Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 28

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 27 June	29 June >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. There was no reason to relist this when it had a clear consensus for delete with zero opposition; I am closing this now per WP:RELIST. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stephen Watson (entrepreneur)[edit]

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

This article's creator appears to probably be an undisclosed paid editor. Therefore, I normally might have presumed that the subject was non-notable, and argued to delete per WP:N and/or WP:NOTPROMOTION. However, in this case, the article does state that the subject has won the German Order of Merit.

WP:ANYBIO says that, if someone has "received a well-known and significant award or honor", they're probably (but not definitely) notable. Is the German Order of Merit a "well-known and significant award or honor"? I live in Canada, and I don't think I'd ever heard of it before reading this article.

~~For now, I'm not sure about this article, so I'll vote to draftify.~~ Please delete. —Unforgettableid (talk) 23:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The Order of Merit has been awarded to over 200,000 people. Thus it alone is not sufficient to show notability. None of the other sources look like they help pass WP:GNG. BenKuykendall (talk) 04:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per BenKuykendall and per WP:NOTLINKEDIN. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable businessman. The award he received is way too widely given to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Non notable --Devokewater (talk) 23:34, 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 speedy keep. Snow keep. (non-admin closure) Atlantic306 (talk) 00:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jane Parker-Smith[edit]

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

Previously deleted article, non-notable subject that fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG -- puddleglum^2.0 23:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC) -- puddleglum^2.0 23:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 23:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 23:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. -- puddleglum^2.0 23:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The criteria of WP:NMUSIC are not geared up for a classical soloist who first played at the Proms in 1972, but the recordings and reviews listed here and here seem to show clear notability, NMUSIC#5. PamD 08:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her recordings are on ASV Records and Avie Records. PamD 08:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note that the "previously deleted" refers to a deletion in 2007 on grounds of Copyright. PamD 09:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (as creator) "Previously deleted article" not a reason, as it wad deleted due to copyright issues. We can say she meets WP:NMUSIC under point 7 (Has become one of the most prominent representatives of a notable style or the most prominent of the local scene of a city.) and 12 (Has been a featured subject of a substantial broadcast segment across a national radio or television network.) SportsOlympic (talk) 11:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep clearly meets the 5th criteria of NMUSIC and also passes GNG. I'd like to add that previously deleted article is not a reason to bring something to AFD as an article might not have been notable then but it is now and I see that it was deleted due to copyright violation which is not the problem now. Antila ✉ 15:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep She passes GNG. Here's some coverage of her starting in the 1970s and going through 2001. Salt Lake Tribune 1999, Ottawa Journal 1977, Ottawa Journal 1979, Ottawa Journal 1977, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette 1981, and LA Times 2001. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - there's an obituary in the Telegraph. Deb (talk) 09:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Clearly meets applicable criteria. Death noted on BBC Radio3 today. BirdInitials (talk) 09:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject is clearly covered by reliable sources. Interstellarity (talk) 18:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Easy Keep - extensive discography and international mentions in both biographical and obituary sources. Previous deletion of article must by discounted per users Antila and SportsOlympic (talk). Ref ^(chew)(do) 18:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: As PamD noted above, the subject's field and career dates don't sit particularly well with WP:MUSICBIO, but there is enough to confirm that the subject had a substantial international performing and recording career. I added some early career detail and references; the article clearly needs expanded with detail of the subject's main musical career and life, but the growing body of published obituaries, such as that in the Daily Telegraph, can enable that. AllyD (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A noted concert organist world-wide. A ridiculous and malevolent RfD, a shame for Wikipedia. --Anvilaquarius (talk) 09:09, 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) 23:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christian Delpech[edit]

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

I'm finding it hard to see how this passes WP:BIO Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Fiddle Faddle 23:04, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Nomination made by (redacted personal attack --Deepfriedokra (talk) 07:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)). Legerrich (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: no evidence of notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete (I removed a load of unsourced bizarrity already). No offence to the guy but, without intruding on BLPVIO etc., I think it's safe to say that that a) he's a bartender b) he's probably a very good one c) but has insufficient coverage in third-party, independent reliable sources and c) me an my main man are having two more of these. Próst! ——Serial^# 08:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — insufficient coverage in reliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 08:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough coverage to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete for same reasons given by User:Serial Number 54129 however, I would suggest that User:Serial Number 54129 "go home and get his ______ shine box" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ZeusBeard2018 (talk • contribs) 17:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC) Forgot to sign, apologies! ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:21, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:34, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Stroker[edit]

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

no evidence of notability Tdslk (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Tdslk (talk) 22:41, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 00:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I couldn't find any significant coverage, not even in a retro-notorious way. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 07:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This is a hoax, right? It couldn't possibly be real. I see that people are talking about it on forums and it's listed in some minor databases, but there's honestly no way that this game would exist in 1983 without becoming a huge scandal that set back the computer games industry for years. There is apparently a playable version on Internet Archive and emulator sites, but there's no contemporary evidence that I know of. Nobody has original box art, and "Magic Carpet Software" brings up zero hits on Newspapers.com. It's possible that we have been hosting a hoax since 2006. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:53, 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kajal Pisal[edit]

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

No evidence of any notability - all the refs appear to be based on a single press release. No evidence that any TV roles have been significant. Searches reveal only the usual crop of social media and reprints of the same press release. Fails WP:GNG Velella ^{Velella Talk} 22:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. I looked through the sources, and you're definitely right that most come from some syndicated feed that sounds like it's basically just repeating a press release. At least one other source in the article is from 2017, and covers something different, her joining of the cast for another show. Also, I found this article from the Times of India within