo. I find that interesting since Phil Anselmo himself is clearly notable but it seems this short-lived project of his did not attract much attention and remained underground. The band has articles on the Norwegian and Italian Wikipedias too, but the sourcing is crappy on both of them. So I say, Viking Crown is not notable on its own, but it can be redirected to Anselmo's article (the band itself has a paragraph there). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Louisiana-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Phil Anselmo as one of his many side projects. Viking Crown is occasionally mentioned in long magazine articles about things Anselmo has done, but I can find no reliable media coverage in which this act was discussed on its own merits. They are only found in the basic list sites as found by the nominator, and the same is true of their albums. However, experts may search for the name, so they can be directed to Anselmo's page where Viking Crown already has a basic mention. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:54, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I found this album review. Chronicles of Chaos is a reliable source. Okay, maybe I rushed this up, I nominated too quick. We have several reliable sources now (Allmusic biography + Allmusic album review, Metal.de Album Review, Chronicles of Chaos Album Review). I will put these sources in the article and I think we can keep it. (The reason I started this AfD was the fact that initially I did not find any reliable source, and by searching "Viking Crown" the unreliable sources still outweigh the reliable ones. You have to search really hard to find these.) GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 13:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you wish to withdraw the nomination, you may do so. Chubbles (talk) 22:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Leaning toward Keep on this one. The metal.de review, AMG's bio and review, a (short) bio on the old Rockdetector, plus this interview states that a piece in Revolver led to the band's breakup, which means Revolver was covering the group in 2001. I've little doubt that other metal rags ca. 2001 would turn up more coverage. Chubbles (talk) 22:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Ok, I withdraw the AfD, the article can be kept. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 07:06, 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aries (journal)[edit]

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

No evidence of notability for what is a society journal. Slatersteven (talk) 18:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academic journals-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:25, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non-notable and no citations to counter this. --Micky (talk) 02:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to European Society for the Study of Western Esotericism. I found a good source to cover the journal in that article (Western Esotericism: A Guide for the Perplexed, pp. 159–160), but I don't think it's enough to make the journal independently notable. Ffranc (talk) 12:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, indexed in Scopus, meets WP:NJOURNALS. Headbomb {t · c · p · b} 14:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Headbomb. Midnightblueowl (talk) 09:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Captain Galaxy (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the above. BD2412 T 03:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Headbomb; also, the editor-in-chief was Wouter Hanegraaff (2001-2010). GenoV84 (talk) 22:14, 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. Sandstein 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Srinagar (film)[edit]

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

Non-notable future film, very little coverage about the film, most citations in article do not actually even mention the film described, or come from unreliable sources, does not meet WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The only citation to mention it is this one in Hindi. (Google Translate is nice) Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 18:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - can always be created if/when it does become notable Spiderone 19:13, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CallMeCarson[edit]

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

YouTuber with a high number of subscribers and a large fanbase, but doubtful that he passes WP:GNG. Very little coverage in WP:RS, with the Newsweek article being the only decent source I can find. Dexerto, for instance, was decided to be generally unreliable per this discussion. Mbdfar (talk) 17:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. No evidence of GNG. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 17:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable Youtuber.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'm seeing Newsweek and Distractify pieces, but not sure if those are enough to satisfy GNG. — Infogapp1 (talk) 11:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The sources provided above might be reliable for news but not for concluding anything about notability. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:08, 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. Sandstein 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pete Conrad Global Patient Safety Award[edit]

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

While Pete Conrad is certainly notable, and while this award has been given to some notable individuals, the independent coverage of this award in reliable sources seems insufficient to meet WP:GNG. Most of the independent sources in this entry are just supporting biographical details of the award recipients or patient safety information in general. I haven’t come up with any independent non-trivial coverage despite searching Google, Google Books, and newspapers.com. Larry Hockett (Talk) 17:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Larry Hockett (Talk) 01:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I concur with the nominator's analysis. While there are plenty of references in the article, the bulk of them make no mention of the award and are to verify statements of facts, usually about the recipient of the award. What is missing in the huge number of references is significant coverage in independent reliable sources. -- Whpq (talk) 13:17, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jiggle the Handle[edit]

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

Non-notable group. Can't find reliable third party references about them. Even news and general searches for them generally only return results about people breaking their toilets or not opening doors properly. No evidence of any notability. Seems to just be a self-promotional page as created by a user whose only edits were to this page. Canterbury Tail talk 17:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Darth Flappy ^«Talk» 18:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Non notable band. Another example of a non-notable band managing to stay here for far too long. This article has been sitting here since 2007. Anyways I looked them up and couldn't find anything besides unreliable sites like Facebook, Discogs and Amazon, as well as lot of trivial mentions and name checks. One of their albums has apparently gotten a review on Allmusic, but the page of the band itself is blank there. Allmusic is not a reliable source when the band's biography page is blank. So no reliable sources whatsoever imo. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per GhostDestroyer100. The band existed, but my search turned up nothing WP:RS. Signed AllMusic entries are worth a second look; but unsigned ones, as here, are not; except as weak evidence of existence. Fails WP:NBAND and WP:GNG. Narky Blert (talk) 20:11, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete yet another dust-collecting promo/fancruft article for some non-notable garage band. Dronebogus (talk) 02:22, 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) 20:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Aurelieus6[edit]

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

Completely non-notable. All references are self published, some are literally sites specifically so people can promote themselves. This is pure publicity for a non-notable person. Canterbury Tail talk 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 11:55, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Probably an attempted promotion, as the rapper is only visible in the usual streaming and social media sites where anyone can upload their own stuff. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 22:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- Vanispamcruftisment. Reyk _YO! 14:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:50, 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 redirect to Bonnie Tyler discography. Sandstein 06:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All the Hits (Bonnie Tyler album)[edit]

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

This compilation is not notable. The article merely offers a commentary on the track listing; it did not chart and there are no critical reviews or other related literature. Skyrack95 (talk) 16:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonnie Tyler - no independent notability in the press established by the article. --Prosperosity (talk) 01:36, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Bonnie Tyler discography. That's a better target than the musician's article. -- Whpq (talk) 13:19, 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 Rocks and Honey. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This Is Gonna Hurt (Bonnie Tyler song)[edit]

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

I believe the article fails to meet the notability criteria as per WP:MUS. It was released as a single, it did not chart anywhere, and the small number of critical reviews it received could be summarised in Rocks and Honey. The song has experienced no lasting notability since its release. Skyrack95 (talk) 16:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Rocks and Honey - The song was mentioned briefly in a few reviews that were really about its parent album. As a non-charting single it does not qualify for its own article per WP:NSONG. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Rocks and Honey: arely found anything about the song. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:33, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 17:24, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of fandom names[edit]

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

Pure, unadulterated WP:LISTCRUFT. This article exemplifies what Wikipedia is not. Most of these wouldn't even find a proper home in their target article, let alone creating a list of "Random source X called fans of artist Y, Zs" (if you're lucky). –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:49, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep fandoms are very much a legitimate subject matter. Some might be more prominent than others (i.e. Deadheads for Grateful Dead and Trekkies for Star Trek are probably among the most famous), but I wouldn't call this listcruft. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 16:03, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Week keep based on current sources. Clearly Fandom itself is a notable topic, as are many of the listed fandoms; the question here is whether this article passes WP:LISTN. Concretely: have "names of fandoms" been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources? The list certainly has a lot of sources, but they do not all fulfill this requirement. But these ones in particular seem to:

The Atlantic article "Beliebers, Directioners, Barbz: What's With Pop's Fanbase-Nickname Craze?" is great; directly discusses "'names of fandoms" and passes all the requirements of WP:GNG.
Vulture article "From Trekkies to Twihards: How to Name Your Fandom" is on-topic, but the analysis is a little shallow. Others may take issue at the reliability as well. Seems a decent source to show notability.

Some of the fandom names are very poorly sourced, e.g. to social media post or fan sites. But this is not a good argument for deletion; the correct remedy is to resource these list items or delete them from the list. Other sources are reliable, but do not imply notability because they discuss only a single fandom name instead of the group of fandom names as a whole. Overall, we should look for more sources like the two listed above to confirm notability. BenKuykendall (talk) 21:20, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A ham sandwich could past LISTN. LISTN is broken. And it's being applied too casually here anyway. Just because you can find a couple puff pieces about naming of fandoms doesn't mean we should have a list of the most obscure shit we can find. The Atlantic piece could be used to add some content to the Fandom article itself, but it doesn't justify the existence of this list. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:23, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP Some of these fandoms have their own articles. All are notable since reliable sources cover them. Dream Focus 21:50, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Uh no, practically none of these are notable. And the existence of an extremely sparse handful that do actually qualify for articles doesn't justify the existence of this entire list. This isn't a list of fandoms; this is a list of the nickname of fandoms (or members thereof). Not only that, but most of the sources are garbage. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 22:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
43 of them link to their own articles, so I don't see why you would call that "extremely sparse handful". There are 210 references, if you have a problem with any of them discuss it on the talk page or search for a better one with a simple Google news search. Dream Focus 00:13, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The nominator's arguments are undercut by their tone of disdain for the subject, and disrespect for the people participating in this discussion. "A ham sandwich could pass LISTN, LISTN is broken" is not a good reason to delete this article. If you have a problem with the policy, then you should try to get the policy amended. Use of the word "(x)cruft" usually means a barely-concealed WP:IDONTLIKEIT just below the surface, but "a list of the most obscure shit we can find" is saying the subtext out loud. Also, blowing off 210 sources as "mostly garbage" is a heavy lift; shrugging off good-quality sources when they're identified doesn't help. I get that the nominator really doesn't like this article. All I can do is offer support in this difficult time. — Toughpigs (talk) 01:15, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete I fail to see how this is a list of fandom names and not "a list of names someone once referred to the fandom as". Outside of extremely well-known names like Trekkie, there are few fandoms with a clear and obvious name for their fans. For example, Stargate fandom is not called Gater. The current keep votes do not advance any convincing argument besides WP:ITSIMPORTANT._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 08:35, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Stargate_fandom#Gaters says Brad Wright the cocreator of the shows uses the term. The Wikipedia article claims it didn't catch on, but it's used a lot in the online fan communities and also the show's executive producers use it in the DVD commentaries. Anyway, reliable sources say these are the names used, so that's what we go by. Dream Focus 17:01, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Way too much of this list is based on one twitter statement and other weak sourcing. There is no justfication for this list.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I removed all the social media sources and corresponding list items. Not saying all remaining sources are good, but trimming the list and improving sourcing seems feasible. BenKuykendall (talk) 05:44, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 06:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The sourcing for some of the items is suboptimal, but that's an argument to tag or trim those rows in the table, not to delete the whole page. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 16:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep but trim the article/remove bad sources. Fandom names are a notable social phenomenon. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meets WP:LISTN as has been discussed as a group/set ie. Fandom: identities and communities in a mediated world, Sportista: female fandom in the United States to name just a couple. Coolabahapple (talk) 14:01, 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 no consensus (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Zwanziger[edit]

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

Non-notable person. The company, Alere, has an article, and this would be a good target for a redirect. He's mentioned in that one Business Journal, and there's a bunch of mentions on some business-related websites, but in the end his notability depends completely on Alere. Drmies (talk) 03:35, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Zwanziger is a prominent member of the Boston, USA business community. It's not a "mention" in the Boston Business Joural, but a lengthy profile article under the title "Boston's Barbarian". The "Inverness Medical Innovations--Born Global" source is a Harvard Business School case study, which is the traditional gold standard of business case studies, and contains several pages of career profile and biographical information on Zwanziger. The Funding Universe article is actually impeccably researched. These are just the sources you've mentioned, but the article is rather well-sourced, so I could go on. As to whether Zwanziger's notability depends on Alere, the company Medisense which Zwanziger also cofounded is important in the history of glucose meters and was the basis for the diabetes unit of Abbott Laboratories. Medisense is discussed rather extensively in the article RSes. Additionally Zwanziger is the current CEO of LumiraDx, which apparently raised the 9th largest VC investment in the world for April 2020 (see https://pitchbook.com/blog/the-most-funded-vc-companies-in-april-2020).

To anyone else joining the conversation, important context: Drmies targeted this article for a redirect only after they became irate about an edit I made and found the article in my contributions history. They then redirected the article without notification or discussion. They are only now proceeding via a proper channel after I expended considerable effort figuring out how to reverse what they did (which, I think it is fair to say, would meet the definition of page vandalism). Zekelayla (talk) 03:48, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So, oppose/keep Zekelayla (talk) 04:14, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Hmm. You got one article in a secondary source. You have a "business case study" but it has no proper bibliographic citation, and no link to an online version that editors can judge--that this meets some "gold standard" is your own claim. And you have something from "Funding Universe" which you say is "impeccably researched"--but Funding Universe merely reprints material from the International Directory of Company Histories (it doesn't seem like you knew this), and the reliability of that source is hard to judge. It does cite one source that mentions Zwanziger explicitly (Inc. Magazine, Dec. 1990, p. 74), and I looked at what it has to say about Zwanziger himself: "Zwanziger grew up in Cyprus, then was educated in Great Britain. He received an engineering degree from Imperial College at London University before attending Harvard Business School." That's it. Standard stuff, no in-depth discussion, nothing. In other words, nothing proves that this person should be notable independently of the company. 12:39, 4 June 2020 (UTC)Drmies (talk)

Drmies Regarding HBS case studies, HBS is one of the top business schools in the world. Introduction to the importance of their case study method. Unfortunately, to see the publication you will need to shell out $9 or use institutional access. But last time I checked, paywalled academic research is an entirely legitimate source on wikipedia.

The "Funding Universe" source was not added by me, and yes it should be corrected to point to the International Directory of Company Histories directly, which is the source of the impeccable research. That source includes 3 full paragraphs on Zwanziger and his earlier company Medisense. As far as I can tell, every claim in the IDCH article is corroborated by its bibliography.

And of course there are other sources on the article that you are ignoring, the book "Worthless, Impossible and Stupid: How Contrarian Entrepreneurs Create and Capture Extraordinary Value", multiple newspaper articles which address Zwanziger directly. Zekelayla (talk) 18:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Alere. The company is notable. Him, not so much, at least not on the quality of the sources that are there at the moment. Black Kite (talk) 19:30, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Black Kite. I added additional content on the importance of Medisense and LumiraDx (Zwanziger's other ventures, which are not covered by articles). See what you think. Also, if you are still worried about the sourcing after that, it would be helpful if you could suggest what more would be needed. As a brief inventory, we currently have 2 full length profile/biographical pieces in the Harvard case study and the Boston Business Journal article, 2 shorter ones in the Isenberg book and the IDCH article, as well as citations to various newspaper articles which foreground Zwanziger (eg sources 12, 10, 11), etc.Zekelayla (talk) 21:03, 4 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 20:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:01, 12 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) 23:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:49, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Can someone please review the additional sources added. Creator, it would help enormously if you linked the sources establsihing notably in this discussion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, SpinningSpark 16:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Spinningspark There is a partial inventory of sources in my comment to Black Kite, which I reproduce here:

we currently have 2 full length profile/biographical pieces in the Harvard case study and the Boston Business Journal article, 2 shorter ones in the Isenberg book [Worthless, Impossible and Stupid: How Contrarian Entrepreneurs Create and Capture Extraordinary Value] and the IDCH [International Directory of Company Histories] article, as well as citations to various newspaper articles which foreground Zwanziger (eg sources 12, 10, 11), etc.

I think those already should establish notability. The main additional sources I've put in are an electrochemistry textbook (Bond 2002), an article in the journal Chemical Reviews, and a recent Long Island Press article. Zekelayla (talk) 07:55, 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. What Ali.shaila writes makes no sense, and everybody else supports deletion. Sandstein 09:45, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection[edit]

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

A speedy was rejected, so we are here. needs TNT Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If my previous work got deleted then does that mean that no one can write a Wikipedia page on that issue again? I am asking this because one of my previous entries got deleted. I took care of the reasons that reviewers had made while deleting. So I re-wrote a page but just now someone is sending me rude comments and has tagged my page for deletion by stating that I can't re-write a page because my previous page on the same content got deleted.

I have added better references in the current version but I can't change the names, dates, and facts. Previous page was deleted because the references cited were not from a third party. Now all the reference are from a third party. Ali.shaila (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

:Ali.shaila it is not at all the case that ...no one can write a Wikipedia page on that issue again after a page is deleted. There are various ways in which a deletion may be undone, depending on how the deletion was done. When it was done via a PROD or G13 anyone may simply ask. When deletion is done after a consensus discussion, such as a TfD or an AfD, it is not quite that simple. A recreation that is "substantially similar" is subject to speedy deletion via G4. However, a recreation that addresses the reasons for deletion, or to which they no longer apply, is not. A recreation in user or draft space, intended in good faith to fix the issues, whatever they are, is normally not deleted via G4, even if it is technically subject to such deletion. (That is the situation here.) And Of course if a deletion discussion seems to have been closed incorrectly, or otherwise violated proper procedure, it may be discussed with the closer, and if that does not resolve things, taken to deletion review. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC) [reply]

~~Oh copyright infringements, attack pages, hoaxes, BLP violations, and similar improper pages are not normally restored at all. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

My comments were made on another page, in another context, and addressed to another user. They should not have been copied and pasted here. DES ^(talk)_{DESiegel Contribs} 00:33, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wrote a Wikipedia page (International Society for Interpersonal Acceptance and Rejection)which got deleted with a comment that the references should be from a third party. So I edited the page by adding third party references and modeled the page after an already Wikipedia page on another society (National Council for Family Relations Wikipedia). After 5 minutes of publishing the new entry I started getting inappropriate comments on my new entry. One person tagged my new page for speedy deletion with a comment that my previous page was deleted so I can't write a new one. The person didn't bother to read the newly edited version.

I can NOT change fact (such as years) nor names in my article. However, I can only update the references from a third part to be transparent.

Someone read all my previous talks and comments and decide to tag the already existing page of National Council for Family Relations Wikipedia to make a logic to delete my page. This is not an appropriate action for the reviewers. Be transparent. Ali.shaila (talk) 17:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Nothing substantial in reliable, independent sources. The article was full of footnote-cruft: pages that did not mention the topic of the article itself, links back to Wikipedia, and miscellaneous web-scrapings. Announcements from ISIPAR itself that happen to appear on other websites — the Nth international conference on interpersonal acceptance will be held at such-and-such a place, etc. — are not independent coverage. XOR'easter (talk) 17:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Connecticut-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC) ps. although an international society, it is based in Connecticut hence adding to the list. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, so a "redirect" to Ronald P. Rohner, the director of the society isn't on the cards? Coolabahapple (talk) 13:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This seems like a sufficiently implausible search term that a redirect wouldn't be necessary. XOR'easter (talk) 23:43, 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) 16:47, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KarloCompare[edit]

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

Seems to be a run of the mill company that does not satisfy NCORP. Coverage is limited to routine funding announcements, brief mentions and press releases. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Websites-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 09:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found a few reliable sources about the company: [34], [35], [36] and [37]. It's also mentioned here. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NCORP. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 08:39, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment Hey Superastig, it has been mentioned once before that I know of. You have a mistaken idea of the AfD Process. You say My vote stands. I won't reply any further - first, it isn't a vote count and second, if you decide not to respond to editors pointing out why your reasoning is flawed and you don't respond, a closing admin will generally reach an understanding that you concede the points raised and discount your !vote. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - HighKing, First. I've been participating in AfDs before and, for Christ's sake, I really know that this is not a vote count. When I said my vote stands, my reasoning stands as well and not the vote itself. Second. I don't mind if the weight of my reason to keep or delete a certain article is not as heavy or light than the others. All that matters is that I've said my viewpoints. If other people vote to delete it for a reason, then be it. If they voted to keep it for a reason, then be it. I respect their viewpoints. And mine should be respected as well. Third. Anyone has the option to respond or not. If he chooses to respond, then fine. But, if he chooses not to respond, then be it. But whether I respond or not, my viewpoints will stand. Therefore, no matter how many times you argue with me, I never misunderstood the idea of any AfD Process. I rest my case. I really do. And I won't reply from hereon as this is not worth arguing. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 13:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, TheImaCow (talk) 15:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete The sources provided above are laughably bad, mostly unreliable and even so, they are barely even a passing mention. The current article is straight up spam and I can find nothing to indicate that this is actually notable. Praxidicae (talk) 15:17, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sources found by Superastig don’t look like in-depth coverage in reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 16:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete First off, the criteria for references to establish notability is not just whether the publications is a "reliable source". There are strict guidelines on what is required which can be summarized as follows. The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the reference meet the criteria. Superastig above mentions 4 references. This from TechJuice is based on an announcement from a venture capital fund that they'd invested in the company, therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This from Daily Times is a brief mention, fails WP:CORPDEPTH. This second from TechJuice is a recap of investments in companies in Pakistan and contains a paragraph on the company. The paragraph is a standard company description used in PR. Fails WP:ORGIND and WP:CORPDEPTH. Finally, this from Pakistan Today is an article on "What entrepreneurs should do to get their startups financed" and contains a long interview with executives from "TLP e-Ventures" who invested in the company. The topic company is very briefly mentioned, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:54, 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 merge to Eric Forrest. Sandstein 06:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Project Failing Flesh[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this band is notable. While I found some (otherwise) reliable sources like Blabbermouth and Brave Words, these are just announcements of their albums and read like a press release. The Allmusic page is blank which makes it unreliable. The rest of the results were semi-reliable (Metal Storm and Sputnik Music) and completely unreliable (Metal Archives, Discogs, Rate Your Music, Spirit of Metal, Last.fm, Spotify, SoundCloud, Amazon etc). So I think this band is not notable for Wikipedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge to Eric Forrest. There's no reason why we'd prefer a redlink here to a bluelink, so AfD is really the wrong venue for the nominator's concerns. Chubbles (talk) 13:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Should I copy this text to Eric Forrest's article (to a new section: Project Failing Flesh)? Then the title can stay as a redirect. I just think this band is not notable on its own. And of course, a blue link is much better than a red one, even if it's just a redirect. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to a new section on Eric Forrest as there is enough coverage for a merge, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 23:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Eric Forrest for now. I added a book cite which raises the questions @GhostDestroyer100: why did you not find that and what parts of WP:BEFORE if any did you observe? Sam Sailor 21:13, 4 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 Draftify. (non-admin closure) Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tauhfa Ithna Ashari[edit]

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

Does not meeting general notability guidelines with various failed Citations Majun e Baqi (talk) 13:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Islam-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify: The sources aren't great at all, and at minimum I'd support draftifying it at this stage; It doesn't meet WP:STUB. Whether this article should be on Wikipedia at all (ie: is it notable) I'm not so sure that it isn't. Seems to be a fair bit of discussion on Google Books about it. And that's with me being aware of my ignorance and the fact that much of the discussion surrounding it won't be in English. I think it might be notable, but at this stage it shouldn't be in mainspace. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify: yes, I'd agree. The book's authorship suggests it might easily be notable, but the article needs better sourcing and drafting before it returns to mainspace. Chiswick Chap (talk) 14:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify Impossible for me to tell at this stage whether it’s notable or not. Mccapra (talk) 16:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Redirect: The book is definitely notable, although you may not be able to find much about it in English. Also, it seems there are multiple spellings based on various transliteration renderings e.g. 'Tohfa Isna Ashria', 'Tohfa Isna Ashriya', 'Tohfa-e-Ithna-Asharia', 'Tohfa e Ithna Ashariyya', 'Tohfa Asna Ashria', 'Tohfa-e-Ithna Ashari', etc. There should be effort to expand this article before any talk about deletion, and if it is not, the best is to redirect to it's Author's article.--Fz^tc_s 18:37, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Fails WP:NBOOK/GNG. No evidence of in-depth reviews in reliable sources. If someone wants to work on this, I am ok with drafitying. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 03:56, 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 speedy keep. Withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nations of Nineteen Eighty-Four[edit]

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

I actually think this topic may be notable (sourcing like this and this was found relatively quickly) but the article as it stands is fancruft, only sourced to the book, and goes into more detail than an encyclopedia reasonably should (without any secondary sources). This painfully under-sourced mess should be a redirect' to Nineteen Eighty-Four#Political geography, which contains a reasonable amount of in-universe detail. I'm not opposed to withdrawing this AFD if the in-universe stuff is trimmed and secondary sources added, but as it stands there's no benefit from a stand-alone article. (note: coming to AFD for wider input after Deacon Vorbis and Michael Bednarek disagreed about whether to redirect or not) Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawn by nominator based upon recent improvements, redirection is not merited any longer. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 12:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 13:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concur with nom, mostly. It also appears that each individual nation was merged into this single article not too long ago. It's drastically undersourced and, in the style of writing, currently has little encyclopaedic value and currently suffers from a bunch of WP:OR. I believe the topic itself is notable. I think it would've been appropriate to put some cleanup tags on the article, as well as leaving a message on the talk and of the talk of the main book article and seeing if anyone wants to clean it up. I'm not yet sure if it's WP:TNT worthy; there's plenty of stuff in here not in the main article, not all of it being fancruft. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:27, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Redirect~~ as suggested by the nominator. This violates WP:NOTPLOT because it is an entirely in-universe description of a fictional work. Articles about fictional topics need to include at least some sort of real-world background, context or analysis. I'm sure enough people have written about Nineteen Eighty-Four for this to be possible but as it stands the article isn't encyclopedic. Hut 8.5 20:02, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep following the recent improvements. Hut 8.5 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Weak redirect~~ as suggested by the nominator; the topic itself does not seem to meet WP:NFICTION. That said, this work has a number of studies about it, and some sort of article about the fictional universe may be warranted, combining this and a number of other topics into one. Also, the topic may actually be notable, but the article is close to WP:TNT - unreferenced fancruft that needs to be gutted to the bone and replaced with content wee could verify; so I have no objections to this being kept if rewritten, or recreated with sources in the future. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 00:23, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep. Thank you Eddie891 for the ping, I have updated my vote. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep – The history of this article goes back to 2004. As others here have observed, it's clearly a notable subject and this article goes beyond what's in the main article. The content here is indeed unsourced and is technically OR, but it doesn't seem to contain any obvious POV howlers. It can be improved. -- Michael Bednarek (talk) 01:22, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:NOTCLEANUP. Would not be opposed to an overall merge to some Universe of Nineteen Eighty-Four article, but the subject seems notable._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
comment based on Serial Number 54129’s great expansion, my concerns and most likely those of Piotrus and Hut 8.5 have been resolved, and I’d be happy to withdraw this nomination. Best wishes, Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 16:37, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kautik Student Film Festival[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG The Banner talk 12:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:22, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:12, 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, narrowly, and with a suggestion to refactor the subject into an article incorporating a list, rather than structuring it as a list. BD2412 T 23:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology fraternities, sororities, and ILGs[edit]

The article has been revised extensively since it was nominated for deletion. See versions from 21 Jun 2020 or earlier for the old versions, versus the new version. Wikipedia:EDITATAFD Jax MN (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

WP:NOTDIRECTORY, this is a list of non-notable entities with a significant amount of fluff and unreferenced content. In a similar category as the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology graduate dormitories and the recent Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology undergraduate dormitories EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fraternities and sororities-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 02:54, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep Trimmed definitely, My question is whether you consider (just to pick one of the organizations) Delta Tau Delta to be a non-notable entity (and as such would support deleting that Article). I agree it can be trimmed down a lot, and better references are needed, but if the question is ultimately whether an article with the core information can exist, I believe that it can.Naraht (talk) 14:11, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'd reduce the language extolling the virtues of each individual chapter and leave that for the rush brochure. But this is an historic system with a history of almost 150 years. Its milestones should be noted, including high water mark for participation, notable downturns, and overall population measures. Jax MN (talk) 23:21, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Respectfully, neither of these comments address my concerns about having significant coverage in independent secondary sources, nor about this being anything but a directory, and while I respect the knowledge you both bring to this discussion, you both appear to have somewhat significant conflicts of interest in this topic. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 21:21, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not an MIT grad, nor is User:Naraht. Hence while we may have specialties in the area of collegiate and post-grad societies, among other topics, I don't see a conflict of interest. To your point, we have been discussing resources for additional references to improve the page, which I think is a reasonable objective. Jax MN (talk) 21:40, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm working on substantial re-write of the page in order to get rid of fluff and add extensive references. Jax MN (talk) 20:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An example of how the page would look, and a longer discussion of improvements, is at List of Massachusetts Institute of Technology fraternities, sororities, and ILGs. Please review. Jax MN (talk) 03:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note, the new formatting idea is on the Talk page, not the mainspace page. I inserted the wrong link in my comment above. Jax MN (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: despite what others have said, I still think that it fails WP:NLIST. I cannot find any sources that the topic has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources. The sources are either from MIT, the ILG, or some national Greek life council, so not independent. The article is also a non-encyclopedic cross-categorization in my opinion. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again ~~Keep, with Reformatting~~: See Talk:List_of_Massachusetts_Institute_of_Technology_fraternities,_sororities,_and_ILGs#New_format_suggestion, Sections 4, 5, and 6, for the new formatting model. A couple of points:

These pages are highly-trafficked, and valuable to their communities. There are many similar examples of such pages so I don't see the rationale for deleting this one.

As to WP:NLIST, 50% of MIT students join these organizations. The groups own properties and have histories stretching back to the 1800s. Clearly notable.

For larger Greek systems, two Wikipedia List styles have emerged, which I'd call the Cornell Greek List Model and the Dartmouth Greek List Model - I far prefer the Cornell model, as it is more succinct, referenced, and not as subject to bloat, reduces fluff and suppresses inconsistent editing. The page we are discussing is rendered in the Dartmouth style (poorly, at that), and my suggested revision is in the Cornell style.

I agree that the references on the original MIT list of Greeks were thin. However, I don't dismiss out-of-hand the MIT sources. Use of University Greek Life Office info about the Greeks is consistent with other such lists. And Baird's Manual has long been considered the defacto reference work for these societies. The new model makes use of Baird's.

This article was discussed for deletion back in 2007, and deletion was rejected then (withdrawn). Jax MN (talk) 15:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)

— Duplicate vote: Jax MN (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above.

Speedy keep Jax MN makes good arguments and it seems to me there was consensus to keep it before the relisting so I feel the relist was unnecessary. --Micky (talk) 17:13, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jax MN has voted twice in this discussion, the balance before the relist was two editors saying keep and two saying delete, and nevermind it appears you're a sock. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I did vote twice, the second time after you promoted the issue once again. (Actually, as I pointed out, it's the third time the issue had been raised, and a previous AfD was withdrawn.) EoRdE6, you have not addressed the substantive issues I've raised. I'm attempting to cure the valid concerns that prompted your request for AfD. Frankly I am surprised that this has generated so little conversation, as these Greek lists are often more popular. Page history, only going back to 2016 shows a dozen views a day. I conclude that with a higher quality page it will generate more use, more interest. Which is what I am attempting to do by revising it. I'm about to update the new draft to its mainspace. Will you withdraw this AfD request on this basis? Jax MN (talk) 16:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jax MN: I see no reason to not let this AfD run its course, even if it may be leaning keep. You have not addressed the core concerns raised here, a lot of page views is not in any way a reason to keep, nor does the fact it was kept in 2007 mean anything, we don't use case law on Wikipedia and a previous keep doesn't mean it can't be deleted in the future. I of course encourage you to try to improve the article, no one is stopping you there. But I fully intend to let this AfD run its course and have other, uninvolved and non-COI editors weigh in, and have absolutely no interest in arguing with you about improving it, which is why I have refrained from replying, I welcome improvements to the article, that's why we are here. My vote remains delete. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 16:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leaning Delete - Massive amount of unsourced/primary sourced text. I would say "Wikipedia is not MIT's promotional website" but this is even more detail than I would expect there. It's possible a list could make sense somewhere, but this is not simply a list. As such WP:TNT would apply, and it's probably more sensible to just include in the main article. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 17:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Rhododendrites:. I'm about to swap out the entire page with new content that fixes the lack of references, the fluff language and style problems. I'd appreciate your review of the updated page after about 20 minutes from now and ask for a reconsideration of your leaning vote. My concern remains that this effort to delete is Quixotic. Unnecessary. But I want to ensure that those coming late to the party see that the complaint was about the former version of the page, not this new version. Jax MN (talk) 18:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've completed the revised article. The old content has been swapped out with new, including many references, cleaned up formatting and much reduction of fluff. Jax MN (talk) 21:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your efforts. It may help if you highlight here what the 2-4 best sources are for the topic (sources independent of MIT). — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 21:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly. The previous article had 12 references, mostly from unreliable local chapter websites. The revised site has over 120 references. They include the 20th ed. (1991) of Baird's Manual, first published in 1879. It's considered the defacto reference standard for Greek letter organizations. I reviewed approximately 50 of the annual MIT Technique yearbooks, each edited by a separate editorial board and Editor-in-Chief, citing individual pages for every society which existed up until 1930 -- yearbooks are not available online after that year. For a deeper look at the history of the dozen Jewish fraternities at MIT (some current, some dormant) I cited a book by Marianne Rachel Sanua, Going Greek: Jewish College Fraternities in the United States, 1895-1945, which I summarized on the Talk page. --Interesting book. I also cited a white paper produced by the University's office of FSILGs (by Administrative staff, within Student Affairs) which I noted as the "FSILG report." I only found two errors on that otherwise comprehensive and valuable document. Almost all of the groups now note their address and website, which a Google Map search would confirm for physical presence. Finally, several contemporary newspaper articles are cited, where they had detail to offer. Where I didn't have a reference for an unknown detail I left a note, or question mark, or "xx" in a missing date. This is a collaborative, iterative process, after all. Jax MN (talk) 21:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell though, while both Baird's Manual and Going Greek mention fraternities and sororities in depth, they fail to mention the importance of the specific grouping as it concerns MIT. Both books appear to mention the history/importance of the national organizations and then merely provide a list of schools that have a chapter, so a grouping that would indicate the notability of List of Alpha Tau Omega chapters for example. Also, the only newspapers that are referenced are The Tech and Chicago Tribune. The Tech is a student newspaper, so I would argue it cannot be used to establish notability per WP:AUD. The Tribune article on the other hand does not mention the grouping of MIT frats, srats, and ILGs as a whole, so no WP:LISTN. Everything else you mentioned is not WP:INDEPENDENT. Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 04:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh thank you. I'd like to explore your concerns further, so that I may offer more extensive references. Tell me,

Are you uncertain whether these organizations exist? Or that the earliest Greek societies appeared at MIT 150 years ago? I can prove that.
Are you unconvinced that they operate as a bloc, or shared-interest consortium, a community one might say, with shared interests, and have done so for over 130 years? I can prove that.
Are you skeptical that a plurality, or even a majority of undergrads at MIT have participated in these groups since about 1880? (I may be off by a year or two +/-. Forgive the sloppiness.) I can prove that.
Did you demur over the article's claim that today, about 1,000 students are active members, visiting or living at these Greek properties on a daily basis? I can prove that.
There is a Gallup survey of Greeks, nationally, that confirms a more positive student experience due to Greek participation. Fifty schools were surveyed, each with a corresponding, positive result. I can see if they included MIT in their pool. Without it, maybe the Greek administration office has done its own survey. One might infer from the popularity of these organizations that they do have their adherents and supporters.
Property records and comparable real estate sales ("comps") will show that the value of owned Greek properties is in excess of, say, $250M. I can trace property records back to the organizations themselves, via their alumni boards. This may take some time though, as due to COVID, some government offices are shut down and this AfD request is timed for a seven-day period. What to do? But I can prove this valuation.
Many of the references I cited were school yearbooks. Do you have a concern that there was a conspiracy to print sometimes 150 pages within each volume, dedicated to these organizations? Some might think that the persistence of these yearbook sections would prove the Greek-Letter organizations' influence and defacto presence on campus. I can prove that.

Now, maybe I took a shortcut, and ask that you correct me if this was wrong. In many of the yearbook references I cited, I did NOT provide an immediate link to them, only to the year and page #. The link to the trove of online yearbooks is at "MIT Technique yearbook archive" (accessed 23 Jun 2020), and is noted elsewhere in the article. But I can append that link and date of access to each of my yearbook references. Sorry.

On a related theme, my research shows that each yearbook was written, edited and is copyrighted by a separate governing board, with some staff continuing over a two-year span, but certainly no one except faculty advisors lasting on said board(s) for longer than 4 years. --Were you suspicious that a cadre of conspirators wrote these sections about perhaps fictitious groups? Each yearbook did contain a prank section, but I carefully avoided using any of that material. I could provide reference citations on these references themselves, linking to the printed page that lists the editors and board members. Alternatively, you might go to the cited yearbook, then page through to the front pages where the editors are listed, or to the end, where the rest of the board is photographed. (I may need help in providing nested references within the references. Can one even do that? But regardless, I'm game.)
WP:reliable sources seems to suggest a spectrum, and not a rigid parameter. Even though, yes, some of these sources come from the school, they aren't ephemeral, fleeting sources like chapter websites (here today, gone tomorrow). Rather, they are from published books, Administration white papers, and professional staff research.
Wikipedia sometimes allows a preponderance of evidence in determining validity of a source. See WP:RSCONTEXT, and especially WP:BIASED, which states that "reliable sources are not required to be neutral, unbiased, or objective" - The Greek Office, for example, is likely pro-Greek, but unlikely to offer fraudulent information. Their cited reference, in fact, alerts readers where to send corrections, and invites them. I was careful not to use "self-published" books, but did see WP:SELFSOURCE, and think my references pass the 5-point sniff test therein.
Some famous alumni indeed list their Greek membership on their CVs and such participation is noted on their biographical Wikipedia pages. I can search for these.
I'd estimate that at least 100,000 MIT graduates have Linked In pages, and if 40% participated in the Greek system, many will note this on those pages. Say that this is 5,000-10,000 people. My experience is that alumni Greeks often mention their participation with some pride, using this for networking or to show that they have social or emotional competency along with the likely technical competency that an MIT degree indicates. Would you require citations on the page for, say, 100 of these alumni? 500? I, or my heirs, could provide that.

I'm no slacker when it comes to research, and honestly wish to provide validation to this page, anything that a disinterested but diligent Wikipedia editor would require. With all this in mind, especially the points above about use of reliable sources from MIT administrative offices and the many yearbook editions, please let me know where I might allay yours or any concerns. With respect, Jax MN (talk) 18:00, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Certainly some refbombing going on here. At a glance, I think the topic has encyclopaedic value, but I'm not sure its current form does. Whether it can be fixed I'm not sure, but I respect the efforts of the above editors for trying. I lean towards keeping with significant cutting down, rewriting of parts and better sourcing, recognising that there is active work in attempting to fix it. At a glance the article appears to be in a better form than it was when the AfD started (Special:Permalink/962098874), but there's a lot of primary sources and refbombing going on, so the reality may be different with a closer inspection. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate your viewpoint. Taking the perspective of a genealogical researcher or historical biographer, I thought the most useful citations for these researchers would drill down to a specific instance where one of the groups (fraternities often, but sometimes honorary societies, etc.) would provide new information, for example, a 1925 yearbook citation that explains a group was locally founded in 1917. This kind of thing is common, and with few exceptions (due to typos) these many available yearbook citations are internally consistent. Now, each group might have 40 similar citations available, but for brevity (and to your point) to avoid refbombing, I chose one or two that add new information: dates of local founding, chapter name, address, crest, first appearance, etc. Wikipedia often points the way for additional research lines, and is not intended to declare all valid references. There is a difficulty in pointing to the vast expanse of yearbook citations to show the first appearance, or validity of one of the Greek societies, in that, if I was to just say "see yearbooks" it wouldn't add much value. These volumes constitute over 50,000 pages. (150 years x average 350 pages each). Hence I listed the year and page number where one could find more detail about each specific group, but didn't add links... But if reviewers think that is necessary, I could. ...This was a compromise between differentiation and page bloat. For the many Greek society pages elsewhere this seems to be the accepted syntax.

In compared to the old (last month's) style, what this new version does is to reduce the tendency to editorial, self-serving bloat, because it doesn't offer each fraternity a paragraph on the mainspace to talk about the "virtues" of each chapter, as do pages for other (often prestige East Coast) schools. My new format of the page took those dozens of paragraphs away, replacing all of them with a bulleted list, ordered by date of founding. ~shorter.

I thank readers who see the encyclopaedic value here. Again, thank you User:ProcrastinatingReader for your measured review. Jax MN (talk) 17:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP All those blue links to the various things listed, show it is a valid list article, aiding in navigation. Dream Focus 18:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Among the different fraternities/sororities listed, several actually have independent and significant coverage in local news sites. Although the article has too much puffery and all sections before the actual list qualify WP:NOT, that still cannot justify a deletion. - Harsh (talk) 22:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The article needs pairing down and simplification in format, but there is a lot of interesting information here that lists the MIT location of blue linked items (e.g. closer to the NLIST criteria of the list of notable items, but not exactly); unlike other MIT lists (e.g. the dormitories), I think this is helpful to readers. Britishfinance (talk) 19:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - it's still a mess - especially the footnotes and sourcing "according to..." - but it's getting better. I shan't in good conscience !vote either way. Bearian (talk) 19:08, 8 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 sufficient coverage to support either an article on the Infinite Corridor or on MIThenge. Where exactly the material should go is an editorial decision that can be discussed on the talk page. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infinite Corridor[edit]

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

While certainly more interesting than most school corridors, I struggle to believe this is considered notable beyond maybe a sentence or two in Campus of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. I understand this article has been at AfD 10 years ago and passed based on a few clickbait-y headlines in some smaller outlets about "MIThenge", beyond that this hallway has never had significant coverage in secondary sources, a few passing mentions here and there though. If kept at least half the article likely needs trimming. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 04:10, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 10:14, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:42, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Could stand a thoroughgoing edit, but independent and reliable sources exist that are more than clickbait or passing mentions (e.g., [38][39], plus the Hapgood and Coyle book sources already in the article at least). At worst, this is a candidate for a selective merge to the article mentioned in the nomination, per WP:ATD. XOR'easter (talk) 17:21, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep This article may need cleanup but we have WP:RS even if someone needs to tag the article about the lack of sources cited. --Micky (talk) 17:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article should stay with significant editing. A cleanup tag should be suggested. As was noted in the original AFD nom, the corridor has 674 book mentions, 145 scholarly mentions, and popular press coverage in Wired, Buffalo News, Kansas and Dallas, as well as the Boston Globe obviously. Also featured in a book title. SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 10:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per SerAntoniDeMiloni. It does meet notability, and though it may need work, WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. On a slightly unrelated note, I recall this corridor also being featured in Good Will Hunting, and is also the subject of mention in other films and books. Yes, most of the current sources aren't great or independent, but independent ones do exist, as SerAntoni has pointed out. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a factual clarification for SerAntoniDeMiloni and ProcrastinatingReader, none of those numbers are right, even if they are blatantly copy-pasted from the first AfD. Your own Google Books link returns 8 unique results when excluding duplicates and cross references. The "145 scholarly mentions" are almost exclusively superfluous remarks in acknowledgments such as While walking through the Infinite Corridor, the main artery that connects MIT’s buildings, a member of Campus Crusade for Christ handed me a free copy of The Case for a Creator by Lee Strobel. None of them are in depth, independent, secondary sources. They are almost exclusively from papers written by MIT students mentioning random anecdotes, not actually discussing the corridor itself, and are therefore irrelevant. The Wired article is by an MIT alum, is two paragraphs long and exclusively discusses the MITHenge event. The Buffalo News article mentions the corridor in one sentence of a length article about Harvard, MIT and Cambridge in general (archived version) and in no way represents in depth coverage. The Kansas and Dallas article is (archived here) once again a single sentence mention in a lengthy travel article about Cambridge and does not represent in depth coverage. Exact same story with the Boston.com article, a passing mention in an article about Cambridge [40] (note that Boston.com is the local news version of BostonGlobe and has lower editorial standards too). The book was written by a non-notable MIT employee and once again doesn't provide any in depth coverage. I would appreciate more thought than linkbombing useless articles from a previous AfD debate. EoRdE6^{(Come Talk to Me!)} 15:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

EoRdE6 Note that I mentioned that those figures came from the original AfD. (The post was by Madcoverboy, who may have some input?) SerAntoniDeMiloni (talk) 16:11, 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. Although merge was suggested, I see a strong consensus to delete and not merge. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Camp Bow Wow[edit]

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

Has some coverage, but I don't think it meets WP:GNG or WP:ORG. A clear advert, so if kept would need TNTing. Boleyn (talk) 19:11, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Comment. There was actually very little "advert" language that needed trimming, what remains seems pretty straightforward and descriptive even if it can be improved further. Pro tip: TNT is almost never the right answer. No opinion at this time on notability. postdlf (talk) 20:34, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Current does not prove notability for wp:Corp. References are just announcements or stock listing, reuter link no longer works.Delete if no one one improves it and proves notability.User:Davidstewartharvey
Delete Non-notable, not meeting GNG. --Micky (talk) 01:49, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet -Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect into Heidi Ganahl, which admittedly has similar problems with promotional tone & COI editing history, but will pass (for now). This one definitely does not. --Lockley (talk) 09:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Let's take a look at the sources: (1) a company profile, (3) profile, (4) profile. (2) and (5) don't demonstrate the kind of coverage that warrants an article. 2 suggests perhaps a section in VCA Animal Hospitals might be appropriate. I don't think GNG is met. Furthermore, its current form is purely promotional, with no encyclopaedic value. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep but rewrite: a franchise with 125 stores is a large enough scale for notability, if encyclopedic sources can be incorporated. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:34, 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⁺⁺ 18:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails the GNG, and if not I'd TNT. I don't think there's anything in here that belongs in the article on the founder. PJvanMill (talk) 20:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:SIGCOV. In 2009, this shoddy stub would be acceptable as a good-faith effort, but it's been tagged for years by DGG, and no real effort has been made to improve it. Bearian (talk) 19:11, 8 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sean Cassidy[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:AUTHOR or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 19:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Another non-notable writer. --Micky (talk) 01:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC) WP:SOCKSTRIKE 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - I've just added 4 references to the article. Two of them are in-depth features (Dunnville Chronicle and Midweek Banner), and the subject meets GNG. Nfitz (talk) 03:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Added another one! Nfitz (talk) 03:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:16, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep thanks to Nfitz's sources. — Toughpigs (talk) 22:42, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corellium[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability for this company. It has made a few headlines for all the wrong reasons and seems to be at legal war with Apple. Despite this, none of the refs really talk about the company, just the legal fight. The only other ref is a review of the software, not the company. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 11:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 11:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete. As nom points out, this company seems mainly famous for being sued by Apple. Two or three of the sources are primary & worthless. Article creator is now blocked -- not for promotion or for COI but for running multiple accounts. --Lockley (talk) 22:54, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 16:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kentrell[edit]

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

This person is not notable. "Kentrell" the mononym mainly has results for "YoungBoy Never Broke Again", A different artist, whose first name is Kentrell. When I look for "Marcus Kentrell Brown" the results are mainly direct from the wikipedia, or they are social media. I couldn't even find a website of their own. (I'm pretty new to this, please go easy) Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What on earth?, is this proposing to delete Notability?Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 10:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mississippi-related deletion discussions. Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Umn...I'm confused. I think you've made serious errors in how you've listed this AFD. Are you aware that you've nominated the notability policy for deletion...? Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: Uhhh, yes, um, I tried to use Twinkle; help, I've made a monster
  - Reply: You can withdraw your nomination like this Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#Withdrawing_a_nomination. Then if an admin comes they can close this. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Or more simple. I fixed the AFD so that the article the OP intended to nominate is now actually nominated.T v x1 10:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment For clarity of this AFD, the nominator had originally nominated the wrong page, hence the above confusion. I'v fixed this so you can add your comments on the actually nominated subject below.T v x1 10:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Regarding the correct AFD for Kentrell, I agree it should be deleted. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:23, 26 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 26. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete:Thank you Tvx1, I am so confused by everything right now, but this page, Kentrell, that is, still should go.
Delete Not seeing any evidence of notability.Slatersteven (talk) 10:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable singer.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No notability established.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:20, 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 redirect to Drama teaching techniques#Drama games. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:30, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bang! (drama game)[edit]

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

nonnotable student, child, or improve game for a group. one reference does show it exists, [41], but could not find any discussion of the game as particularly interesting. youtube video of it is one of dozens of such games. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 02:38, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Google searches show almost no notable references. Needs more to pass WP:N — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jackreed86 (talk • contribs) 06:41, 12 June 2020 (UTC) — Jackreed86 (talk • contribs) is a confirmed sock puppet of Vipulsshah (talk • contribs). [reply]
Delete per nom. If we included every game like that we would have to have all the childhood games we played in the playground. There might be a case for an article summarising many of these games appropriately referenced, but this isn't that article. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to drama teaching techniques. Eh, was going to close as delete, but worth preserving the redirect with this source. (not watching, please {{ping}}) czar 04:10, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:28, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per Czar. --Micky (talk) 17:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:42, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 09:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect as above - I don't even know how enough encyclopedic sources could be collected for this topic. --Prosperosity (talk) 02:36, 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. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:54, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kechara Soup Kitchen[edit]

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

Non notable company/organization. Fails WP:NORG Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Malaysia-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 05:24, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Need more WP:RS to be kept. --Micky (talk) 18:18, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 09:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Adib, Nor Amalina Mohd; Hussin, Zaliha Hj.; Ahmad, Yarina (2018). "How Effective are the Current Initiatives in Dealing with Homelessness in Malaysia?" (PDF). Journal of Administrative Science. 15 (3). Universiti Teknologi MARA: 4–5. ISSN 1675-1302. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Rashid, Najihah (2019-12-01). "In the Spirit of Giving Back". Marie Claire. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via PressReader.
Foong, Joshua (2009-12-28). "Soup kitchen poised to expand services". The Star – via PressReader.
Panirchellvum, Vathani (2017-08-31). "Place for hot meals and care: Kechara Soup Kitchen provides food, medical assistance, to the homeless, urban poor". The Sun. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via PressReader.
Hin, Ooi Kok (2014-07-10). "The homeless, soup kitchen and volunteers". Citizens Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Pak, Jennifer (2014-11-10). "Socialite becomes a volunteer in Malaysian soup kitchen". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Keong, Hoo Boon; Mohamad, Radziah (2018). "Design and Development of Cross Platform Volunteer Mobile Application for Kechara Soup Kitchen" (PDF). UTM Computing Proceedings: Innovations in Computing Technology and Applications. 3. University of Technology, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-2171-30-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.

Sources with quotes

Adib, Nor Amalina Mohd; Hussin, Zaliha Hj.; Ahmad, Yarina (2018). "How Effective are the Current Initiatives in Dealing with Homelessness in Malaysia?" (PDF). Journal of Administrative Science. 15 (3). Universiti Teknologi MARA: 4–5. ISSN 1675-1302. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
Kechara Soup Kitchen (KSK)

Besides PERTIWI Soup Kitchen, Kechara Soup Kitchen is also among the top listed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Malaysia. Kechara Soup Kitchen (KSK) has their own objective and motto that are focused on which is to provide food for the homeless on the streets and the urban poor through the implementation of their programme, “Hunger Knows No Barriers”. Their motto is aligned with their mission, which is to feed anyone regardless of culture, race or religion. Besides providing food to the homeless, these NGOs also provide other services such as medical care, counseling and the provision of clothing, referrals for employment, accommodations and shelters. There are several hotspot areas in distributing food and services conducted by KSK to the homeless which are carried out at Bukit Bintang, Jalan Ipoh, Chow Kit, Pudu Raya, Pudu Market, Masjid Jamek, Penang, Johor Bahru, Petaling Jaya, Sentul and others. KSK usually distributes to the homeless from Monday to Friday. KSK is founded by His Eminence Tsem Rinpoche (KECHARA, 2010).
The Kechara soup kitchen highlighted that they want to provide a practical and structured solution in reducing the flow of homeless people who are living on the street as a part of their long term objectives- to open a Nurture Centre.
Rashid, Najihah (2019-12-01). "In the Spirit of Giving Back". Marie Claire. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via PressReader.
The article notes:
With 8,000 clients registered with the organisation, Kechara Soup Kitchen does more than feeding those who are in need. The sentiment that is near and dear to the organisation is that hunger knows no barriers, a motto that drives them to provide a wholesome and thorough service to the underprivileged yet overexposed to the harsh elements of the society that we are currently living. And the team does their goodwill regardless of the clients' race, religion or creed.
A visit to Kechara Soup Kitchen can be very eye-opening to those of us who have been living a sheltered life. A line started to form, where both the homeless and the urban poor await for their daily feed. On average, this soup kitchen hands out over 3,250 packets of food every week. Yet that's not all they do.
...
Kechara Soup Kitchen is more than dedicated to eradicating hunger and economic inequity. Running seven days a week, it is an institution that takes its role in earnest. The organisation helps by seeking shelter and job placements and providing medical assistance. With food as the catalyst, they can earn their clients' trust and address more critical needs such as finding a stable job, accepting counselling and even reuniting with family.
Foong, Joshua (2009-12-28). "Soup kitchen poised to expand services". The Star – via PressReader.
The article notes:
Going by the motto "hunger knows no barriers", a young group of Kechara Soup Kitchen (KS) volunteers are making sure that the urban poor in the streets of Kuala Lumpur will not spend weekend nights on an empty stomach.
Members of the group, which was set up in 2006, do their usual rounds every weekend evenings at various spots in the capital city.
Led by KSK president Ruby Khong, about 30 volunteers distribute 700 hot meals and food packs to the poor.
Panirchellvum, Vathani (2017-08-31). "Place for hot meals and care: Kechara Soup Kitchen provides food, medical assistance, to the homeless, urban poor". The Sun. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via PressReader.
The article notes:
Kerchara prepares about 200 packs of food daily for the homeless who start lining up at about 11am for their meals.
...
Although Kechara does not have a full-time doctor, the staff take blood pressure readings, and if needed, take the person for medical attention at a nearby clinic or Hospital Kuala Lumpur.
Hin, Ooi Kok (2014-07-10). "The homeless, soup kitchen and volunteers". Citizens Journal. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Citizens Journal has an editorial policy^{Internet Archive} discussing independence, truth and accuracy, impartiality, editorial integrity, conflict of interest, public interest, revisions and editing, fairness, privacy, accountability, and no gift policy.
The article notes:
For over five years, a group of volunteers from Kechara Soup Kitchen (KSK) cooked and distributed food to the homeless around Kuala Lumpur, all year round.
KSK is a non-profit organization inspired by the spiritual advisor of Kechara House Tsem Tulku Rinpoche to feed the needy and homeless in urban Kuala Lumpur.
Started by just four people, KSK seek to alleviate the suffering of people of all races and religions and make the society a better place; hence its slogan “Hunger Knows No Barrier”.
KSK relies on volunteers to carry out its operations as it had only one full time staff and they receive an average of 80 volunteers for their bigger operations on Saturday nights.
...
Since its establishment in 2006, KSK has gained recognition from the government and the media for its effort to help the community. KSK also has branch in Penang.
Pak, Jennifer (2014-11-10). "Socialite becomes a volunteer in Malaysian soup kitchen". BBC Online. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
Her drive to find and feed the poor has led to the founding of one of Malaysia's biggest soup kitchens called Kechara, which is a Sanskrit word Ms Khong says she borrowed from Buddhist teachings to mean a "heavenly place".
...
The Kechara soup kitchen has branches across the country in the capital Kuala Lumpur, north of the country in Penang, Johor Bahru in the south and Kuantan in the east.
They provide counselling and basic medical services for the homeless and feed 10,000 hungry people a month.
Keong, Hoo Boon; Mohamad, Radziah (2018). "Design and Development of Cross Platform Volunteer Mobile Application for Kechara Soup Kitchen" (PDF). UTM Computing Proceedings: Innovations in Computing Technology and Applications. 3. University of Technology, Malaysia. ISBN 978-967-2171-30-0. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
KSK was founded by His Eminence Tsem Rinpoche, the Spiritual Guide of the Kechara Organization. KSK is non-religious community and the motto is “Hunger Knows No Barriers”. For this reason, the food prepared by KSK is vegetarian. KSK serves hot meals, water, fruit and bread to the homeless people and urban poor every day of the week. KSK welcomes all society members to participate as volunteers and help the homeless people [2].
There is no centralized system or platform for the society to register as a KSK volunteer and to join the volunteering activities. The society member who is interested has to register via Google Form. Afterwards, the volunteers select a date and desired activity (volunteers can get the information of the activities from KSK website), then inform the staffs of KSK manually via phone call, SMS or WhatsApp. The slots of the specific activity are also limited and the volunteers do not know whether their chosen activity for that particular date is available or not. Thus, the volunteers have to confirm with the staffs while informing the participation of activities. The lack of centralized system has made the participation in volunteering activities inconvenient and increased the work load of the staffs.

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

Cunard (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC Online said that Kechara Soup Kitchen is "one of Malaysia's biggest soup kitchens".
Universiti Teknologi MARA's Journal of Administrative Science called Kechara "among the top listed non-governmental organisations (NGOs) in Malaysia".
Cunard (talk) 23:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – Per the WP:BEFORE source research by Cunard, passes both WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:AUD, which qualifies Kechara for an article on English Wikipedia. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 06:42, 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 redirect to Jing Chang. Standard WP:ATD for albums is to redirect to artist. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 21:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unprecedented (Jing Chang album)[edit]

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

Fails WP:NALBUM and WP:GNG. The article makes several claims like "Won the Metro Radio music award" and the whole accolades section but it remains unsourced. The only source in the article is this, which backs the claim that Black Skirt won the award for "Best Mandarin Songs" alongwith 5 others. The information seems to be true but the article's reliability can be undermined. Further, Metro Radio music award does not seem to be a major music award (i can be wrong here), thus it misses on the criteria no. 4 of WP:NALBUM which was the only one it looked close to satisfying. The criterion which demands a charting background can also be met but there seems to be no reference for it that backs the claim that it has charted on any country's national music chart. A simple search about the subject, yet again, yields no result, thus it fails WP:GNG. Redirecting, too, isn't possible because there should be atleast one source for its track listing and charting history which isn't the case. Pesticide1110 (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:25, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. Pesticide1110 (talk) 12:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment:The page creator is Zssmissy. His contributions do not reflect the content he added but as per the revision history statistics of the page, he has added 3446 bytes of data in the article and is #1 in the rankings of editors per authorship for the page. This proves that he is the undisputed creator of the page. If you need my assistance/reply, don't forget to ping me in your comment. Regards Pesticide1110 (talk) 13:27, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Jing Chang: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sandstein: I don't see anyone commenting on this page even if we leave it as it is for years. I suggest you to read my nomination reason completely, judge whether it is valid or not and then take an action that is positively complying with your own conscience about this. This is a fairly easy topic for you to sort out so everybody will trust your judgement. Regards Pesticide1110 ^{Lets wrestle!} 16:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pesticide1110 I disagree. We shouldn't rush deletion discussions. Kind regards from PJvanMill (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails the general notability guideline. I don't see much point in redirecting; instead, the disambiguation page Unprecendented should be edited to link to Jing Chang. PJvanMill (talk) 20:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very minor, local awards does not make an album notable. Bearian (talk) 19:12, 8 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. It's pretty clear that the consensus is that this should not exist as is, it's not so clear what should be done with it. I've added a see also in Identity (mathematics) to Factorization. If anyone feels that this is not enough and wants a further merge, you are welcome to place a redirect to the desired merge target and I will undelete the history under it on request. SpinningSpark 10:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Remarkable identities[edit]

ATTENTION! I rename the article. Vorov (talk) 18:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The subject of this article is not a thing: the collection of trivial algebraic identities discussed here is not treated as a single topic in any sources, and is certainly not treated under the name "remarkable identities". The place one might find such a list is a textbook on algebra (perhaps in Russian, since the article is partly written in some language that uses the Cyrillic alphabet), but Wikipedia is not a textbook. JBL (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 12:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article exists in twenty Wikipedias. See French one or Spanish one. In a school textbook on algebra often exist chapters titled as "Remarkable identities". --Vorov (talk) 13:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Remarkable" is a common adjective in English; it means "worth noting" or "worth commenting on". In my own papers I have called things "remarkable formulas" but they do not belong in Wikipedia under that name. --JBL (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge a shorter version into Identity (mathematics)#Algebraic identities, with a redirect left. The suggested target contains other identities that are not less "remarkable" (see WP:PEACOCK), and the target section is much too short. A redirect must be left because the term is (or was) rather common. D.Lazard (talk) 13:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
maybe move to List of algebraic identities? This way it will be similar to List of logarithmic identities, List of trigonometric identities. --Vorov (talk) 14:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And then there can be a link from Identity (mathematics), in the location D.Lazard suggested. I think this is a good proposal. I disagree with D.Lazard about leaving a redirect, however: I do not believe there is a common English-language meaning for the phrase "remarkable identity". --JBL (talk) 14:22, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nice, can you move it without leaving a redirect? I can not do this. --Vorov (talk) 14:28, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as middle-school worksheet cruft. This is fundamentally ill-defined topic. Like all aspects of mathematical aesthetics, designating an identity "remarkable" is a subjective judgment call, and in this case, we've no indication that enough people have collectively made the same judgment call that we can regard it as a part of the culture. What is "remarkable" about squaring a binomial? Or the fact that squares are nonnegative? XOR'easter (talk) 17:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a POV fork. "Remarkable" is an inherently subjective description, and the listings here were probably cherry-picked by someone based on their personal opinions of the identities. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Clearly appears to be one editor's choice of favorite identities, this is not encyclopedic. Identity (mathematics)#Algebraic identities could be beefed up a bit with some of these, but a full merge would be going overboard. I do not think that a redirect is appropriate in this case.--Bill Cherowitzo (talk) 18:36, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to category:Mathematical identities. I was expecting the page to list famous equations like Euler's identity but it doesn't and so the category would be a better target for the page title. Andrew🐉(talk) 18:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment by nominator: the article has been moved to the new title List of algebraic identities by its creator. While it still would need serious cleanup of various kinds, this seems potentially viable to me. Pinging other participants @D.Lazard, XOR'easter, SNUGGUMS, Wcherowi, and Andrew Davidson: to see if this affects any views. —JBL (talk) 11:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Striking my above comment. It now seems viable to keep under one condition: this should feature more than just what one person thinks are important identities, and should be expanded to be more inclusive if it hasn't been already. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. This is a content fork of Factorization#Recognizable patterns. I suggest to merge the article there. D.Lazard (talk) 12:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete this looks like a collection of identities that one person found helpful or useful, which isn't an encyclopedic topic. If done properly, with a list of all algebraic identities which have been listed in an external source or have received some discussion from mathematicians, it would be extremely long and unworkable. Factorization#Recognizable_patterns does also duplicate a number of the formulas and a couple of them are trivially obvious. Hut 8.5 12:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
But the same arguments can be used agains List of logarithmic identities and List of trigonometric identities. Do you agree? What is the difference then? --217.100.112.242 (talk) 12:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not a massive fan of those articles either but there are a few ways they improve on this one:

List of trigonometric identities includes a large number of entries of identities which are sufficiently significant to have their own articles, e.g. Rotation matrix, Pythagorean trigonometric identity, Chebyshev_polynomials#Trigonometric_definition, Tangent half-angle formula, Weierstrass substitution etc. That's not the case here, apart from Difference of two squares.
There is no overlap with those articles and others, unlike the overlap here with Factorization#Recognizable patterns.
The formulas in those lists are a good deal less obvious than the ones here, e.g. this list tells you that $(a-b)^{2n}=(b-a)^{2n}$ , which isn't interesting to anyone who knows how squares work. Hut 8.5 17:25, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:51, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eirikur Bergmann[edit]

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

Promotional autobiography. Sources are not independent (e.g. author bios). PROD removed earlier in its life by 4the creator, Eirikurbergmann, who is essentially the sole editor. Tagged as lacking sources since forver. Guy (help!) 15:43, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iceland-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I think the subject passes WP:NPOL because he was elected to Iceland's constitutional commission. The article also has sources sufficient to pass GNG. It is bad to have autobios but I don’t think there’s a good case for deletion here. Mccapra (talk) 16:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article passes requirements for notability about academics and political figures. In addition to having been a member of the much-studied and reported on constitutional commission, the individual described in the article is a very frequently cited political consultant in Icelandic media, as shown by a search of his name in some of Iceland's newspaper databases and news websites. TKSnaevarr (talk) 21:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC) — TKSnaevarr (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
- Comment As it's been brought up, I am not running a single-purpose account. I have made regular contributions to the Icelandic language version of Wikipedia for about three years, but I only occasionally edit the English version. TKSnaevarr (talk) 13:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 09:02, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This is actually a difficult one - it's clearly an autobio, WP:NPOL requires significant coverage of local politicians, a constitutional council isn't something which would necessarily qualify, possible but not clear academic, possible but not clear writer. Lots of potential notability hooks. The issue is there's nothing in the article yet which shows anyone has taken notice of him, with the exception of a brief blurb - we've got an interview which typically don't count and a book review which is prefaced that the author of the book review is a long time friend of Bergmann, which I would assume is fairly common in Iceland. The best one is the blurb and a single two-star book review in Timarit.is. The sources provided by TKSnaevarr aren't helpful, either, as they're links to databases - Visir shows he's authored a lot of articles, ruv shows he's been quoted a bit. I'd really like two or three additional sources to put his notability beyond doubt, an additional book review, a profile on him, a discussion on him that doesn't quote him. Also, I'm probably a weak delete right now, but I have no problems with TKSnaevarr's !vote, does not appear to be a traditional SPA. SportingFlyer T·C 05:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable enough. If kept, scrub off all promotional material (it's not too bad), note on talk page, with notice to him that wikipedia is not a press release service and AUTOBIO is not good behavior. SportingFlyer, I agree with your note about better sources. There are 2 or 3 third-party sources on the .is version that may help. --Lockley (talk) 23:45, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Having come back to this and considered the arguments from other editors. Mccapra (talk) 10:39, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Snow (therapist)[edit]

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

Lacks WP:GNG, the refs given are of one source and this one cannot be called a reliable one CommanderWaterford (talk) 15:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete She is a very finge chracter. The article does not give broad enough contents. It also engages in coat racking and chracter assasination against a person that there is zero evidence they ever in any way intervened in the matter. There is no evidence that the 1985 accusations outcome was in any way influenced by anyone acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. These false abbuse accusations were a nationwide phenomenon, they were not limited to Utah, this needs much better context than the article on this very minor person could ever provide.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:05, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep. This article is clearly controversial and polarizing, neither of which are valid reasons to delete or censor.

Argument For Deletion	Response
"Lacks WP:GNG"	Per WP:GNG, A topic is notable if the "topic has received significant coverage in reliable sources that are independent of the subject". Barbara Snow's activities have received significant coverage for going on four decades now from various news outlets, journals, documentaries, blogs, podcasts, etc. "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." Keep in mind that this article is less than 24 hours old, but already there are a number of reliable sources where she is the main topic, or more than a trivial mention.
"refs given are of one source and this one cannot be called a reliable one"	I am truly mystified as to what the "one" source is referred to. The sources mentioned here include The Salt Lake Tribune, The Deseret News, Mormon History Association, and CBS affiliated KUTV. All of these sources are reliable. They are all secondary sources. None of them are considered "tabloids". Per WP:NEWSORG "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". Please reconsider and clarify which source is not reliable.
"She is a very fringe character"	Not according to the sources. She was and still is extremely influential in the SRA movement in Utah, and the broader movement in general. She is notable enough to even receive mentions in several other articles.
"The article does not give broad enough context."	Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page". This article is less than 24 hours old. The solution should not be to delete it, but to add context.
"It also engages in coat racking and chracter assasination against a person that there is zero evidence they ever in any way intervened in the matter."	Are you referring to Barbara Snow? Who is the coatracked/character assasinated person? This seems more a conversation worthy of the talk page, to ensure information is accurate and presented in a NPOV way.
"There is no evidence that the 1985 accusations outcome was in any way influenced by anyone acting on behalf of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints"	Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page". As far as content, that's why words such as "alleged" and "accused of" are used. If there is a more NPOV way to present it, it should be changed. This is not germane to the deletion discussion however.
"These false abbuse accusations were a nationwide phenomenon, they were not limited to Utah, this needs much better context than the article on this very minor person could ever provide."	The article never says the accusations were true. The article never said it wasn't a nationwide phenomenon. It never said it wasn't limited to Utah. This article isn't about SRA. Again, the solution should be to add context, not delete the article. Per WP:ATD: "Disputes over page content are usually not dealt with by deleting the page" I completely agree that there needs to be more context. There should be an entire article on SRA moral panic and the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints to provide that context. In fact there was one, but it mysteriously disappeared even though the result of the discussion was to keep. Clearly this is embarrassing and polarizing. But neither of these reasons are reasons for censorship.

First of all - no one is going to censor your article and of course it is not nominated because of being polarizing (which I do not see at all). The sources you cited in your table do not exist in the article, perhaps you are confusing with some other article?! Simply the subject does lack notability and you have to show notability directly at the time of publishing...not somewhat later. If you want to improve/work on the article you can ask for moving it back to your sandbox. CommanderWaterford (talk) 22:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford: The article I'm referring to is Barbara Snow (therapist), and the sources are all listed in the References section. I'm glad it doesn't read as polarizing to you. I'm legitimately confused and wondering if we really are talking about the same article. If you look at the very first edit Special:PermanentLink/963142747, all of these sources were present in the article at the time of publishing. They were not added later. Maybe this is a different article than you were thinking of? Epachamo (talk) 03:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't checked out the news sources, because I dislike basing our articles on news, but the one non-news source in the article is by Massimo Introvigne, who is certainly not a reliable source despite the hagiography of an article that we have about him. Consensus that he is unreliable was confirmed 6 months ago. Phil Bridger (talk) 12:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no Wikipedia policy against basing an article on News Sources. Per WP:RS "News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact". The Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News are well-established news outlets. The non-news source you mentioned was the Mormon History Association, not CESNUR. CESNUR reprinted it online which I linked to. I have removed the link to CESNUR and added an additional source for that particular sentence, which also happens to be a non-news source. Epachamo (talk) 16:48, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't say that it was published by CESNUR, but that it was written by Massimo Introvigne, whose unreliability was confirmed in the link I provided. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: Your link was closed based on "standing consensus" of an earlier discussion about CESNUR, not about Massimo Introvigne himself. See earlier consensus that was referred to: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_278#CESNUR_as_a_source_for_articles_on_New_religious_movements, that did not include Introvigne. There was no consensus reached about Introvigne himself. Regardless, even if the source were removed completely, the additional source added has the same information supporting that particular sentence. Epachamo (talk) 20:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is no difference between Massimo Introvigne and CENSUR. And that discussion (as you can tell by simply looking at the title) was about both, and was closed as "generally unreliable". There was nothing about only CENSUR being unreliable. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:46, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Phil Bridger: There was also nothing about consensus being reached on the page you linked to. From the link you posted, it says: "Generally unreliable, closing due to sockpuppetry and lack of credible cause to REVISIT the standing consensus." (emphasis added) Consensus was NOT reached in the link you posted at all. It appealed to a prior consensus about CESNUR, not Introvigne. I'm not sure you can block any one person as a reliable source on Wikipedia. No individual person in on the WP:RSPSOURCES list anyway. If Alex Jones were able to write a scientific paper, get it peer reviewed and published in the most prestigious scientific journal, then I would argue that it is ok. @JzG:, as you were the one that closed the discussion, can you comment? Did you intend to mark Massimo Introvigne as not a reliable source in addition to CESNUR? Epachamo (talk) 14:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment— I haven’t commenced source analysis but from briefly reading the body i can definitely see the coat rack concerns. Epachamo perharps address that. Celestina007 (talk) 20:57, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Celestina007: Especially considering this is a living person, it is a completely valid to be concerned about coatracking. On top of that, she is a controversial person within a controversial subculture. From WP:COAT, "a coatrack article is a Wikipedia article that gets away from its nominal subject, and instead gives more attention to one or more connected but tangential subjects." I assume the "tangential subject" is Satanic Ritual Abuse(SRA)? If not, please let me know what you feel it is and I will address that as well. Study into Snow's life shows that SRA is anything but tangential but a integral part of who she is and her mission. She is unapologetic about it. If Snow herself read the article, I feel confident she would agree, based on her publications, participation in various prosecutions and testimonies of her patients. She might disagree with the characterization of SRA being a moral panic, but that is the scientific consensus that should be reflected in Wikipedia. To really get a deep background, I recommend blog about Barbara Snow from a PHD Psychologist, Discussion of Snow and her techniques, Gizmodo podcast about Teal Swan that discusses Snow and her techniques,further information about Snow (a lot of these references are not wikipedia appropriate, but provide a a quick if sometimes biased view of Snow that should help provide rapid context to make a judgement on whether the emphasis on SRA is coatracking). Epachamo (talk) 03:40, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I have made several changes to the article to address the concerns expressed here. I have added several non-news references including books, a journal article and documentary. I have a couple more sources that I will add when they show up to my house from Amazon. I have added material that provides some additional context, including a review of her academic work done with secondary sources. I have added Snow's own responses to some of the more controversial parts of her life, so this doesn't come across as an "attack" article. Please let me know if there are any other particular aspects that need to be changed and I will change them. Epachamo (talk) 03:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:06, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as notable, with the improvements made since the nomination. Epachamo has done good work. If kept, there should one or two sentences in the lead describing Snow's downgraded professional qualifications. A thin line to walk in a BLP but it can be done factually. --Lockley (talk) 22:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I'm going to go with keep here, too. Subject seems notable, and while the article does need a bit of cleaning up, it is far from needing to be deleted. Also, the worry about Introvigne, while understandable, seems somewhat inappropriate here (his book, after all, was published by Brill—which is a very reputable academic publisher—and was published as a volume of an edited series; I wouldn't be surprised if the book was peer-reviewed, too).--Gen. Quon (Talk) 20:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Achieving notability is independent of what kind of person the subject is. The subject appears to meet, at least, WP:ANYBIO and WP:GNG. The content of the article is worth discussing on the article's talk page but I cannot see how the subject doesn't meet notability guidelines. That's what is being discussed here, not the treatment of the subject in the article. Ifnord (talk) 22:19, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. leaning towards delete. If it isn't improved, or can't be improved, I would expect it to land at AFD again with a different outcome. I would note that some of the "keep" votes were not policy based, and the sources provided in the discussion were not really the quality we look for when claiming an organization is notable. After teetering between delete and no consensus, I ended up here. Dennis Brown - 2¢ 01:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Center for Minorities and People with Disabilities in Information Technology[edit]

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

Not a notable subject per WP:GNG or WP:CORP. I found no significant independent sources, per WP:BEFORE. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disability-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 08:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not enough coverage is here for meeting WP:NORG. NavjotSR (talk) 05:18, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In the current climate, organizations such as these may be more critical. Search for the abbreviation, CMD-IT rather than the full name (which is rarely used). Added above.Cypherquest (talk) 14:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 16:00, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete fail of WP:NONPROFIT. "organizations such as these may be more critical" is not a valid rationale to establish notability. A search for CMD-IT a suggested brings up press releases that are published in various news organisations. a few pages here is good coverage, but there doesn't seem to be any more in that vein. Even this researchgate paper seems to be rather promotional based on the abstract. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 17:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Good point - but the award is sponsored by Microsoft, which indicates the organization is recognized by one of the leaders in the tech field. Professional Woman's Magazine has links - if the notability is not obvious as it is, we need to enhance the article. Be sure to review the most current version before voting. Thanks!Cypherquest (talk) 14:51, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Nice link - thank you for finding the book content - that's excellent. I've increased the external coverage to meet our requirements for notability. Nice work! Cypherquest (talk) 15:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Cypherquest (talk) 16:38, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP. The CMD-IT organization presents a variety of programs that have been covered in multiple publications including https://www.professionalwomanmag.com/2017/10/georgia-tech-received-cmd-university-award-retention-minorities-students-disabilities-computer-science/ ; https://www.valleymorningstar.com/2019/07/03/utrgvs-villalobos-receives-national-award-scientific-scholarship-stem-leadership/; https://cra.org/crn/2020/02/expanding-the-pipeline-the-2019-cmd-it-university-award-best-practices/ - these will be added to the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerribarrett (talk • contribs) 21:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: meets WP:NONPROFIT as a national organisation with several significant projects and coverage in reliable independent sources. The closer should note that some comments above were made when the article had significantly fewer sources. The best sources here include Aspray, CRA and GATech. — Bilorv (talk) 22:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No evidence of notability outside close-knit sources, which fails the requirement that the sources should be independent of the subject. Bvatsal61 (talk) 09:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Quite enough independent sources now. Rathfelder (talk) 13:19, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. There is one fairly decent source, three pages in Aspray's book, but that is not enough to meet WP:ORG which requires multiple independent sources with significant coverage. Several contributors either do not understand this requirement, or are not signed up to it, and their keep's are therefore not properly policy based. Jerribarrett gives a list of sources which are all either trivial mentions or publicity for giving awards. Not the in depth coverage required. Rathfelder asserts that there are independent sources (without naming any), the sources may well be independent, but the coverage is not significant. Bilorv offers two sources besides the Asprey book. One is just the usual awards ceremony publicity, and it is written by the orgnaisations Director of Social Media, so not independent anyway. The second is about Ayanna Howard, an award winner, not the organisation itself which is only mentioned incidentally. I also note that the ResearchGate paper mentioned by Eddie991 is written by Valerie Taylor, the CEO of CMD-IT so again not independent big time. SpinningSpark 23:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Spinningspark gives a good overview of the current sourcing in my opinion. Unless there are more good sources out there, this organisation fails WP:ORGCRIT. PJvanMill (talk) 20:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ali Chant[edit]

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

Lots of supposed but no real secondary sources, sufficient to establish WP:BIO. Fails WP:SIGCOV. scope_creep^Talk 16:51, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:05, 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, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2016-03 ✗ A1, 2016-03 ✗ deleted, 2016-03 ✗ deleted

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:06, 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 delete. czar 08:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

American Turkish Friendship Council[edit]

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

A non-notable organization with very little coverage, no sources are used in this article. James Richards (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete Article has no single source. Shadow4dark (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - fails GNG Spiderone 17:34, 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. czar 08:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bridgeton House[edit]

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

Old building (not registered on NRHP), cannot find sources or content to support notability. Only sources in the article are directory-style travel guides and a passing mention ("What's Doing in Bucks County") in NYT. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Schazjmd (talk) 17:14, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The tools aren't automatically including it, but there was a prior AfD in 2009; see WP:Articles for deletion/Bridgeton House (Lib326). Schazjmd (talk) 17:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete We created the business Bridgeton House in 1981, in this building. How it got on wikipedia as just a building that happens to be a hotel is the problem. You are using our name & google is capturing it and using it as a search tool for a business. The only 'historical' thing about this building is that it was created into a hotel & provides lodging, since 1981.
It prevents us from capturing the Hotel page that all hotels are eligible for when searching under their 'business' names in google. It includes reviews, rates & links to our website. This is the problem- it's deadheading into the wiki 'Box' https://www.google.com/search?channel=cus3&client=firefox-b-1-d&q=bridgeton+house Wiki shows up & our listing does not. We know wiki is not a business directory but it is stopping us from being shown, only to highlight a building named Bridgeton House that we created. By removing it you you make it accurate for the searcher, searching for Bridgeton House the hotel, not a random building in Pennsylvania.
What it should be is this https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-1-d&channel=cus3&ei=KpzrXvyZJ66EytMPtu6cgAk&q=bridgeton+houseinn&oq=bridgeton+houseinn&gs_lcp=CgZwc3ktYWIQAzIECAAQDTIECAAQDTIKCAAQCBANEAoQHjoECAAQRzoGCAAQDRAKUMpxWJJ2YP2FAWgAcAF4AIABaogBlwKSAQMyLjGYAQCgAQGqAQdnd3Mtd2l6&sclient=psy-ab&ved=0ahUKEwj81qb96YvqAhUugnIEHTY3B5AQ4dUDCAs&uact=5
We have asked you to correct this, we have begged Google to stop using you to override the "Hotel" box we are entitled to- they say to contact you & you say to contact them. This is a very costly error that could easily be remedied by removing this article. It only confuses the searcher & penalizes a small business struggling in a covid economy. Our industry has been devastated by closures & the simple act of understanding what Wiki misinformation is doing to the Business & frustrating the searcher is the FACT that should be considered as a reason to delete this article BwBriggs — Preceding unsigned comment added by BwBriggs (talk • contribs) 18:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 10:41, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I don't think that the commercial / COI concerns by BwBriggs are relevant for our purposes, so we need more input.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:04, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as simply not notable, as I can't find any significant coverage in independent reliable sources. I agree that commercial concerns are irrelevant, and I very much doubt that removing this from Wikipedia will make any difference whatsoever to their level of bookings. If I was looking for a hotel to stay in I would be impressed by the fact that it had an interesting history. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:20, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not notable. --Lockley (talk) 08:31, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Count Me Out (band)[edit]

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

Non-notable band. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable punk band from Virginia. The sourcing in the article is poor, the only source that provides notability is Allmusic. I know that having poor sourcing is not a reason to delete an article because there might be some good sources on Google but this time, the results on Google were not any better either. Like in the case with non-notable bands, the results are unreliable stuff like Discogs, Bandcamp, Spotify, the site of their record labels, Last.fm, news about other bands releasing an album/single with this title (there are cases when other bands share the name with the group I am nominating), and books where only the words are mentioned but not about the group itself. I also searched for their albums but couldn't find anything besides blogs, fan pages, streaming service links, song lyrics sites, download sites and retail sites. When a band has an Allmusic biography, it is a good sign. But when it has no other reliable sources, it's a bad sign and that makes the group not suitable for this encyclopedia. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:19, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:22, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note : this article is eligible for soft delete, Atlantic306 (talk) 23:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 09:01, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Per nominator. Nothing on my searches either to indicate that the band meets WP:GNG or WP:NBAND. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:49, 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 delete. czar 08:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ron Wear[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

I'm aware that this was kept before here: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ron Wear, but the reasons to keep in 2015 seem to no longer apply. As of today in 2020, I found zero sources on him except the UGC modelmayhem and other UGC like his website, twitter, Facebook, which I understand are all considered generally unreliable. All links in his references section are broken and unarchived except for modelmayhem. I don't know what people are referring to when they say newspaper articles cited provide significant coverage, "ten secondary sources", etc; perhaps those articles have disappeared over the years and nobody archived them so they are just lost now. If someone can add those articles back, there could be an argument to keep it. At this point, there are 4 sources, zero of which are any good, and I merged his info into Miss BC anyway. --Wiki2008time (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NOTE: I am a new editor and it's very confusing to find out how to re-nominate something for deletion that was previously kept on grounds that no longer apply. If I did this wrong, please fix it and educate me rather than penalizing me for my confusion. Thanks. --Wiki2008time (talk) 21:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 16:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:30, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Someone suggested I make a redirect for a similarly sparse article (Darren Storsley) that I merged into Miss BC instead of PROD, so I did - I am unsure if I am allowed to do that with an article that has had a previous AfD/active AfD. --Wiki2008time (talk) 15:18, 12 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 16:56, 27 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) 22:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Obviously nobody cares about this and it's non-controversial. I wanted to just create a PROD but someone told me I need to make an AfD when something has had a previous AfD, not PROD, even though the grounds of the original AfD Keep no longer apply (none of those citations are available any more). --Wiki2008time (talk) 02:31, 19 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 16:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Miss BC as I already merged his info onto that page. I felt that would be more appropriate than having his own article given the poor citations. I'm not sure if I'm allowed to just go ahead and create a redirect when something had a prior AfD even though the grounds it was kept on no longer apply. --Wiki2008time (talk) 02:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC) blocked sockpuppet ~ Amkgp 💬 16:56, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If anybody is taking a look at this (and information which I did not know at the time): User:Wiki2008time has now been banned for sockpuppetry, but this was before that. Not quite sure it's a speedy keep (since AFAICS they have not been confirmed to another prior blocked user, only to another account of theirs), but if you feel like it is then feel free to... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 19:16, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Despite the sock-puppetry, I'm fairly convinced this fails WP:NACTOR/WP:NMODEL. The subject of the article won Mr. World Canada, but I don't think this is an automatic qualification for notability. The subject's acting roles (as reported on the article and his IMDb page) are all either uncredited or rather minor. And I can't find any additional significant coverage of the subject. BenKuykendall (talk) 18:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:56, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Tenuous notability. Never made it as an actor, now involved as a judge. Fails WP:BIO, WP:NACTOR and WP:NMODEL. scope_creep^Talk 10:45, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:49, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sinndoor Tere Naam Ka[edit]

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

Non-notable 17jiangz1 (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 17jiangz1 (talk) 09:28, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi 17jiangz1, Why are you want delete all the pages from wikipedia. Please don't delete pages like Sindoor Tere Naam Ka, Iqbal Azad, etc. If you find some faults in these pages, you can improve this pages. But please do not delete this pages. Kaitudi (talk) 09:52, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 10:20, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - please note that the article title seems to have a typo in it (should only be one N it looks like), so please keep this in mind when looking for sources. I am also not sure that the nomination sufficiently expounds on the reason for deletion, considering how many episodes of the show were produced. matt91486 (talk) 05:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep -- I've found an additional independent verifiable source: [42]. I've added this to the article. It is also mentioned on a Google Books result: Business World, 2006, Volume 25, pg 53 [43], where it is listed as one of the reasons that Zee TV's network viewing statistics have increased during the time period. ~~However, if this is closed as no consensus or keep, it should be moved to the correct name and have one of the Ns in "Sindoor" removed.~~ Moreover, let's be honest with ourselves -- if this were an American TV show that aired 500 episodes on a Network with wide distribution, we wouldn't ever have this conversation. We need to be cognizant of WP:BIAS concerns relating to which sources are easily available online. matt91486 (talk) 06:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Amended above comment about the spelling -- I shouldn't pretend I'm an expert in transliteration, and the title page image on the article does have two Ns. I will say that the search results are clearer with one N. But perhaps a redirect is sufficient. matt91486 (talk) 06:27, 29 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) 23:02, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NTV, which says, "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope), or on a cable television channel with a broad regional or national audience." This is a soap opera broadcast for two years on Zee TV, a national channel in India. I don't have the expertise to know where the good sources are for Indian soap operas so I don't have a good GNG defense, but since there's essentially no stated rationale for deletion, I think NTV is a good enough defense. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:47, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete WP:NTV's purpose in that statement is to suggest that reliable sources may exist. In either case, however, the presence or absence of reliable sources is more definitive than the geographic range of the program's audience alone. So let's take a look at what we already have: the first is a trivial mention, the second is a far more trivial mention. The second source is actually about an actress being topless on a beach, and as a passing mention it says that she acted in the show. It takes up exactly 4 words of the article, and solely in name. So, considering the state its currently in, we don't meet notability. The next question is can it meet notability? It's a 2005-07 show; I can't find sources with a quick search, but recognise some may not be in English. Unless sources can be shown in this AfD, I think it probably doesn't have the significant media coverage required and should be deleted - we aren't IMDb. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 14:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep. Given a paaragraph in this book in the context of media gender stereotyping, and discussed Busineess Week as a hit show helping to turn the fortunes of Zee TV. There's more than can be seen in that snippet, see this from the previous page of the journal. I agree that there may be some systemic bias going on here due to the difficulty of searching for Hindi language sources. Having said that, the sources one tends to find from India are trash celebrity-worship articles. India does not seem to produce the fandom encyclopaedias of soap operas that we get in the West, leading to a lack of decent reliable sources for programmes that may nevertheless have a huge, dedicated following. SpinningSpark 23:06, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Benjamin Boas[edit]

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

The subject fails WP:GNG. No credible claim of notability. Several sources fail significant coverage. Likely self-promotion. Solopsist (talk) 23:12, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Delete we lack actual indepth secondary third party coverage of the kind that would show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Article creator here. It's not so hard to find significant third party coverage.
- A 22-page featured interview by Akiho Suzuki, "EJ Interview 2: ベンジャミン・ボアズ (Benjamin Boas)", English Journal September 2017 issue, pp.59-80 https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B073LGMV1Q
- A four-page article on a monthly magazine from Kadokawa: Da Vinci issue 257, September 2015, pp. 36-39 https://www.amazon.co.jp/dp/B011U6MT7Y
- An article from Nakano Keizai Shimbun https://nakano.keizai.biz/headline/983/

In particular, the English Journal interview is a fantastic in-depth article, but I didn't cite it to support my statements because it's a paper magazine in Japanese and hard to get hold of unless you actually go to a library in Japan. However, reading the exact wording of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, I probably should. --朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per Johnpacklambert. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 13:51, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: One last relist, since the first relist garnered no new participation.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, while an interview is a primary source and does not contribute to notability, the articles in Kadokawa and Nakano Keizai Shimbun are significant coverage, meaning he passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:39, 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 keep. bibliomaniac 1 5 04:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of film sequels by box-office improvement[edit]

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

The main premise of this list---measuring the box office "improvement" of a film compared to its preceding film---appears to be an exercise in WP:SYNTH. A secondary premise of this list looks to be documenting the box office records for the Xth film in a series, but it's not clear why that's a defining characteristic by which to compare film receipts. A third type of information in this list is the "progression of record", i.e. who was the record holder over time, but there are no sources to verify this information (the cited references are to the box office receipts, but that does not by itself prove that a subsequent film was the record *breaker*, merely that it had a larger box office take). Furthermore, TompaDompa notes on the talk page that it's a bit of WP:OR and SYNTH to place some of these films into series with each other, and in what ordinal position within those series. Is Captain America: Civil War the 3rd film in the "Captain America" series or the 13th film in the "MCU" series? At its core, this list wants to carve out "sequels", in various senses, as somehow distinct from non-sequel films and examine their box office profits but I don't think this is a defining characteristic about films that passes WP:SAL or WP:INDISCRIMINATE. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Some of it is synthesis (nth sequel) and should be deleted, but sequel box office analysis is done a lot.[44][45][46][47] Clarityfiend (talk) 08:33, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Would you support removing all of the other information besides just the film-to-direct-sequel tables? Axem Titanium (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sure. Only the first two tables are worth keeping. Clarityfiend (talk) 08:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - These are the tables in the chart that I have the biggest problem with keeping and would be ok with them being deleted. I think these are likely OR or SYNTH. I don't recall seeing any charts published to show a list of films with the biggest improvement. Yes, there are charts showing comparison but not comparing those comparisons. I did note in the Film Facts book that it did show Austin Powers as the best by improvement (presumably using US grosses rather than worldwide) but I think it is a bit of a stretch to generate a table like this. This is why I cut the table down from the mass list that it was as it wasn't really supportable. I would be happy for these two tables to be deleted and for it just to show the top grossing sequels, as these are direct from the highest-grossing lists of all-time published and The Numbers has a similar chart, as well as the position ones as again, these are direct from the charts and Variety has published comparisons for third, fourth, second films in a series in the past. I think the history is important too otherwise, as with many other lists of Wikipedia, it just becomes a list of current things and ignores the past. If the suggestion is to only keep the first two tables, I would vote to delete the whole article.Sudiani (talk) 08:41, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - After looking over those first two tables, I would just combine them into one, as the criteria differentiating them are rather arbitrary. Here's another article/list (from The Hollywood Reporter): "29 Sequels That Outgrossed the Original Movies (Photos)". Clarityfiend (talk) 06:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        TompaDompa did try it combined but I think one table is a mess with two criteria driving what appears in it. I think it is better separated to understand the criteria for inclusion in each list. The only way I see it working as one table is to have it by a certain gross differential AND a certain percentage, however, this likely means that you only show the highest-grossing which is not really the point of the comparison. If I were to choose one chart over the other, I prefer the percentage increase one.Sudiani (talk) 21:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I don't understand why you want to retain two artificial, arbitrary criteria. As long as there's a reliable source discussing sequel bucks vis a vis the original's box office, the pair can have an entry. If the list gets too long, it can be split up into sublists, per SOP. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        
        I would, however, change the title to List of film sequels by box office, as flops are as notable (if not more so) than successes. Clarityfiend (talk) 23:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Clarityfiend has found reliable sources covering this. Dream Focus 10:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per Clarityfiend's sources. Box Office Mojo also publishes analyses like these all of the time. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep As I added some of the newer tables, let me explain the reasoning and the sources behind these. I'm not entirely clear what this SYNTH argument is but don't think it particularly applies here. As now, box office charts of the highest-grossing films have been published for almost 90 years. Based on those, especially Variety's annual lists of the highest-grossing films of all time, it is relatively easy to see which were the highest-grossing sequels every year. Now that sites like Box Office Mojo exist, it is easier to see throughout a year where sequels placed so you can look at the archived records on the Wayback Machine to see the placing of the sequels during 2015. I started off by posting a chart that Variety published based on data from EDI showing the top grossing fourth chapters from the 1990s. As later data is available, it is relatively simple to take the data from the highest-grossing sequels since then to update the chart and all can be supported by looking either at Variety's lists of all-time top grossing films or from archives from Box Office Mojo. The two areas, where it is harder to provide sources is the fact that the Variety's earlier records are for domestic grosses rather than worldwide grosses, however, are a good indication of the highest grossing-sequels worldwide at certain points in time in history and so far all have worldwide data, possibly with the exception of the Bells of St Mary where there is a worldwide rental figure of $10m but some sources (inc Wikipedia) show a US gross of $20m. The other issue is where a sequel appears in a series. With the current trend to have "universes" rather than just series it makes it a little harder and different sources group things together and separately so there is no real consensus as to where a film is placed but it is pretty obvious that something like the Hobbit trilogy can be treated as separate to the Lord of the Rings film and multiple sources support these and this was the reasoning with the intro to explain this but is based on how BOM and The Numbers group things. Also, if it is decided to keep, please can we agree a consensus for a name change. I suggested List of film sequels by box office. Not that I can provide an online source as the online version on Internet Archive is an older edition, but the 2001 edition of Film Facts (previously Guinness Book of Movie Facts and Feats) under sequels listed the most successful sequel in terms of improvement (Austin Powers at the time) and the highest-grossing sequel (Lost World and Star Wars Episode I) so these are lists that major books include.Sudiani (talk) 18:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The SYNTH argument is that even though box office takes for Foo and Foo 2: The Sequel are published, it's original synthesis to compare them in the absence of a reliable source making the comparison for you. Some of the commenters above suggest that film-to-direct-sequel comparisons are covered in reliable sources not infrequently but some of the other tables certainly aren't. Axem Titanium (talk) 19:32, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The tables of the highest-grossing films published since the 1930s do that comparison. I appreciate that historic data tends to be US focused and would prefer if we used US grosses rather than worldwide as easier to support but worldwide data is available for most of these filmsSudiani (talk) 20:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I'm not disputing the existence of the data. I'm saying that reliable sources have to do the analysis; we as editors cannot do original research to make the comparison that has not been drawn by outside publications. Axem Titanium (talk) 21:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - Wikipedia:No_original_research#Routine_calculations Simple math is fine. Dream Focus 22:43, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        I'm not even sure it is a calculation. It's just taking data from a list, like saying something is the second-highest-grossing film of all time or the highest-grossing Spielberg film. It's not SYNTH, it's just data from a chart. Here are some recent Variety articles, one discussing third films in a series[48] and another looking at how later films perform although he presents the data as graphs rather than listing the films but it is giving the same sort of information about performance of films in a series and the downward trend which can be seen by the tables in the article with the fewer films reaching certain milestones[49] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sudiani (talk • contribs)
        Routine calculations do not count as original research, provided there is consensus among editors that the result of the calculation is obvious, correct, and a meaningful reflection of the sources (emphasis mine). I concede that there are some sources that compare individual pairs of direct sequels, but that does not give blanket license to trawl Box Office Mojo for every possible film dyad and claim that the comparison is "sourced". It's not. That's textbook original research. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:13, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:INDISCRIMINATE. JOE BRO 64 22:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I won't deny there are problems with this list (for example, is the record for highest-grossing 4th instalment really a thing?) but the box-office performance of sequels is clearly a notable topic with plenty of published writing on the subject (see this chart for example). The title of the article is arguably ill-fitting too. I really don't think scrubbing the whole article is the correct course of action. The subject (if not all the charts in the article) is clearly notable. This discussion needs to closed as a "keep" and a new one needs to be started on the talk page about what format the article should take and what information should be included. Betty Logan (talk) 15:59, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I WP:Proposed deletion back when the article looked like this (and when I found it, it looked like this). My main reason for doing so was that the underlying premise of the article at that time was comparing the improvements within one series to the improvements within another series, and no source making that comparison of comparisons had been presented. Since then, the focus of the article has shifted somewhat and it is no longer solely about the improvements from one installment to the next (though the title has not yet been changed to reflect that; my suggestion would be to rename this List of film sequels by box-office performance). I'm not sure if this is worth keeping—we have way too many box office lists as it is—but it really needs to be clarified what this list is supposed to be if it is to be kept. TompaDompa (talk) 22:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The subject of films having sequels improving or worsening at the box office is a topic that gets a ton of coverage.★Trekker (talk) 23:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. czar 08:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cthulhu Mythos supernatural characters[edit]

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

What makes the characters in this de facto list pass WP:LISTN/WP: NFICTION? Also, which source even calls them supernatural? Note that some of this is simple 'see also articles that are about to be deleted' like Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Clark Ashton Smith deities... _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 07:10, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete We already have two different lists that cover this topic. This list is redundant. Furthermore, the word supernatural is suspect. Some of the beings in the Cthulhu Mythos are not actually supernatural. Instead, they are aliens. ―Susmuffin ^Talk 19:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. In addition to what Piotr and Susmuffin have said, there is also the fact that I am not finding any sources that actually discusses this particular grouping of characters as a specific set. It seems like the whole idea of creating this grouping was largely WP:OR. Rorshacma (talk) 19:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 01:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Per WP:REDUNDANT. An unnecessary article overall._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 12:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as a light WP:CONTENTFORK that doesn't really establish its own notability through third party sources. Focusing on one character article will also have the benefit of avoiding confusion over inclusion criteria, which is treading close to original research. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:12, 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. czar 08:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dacia Logan III[edit]

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

Not sure this is yet ready for its own article, as I'm not sure it yet passes the 'Souces' section of WP:GNG - I can only find 'Spy'-type articles from a test drive. Possibly worth a mention in the main Dacia Logan article but not yet enough confirmed info for its own article. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 06:55, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as WP:TOOSOON, no problems with having some words at parent article, and breaking out to a standalone article when more sources are available. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:49, 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 delete. SpinningSpark 22:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cancelled UFC event on April 9, 2020[edit]

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

I have nominated this article for deletion because a UFC event for April 9, 2020 was never planned in the first place. All of its citations refer to a UFC event that was being planned for June 13 at Astana Arena in Kazakhstan, not April 9. — 29cwcst (talk) 04:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:57, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Article is well sourced thus pass WP:GNG. Cassiopeia^(talk) 10:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per above. There was never an event on that date and the data regarding the moving from Astana to a new location is already in the correct article. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 18:01, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That doesn't or shouldn't matter though Cassiopeia, because all of those sources could be used in the correct article instead. I've kept a copy of them all on my talk page, so you are more than welcome to use them when/where you feel they're needed. — 29cwcst | 00:45, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete It never happened, then got rescheduled. We're not UFC's iCal. Nate • (chatter) 22:08, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - A cancelled event is the reason for deletion as it is not based on Wikipedia notability guidlines. There are 5 UFC event articles which didnt happen and they meet notability guiltiness just like this one - see Past events (grey rows event in the list). Cassiopeia^(talk) 01:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But they were indeed cancelled. This article says there was an event booked for April 9 in Kazakhstan that was cancelled and everything in it is wrong. There was never an event planned for April 9; the Kazakhstan event was planned for June 13, then the UFC decided to cancel that location and relocated the event for Las Vegas, keeping the same date. This article is completely false. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 19:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment If the date is incorrect titled then just change the article title to "Cancelled UFC event on June 13, 2020" instead of deletion as the sources support the content and the article meets WP:N requirements. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You already knew that from the start, but did not change. And again, that event was not cancelled like the other ones. The host was cancelled and relocated on the same date. You simply changed a title from an article that was supposed to be a redirect until an event was announced. This goes against what you said on the UFC 249 merge situation. You keep contradicting yourself. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 13:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You keep the rest of the cancelled event; yet why single this out when the it meets notability guidelines? Article in Wikipedia is all about veribility and meets notability. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 09:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just mentioned it above. The other events were cancelled and not relocated. They have the correct titles for the original main events. You redirected an article to one that has a wrong date and wrong info. The June 13 event, originally scheduled for Kazakhstan, was rescheduled for Las Vegas and took place on the originally planned date. That's pretty clear. This article has nothing to do with others that were cancelled and you know that, though you act like you don't. Everyone but you agrees on that. It is simply a duplicate. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 16:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC

my comment is based on Wikipedia notability guidelines and not about my liking. The article should be merged in the first place but you seem opposite it and now you would like to delete a article that pass the notability guidelines which to me it doesnt make sense. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You moved the UFC Fight Night 176 to this title. You could've kept it as a redirect until the 176 event took place. Then when I asked you about this article, you simply mentioned that is has sources enough to keep it going, even though it has a lot of flaws and it's a duplicate. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 21:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

then the page should be merged then. We dont delete a page which pass notability guidelines. We could keep, redirect or merge the article, but you voted oppose to all mere of UFC event included UFC 249 and later you agreed. As we all know it is extremely common UFC events do change headline, cancelled bouts, or change bouts or at time change date. We dont need to keep the same format of the event page all the time, for if new info comes up then we add the info in the body text. The point is the article meet notability guidelines for such it doesnt meet AfD criteria. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 22:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should have simply redirected the original title to List of UFC events and then it would be redirected to the official UFC Fight Night 176. Just adding random info into it makes no sense. Gsfelipe94 (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe merge to UFC Fight Night 176 would be a better solution. By the way, content in the article is not non sense random info but it is as per secondary sources. Thank you. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No sources confirm that the event was scheduled for April 9, 2020. Additionally, this event is covered in the UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo article. Fbdave (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fbdave, pls read the above comments. Title date can be changed and the page pass notability guidelines, either keep or merge with UFC on ESPN: Eye vs. Calvillo. Cassiopeia^(talk) 08:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete rumor mill gossip. No poster image with that event's date appears in the infobox, and event was never authentically verified anyway. --Discographer (talk) 22:56, 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 no consensus. However, there is consensus that it should not be kept in its current form, so it will be moved to List of earthquakes in Haryana. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Earthquake in Haryana[edit]

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

It's not completely clear what the topic is: a history/list of earthquakes in Haryana or specifically the earthquakes of May 2020. I'm having trouble deciphering what's written and the topic—but of course, difficulty reading is not a criterion for deletion, and it's clearly not A1 or G1.

If it's the former, it's a WP:CONTENTFORK of some of the content in List of earthquakes in India (see the sentence mentioning 47 mm/year, that's identical)—that is, if these earthquakes would otherwise be included in that list—but based on what is included there, they don't seem significant enough for that. In the latter case, it fails WP:NEARTHQUAKE and WP:NEVENT in that there is no lasting impact of these earthquakes, coverage is not lasting (only a few trivial mentions), and predicting future earthquakes (such as a "big one" after these "foreshocks") is impossible. Unless there is evidence of lasting impact or notability, these earthquakes do not seem to pass the notability threshold. ComplexRational (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ComplexRational (talk) 01:15, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:21, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:47, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Haryana is an administrative area of India "carved out on a linguistic basis". Earthquake occurrence is unrelated to either administration or linguistics. It is not therefore a coherent topic, and to edit the article into correctly written English would probably not leave three consecutive words unchanged. So there is no value in it. Imaginatorium (talk) 06:17, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and rename to List of earthquakes in Haryana (or alternatively merge to Haryana#Geography, though I favour keep/rename over this). The article is a clearly a list as can be seen from the table. Haryana is an Indian *state*, just like California is a state of the United States. Whilst "other things exist" is not a great argument, it is still instructive to ask if anyone thinks it inappropriate to have an article listing earthquakes in California? That it was carved out of another state in 1966 based on who spoke what language where is neither here nor there - it is a coherent geographical entity where earthquakes frequently occur (including one today) and receive significant coverage in reliable sources and is an easy pass for WP:LISTN. The poor English and incomplete listing are page quality issues which there is no deadline to fix and the article is eminently savable. This is not a TNT case. The number of earthquakes that occur in Haryana (dozens of recorded ones over the years reported in reliable sources) clearly justifies a separate listing to List of earthquakes in India which is anyway only a listing of major earthquakes (not all earthquakes covered in reliable sources). FOARP (talk) 07:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. The events only attracted one-off coverage. desmay (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This doesn't matter as the subject is a list, not an event-article per se. The relevant guide is WP:LISTN. Earthquakes in Haryana have been studied and listed in scholarly articles including, e.g., 1 2 3. FOARP (talk) 17:15, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and rename, per FOARP. The argument in the first comment about Haryana being carved out linguistically is nonsensical - how were the borders of California decided, and why does it matter? If a given state in a given country is earthquake-prone to the point of receiving media coverage about it, it makes obvious sense to retain the article as a spin-off of the main List of earthquakes in India article. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 05:44, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:15, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. These are all pretty weak earthquakes. (Or alternatively, rename List of minor land hiccups in Haryana.) List of earthquakes in India is quite sufficient. The 4.6 earthquake could be added to that list. The other three are 2's; Richter magnitude scale states that quakes in the 2.0-2.9 range are "felt slightly by some people. No damage to buildings" and there are "over one million per year" across the globe. Clarityfiend (talk) 07:45, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. FOARP provided three scholarly papers studing earthquakes in Haryana. That makes the topic notable by our definition and prima facie suitable for an article. Editors arguing that earthquake occurence is unrelated to politcal/linguistic boundaries are promoting an argument not supported in policy and expert sources don't seem to agree. In any case, that is an argument for renaming, not for deleting. Rename it after the orogeny these earthquakes belong to – if you can source it. That these earthquakes are small is also not a policy based argument. Small != unnotable. Since multiple researchers have studied them in depth and published their work in reliable sources then, on the contrary and by definition, they are actually notable. Poor English is also not usually a good reason for deletion. Virtually every article that comes out of India is written in poor English, so suck it up and get copyediting. SpinningSpark 17:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It was not clear if this was supposed to be a list of notable earthquakes in Haryana (in which case renaming and expansion are warranted) or an article only about four small earthquakes in May 2020 (for which I could not find sources to demonstrate notability). I am very well aware that poor writing is not a deletion rationale, but I cannot copyedit unless the intended meaning is clear; otherwise, I risk a misunderstanding. ComplexRational (talk) 18:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Of course that's not true. Focus of the article is an entirely different issue to copyediting English. To be clear, I am not supporting turning this into a list article. The sources that have been unearthed show this can be a viable article as is. The only name change I would support is changing to plural "earthquakes". It clearly is about more than "four small earthquakes in May 2020"; the page at the time it was nominated refers to a large earthquake in 1956. SpinningSpark 19:00, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:NOTNEWS. None of these earthquakes meet the notability for a natural disaster. Ajf773 (talk) 02:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
KEEP Perfectly valid list article for reasons others already pointed out. Dream Focus 06:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single name in this article's list would meet WP:N. killer bee  04:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This is not a list article. Even if it was, lists in which no individual entry is notable are explicitly allowed by WP:CSC. Even if that wasn't the case, there have been notable earthquakes in Haryana; there was a widely covered M4.6 as recently as May [50][51][52][53][54]. The 1956 earthquake mentioned in the article (M7?) is also almost certainly notable as it killed people in Dehli, but sources for that one will take more effort because of the age. SpinningSpark 10:03, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lokal App[edit]

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

May not pass WP:WEB or WP:NCORP. Bingobro (Chat) 14:25, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Non-notable subject, promotional article. Shanze1 (talk) 05:07, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Spartaz ^Humbug! 22:29, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Coverage from India Times, Inc. and TechCrunch already available in the article demonstrates compliance with WP:GNG. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 21:13, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If this company serves India, why is there no article on it on any of the Indian-language wikis? The number of sources looks good, but it could still be churnalism. — Charles Stewart (talk) 07:36, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Passes WP:GNG ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:07, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, there are some decent sources like TechCrunch. The article doesn't have much information, I dunno how it could be expanded, there isn't a lot of English info out there I guess. --Ysangkok (talk) 03:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Most startups are not notable and this one is no exception. All the sources (with the exception of TechCrunch) are the usual funding announcements which are not enough to satisfy CORPDEPTH. Even the TechCrunch one is somewhat an interview-ish article. It is a case of TOOSOON. M4DU7 (talk) 05:51, 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 Zafar Choudhary. (non-admin closure) feminist; you can't silence us 13:39, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Dispatch (Jammu and Kashmir)[edit]

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

Article subject is a new digital news service in India lacking any claim of notability as well as reliable independent sources. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Mccapra (talk) 21:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zafar Choudhary. I can see some potential to create the article in near future, until then it should be kept as a redirect to the main article. Mohanabhil (talk) 02:33, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:06, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Zafar Choudhary: Per Mohanabhil. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:21, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As suggested above, blank and redirect to Zafar Choudhary. WP:ATD-R. --Jack Frost (talk) 11:55, 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 merge to New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Defunct New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association conferences[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. While I can find coverage consisting of news articles that individual high school athletic conferences have become defunct, I can find no coverage referring to a list of New Jersey defunct high school athletic conferences as a unit. Therefore, this fails WP:LISTN. Hog Farm (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 19:51, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge / Redirect to New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association which should have been the ab initio solution here. Alansohn (talk) 20:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Alansohn: - While a redirect is reasonable, especially if targeted to the realignment section, where the concept of conferences becoming defunct is broadly discussed, I am strongly opposed to a merge, since the list article is completely unsourced.Hog Farm (talk) 21:45, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Hog Farm, the material is encyclopedic and readily sourceable, as has already been done by the article's creator and by me. I'd be happy to add more sourcing at some point, but regardless of what happens here the material will eventually be added in some form to the article for New Jersey State Interscholastic Athletic Association, because it belongs there. I hope that you'll change your mind and join me in supporting a merge / redirect. Alansohn (talk) 22:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - I would support a merge now I guess. There doesn't seem to be an overall list of New Jersey high school athletic conferences, so the best merger point would be the realignment section, to kinda state that the list was the list of conferences that were disbanded as a result of realignment. If you support that merge target, I'll withdraw this nomination. Since you seem to be more familiar with the subject matter than I am, would you be willing to perform the merger after I withdraw? Hog Farm (talk) 22:48, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I tend to disagree that this would fail the guidelines, specifically with this grouping. While you may not find an article that will list every former conference in the list, you will find plenty that mention multiple conferences, and these overlap with each other. Also, this article (<http://www.newspapers.com/newspage/498965784/>), while not listing every conference, specifically states that every conference in northern New Jersey was folded into new leagues during the realignment. The logical implication is that all of the conferences in the list are grouped together in being folded at roughly the same time. I do see how attaching this list to the main NJSIAA page would make sense at first, however, once the list gets longer once more research into older conferences is done, it may end up being too cumbersome of a list to be on the main page. There are some states (like Ohio) where lists are so long they have to be broken up in some way. Generally, lists like these are considered acceptable, despite toeing the line of the guidelines if taken literally, because of navigation and conciseness concerns. There's no reason to have five or six pages of lists because of grouping concerns, when you can have the entire list on one page and use less space.Mtndrums (talk) 22:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Mtndrums, could you possibly clarify your position? (Keep, Merge, Neutral...doubt you support delete). I don't have a position and it appears if you do, this may be closable. John from Idegon (talk) 09:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's keep, using the above-mentioned supporting statements.Mtndrums (talk) 09:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/Redirect as per Alansohn. I likewise don't think this meets LISTN, but it appears to be a valid enough redirect target. Ravenswing 06:30, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Bella[edit]

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

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. this source as well as this one looks promising but ultimately aren’t enough to show he satisfies GNG nor WP:MUSICBIO. Celestina007 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 15:06, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Dance-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:25, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Most of the article is sourced to YouTube videos, which narrows down it's lack of notability. Koridas ^talk? 02:01, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:05, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Phil Monsour (Musician)[edit]

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

In the current version of the article lacks WP:MUSICBIO, has not been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician itself. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:26, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete - Even though he has been around for a long time with many albums released, he has not received very many reviews or other coverage. I found one robust album review at [55], but that is in a specialist publication and it is still just one review. Otherwise, all that can be found online are the typical streaming and self-promotional sites. Also note that you may find some topical articles that the musician wrote himself, but those do not count for the notability of his music career. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:55, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 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 delete. This discussion was made much more difficult than it needed to be by a large contingent of clearly externally canvassed participants. Those organising such campaigns need to understand that they almost never have the desired effect. In fact, they are likely to have precisely the opposite effect. Wikipedia editors will become suspicious and start examining the article in much greater detail than they otherwise would. As it says in the hatnote to this discussion, this is not a vote; mere expressions of support for the article are ignored. What is needed is evidence of notability and this was either completely lacking from most on the keep side, or else they showed an utter misunderstanding of what Wikipedia's definition of notability is.

Only Macedonia1913 made a fair attempt at presenting sources, but these were largely rejected by other editors. Rathfelder gave some support, but their rationale was largely an OTHERSTUFF argument which, as closer, I'm obliged to ignore. That may (or may not) be a good argument for changing guidelines, but it has no bearing on this AfD. The one source that was generally accepted as counting towards notability was the European Diaspora in Australia book. However, it was agreed that this by itself was insufficient to meet Wikipedia:Notability (organizations and companies). I also note that the book is published by Cambridge Scholars Publishing who have an extremely poor reputation for fact checking and editorial oversight and are on some versions of Beall's List so this source is marginal at best.

There was some discussion of the dissertation being used as a source. Some editors seem to have confused this with a Doctoral thesis. It is not, it is for a Master's degree, as clearly stated on its title page. Doctoral theses are peer reviewed and considered part of the accepted body of scholarly knowledge. Master's theses are not. Nobody argued that this work "had significant scholarly influence" as required by WP:SCHOLARSHIP and pointed out by several particicpants. Its hard to see how they could have done since gscholar shows that it has no citations in other works.

Some editors requested that the page be salted. I'm declining to do that, this one is borderline enough that it may be possible to show notability in the future. However, I strongly recommend that any new draft is done by an experienced Wikipedia editor. A third AfD like this one will almost certainly end with the page being pernamently protected from recreation. SpinningSpark 01:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

United Macedonian Diaspora[edit]

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

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

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

AfDs for this article:

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

Not a notable organization with very little coverage. The page for this organization has already been deleted one before.

Additionally, it is important to note that members of this organisation have critized before the deletion of this page blaming it on 'Bulgarian & Greek paid wikipedia editors' (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4) as well as recently creating some kind of 'Wikipedia taskforce'. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wsXGhAhd7qc) James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bilateral relations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Discrimination-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Macedonia-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. James Richards (talk) 14:58, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. I re-created the article because I believe there is sufficient coverage of it to exist. There are reliable independent sources like these [56] [57] which cover the subject with good depth. There are several other sources, such as the US Census Bureau, that describe the organization more briefly. Comparing to other diaspora articles that exist, this one has at least as good coverage in RS (yes, I know wp:OTHER but nonetheless worth stating). The second part of the nominator's rationale is irrelevant and does not apply to my editing of this article. --Local hero ^talk 15:09, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the two above sources: The first source is a reliable source, but two pages of coverage in a large book are not enough to substantiate an entire Wikipedia article in my opinion. The second article is not a reliable source, it's a thesis, see WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." In any case, reliable or not, the second source only gives trivial coverage anyway. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The opinions of individual members of the organization does not represent the opinions of the organization as a whole. The organization has been influential in the Macedonian diaspora, being the main arm of the Macedonian diaspora in the United States, whilst having a significant presence in Canada and Australia as well. --Dikaiosyni —Preceding undated comment added 15:22, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. The first source User:Local hero presented is good. The second is a PhD thesis, so not really reliable. pburka (talk) 15:37, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Response I was referring to User:Local hero's comment on what an individual member of UMD said regarding Wikipedia as representing the organization as a whole, using it to justify why the UMD article should be deleted. The comments made by an individual UMD member should not be taken into account. --Dikaiosyni (talk) 15:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment: You are right, the fact that the organization is recruiting volunteers in WhatsApp & private invite-only Facebook group for "Rapid Response" on Wikipedia is not a criterion for article deletion. Yet, so far we haven't seen any significant independent source. The "2020 Census" one is close but can be qualified as a "dependent source" as part of the "Partner Spotlight". --StanProg (talk) 08:27, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The 2020 census is still very trivial coverage. This basically counts as a "listing" per the examples of trivial coverage on ORGDEPTH. It isn't anywhere close to the examples of substantial coverage on ORGDEPTH. The policy is very clear that a source needs to make it possible "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." The 2020 census is literally a stub. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:40, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong delete. All the coverage is incredibly trivial and short. I'm not even sure every source being cited in that article is reliable. Note an enormous number of sources were deleted by me for them being not independent or not reliable see the page history, so you don't bring up any of those sources if you find them on google. This article is a clear WP:GNG fail. There is no "Significant coverage [which] addresses the topic directly and in detail". And moreover, note that "multiple sources are generally expected". The closest that there is to "in-depth coverage" is 2 pages in a 265 page book. Even if we say that counts as in-depth coverage and detailed coverage, which I dispute, the article still totally fails having multiple sources which give it in-depth and detailed coverage. Also note WP:MULTSOURCES "A single significant independent source is almost never sufficient for demonstrating the notability of an organization." And also note that "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated." Multiple trivial mentions are not sufficient. There needs to be multiple significant sources per the WP:ORG policy. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

oppose: UMD is probably the best known and one of the most influential macedonian diaspora organizations. It definitely deserves a wiki article. Тутуноберач (talk) 16:08, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I was attacked personally by this organisation and still suppose its set of socks is voting around. In late April 2020 an online webinar was promoted by its President Meto Koloski: On April 29th, we will host “Wikipedia Warriors: The New Front-lines in the Battle for Macedonia.” Instructions were provided on the how to change the information here. Jingiby (talk) 16:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

While supporting deletion, you've actually added sources to the article which establish notability. These sources portray the organization in a negative light but nonetheless you must therefore find the subject notable since you've found sources? --Local hero ^talk 16:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No, he hasn't. That source only gives the UMD an incredibly brief mention, it speaks about the UMD for one sentence. That doesn't make the subject notable. It doesn't give it in-depth coverage. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Oppose : There are quite a bit of online sources both on Google and on Google News about this organization. It is a legitimate organization from what I can gather. News outlets Newsweek, SBS, National Post, Radio Free Europe, Voice of America, Total Croatia News would not be reporting the organization's statements and views if the organization was not an authority. While Google is a great search engine, it is not the only resource. I encourage editors to use all sources available, including academic, media, governmental, non-governmental. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia1913 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: there needs to be significant coverage from reliable sources. No one has been able to point to any. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: In your opinion what is significant coverage, and what are reliable sources? The article cites several reliable sources. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Macedonia1913 (talk • contribs) 17:11, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There's needs to be significant coverage FROM reliable sources. Having reliable sources is insufficient if they do not give significant coverage. An example of significant coverage would be if a book were to be written about the UMD. Note that this is very different to a book merely mentioning the UMD in one or two sentences. Now look, before today you had only ever made 7 edits to Wikipedia. So I would strongly encourage you to gain more experience before being so certain of your opinions. This space shouldn't be used to give general lessons on how to edit Wikipedia. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It seems very suspicious to me that UMD's and only UMD's article is for deletion when for example National Italian American Foundation Page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Italian_American_Foundation with no sources whatsoever isn't threatened with deletion. Wikipedia indeed has a Macedonian problem and it needs to be aknowledged by neutral editors too. Тутуноберач (talk) 16:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, you are welcome to nominate that article for deletion if you feel it fits the relevant policies. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4. This page was deleted merely 2.5 months before being created again. Clearly more water needs to flow under the bridges before we can consider reversing the decision. Unless we consider the first decision wrong, in which case the right move is to raise it at WP:DRV, not to create it again. The second part of the nomination rationale is pertinent to this discussion per WP:CANVAS. Place Clichy (talk) 16:39, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I had missed the original deletion discussion. This was my first time creating a previously deleted article, so I reached out to the deleting admin first regarding appropriate action. He stated I could either raise it at WP:DRV or simply rewrite it. I chose the latter expecting other editors to see good enough support in reliable sources. I'd rather we argue for/against deletion based on whether this article is notable enough to exist, but if needed I can give it more time and raise it at WP:DRV. In hindsight now, I wish I had gone that route. --Local hero ^talk 16:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No problem, I acknowledge that you were not aware of the previous discussion and had not participated in it. Place Clichy (talk) 17:01, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very important comment: Closing admin has to note that much of the support for keeping the page is not based on any policy. Please keep in mind that members of this exact organization have explicitly campaigned for people to sign up to Wikipedia to fight for an agenda (yes, that seriously happened lol). The decision to keep/delete this page can't be decided by a popularity contest, it has to be decided on policy. It's certainly a very unusual statistical coincidence that a bunch of very new Wikipedia editors all managed to stumble upon this AFD within mere hours of it being nominated for deletion...I've never seen anything like this on an AFD before. WOW! I didn't know that nominating this article for deletion would be such a great recruiting drive for Wikipedia. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Slanders against editors User Apples&Manzanas claims that "much of the support for keeping the page is not based on any policy. Please keep in mind that members of this exact organization have explicitly campaigned for people to sign up to Wikipedia to fight for an agenda" . There is no proof whatsoever that the support this page gets is in any way connected to some unkown campaign made by the organization. Тутуноберач (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: I never said there was. You missed a few sentences in the middle there. But certainly, based on my experience as an editor, I think it's an unusual coincidence that (A) A member of this organization has led a campaign to recruit people to fight for a POV on Wikipedia. (B) This exact organization's wikipedia page gets nominated for deletion. (C) A bunch of Wikipedia editors, with extremely few edits, and edit histories which all largely relate to Macedonian nationalism come to defend this organization within hours of it being nominated for deletion. This is of course, an unusual coincidence. I'm not casting specific doubts on any individual, only talking about statistical likelihoods in the aggregate. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There seem to be sufficient independent sources to keep the article. Rathfelder (talk) 23:03, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder:: Did you read any of those sources or the comments in this AFD? There needs to be significant coverage given in multiple reliable sources per the WP:ORG policy. No one has been able to point to two examples of significant coverage. A brief mention in reliable sources is never enough. It doesn't matter if one million reliable sources give it a brief mention, that's still a GNG and ORG fail, if it doesn't have significant coverage in multiple reliable sources. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 08:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"significant coverage" is not objectively defined. It has to be considered in context. If independent sources cover the views of an organisation like this that is enough. Very few organisations generate detailed lengthy examination. Rathfelder (talk) 09:11, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: There hasn't been a single reliable secondary source which has written about this organization as its subject. No book has written been written about this organization, no journal article article has been written about this organization, no newspaper article has been written about this organization. A one sentence mention in a journal article does not count as "in-depth" and "significant" and "direct" and "detailed"...as per the aforementioned policies. Moreover, this is an organization which has a member requesting other members to push a POV on wikipedia and another member is even talking about how this exact article got deleted and "now [they] have to start from scratch". You should be much more skeptical towards this material per WP:CANVASSING and WP:COI. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:35, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder: does have a good point, per WP:GNG the subject "does not need to be the main topic of the source material". We need reliable sources such "that no original research is needed to extract the content." That's been achieved here. This subject seems to be facing relatively high scrutiny, we definitely don't require all 6 mil+ of Wikipedia's articles to have previously had a full book written about their topics. --Local hero ^talk 13:58, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No, this is wrong. The relevant policy clearly states that "Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." Per WP:ORGDEPTH. I know you wrote this article but it's just time to admit that it doesn't meet the notability requirements. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not that time yet. Out of two uninvolved users to voice their opinions here, one is in favour of keeping and the other is suggesting a procedural delete. Let's wait on it. I know this has become your crusade, but it's just time to admit that boldfacing every other sentence defeats the purpose of boldfacing... --Local hero ^talk 20:09, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete per WP:G4. It was deleted after a discussion on 24 March 2020. It's interesting that UMD created a "Macedonian rapid response taskforce" to fight against "delegitimizing of the Macedonian people on the internet, Wikipedia,...". I would not be surprised if we meet some of the volunteers in this discussion. --StanProg (talk) 10:46, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you delete an article about an organisation like this it's not surprising that the community fights back. But their fightback is irrelevant to the question of notability. There are sufficient independent citations. More than for many similar articles. Rathfelder (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply - you are missing the point. It doesn't matter if there are "sufficient independent citations". This is entirely irrelevant. There could be a million independent citations, it still fails WP:ORG and WP:GNG which make it abundantly clear that it needs to have "significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject." per WP:ORGCRITE. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 19:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here are additional quotes from the relevant policies which show why this article does not have significant coverage:

"These criteria, generally, follow the general notability guideline with a stronger emphasis on quality of the sources to prevent gaming of the rules by marketing and public relations professionals. The guideline, among other things, is meant to address some of the common issues with abusing Wikipedia for advertising and promotion. As such, the guideline establishes generally higher requirements for sources that are used to establish notability than for sources that are allowed as acceptable references within an article." WP:ORGCRITE.
"Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." WP:ORGDEPTH.
"Quantity does not determine significance. It is the quality of the content that governs. A collection of multiple trivial sources do not become significant." WP:ORGDEPTH. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 19:55, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The User:Apples&Manzanas brought this Article For Deletion discussion to my attention on my talk page. Regarding my position, I haven't decided. There have been some notorious cases linked to the UMD and its head, Metodija Koloski. Specifically, Koloski's racist comments against Albanians, Bulgarians and Greeks, as well as lobbying efforts in various countries (often jointly with Turkey's diaspora organization TCA), and (unverified?) accussations of bribery and corruption by the Turkish government, I am not sure I would support keeping or deleting UMD's article. However, it is an indisputable fact that they gained some limited attention by certain WP:RS. Wikipedia already has articles about diaspora organizations of other ethnicities, so why not this as well? --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 12:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Because it entirely fails the relevant policies such as WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE which in their full make it abundantly clear that for any source to count towards notability, it needs to be providing in-depth coverage. All those sources contain about one-sentence worth of coverage. Per WP:SIRS an "Note that an individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability....each source needs to be significant, independent, reliable, and secondary. In addition, there must be multiple such sources that qualify." No one questions that this organization has been covered by reliable sources, but only reliable sources which provide significant coverage count towards notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:49, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No uninvolved users to opine here share that view yet. But anyway, I'm just here to point out the mis-characterization that "all" of the sources contain "about one sentence" of coverage. The US Census Bureau source and The European Diaspora in Australia for starters. Pretty sure the rest are more than a sentence too. --Local hero ^talk 15:35, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What do you mean "no uninvolved users...share that view". Myself, Jingiby, StanProg, James Richards, Placy Clichy have all voted to delete. Are you defining anyone who disagrees with you as 'involved' and anyone who agrees with you as 'uninvolved'? I did much to improve your article, deleting countless terrible sources. I'm the only reason the article looks superficially good at the moment. It doesn't matter how many people support your edits, the policy is very clear that the article should be deleted. Your reasoning for why the article should be kept has changed about 4 times, after each time you were proven to be wrong. And none of those 'uninvolved editors' have actually made a policy argument for why the article should be kept: none have pointed to significant and in-depth coverage in at least two sources. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:53, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Meaning ones that aren't involved in editing the article and don't have predictable opinions on these issues (i.e. Macedonian and Bulgarian editors). So that leaves Place Clichy who voted to deleted technically, but not based on notability. Then there's SilentResident and Rathfelder, neither of which support the view of a lack of notability. That's what we've got so far. Your policy arguments are based on your interpretations of them and you've made it clear in every single reply to every comment. Let's await more neutral opinions. My reasoning hasn't changed at all actually, I think the organization is notable enough to have an article. If any uninvolved editors come along disagreeing with that, then so be it, we'll delete the thing. --Local hero ^talk

I'm not Bulgarian or Macedonian just by the way...Also, you forgot that it was James Richards - an uninvolved editor - who nominated the article for deletion per a lack of notability in the first place...Also, SilentResident never said the article DID have significant coverage, perhaps you should wait for her to reply before trying to assign her to one side or the other. Rathfelder never made any argument about any source giving significant coverage either, Rathfelder made irrelevant arguments about the quantity of sources and then said there was no way of defining significant coverage. If significant coverage didn't matter the relevant policies wouldn't mention the need for it over and over again. I also remind you of WP:CLUE, yes I know it's an essay, and WP:NOTDEM. But the only so-called "uninvolved editor", besides myself, who has actually discussed significant coverage has expressed that it should be deleted. No one has ever disputed that there are multiple reliable sources that mention this organization, but this is insufficient to prove notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:36, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Right if I'm taking your word for it, but you edited this article heavily and seem to consistently take position opposed to the Macedonian side on other articles. Whatever, call yourself uninvolved if you like, we still hardly have a consensus to delete here. James Richards is clearly a Bulgarian editor... and he doesn't even seem to know how to form an interwiki link. And I never said SilentResident stated the article was notable enough lol, I just stated that the user has not agreed with your stance which you claim is so "clear". Rathfelder left his opinions and went on with his day rather do this back and forth like I am, clearly a much smarter person than I. --Local hero ^talk 16:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree to stop talking for the moment, for the benefit of the closing admin. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 17:03, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say there was no way of defining significant coverage. I said there is no objective measure. It depends on context. If you can produce an objective measure lets have it. But it appears to me that those who want to delete are applying inappropriate standards which would not be met by any articles about similar organizations. Rathfelder (talk) 22:06, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've produced objective measures countless times in this article...Here is one of many such examples. For a SINGLE source to be considered significant for the purpose of notability it needs to make "it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization" per WP:ORGDEPTH. There also needs to be multiple sources which do this and each source must provide this level of significant coverage in its own right, the sources do not add up together per WP:SIRS. How can sources which provide one or two sentences worth of coverage make it possible to "to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." Remember once again, that for the purposes of establishing notability EACH source needs to make it possible to write more than a stub article. As for your comments about other organizations allegedly not meeting such standards, that's a textbook WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:55, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So are you going to propose the deletion of 90% of the articles about hospitals and universities? Rathfelder (talk) 09:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I have no idea of the exact percentage...But yes I would support deletion of hospital and university articles if they fail to meet the requirements of the WP:ORG policy. And for whatever it's worth, I think this organization fails hard to meet the GNG too. But the ORG policy sets an even higher bar for notability than the GNG, so this organization fails even harder. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 10:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Very important comment, from the opposing side To the closing admin, the reason the article has been brought up for deletion is not why they claim they have. These editors always find technicalities on Wikipedia to manipulate and push their Point of View on Macedonian issues. Firstly, they deleted the UMD article on the basis that it was self-promotion, now they claim that UMD is not a credible organization with a lot of coverage. UMD is a credible Macedonian organization, which engages in diplomacy and advocacy for Macedonian issues. The editors don't like the nature of the organization, since their agenda on Wikipedia is to discredit anything Macedonian. In all articles regarding Macedonia, you will see the same editors editing constantly and pushing their point of view due to technicalities, despite the number of scholars who disagree with the agenda that they are pushing on Wikipedia. For more information, someone has brought this up on other sites: ^[1] ^[2] ^[3] Dikaiosyni (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response: I will remind you that "No company or organization is considered inherently notable. No organization is exempt from this requirement, no matter what kind of organization it is": see WP:ORGSIG and WP:INHERITORG. It doesn't matter if you like this organization or think they do good work. It's irrelevant. It is also inappropriate for you to be linking to 2 reddit articles which attack Jingiby by name. I've pinged him because it's only fair that he sees this. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:53, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It is interesting to see that “Wikipedia Warriors who open the New Front-lines in the Battle for Macedonia” are accusing me of discrediting all articles regarding that area. Jingiby (talk) 04:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Please rather than slandering other fellow Wikipedians, and falsely accusing me of being Bulgarian just for nominating this article for deletion. It is better to provide give valid reasons and evidence why this organisation is notable. Also it is important to point out that it is interesting that the page for United Macedonian Diaspora was re-created after already being deleted within a few days of the same organisation creating their very own 'Wikipedia taskforce'.

https://ibb.co/VgYTJ0v https://ibb.co/3h4w0bz

The bios of some of new users involved in this discussion also offers an interesting insight about their aims on Wikipedia especially when you take into account that United Macedonian Diaspora has been calling for meatpuppets outside of Wikipedia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PxS5tZc-yf4 &

https://ibb.co/XLqZLKL https://ibb.co/yWGxYjG

--James Richards (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt: Most of the refs here only talk about the general category of diaspora, not the organization itself. The only refs that even feature at least 1 lengthy paragraph tell very similar things (there is much overlap) plus one (the census) is specifically talking about orgs that support it (not independent). Given what the orginization is doing on WP right now, I'd recommend salting. Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:18, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

An SPI for the suspiciously new users voting in this AfD may also be a good idea. Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 05:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally to the speedy deletion per WP:G4, the subject fails WP:NORG & WP:GNG, which was the reason for the previous deletion. There's no significant coverage, almost all of the sources vaguely mention the subject or are not notable, and the only wider coverage is in a "Partner Spotlight" in which the actual informative paragraph (which is added into the article) is organization-provided. This source as well fails the "Independent of the subject" principle from GNG. --StanProg (talk) 10:14, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Most of the above discussion is just politics, but the fact is there simply there isn't any significant coverage in independent, reliable source except for the book, which is not enough. If others find new sources, I would be glad to change my vote. Neutral This is a borderline case, but there have been many reliable sources that have been introduced, from the book to other papers, that have pushed me towards being neutral. If I were closing this, which I am certainly not, in my opinion there is no consensus either way. Zoozaz1 (talk) 03:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I decided to not vote immediatelly and rather look for WP:RS but there isn't really enough. No significant coverage by WP:RS means the article doesn't fullfill even the basic criteria. I wish we kept it like we do with most Diaspora organizations, but this simply isn't enough by itself. --- ❖ SilentResident ❖ ^{(talk ✉ | contribs ✎)} 08:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - sorely lacking in reliable sources Spiderone 17:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Strong Oppose~~ Comment: I have noticed this page has been deleted once already and is now pending 2nd nomination for deletion. I decided to dig further for sources showing this is a legitimate organization. I made changes to the article and cited numerous books, journals, and reports, including a report by the World Bank, and books/journal publications available on Academia.edu and ProQuest. There seem to be a lot of sources in Greek language books and journals, for which I used Google translate to assist in providing as accurate a translation as possible. This organization is not lacking in reliable sources by any means. All the reliable sources I cited in the article were found in easy Google searches using "United Macedonian Diaspora" academia.edu in the search engine. There are more, which can help confirm their legitimacy.Macedonia1913 (talk) 01:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Could you put the sources that you found and the specific page numbers in the discussion so we can look at them individually? Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Collapsed away to make this easier to read

Zoozaz1 - sure. Here they are - when searching in the sources use "UMD" and "United Macedonian Diaspora" interchangeably:

Page 68-69, 71, 76, 79-80 of https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia

Page 2, 4 of https://www.academia.edu/2902205/Why_Macedonia_Matters

Page 19, 32, 44, 49, 69-71 of https://search.proquest.com/openview/8d4eab3b532c71d5ca740e076549261d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Page 8 and 13 of http://www.e-diasporas.fr/working-papers/Balalovska-Macedonian-EN.pdf

Page 2, 57-58 of https://www.auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/Heleniak%20-%20DiasporaPaper10112011.pdf

Page 441 and 442 of https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:379149/fulltext.pdf

Article: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/11/09/macedonian-conference-reignites-feud/?print=true

Page 182-185, 187-188, 192, 195-196 of https://www.academia.edu/35684272/Templar_M._2014_Είκοσι_Χρόνια_Μετά_την_Ανεξαρτησία_-_Ενέργειες_της_κυβέρνησης_των_πολιτών_και_της_διασποράς_της_FYROM_για_κατοχύρωση_του_ονόματος_της_Μακεδονίας_ Macedonia1913 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for presenting all these sources @Macedonia1913:. That Greek book source seems to cover the UMD in detail, as does the Macedonian Diaspora book. The FMSH source talks about the UMD multiple times. --Local hero ^talk 05:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not convinced at all. The sources above do not cover the "Significant coverage" guideline. They just trivially mention the orginazation. I don't speak Greek, but in the proveided Greek source "Ενωμένη Μακεδονική ∆ιασπορά" (including ΕΜ∆) is mentioned just once in the context that they have paid for a study. Local hero, I assume you understand Greek, can you show us an excert of that detailed covering of UMD by the Greek book source that you're mentioning above? --StanProg (talk) 11:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those sources are definitely and absolutely bad:

The first source by Zlatko Nikolovski is NOT INDEPENDENT. Its author is described by the UMD as being a "UMD Vienna Representative": SEE LINK. It is also NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE because it was self-published (see page two of the document). This has now made me suspicious of every other source. They all appear to be bad without even needing to look very hard.
The second source only offers a series of trivial mentions as per usual. It also does not look like a reliable source. It's a paper for a Greek lobby group, not an academic journal. I don't think we use those on Wikipedia.
The third source is a thesis. As we discussed earlier, WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence."
The fourth source is not a reliable source. Its author is described as a PHD candidate. It has not been published for any credible journal. This is a non-scholarly journal: Link to website. Moreover, it only offers trivial mentions as per usual, and does not offer in-depth coverage.
The fifth source contains an absolutely tiny trivial mention. Moreover, it is a discussion paper which is not even published by the World Bank. Self-Published, trivial, and unreliable.
The sixth source is another unreliable source per it being a dissertation. WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." It probably also only offers trivial coverage, but I can't even be bothered reading it fully, it doesn't matter.
The seventh source is not a reliable source and only offers incredibly trivial coverage.
The eight source is in Greek. None of you, nor I, speak Greek. The person posting this source has admitted to not speaking Greek. See WP:NOENG. Maybe SilentResident can help translate it. Given the fact that so many trivial, unreliable and non-independent sources have been used to attempt to give this organization notability, both now and before, I find it hard to believe that finally a good source has been found. Clearly people need to scrape the bottom of the barrel to try to establish notability for this organization. I remind you that the WP:ORG policy says that EACH INDIVIDUAL source, for it to count towards notability, must "[provide] an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." As Stanprog says, it's unlikely the Greek source does that. And even if it does offer somewhat mediocre coverage, then so what? 2 sources which scrape a bear minimum of coverage hardly fulfills ORGDEPTH or MULTIPLESOURCES. If the organization needs to scrape this hard to find non-trivial coverage, it's a good sign that it isn't notable in the first place. The article as it is, is only an incomplete stub, and this is based on it compiling tonnes of trivial mentions together. The best this organization has come towards establishing notability is 1.5 pages of coverage in a 265 page book. The only reason that looks good is because everything else looks so bad in contrast. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:22, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to StanProg:

The Greek source actually spells out "United Macedonian Diaspora" and "UMD" over 20 times in the Journal. The Journal also cites website links and a 3-page bibliography. I took ancient Greek in college so have a basic understanding, however, would have never found the source on Google had the source not had "United Macedonian Diaspora" in English within the Journal. Here are some excerpts:

"Η UMD, όπως αναγράφεται στην περιγραφή της αποστολής της στην ιστοσε- λίδα της (http://umdiaspora.org/content/view/31/67/, πρόσβαση στις 23/7/2011), α- ποτελεί μια «διεθνή, μη κυβερνητική οργάνωση για τα συμφέροντα και τις ανά- γκες των Μακεδόνων και των μακεδονικών κοινοτήτων σε όλο τον κόσμο εκτός"

"στον Μπίτοφ έχει απονεμηθεί το Βραβείο Επιτευγμάτων Μιας Ζωής από την ορ- γάνωση Ενωμένη Μακεδονική Διασπορά (United Macedonian Diaspora – UMD). Ιδιαίτερης προσοχής χρήζει η δήλωση που έκανε κατά την παραλαβή του βραβείου"

"Στις ΗΠΑ τα άρθρα ή οι επιστολές που δημοσιεύονται στον ιστοχώρο της UMD δημοσιεύονται στη συνέχεια από το Κέντρο Πληροφοριών Ανοικτής Πηγής (Open Source Center – OSC) του διευθυντή Εθνικών Πληροφοριών των ΗΠΑ και διασπεί- ρονται σε όλα τα υπουργεία των ΗΠΑ, καθώς και στις δεκαεπτά υπηρεσίες και ορ- γανισμούς πληροφοριών των ΗΠΑ, χωρίς τις αντίθετες (ελληνικές) απόψεις." Macedonia1913 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Apples&Manzanas

Regarding 1st source: I believe there is a misunderstanding here. The book is not by a Zlatko Nikolovski but by Zlatko Nikoloski, Ph.D. The book was found on academia.edu and if you read his biography he resides in Skopje, Macedonia, not Vienna, Austria. I just checked both names on Google, and they are two different people. Your source is from 2010, ten years ago. Zlatko Nikolovski in Vienna, Austria (first source that comes out on Google): https://www.startus.cc/people/zlatko_nikolovski. The photo of Zlatko Nikoloski on Academia.edu is very different. I found another source in case Academia.edu is not a legitimate source: https://www.summerschool.ba/fullscreen-page/comp-jfkwvmay/c0210cfa-37ed-11e8-be88-12dd26dd586a/11/%3Fi%3D11%26p%3DmainPage%26s%3Dstyle-jfjhtds8

The book by Zlatko Nikoloski in Skopje, Macedonia, not to be confused with a Zlatko Nikolovski in Vienna, Austria, fully meets the requirements of WP:SCHOLARSHIP and is a Reliable source

Regarding 2nd source: Regardless of trivial mention or not, it is a journal published on Academia.edu from a reputable source called the American Hellenic Institute, created in 1974, according to their Wikipedia article.

Regarding 3rd source: This is a misinterpretation of what a reliable source is according to WP:SCHOLARSHIP. I found the dissertation on ProQuest and published by a reputable educational institution. In WP:SCHOLARSHIP, it states "Completed dissertations or theses are written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." The dissertation author undergoes interviews with an entire community in Los Angeles County, however, cites reputable sources for her research.

Regarding 4th source: From what I can see on that about the link you posted above. E-diasporas.fr is a French publicly funded project by Agence nationale de la recherche, which has a Wikipedia article. They should scientific data to map out Diasporas.

Regarding 5th source: How can you prove that it was self-published if published directly by the World Bank, using their logo, and their funds? The link where you can download the World Bank report can be found here: https://documents.worldbank.org/en/publication/documents-reports/documentdetail/558161468239979178/harnessing-the-diaspora-for-development-in-europe-and-central-asia

Regarding 6th source: Your interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is incorrect.

Regarding 7th source: According to WP:SCHOLARSHIP's news organizations, News reporting from well-established news outlets is generally considered to be reliable for statements of fact. The reliable source is the Daily Utah Chronicle, a reputable publication in the state of Utah, which interviews several individuals to produce new content, and not content taken from a news agency like Reuters, Associated Press, which usually only primarily send over news via the wire.

Regarding 8th source: See comment above in response to StanProg. While the journal is in Greek, I would have never found it if it did not mention "United Macedonian Diaspora" in English. I took ancient Greek in college and have a basic understanding of Greek to read letters. Furthermore, Google translate is a huge help in translating large parts of texts. "United Macedonian Diaspora" and "UMD" are mentioned more than 20 times in the journal. The author basically wrote an entire journal paper on his views regarding "United Macedonian Diaspora - UMD." Again you have a misunderstanding and misinterpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP. Your comment regarding WP:NOENG is inaccurate, because citing non-English sources are allowed as reliable sources so long as there are English translations.

Due to your own misunderstanding and misinterpretation of what constitutes WP:SCHOLARSHIP, and what makes me believe a personal vendetta against the organization, you have completely reverted the changes I made using reliable sources. I look forward to the views of the Administrators and whether they believe the sources I cited are reliable, or not, and whether they meet WP:SCHOLARSHIP requirements or not. In the end, we are trying to improve Wikipedia articles. Macedonia1913 (talk) 14:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm inclined to agree that some of the sources do help with notability in this case. The first source I would say contributes to notability. The second source is really just trivial mentions, however; see WP:SIGCOV. The third source may contribute slightly, but it is still a relatively small mention. The fourth and fifth sources are just trivial mentions of UMD. The sixth source, as per WP:SCHOLARSHIP "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." does contribute to notability a bit. The seventh source provides only trivial coverage, and since I can't read Greek I don't know if the 8th source contributes to notability. Overall, I'm not sure if this contributes to notability in full. More experienced editors can probably judge more accurately on this. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Rathfelder:I'd like your opinion on my new sources for the article. What do you think? Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to:Zoozaz1, sources for notability don't work like that. They don't "contribute slightly" or 'add-up' together. WP:SIRS and WP:ORGDEPTH and WP:ORGCRITE make it very clear that an individual source needs to offer in-depth coverage in its own right for it to count toward notability. Then there needs to be multiple sources which each offer this level of in-depth coverage. Each INDIVIDUAL SOURCE must provide "Deep or significant coverage [which] provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." If it does not do this, that source is not entirely irrelevant for the purposes of establishing notability. Edit: And this is also made clear in WP:MULTSOURCES "The existence of multiple significant independent sources needs to be demonstrated." If it isn't a significant source, then it fails WP:SIRS, and cannnot prove notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, the policies you cited are correct. Each individual source must provide in depth coverage. Along with that, the existance of multiple ones need to be demonstrated (that is what I mean when I say add up; does this demonstrate multiple sources contribute to notability?) That is exactly what I evaluated when I said some sources provided trivial coverage, some sources were borderline (eg. contributed slightly) and some sources did provide in depth coverage. In other words, what you say I should do is exactly what I did. Zoozaz1 (talk) 17:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yep got it, thanks for your reply. Regarding the sources you think may provide in-depth coverage, see my comment below, they may or may not do this. But I argue that they are not reliable sources in any event, so whether they do provide in-depth coverage is irrelevant as they fail to meet different criteria. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 18:04, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The sources together provide reliability as well as notoriety. I just discovered a Newsweek article quoting UMD in three paragraphs: https://www.newsweek.com/greece-alexander-great-history-dispute-europe-macedonia-891857 - is this not a reliable source Zoozaz1 and Apples&Manzanas? Just curious. In my interpretation, this and many others I noted are reliable sources and in line with WP:SCHOLARSHIP but others do not interpret it that way. Macedonia1913 (talk) 19:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just because someone is being quoted doesn't mean it is significant coverage. Simply mentioning that someone that you quoted is the head of an organization doesn't make the organization notable. That is exactly what that article does. Username⁶⁸⁹² 19:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you click on the article itself, it mentions their president. Thus, if they are quoted for a media outlet, they represent their organization. Nowhere did I mention that this constitutes significant coverage. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the point about reliable sources, WP:SCHOLARSHIP states that "Completed dissertations or theses written as part of the requirements for a doctorate, and which are publicly available (most via interlibrary loan or from Proquest), can be used (as reliable sources) but care should be exercised, as they are often, in part, primary sources." So essentially they are not optimal, but I don't see policy that says they aren't reliable. Zoozaz1 (talk) 20:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zoozaz1 - I agree, no where does WP:SCHOLARSHIP or WP:ORG mention these dissertations or theses are not reliable. The question now is whether how long will this debate of who interprets what as reliable and notable continues. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This AfD is eligible for closure at 05:03 on July 3rd. Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apples&Manzanas' Reply to Macedonia1913:

Regarding the 1st source. It seems you are therefore correct to say it is independent. However, it is still not a reliable source. (A) It is self-published (as shown as page 2 of the document.) (B) It is a dissertation and clearly described as such on the link you provided. (C) Per WP:SCHOLARSHIP: "Masters dissertations and theses are considered reliable only if they can be shown to have had significant scholarly influence." There are other policies that also make this very clear. (D) See also: WP:ORGIND "Once notability is established, primary sources and self-published sources may be used with appropriate care to verify some of the article's content." It is only ONCE NOTABILITY IS ESTABLISHED that those kinds of sources may in very limited circumstances be used. Those sources do not establish notability in the first place. (E) The ORGIND policy also makes it clear that "Reliable sources, generally, are third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. The best sources have a professional structure in place for checking or analyzing facts, legal issues, evidence, and arguments." Sorry, it's self-published and a dissertation. I'm not wasting any more time on this source -- you are simply just wrong -- and need to learn how Wikipedia works before accusing me maliciously misinterpreting policy. You have only made about 20 edits to Wikipedia so perhaps you should be a little bit more humble before declaring everyone wrong about everything. (WOW, another new Wikipedia editor came to this AFD, what a pure coincidence!).
I addressed your second dot point above.
The American Hellenic Group is a lobby group, it is not an academic journal which provides peer reviewed scholarly coverage. It is not a reliable source. The burden is always on you to prove it is a reliable source. Moreover, you said "Regardless of trivial mention or not"...What do you mean "regardless"...If it's a trivial mention, then it's entirely irrelevant to this notability debate. Okay great, we agree this source is now useless and should be ignored.
I addressed this in my 1st point. You cherry-picked 1 sentence while ignoring every other sentence which shows it isn't a reliable source, especially not for the purposes of establishing notability.
None of that proves that "e-diasporas" is a reliable source, at all. That just isn't a reliable source and it's by a "PHD candidate" too. The coverage appears to be trivial anyway. I'm not wasting my time on this source again.
How can I prove it was self-published? Maybe I was wrong, my apologies, it did say: "The views expressed in this paper are those of the authors, and do not reflect the view of the World Bank Group." I may have misinterpreted that. I'm still not sure it counts as a reliable source because it's only a working paper for a peer-assisted learning discussion series. In any case, none of this matters because it's an absolutely and extremely trivial mention. I've gone through this before, trivial mentions do not make an organization notable. Reliable or not - that source does nothing to establish notability under the ORG policy. Let's not waste time discussing sources which so clearly fall short of WP:ORGDEPTH.
My interpretation of WP:SCHOLARSHIP is correct. This was already agreed upon by literally every editor in the AFD before you came. Theses and dissertations can in limited circumstances be cited, but they never count toward reliable sources for the purposes of notability. This is made clear in not only WP:SCHOLARSHIP but also WP:ORGIND as well as throughout the WP:ORG policy.
Tiny local newspapers like the Utah Chronicle, which doesn't even have a Wikipedia page, are not considered reliable sources. Only "well-established" newspapers are considered reliable sources per WP:NEWSORG, as you yourself said. In fact many many major news organizations aren't even reliable sources: such as Metro and International Business Times (see WP:RSP). Tiny local newspapers no one knows are definitely not RS or "well-established". In any case, the coverage was trivial, so this source is irrelevant in any event.
Regarding the Greek source, yes this is a reliable source, I don't question that. The question is whether it provides in-depth coverage. You can't even read the source you have no way of knowing whether it does. The quotes you gave don't demonstrate significant and in-depth coverage at all. The Greek source certainly has not made the UMD the subject of the source, and from what you've shown, it certainly doesn't provide an in-depth overview of the organization as required by the WP:ORGDEPTH policy. Even if it does provide in-depth coverage, this will have been the one and only source which does this. Which is insufficient per WP:MULTSOURCES and WP:SIRS and WP:ORGCRITE. A high bar is required to prove notability, not little scraps of mentions here and there. It's evident that no source has ever made this organization the subject of coverage.
I find it funny to be accused of having deliberately misinterpreted Wikipedia policy in a vendetta against this organization. I'm sure all these editors voting to keep with under 50 edits are the absolute masters of Wikipedia policy, and me who has made more edits than all them put together knows absolutely nothing about Wikipedia's policies. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 16:39, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In response to Apples&Manzanas:

I took at a read at WP:ORGIND posted by Apples&Manzanas, and it states the following: Independence of the author (or functional independence): the author must be unrelated to the company, organization, or product. Related persons include organization's personnel, owners, investors, (sub)contractors, vendors, distributors, suppliers, other business partners and associates, customers, competitors, sponsors and sponsorees (including astroturfing), and other parties that have something, financially or otherwise, to gain or lose. A

All of the reliable sources I used are independent authors with no affiliation to the organization. I researched and could not find any affiliation of the authors to the organization, thus their work meets the independence requirement.
In conducting further research I discovered the organization's leadership has been interviewed by numerous publications and TV stations (all simple Google searches), example:

https://www.newsweek.com/greece-alexander-great-history-dispute-europe-macedonia-891857 Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Quoting someone is not significant coverage. Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification. I did not state the link was significant coverage. The media articles, together, with all the books/journals/mentions/trivial (or not) mentions, all reliable sources should constitute that the organization is a legitimate organization. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability on Wikipedia doesn't equal legitimacy. UMD is a legitimate organization which probably does represent some of their target group, but that doesn't mean it's notable. Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.trtworld.com/video/the-newsmakers/will-macedonians-vote-to-change-the-name-of-their-country/5bae3f7e58cd863d6877048f

Quoting the org's president isn't significant coverage

Not a reliable source either per: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_267#RfC:_TRT_World. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70Vj-QqZ8bs

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zHthAvpwqiI

These 2 videos both document the organization's president's stance on the change of the country's name. Someone's opinion is not significant coverage of an organization that they lead. Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.balkaninsider.com/balkan-insider-exclusive-interview-with-united-macedonian-diaspora-president-metodija-koloski-on-umd-and-name-agreement/

I'm not sure what the policy on interviews like this is. Perhaps another editor can see for themself? Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply to Username6892. It doesn't matter what the policy is. This is a tiny website with 1000 twitter followers, it isn't a mainstream news organization. It fails being a reliable source. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The number of twitter followers an organization has does not determine if a source is reliable. This essay seems to be useful in determining if it contributes to notability. Zoozaz1 (talk) 15:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I understand that, my point is that it's a random small website not a "well-established" news-organization. It isn't a reliable source for other reasons: it appears to be run by only 2 people, no evidence of rigorous editorial policies or fact-checking, or leadership teams. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.freedomhouse.org/sites/default/files/NIT2012Macedonia_final.pdf

Quoting the organization isn't significant coverage

https://harriman.columbia.edu/event/western-balkans-macedonia-and-integrative-process-what-role-diaspora

Even if this was significant coverage of the organization's president, notability is not inherited.

https://www.rferl.org/a/north-macedonia-honeyland-oscars-disappointment-country-proud/30426116.html

Quoting the president isn't significant coverage

https://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/macedonia-quiet-crossroads

3 lines isn't significant coverage

https://www.aa.com.tr/en/europe/greece-accused-of-genocide-of-macedonian-people/1081780

The joint statement isn't significant coverage (quoting someone)

https://www.voanews.com/europe/macedonian-president-veto-name-deal-greece

I also discovered the organization has testified before Congress several times and their testimonies are of public nature. If Congress allows them to testify are they not notable? Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Testifying before the U.S. congress is not a notability criterion. Username⁶⁸⁹² 20:17, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I believe we are trying to establish that there are enough reliable sources that establish legitimacy that the organization is real and deserves a Wikipedia article. Based on all the materials presented the organization meets WP:SCHOLARSHIP WP:ORG WP:MULTSOURCES, which states For notability purposes, sources must be unrelated to each other to be "multiple". All of the sources are unrelated and are beyond multiple. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Independent sources states "A primary test of notability is whether unrelated people with no vested interest in the subject have actually considered the company, corporation, product or service notable enough that they have written and published non-trivial, non-routine works that focus upon it." All the sources are by unrelated people. Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NONPROFIT WP:NGO Non-commercial organizations section states that Organizations are usually notable if they meet both of the following standards: The scope of their activities is national or international in scale. The organization has received significant coverage in multiple reliable sources that are independent of the organization. - based on the materials and the discussion above the organization has met both these standards of WP:ORG Macedonia1913 (talk) 20:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh my god. We have already acknowledged that this organization has been mentioned by multiple independent reliable sources. However this is irrelevant. The organization needs to be given significant coverage in multiple reliable independent sources. Please read through everything I've already written on this AFD. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 21:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

significant coverage lists several examples of significant/substantial coverage. It states on Wikipedia that "Examples of substantial coverage that would generally be sufficient to meet the requirement: A scholarly article, a book passage, or ongoing media coverage focusing on a product or organization." We've established that the organization has had two book passages and two scholarly articles, as well as ongoing media coverage as evident by Voice of America and Radio Free Europe. Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:38, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It also says "Deep or significant coverage provides an overview, description, commentary, survey, study, discussion, analysis, or evaluation of the product, company, or organization. Such coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements, and makes it possible to write more than a very brief, incomplete stub about the organization." This article and this article do not come close to meeting that requirement, you simply don't understand how Wikipedia works. The UMD isn't even the main focus of those news articles, at all... Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief response by Apples&Manzanas to Macedonia1913: Sigh. Most of those sources were already known about, they are either unreliable or do not provide significant coverage:

I can only assume you haven't read anything I've said. Those sources you provided previously -- most of them -- are not reliable sources for reasons which have nothing to do with them being independent or not. Yes, they are independent, but they are not reliable sources. You clearly have little idea of how Wikipedia policy works and have not read what I wrote. Sources can be unreliable sources for reasons which have nothing to do with whether they are independent or not.
Newsweek post-2013 is not a reliable source. "There is clear consensus that Newsweek is not generally reliable post–2013."Per: Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard/Archive_280#Newsweek_RfC. The coverage is extremely trivial anyway. This source was already known about and deleted from the article.
Youtube isn't a reliable source, especially if not coming from an official verified account. WP:RSPYT. In any case, someone being interviewed does not give significant coverage to the organization because he is not discussing the organization. "If a notable person joins an organization, the organization does not "inherit" notability from its member." See WP:INHERITORG. Those interviews were not about the organization and they are trash sources anyway.
The Balkaninsider source is not a reliable source. It is a random website with a tiny 1000 twitter followers, it is not a credible or mainstream source in any way. This source was already known about and deleted from the article.
AA is not a reliable source for international relations per WP:RSP: "In the 2019 RfC, editors generally agreed that Anadolu Agency is generally unreliable for topics that are controversial or related to international politics." Only gives extremely trivial coverage anyway. This source was already known about and deleted from the article.
Freedom House probably isn't a reliable source. It only provides one sentence of coverage as far as I can be bothered seeing. A collection of trivial sources do not make something notable.
Everyone already knew about sources like VOA and Radio Free Liberty. They may or may not be reliable sources, but they do not provide significant coverage...at all.
The other sources you've mentioned which I haven't seen before are unreliable sources and/or they don't provide significant coverage. I can't spend hours of my time responding to every single trivial and unreliable source you manage to dig up. Stop posting so many sources, quantity does not matter, quality does. If you think you've found three good and in-depth sources then please show them or let me know what I've missed. You don't have any excuse to continue to flood this AFD with trivial sources. This is just a waste of space/time. If you can point out 3 in-depth sources, then do it, but I've made it very clear what Wikipedia's policies are. WP:ORGDEPTH makes it very clear that quality is the only thing which matters, not quantity. So find the three best sources you can, so we don't waste our time discussing the junk ones. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 20:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies, Apples&Manzanas keeps raising the bar for this organization, and it further proves my point that he has a personal vendetta against the organization.

The bar has been raised to 3 in-depth sources, yet WP:ORGDEPTH makes no mention of how many in-depth sources are needed to establish notability.
VOA and Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty are reliable sources, and clearly the article uses them as sources. If they were not reliable, why does the article use them in the citations?
The European Diaspora in Australia is a reliable source.
The Macedonian Diaspora: Key to the Development of the Republic of Macedonia is a reliable source.
THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN HOMELAND AND DIASPORA: THE CASE OF GREECE AND THE GREEK-AMERICAN COMMUNITY is a reliable source.
The Greek language journal has been translated into English and is a reliable source.
4 book/journal reliable sources. The media is a whole different story, and rather not get into that. It is open to interpretation. The books and journal writings elaborating on the organization's activities are enough reliable sources. World Bank, Freedom House, Congress, Census even making one mention of the organization confirms they exist. Their coverage of the organization seems to be related to diaspora studies and how that relates to the homeland of certain diaspora. If the organization, which is named "United Macedonian Diaspora," is being written about in academic journals and books, it has a broad reach. We've established this is the case. You, on the other hand, want to continue debating and prolonging the discussion.
I definitely have an excuse to respond to your misunderstandings and misinterpretations of Wikipedia guides and rules. As I have mentioned before, it is up to the Admins to decide. Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:32, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Brief reply - you clearly haven't read what I've written.

I didn't say you had to provide 3 in-depth sources. I was saying that it would be better to discuss 3 sources rather than 300. Are you now admitting you don't have 3 in-depth sources? Great. In general you do need multiple in-depth sources, per WP:MULTSOURCES. I guess you want to interpret that as the bear minimum of 2 in-depth sources. Many editors wouldn't agree this is enough, see WP:THREESOURCES. You don't have 2 in-depth sources anyway.
Oh my god...I literally never said that VOA and RFE were not reliable sources. They do not, however, provide significant coverage. They are therefore irrelevant to this notability debate. Yes the organization has been mentioned before by some reliable sources...It needs to receive significant coverage from reliable sources.
Yes, it's a reliable source. 1.5 pages of coverage in a 265 page book is arguably not in-depth coverage. That isn't even a passage. I don't think this source passes significance tests, but if it does, then it barely scrapes through. I admit that this has been the best source so far. But I also remind you you need multiple in-depth sources.
I gave you over 5 reasons earlier why that self-published thesis is not a reliable source and does not count towards notability. This is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I'm not going to repeat myself.
I gave you countless reasons why this dissertation was not a reliable source. This is just WP:ICANTHEARYOU. I'm not going to repeat myself.
This is a reliable source, I literally said that. I disputed whether it provides in-depth coverage. You admitted you couldn't read Greek and had to use google translate, so don't pretend like it does. Your track record of assessing in-depth coverage is terrible, so I'm not going to believe you after you've spammed hundreds of trivial and/or unreliable sources previously. You said you don't speak Greek and the quotes you provided demonstrated very insignificant coverage.
I addressed all those sources. This is WP:ICANTHEARYOU again. I won't repeat myself.
You've made about 100 edits to Wikipedia, stop pretending like you know everything. I wonder how you came across this AFD? Just pure chance I'm sure. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you to Apples&Manzanas for providing links to relevant Wikipedia pages discussing notability. Under WP:AUD, it states "The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, statewide, provincial, national, or international source is necessary." - With all the media sources provided the organization has definitely received ample coverage in numerous media outlets around the world based on a simple Google search, or a Google news search. Macedonia1913 (talk) 21:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"SIGNIFICANT COVERAGE" is the key word there. It doesn't say that insignificant coverage from international media is evidence of notability. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So we now all agree that the UMD is found in multiple reliable independent sources. To establish notability, however, we need significant coverage (more than a trivial mention but it need not be the main topic of the source material). We have two book sources that meet that: The European Diaspora in Australia and the Greek book (machine translation can give you a good idea here if you need it, also the book writes UMD in Latin letters). We've got an article (not particularly lengthy) from the US census bureau about the organization. Then, we have sources that are so-so because they're self-published or ~~scholarly~~ thesis sources. Finally, we have other sources that range from a few paragraphs about UMD to a few sentences. We've all encountered articles on Wikipedia with far less than this and I'm still confident a decent article can exist from these references. I'll leave it at that. --Local hero ^talk 02:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Published scholarly sources are usually considered the most reliable of all, Local hero. See WP:SOURCETYPES. The discussion here is very long though, and I suspect you might be referring to a PhD thesis, in which case I am more inclined to agree that it's "so-so". Cordless Larry (talk) 07:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Local Hero:

What do you mean "we now all agree that the UMD is found in multiple reliable independent sources"...this was agreed from the very beginning...don't desperately pretend like this is some breakthrough development in the discussion. I remind you yet again that sources only count towards notability if they are SIGNIFICANT and reliable and independent and secondary and there must be multiple sources which meet all of these requirements. "An individual source must meet all of these criteria to be counted towards notability."
The PHD theses in non-academic journals are not "so-so", and nor are they "scholarly", they are entirely useless for the purposes of establishing notability as per the myriad of quotes from the relevant policies I've already given. They didn't seem significant either, not that this matters, because they are unreliable anyway.
It has never been agreed that the 'European Diaspora in Australia' gives significant coverage, if that's the best source you have -- that's very poor.
Now regarding the Greek source, both Local Hero and Macedonia1913 have admitted to having to use Google Translate to read it. I'm highly suspicious they've even done this, considering how unreadable it is on Google Translate and how long it takes to copy and paste each passage on the pages that were mentioned. Now I've spent many hours Google Translating this on the pages you mentioned and all I could find were extremely trivial mentions. Moreover, it's very clear that the Greek source is not addressing the topic and directly and in detail and nor is it giving it the organization the kind of in-depth coverage which makes it possible to write more than a stub article. The only thing the Greek source does is name the organization in a few different places. A few sentences of coverage is not an in-depth overview. This is even worse than the 'European diaspora in Australia' book, which is at best, extremely borderline (1.5 pages of coverage in a 265 page book). Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adding to Local hero ^talk and Cordless Larry:

If you visit WP:EMSC, you will note the following: Whether something is enough for significant coverage is up to the discretion of the editor(s) involved. The general notability guideline is extremely vague on this matter. The only thing it states in addition to the two examples quoted above are "Significant coverage" addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content and Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material. The arguments laid out above by certain editors are null and void in this case.

Here are the key sources I found on the organization, which prove that there are enough materials on the organization to constitute a Wikipedia article - when searching in the sources use "UMD" and "United Macedonian Diaspora" interchangeably:

Page 68-69, 71, 76, 79-80 of https://www.academia.edu/43493347/The_Macedonian_Diaspora_Key_to_the_Development_of_the_Republic_of_Macedonia

Page 2, 4 of https://www.academia.edu/2902205/Why_Macedonia_Matters

Page 19, 32, 44, 49, 69-71 of https://search.proquest.com/openview/8d4eab3b532c71d5ca740e076549261d/1?pq-origsite=gscholar&cbl=18750&diss=y

Page 8 and 13 of http://www.e-diasporas.fr/working-papers/Balalovska-Macedonian-EN.pdf

Page 2, 57-58 of https://www.auca.kg/uploads/Migration_Database/Heleniak%20-%20DiasporaPaper10112011.pdf

Page 441 and 442 of https://repository.library.northeastern.edu/files/neu:379149/fulltext.pdf

Article: https://dailyutahchronicle.com/2009/11/09/macedonian-conference-reignites-feud/?print=true

Page 182-185, 187-188, 192, 195-196 of https://www.academia.edu/35684272/Templar_M._2014_Είκοσι_Χρόνια_Μετά_την_Ανεξαρτησία_-_Ενέργειες_της_κυβέρνησης_των_πολιτών_και_της_διασποράς_της_FYROM_για_κατοχύρωση_του_ονόματος_της_Μακεδονίας_ Macedonia1913 (talk) 02:33, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

Macedonia1913 (talk) 11:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Macedonia1913:

You should firstly need to know that the WP:ORG policy is the more relevant policy for assessing notability here, not the GNG. If you read WP:ORGCRITE you would know that the ORG policy is actually made to be harder to meet notability requirements than the GNG. The ORG policy also clarifies what constitutes significant coverage. The essay you linked is an essay by an individual Wikipedia editor, it is not a Wikipedia policy. Stop spamming those sources, many of which you now know are not reliable sources. (I had this response written before you posted the Australian Parliamentary website...I'll have a look at this new source now.) Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In my research, this morning, I discovered the organization featured on the Australian Parliament website:

Chapter 2 of Australia’s diplomatic footprint published by the Parliament of Australia features the United Macedonian Diaspora's efforts to improve Australian diplomacy.

In the chapter "The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) suggested that the priorities for locating diplomatic posts were set by the Foreign Minister or DFAT for ‘political, cost-cutting and diplomatic reasons without any meaningful involvement of relevant stakeholders like parliamentarians, the corporate sector, diasporas, and citizen diplomacy organisations’. There was often a mismatch, it suggested, between political and bureaucratic priorities and the priorities of key stakeholders. An example given by the UMD was the poor representation in Africa despite the Australian mining industry’s priorities."

On the topic of honorary consuls "The United Macedonian Diaspora agreed that honorary consuls were ‘used by many countries as a way of reaching out to various societies with minimal investment.’ If they were provided with resources they could initiate ‘high impact projects’, but ‘without funding it is just talk and very little action.’"

"The United Macedonian Diaspora (UMD) provided the following reasons for opening an Australian post in Skopje:

the country was growing economically through developing economic relations with ‘the east’ including the Gulf states;

an embassy would strengthen ties at the government, business, academic, and sporting levels; and

an embassy would serve the ‘unmet needs of tens of thousands of Australians who visit Macedonia, Kosovo and Albania and other parts of Southeast Europe.’"

"The UMD also suggested that: Australia still does not have an embassy in the Republic of Macedonia in order to appease Athens and the Hellenic lobby in Australia rather than advance its own commercial and strategic interests in Southeast Europe."

Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/Joint/Completed_Inquiries/jfadt/Overseas%20Representation/report/chapter2

In another report published by the Parliament of Australia Chapter 8 on Diaspora communities, it states:

"The United Macedonian Diaspora notes that ‘diaspora’ now alludes to the global, social, economic, political and environmental networks established by migrant communities to help build the capacity of both their home and host countries."

"Appearing before the Committee, the United Macedonian Diaspora provided specific examples of how diaspora communities open up the Australian market to foreign investment and business opportunities. One example is the settled Italian diaspora in Australia. While acknowledging that Italian businesses are dissuaded by Australia’s distance, DFAT informed the Committee that an increasingly diverse range of Italian businesses are setting up contracts in Australia due to a climate of confidence, trust and familiarity: There have been decisions by some of the larger agricultural Italian companies like Monini, which is a major olive oil producing company, to buy land and produce olive oil in Australia."

Source: https://www.aph.gov.au/Parliamentary_Business/Committees/House_of_Representatives_Committees?url=/mig/multiculturalism/report/chapter8.pdf

Macedonia1913 (talk) 12:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: No, again these are incredibly trivial sources. This and this source are just more trivial sources. Spamming a series insignificant mentions does give anything notability. If you want to actually prove that this organization is actually notable, then find something at least better than this book. Page 68 of that book is your best source so far, anything worse than that book is entirely a waste of time. If you can show me something better than that book, I'll be the first person to say this organization should have a Wikipedia page. Flooding this page with thousands of sources that fail to give significant coverage is only an attempt to hide the fact that no sources have given this organization significant coverage. If you can't find anything equal to or better than that book then we're wasting our time. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 12:50, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply:Again, we are called to debate your misinterpretations of Wikipedia policy. Plenty of sources establish the organization as notable, two books, two journals, two theses, numerous articles, and now two Australian Parliament reports. You keep raising the bar for this organization. Why does this issue matter so much to you? Is it personal? Did they do something to you? The article exists, it's properly cited, and you keep changing and removing properly cited sources. Macedonia1913 (talk) 12:57, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply: You have not actually understood any of the relevant policies. And yes, I remove sources that are not reliable sources on Wikipedia. Why does it matter to me? The fact that so much of my time has been taken up by having to argue that 1+1=2 is cause for a little annoyance, but I'm happy to play my part to make sure Wikipedia policy is upheld. I've deleted other organizations before, so it's nothing personal, just other organizations don't seem to have so many invested editors arguing to keep at all costs. We should both stop talking now to make the closing admin's job somewhat easier. I think we've both made our viewpoints clear. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 13:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~. Jingiby (talk) 13:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC) this is a duplicate vote. Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose deletion~~ I am not going to mention anything further, everything has been discussed. My final verdict on this is that the organization has notability, thus the Wikipedia page should exist. Dikaiosyni (talk) 13:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC) This is a duplicate vote. Username⁶⁸⁹² 15:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Maybe the organisation is notable. But after all this discussion, no-one has added references to the article that provide sufficient evidence of notability. The sources by Barkan (currently numbered 6) and Papavizas (7) count for a little, the rest don't help. Two weak sources is not enough. Maproom (talk) 15:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion Maybe article is not in the best possible quality, but this organization exists and with simple Google search you find a lot of sources, it is not that is some club of 10 people. --Ehrlich91 (talk) 18:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I really don't understand how some people can spend so much time and effort to argue that something shouldn't exist on Wikipedia when it's probably much easier to improve the article and enrich the encyclopedia. The organisation evidently exists and this is not a clear-cut case for deletion, so it's reasonable and in the spirit of Wikipedia to err on the side of keeping it.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It's worth noting that both of the above accounts are Ethnic Macedonians as their Wikipedia user pages (current versions) demonstrate. Likely not coming from a standpoint of NPOV, especially since they want to play 'I can't hear you' with the ORG policy. But I thank them both for letting me know this organization "exists", I previously thought it was entirerly imaginary!! Apples&Manzanas (talk) 19:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Apples&Manzanas: I think you should definitely calm down, stop with the persistent rules-lawyering throughout the page and refrain from ethnic labelling of other users. Those participating in the discussion know the notability criteria very well or can easily digest them in order to form their opinion. You mentioned canvassing but you're the one who raised 'alarming flag' on a user's talk page; you're arguing against an article that you're heavily editing at the same time. This behaviour is counterproductive and it really doesn't help the discussion at all. We don't have any sort of objectively defined cut-off for what passes notability and it's clear that this is a borderline case as pointed out by some users above. In such cases, we typically err on the side of inclusion conditional to immediate improvements and you're encouraged to help that work but not to undermine it. You've already stated your opinion on this in detail and so be it. Others will either agree or disagree with you but you're not entitled to judge every single opinion that you don't like or disagree with nor your opinion is superior simply because you're the loudest voice in citing rules.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 00:44, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I spoke to one editor about the fact that this organizations' members have been publicly announcing they will/have been forming wikipedia squads to push a point-of-view on Wikipedia whilst this page was being flooded with new editors with a connection to North Macedonia voting to keep. Whilst basically every editor not related to North Macedonia votes to delete. It's very telling that you are not at all concerned about this organization's attempts to create "Wikipedia Warriors" or all those highly supicious votes, but you are deeply concerned that I alerted one experienced editor about this situation, because I did not know how to handle this kind of unprecedented conduct. Haha yeah, nice logic there. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Apples&Manzanas: I see that you keep up behaving in the same fashion as before by rules-lawyering, sticking to every non-agreeing user, casting doubt about canvassing/meatpuppetry and echoing that there's ongoing agenda on this page. You've already been warned on several occasions by different users that you've stated your opinion pretty clear and please give others the chance to do the same. We know very well what's going on here, who's who and for what purpose, and we don't need a self-appointed moderator to open our eyes. The administrator who will close this discussion knows that very well and will surely not stumble upon your efforts to mask out users but rather look at the sensible argumentation for the article to be deleted/kept and the progress that this discussion has led to in that context. The only thing that you may get from unnecessarily loading this page with re-iterated comments about rules and user experience of those commenting is be stripped of the chance to participate. I urge you for the last time to think about your participation before reporting your behaviour and requesting closure on the administrators' noticeboard. Thank you.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 10:11, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Kiril let's be honest this has to be one of the most blatant examples of canvassing/meatpuppetry, they have literal videos and graphics promoting their organisation's Wikipedia Taskforce to 'stop the deligitimilization of Macedonians'. I believe that Dikaiosyni, Тутуноберач and Macedonia1913 are all members of United Macedonia Diaspora's Wikipedia Taskforce. As well as the latest addition MuzoKral who joined and straight away starting editing the UMD page. Even when you include the votes by these 4 users it is not a borderline case. Also I am not sure if you have read this whole thread as people that have been voting for the deletion of this page have been called Bulgarians lmao. --James Richards (talk) 01:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Jamesrichards12345: I saw the videos that you linked to in your introduction and it's fair to assume that members of the organisation deliberately come to defend the article from deletion but this has nothing to do with notability. The organisation has evidently gained enough attention so that the article can be considered a borderline case and it's completely irrelevant if this attention was paid to because of the Macedonian culture they promote in the diaspora, the spread of nationalism and ethnocentrism or the siding with politicians from other countries. The notion of notability here on Wikipedia doesn't depend on the moral sentiments of someone's actions, so it's inappropriate to argue that the article should be deleted because it documents an organisation whose members engage in dishonest activities.--Kiril Simeonovski (talk) 01:47, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have to agree with @Kiril Simeonovski: here. The ultra-nationalism and the name-calling on both sides is not conducive whatsoever to a reasonable discussion on sourcing or for that matter Wikipedia at all. Half of this discussion is accusations of ulterior motives and most of the other half are unhelpful comments with a vague reference to policy but mainly just POV-pushing. This all distracts from reasonably evaluating the sources. I'm changing my !vote to Neutral based on the sources provided. They are not perfect, but no question this is a significant organization that more importantly has been significantly covered (in total) in multiple reliable sources. Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Kiril Simeonovski: I thought notability mainly depends on the quality of sources provided not how much Bulgarian and Macedonians argue about keeping it, with other nationalities being called Macedonians or Bulgarians based on who they side with. Hopefully the admins can make their decision soon and either keep this article or delete and salt it. Have a nice day. --James Richards (talk) 01:56, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The reason why this deletion nomination has taken so long is due to the 'Wikipedia Taskforce' assembled by this organization to make sure that their page doesn't get deleted again. You can find all the evidence about this above. --James Richards (talk) 00:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Oppose deletion~~ The United Macedonian Diaspora was described in the United States Congressional Record by U.S. Congressman Bill Pascrell, Jr, Democrat representing the 9th District of New Jersey, as "the only Washington, DC based international organization representing Macedonians and Macedonian communities around the world."^[4] The United States Congressional record is a publication of the United States government and indisputably a reliable source. MuzoKral (talk) 22:01, 3 July 2020 (UTC) (This new user is likely associated with the United Macedonian Diaspora's Wikipedia Taskforce. It is best not to allow brand new users to vote due to the activities of this organization.) --James Richards (talk) 22:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion The detractors of this article who are advocating for deletion are citing as cause the Wikipedia Guidelines on "Significant coverage." Disingenuously, however, the detractors are not applying the entire guideline to this article. Per wikipedia: "Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, BUT IT DOES NOT NEED TO BE THE MAIN TOPIC OF THE SOURCE MATERIAL." As evidenced above by many editors opposed to deletion, the United Macedonian Diaspora has been cited in many credible news media outlets and scholarly articles. True, perhaps the UMD wasn't always the "main topic" but Wikipedia guidelines don't require that. MuzoKral (talk) 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)(This new user is likely associated with the United Macedonian Diaspora's Wikipedia Taskforce. It is best not to allow brand new users to vote due to the activities of this organization.Please stop voting after your previous votes have been annuled due to the reasons stated.)--James Richards (talk) 22:17, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment on the above comments by MuzoKral: MuzoKral has only ever made 2 edits to Wikipedia before coming here. This has to be noted. <redacted material>. Regarding this new source, it consists of one sentence of coverage, please learn the difference between a reliable source and a reliable significant source. Also learn the difference between the GNG and the ORG policy. You have only ever made 2 edits to Wikipedia before coming here...Random chance you found this AFD/organization, right? Wow this must be the world's most popular organization considering the number of very new editors voting to keep! Apples&Manzanas (talk) 22:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: @Apples&Manzanas: You might want to see this diff. Username⁶⁸⁹² 00:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Belief and Proof that Organization is Being Targeted, Harassed, and Bullied (See: WP:BULLY)

According to the article Diaspora politics in the United States, the United Macedonian Diaspora is mentioned as the main organization for the ethnic group Macedonian-Americans. I reviewed the Wikipedia pages for several similar organizations listed on the same Wikipedia page and most of them use sources from their websites and publications, yet they all have pages on Wikipedia and no deletion requests. I am not posting this comment to draw attention that other organizational pages should be deleted by any means - Wikipedia is enriched by having all these pages, including that of the United Macedonian Diaspora. Based on all of this evidence provided, the sources, these pages, it is more than clear that this organization is being targeted by a group of editors on Wikipedia with some agenda - I do not know what that agenda is and what they hope to accomplish by having this organizational page deleted. WP:BULLY is the obvious definition of what these editors have been doing towards this organization.

Some examples of other organizational pages with self-publishing sources: Armenian National Committee of America, Armenian Assembly of America, Arab American Institute, American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association, Polish American Congress, Ukrainian American Coordinating Council, Ukrainian Congress Committee of America.

Several of these pages have the following message at the top "This article has multiple issues. Please help improve it or discuss these issues on the talk page." However, none of them are up for deletion. Why weren't the same standards applied to the United Macedonian Diaspora? How are they any different? Macedonia1913 (talk) 01:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Like these pages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Italian_American_Foundation and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/American_Turkish_Friendship_Council ? --James Richards (talk) 01:06, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Macedonia1913:, you can see me making all the same arguments to delete pages like this and this one. You need to stop making personal character attacks like this. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:15, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We have already had this argument already on this thread, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Other_stuff_exists and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Arguments_to_avoid_in_deletion_discussions#What_about_article_x.3F. --James Richards (talk) 01:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would also say the difference is simply due to the fact that they are different organizations, with a different amount of sources covering them. This organization is up for deletion simply because of notability, as determined by reliable, independent sources, and apparently those other articles have notability as determined by reliable, independent sources. If they don't I would put those ones up for deletion. This is not about ethnicity; this is about the existence of significant coverage in reliable sources. As a side note, sources from their own website do not contribute to notability but can be used to verify basic facts about an organization. Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:26, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose deletion I always thought that encyclopedias were to document, people, organizations, events and everything that happens, now I see that we have a situation that people will choose what should be documented and what should not be, this reminds me of censorship, bigotry and hatred something that we all as humanity tend to eradicate or am I wrong? For me the Ehrenfest theorem is important for others they will hear this for the first time should we delete it because it is not relevant for 99.99 % of the population? Let this article be and we will see how it will grow and develop in the future. Hope is that this North Korean wish for censorship of this article will end now and the information on English for this reality will be present for readers to read it and decide by their own mind is it credible, relevant or what ever those against it find it not to be.Инокентиј (talk) 01:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^Another wikipedia editor with under 50 edits who miraculously found this page and is voting to keep. Another amazing coincidence. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 01:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dear User:Apples&Manzanas per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers , Wikipedia:Assume good faith, don't be a Wikipedia:WikiVampire and of course, limit Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Dikaiosyni (talk) 02:07, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I personally believe that Apples&Manzanas should start a discussion on the COI noticeboard if they're seroius enough about this.
Editing before a nomination doesn't equal not being canvassed.
Why hasn't this AfD been closed yet? Username⁶⁸⁹² 02:41, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

^^This editor had also made approxiately 50 edits when they first voted to keep. Another amazing coincidence, Wikipedia must be advertising this AFD article to all new editors. Not all of those are Wikipedia policies by the way. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 02:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I want to remind you again, per Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Please do not bite the newcomers , Wikipedia:Assume good faith, don't be a Wikipedia:WikiVampire and of course, limit Wikipedia:Tag bombing. Dikaiosyni. Also, as noted from my editing history, you can see that I was editing on Wikipedia before the article nomination. Stop throwing accusations around. This discussion is about notability anyway. Dikaiosyni (talk) 02:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is a statement of fact that you had only made approximately 50 edits at the point in time when you first voted to keep. If you think that is an "accusation" then you have no understanding of reality. Apples&Manzanas (talk) 03:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Yes, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and as such, it should convey information on all branches of knowledge. However, "all branches of knowledge" does not necessarily mean "everything". Wikipedia is specifically not an indiscriminate collection of information, which means there are standards for what constitutes information that should be in Wikipedia. Imagine how large an encyclopedia on everything would be: everything would include every idea that has existed or will exist, every person who ever lived, every organization that has existed or exists, every copy of an object that has existed or exists, every website that has existed or exists, etc. The most basic threshold of inclusion is verifiability, not truth. The verifiability requirement alone would prevent writing about every particle and limit the information that could be included on every person. Moreover, the community has decided not to document every verifiable fact and accordingly has established notability guidelines on what articles should be kept, and a due weight policy on what facts are minority views. Even though that guideline is broader than a paper encyclopedia's guidelines, it is also not "everything" and not an indiscriminate collection of anything verifiable. So think carefully and exercise judgement when determining what should be included in an encyclopedia.

Zameen Jatt Dee Jaan[edit]

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

Non notable film with no independent, verifiable reviews. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:04, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 04:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability; fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:39, 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) Jack Frost (talk) 04:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

C. Anandharamakrishnan[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Article is basically a résumé. I don't know if the subject if notable enough to warrant an article, but if so, I think WP:TNT applies. drt1245 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. drt1245 (talk) 04:35, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Keep. Article could use some work, but Anandharamakrishnan has a h-index of 33 ([58]) which is notable per WP:NACADEMIC#C1. He also possibly meets GNG, as he is covered in Indian national press in his role as the Director of the Indian Institute of Food Processing Technology ([59], [60]), which may also satisfy criteria 5 or 6 NACADEMIC.--Eostrix (🦉hoot hoot🦉) 06:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anandharamakrishnan's articles are published in high impact journals. Also see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nanocapsule, an example of how his scientific publications are the baselines for several concepts on nutraceutical delivery systems. —117.240.235.183 (talk • contribs) 12:01, 26 June 2020‎ (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The article was deemed to be a weak pass of WP:NPROF C1 here a few years ago, and the situation appears to have gotten stronger since then. NAUTHOR is also plausible, given the books, but I didn't search hard for reviews. Agree that the article needs a severe trim per WP:NOTCV, but I don't think it's anywhere near WP:TNT. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Anandharamakrishnan has published many research articles and books in the area of Food Nanotechnology. Also check https://www.routledge.com/Food-Nanotechnology-Principles-and-Applications/Anandharamakrishnan-Parthasarathi/p/book/9781498767170. https://www.springer.com/gp/book/9781461493860. Dr. C. Anandharamakrishnan’s contribution to the research academy and food industries are well-known. He was the sole man behind the establishment of 3D Food printing in India. Check https://manufactur3dmag.com/iifpt-thanjavur-scientists-develop-showcase-food-3d-printing-technology/ ; https://www.thehindubusinessline.com/news/care-for-some-3d-printed-savouries/article31905255.ece ; https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260877419303231.
Keep. Anandharamakrishnan is a pioneer Indian scientist in the development of artificial gastrointestinal simulators, which overcome the severe ethical restrictions and saved the lives of lab animals. Refer https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0260877417304922; https://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/health/artificial-small-intestine-system-to-study-food-drug-absorption/article22480732.ece

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaradachet Hajo[edit]

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

Not notable and looks like a promotion, fails in WP:NOTPROMO Shadow4dark (talk) 04:12, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:13, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:53, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Middle East-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:54, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete an overly promotional article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:44, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackie Blue (band)[edit]

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

promotional and unencyclopedic text, no reliable sources or evidence of notability Tdslk (talk) 03:49, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Subject does not meet WP:BAND. Miniapolis 20:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:57, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:57, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Case Management Society of America[edit]

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

Not notable, doesn't cite any sources, any useful information should be covered in Case management (US health system) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Management-related deletion discussions. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 00:17, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge+Redirect to Case management (US health system) if the information provided is reliable/backed up by any citations. --Micky (talk) 01:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:50, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This could also be eligible for a soft delete.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

delete, Article has no sources except own website Shadow4dark (talk) 04:35, 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 delete. Sandstein 07:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shakir Subhan[edit]

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

Clearly lacks WP:GNG, given sources are not realiable and mostly not about him but about his "project" CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 18:50, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CommanderWaterford Please read news about shakir before detetion process --> https://www.google.com/search?as_eq=wikipedia&q=%22Shakir+Subhan%22.

RoboShutter (talk) 19:01, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Unreliable sources, not notable. –User 45 65 41 19:03, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Wikipedia is not Wordpress or Youtube. Mccapra (talk) 21:56, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per nom & what Mccapra said. Celestina007 (talk) 13:44, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment – Sources presently in the article include articles from:

These are certainly reliable sources. It is unclear why these well established reputable news providers have been described as "unreliable" herein, because these are reliable sources. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:54, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I admit to being asked to comment via my talk page but as Northamerica1000 says, the comments above re allegedly unreliable sources are ridiculous in context. There may be an issue with single-event notability but I'm not even going to start looking at it. - Sitush (talk) 03:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article only needs some clean up. Other than that, the YouTuber has received some coverage. Per North America 1000, sources indicated in the article are indeed reliable. The article easily passes WP:GNG. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 18:50, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: A lot of sources seem to be focusing on one recent event. Is there something here further than WP:BLP1E?
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:34, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Notability based on a single event. Fulfills all criteria of WP:BLP1E. The subject otherwise is not WP:GNG, easy delete - BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 11:14, 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 no consensus. Kragen's opinion cannot be taken seriously, but there's still no consensus to delete. Sandstein 07:48, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sam Zeloof[edit]

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

Looks like a WP:BLP1E: brief coverage of a single thing. Guy (help!) 14:08, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete seems to have gotten rather thin coverage for their one event, there are a few articles, but nothing to indicate lasting significance or a pass of WP:GNG and/or WP:NPERSON Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:24, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Kpg jhp jm 16:26, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sam Zeloof's achievements are significant and expand greatly on the work done by Jeri Ellsworth, his work has been covered most notably by IEEE and also by Adafruit, repeatedly by Hackaday and was invited to speak at the Hackaday Supercon as well as interviewed on The Amp Hour. This coverage is varied across a range of topics, from his initial transistors, lithographic process and the creation of his dual differential amplifier. Faissaloo (talk) 19:45, 10 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) 02:59, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep It is absurd that this article is being considered for deletion. Until Sam Zeloof, nobody had ever made an integrated circuit consisting of more than a few transistors, except as part of a group effort by a university or large company — no individual tinkerers in their garages like the ones who invented vulcanized rubber, the means for the measurement of the gravitational constant, Hall's economical refinement of aluminum, or most of the circuit designs that make modern electronics possible. Individuals with Zeloof-like budgets — a few tens of thousands of dollars — have succeeded in designing new chips in recent years, using MPW facilities like MOSIS and CMP, but at the cost of long turnaround times and no ability to experiment with process steps. Analog electronics has been in a widely-remarked-on state of stagnation for decades as a result. Zeloof has racked up an increasingly astounding series of world-first accomplishments, like a modern Charles Lindbergh or Santos Dumont. Hobby electronics, perhaps all electronics, and perhaps manufacturing in general, will naturally divide into a pre-Zeloof era and a post-Zeloof era; this will be as obvious to everyone as it is to electronics enthusiasts after a decade or two. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 23:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The latest comment does not cite or even look like it could be referring to a single compelling policy (in fact, it's a mix of various WP:AADD elements).
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:21, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Requesting that votes be justified in terms of existing Wikipedia policies is backwards; actions should be justified in terms of our shared values, of which existing Wikipedia policies are, we hope, a reasonable reflection, though necessarily imperfect. Values are primary; policies are secondary. This is the essence of WP:IAR and WP:5P5. I think this guy's notability is sufficiently obvious without referring to the details of any of the policies we have worked out over the years to resolve difficult cases where we must trade off our values against one another; this is not such a case. The danger the policies in question protect against is that there isn't enough coverage from reliable sources to keep our article verifiable, and there's clearly no danger of that, as other votes have already established. Please do not WP:WL. Kragen Javier Sitaker (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

?? I was just pointing out that your comment did not cite any valid reason why this person would be important. If he is, you can surely cite sources which demonstrate this, instead of going about with arguments like WP:PLEASEDONT and WP:VALINFO. Comparisons with other figures seems like your own WP:OR and that is not helpful either in articles or in AfDs. Regarding WP:IAR, the only example I can think of an IAR keep is this, which is much more understandable than a random biography about a WP:BLP1E subject. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 04:27, 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 no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Worldware[edit]

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

Non-notable antique failed attempt to create a techy buzzword. The article has been tagged as orphan since 2009, although the tag was recently removed. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. HouseOfChange (talk) 13:46, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, lots of hits on Scholar. I wouldn't call it failed at all. Mbdfar (talk) 18:09, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Additional sourcing has also been listed on the talk page since 2007. All the links are currently broken, but some may be salvageable using the Internet Archive. Mbdfar (talk) 18:52, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:49, 18 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) 03:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: It does not pass WP:GNG. The only links that have been suggested for it are (broken, antique) course websites such as this one which briefly defines "worldware" as "software that can be applied to many purposes, to many ends." The section on Advantages is unreferenced OR. The section on its development also cites 0 sources but seems to be based on papers and other personal statements by Steve Ehrmann. GNG would require in-depth coverage in multiple RS independent of Steve Ehrmann. Once you remove the PROMO, what you have basically is a wiktionary entry for an obscure term once used to describe multipurpose software. HouseOfChange (talk) 15:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I again have to disagree with you about WP:GNG. Like I pointed out previously, there are dozens of papers on Google Scholar published independently of Ehrmann discussing the concept of worldware in depth. These publications span fifteen years (I can see some from 1997 all the way until 2013). Some of Ehrmann's papers using the term have hundreds of cites, one has thousands. You are correct that the article needs work, but the concept has obviously seen consistent use since it's coinage in the 1980's. Just because you are unfamiliar with the educational software industry doesn't make the concept non-notable. Mbdfar (talk) 16:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree one can find many mentions of the word -- people using "worldware" and then explaining that it means "multipurpose software." But can one find sources (other than Ehrmann) that discuss the concept "worldware"--e.g. how and why the concept was developed? I can't, but if you can, please improve the article with them. If it is possible to create a good encyclopedia article about this concept, I will gladly withdraw my AfD submission. HouseOfChange (talk) 17:25, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'd argue that most of the papers discuss the usage and benefits of the concept, and to me this fits your question of "why" the concept was developed and used. "How" the concept was developed, to me, is irrelevant. Sure, worldware might be a snazzy term for "multipurpose software" as you say, but Wikipedia has no article for multipurpose software. And this is a very specific type anyway focusing on education - though honestly I'd encourage it to be a heading in a multipurpose software article if one existed. Tbh, I'm not interested in WP:HEYing this as I don't really care for the subject, I just think it has the right to exist. Mbdfar (talk) 17:44, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Barely found any news article about it, but it has found lots of coverage in scholar, per Mbdfar. I even found some papers where the term is talked about: [61], [62], [63], [64], [65], [66], [67] and [68]. I believe the article easily passes WP:NEXIST. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 07:03, 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 redirect to Allstar Weekend#2013-Present: Post-split. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Tragic Thrills[edit]

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

No notability for this band, no reviews, no chart success, no discussions in the industry magazines. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Binksternet (talk) 03:16, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Band only made two unsuccessful albums. Koridas 📣 03:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Allstar_Weekend#2013-Present:_Post-split, which contains basically all information in the article. Don't see any reason for this to have a standalone page. Hut 8.5 12:28, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete or Redirect - Not notable on its own. Couldn't find anything besides Facebook, Genius, Discogs, Bandcamp, Metro Lyrics, Songkick, Ticketmaster and similar sites, none of them are reliable or independent, and they don't establish any notability whatsoever. Social media pages, streaming service entries and concert promotion sites do not cut it when we are talking about reliable sources. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:23, 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 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 22:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Paul Tosari[edit]

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

Non-notable evangelist. There have been no sources of him (According to two searches, see one and two), all I found were Wikipedia copies and mirror sites.

Also, article has lacked sources since May 2011. Koridas ^talk? 00:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Koridas ^talk? 00:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:41, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete there are definitely sources out there - Google Books suggests this book discusses him quite a few times, and he gets mentions in other places e.g. [69] [70] but I don't think we've got enough to support an article at present. Possibly someone who speaks the relevant languages or who has access to print media could find something better. Hut 8.5 12:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 12:53, 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. Choosing delete vs. redirect because of the relatively generic title, which as pointed out makes it less useful as a search term. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 11:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life Moves On[edit]

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

The article fails the Notability guidelines for songs in Wikipedia as not only none of the three bullet points in the guidelines are met, but also there is not "subject of multiple, non-trivial published works whose sources are independent of the artist and label". It has a "Mzine" review and when I found out the editor-in-chief of said Mzine and google to see other places he worked such search came out empty, even if it is a reliable source, it is not multiple. Furthermore, in the links, there is one interview with the artist "This excludes media reprints of press releases, or other publications where the artist, its record label, agent, or other self-interested parties advertise or speak about the work", so it shouldn't be taken into consideration. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. MarioSoulTruthFan (talk) 00:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Finneas O'Connell: The song was mentioned in a number of articles, but was barely discussed. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 05:58, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (my preference) or Redirect to Finneas O'Connell - This article's creator has recently created or enhanced a bunch of articles for this singer. That's okay but they may not be aware that a song released as a single needs to accomplish something in order to appear in its own Wikipedia article. As said above, this song achieved a bit of media chatter but not enough to meet the notability requirements at WP:NSONG. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 20:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per the song blatantly failing notability guidelines. Since this is a generic song title, I bet other artists have a song with this name too. The latter being my reason not to vote for retargeting.—N Ø 19:22, 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.

^ https://www.quora.com/Why-should-we-trust-Wikipedia-as-a-credible-source-of-information?
^ https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/axxxl0/longtime_wikipedia_user_jingiby_has_been/
^ https://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/92sppu/bulgarian_wikipedia_user_jingiby_has_been_making/
^ https://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2009/5/12/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/e1124-2?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22united+Macedonian+diaspora%5C%22%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1

[1] ttps://www.quora.com/Why-should-we-trust-Wikipedia-as-a-credible-source-of-information?

[2] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/axxxl0/longtime_wikipedia_user_jingiby_has_been/

[3] ttps://www.reddit.com/r/WikiInAction/comments/92sppu/bulgarian_wikipedia_user_jingiby_has_been_making/

[4] ttps://www.congress.gov/congressional-record/2009/5/12/extensions-of-remarks-section/article/e1124-2?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22%5C%22united+Macedonian+diaspora%5C%22%22%5D%7D&s=1&r=1

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]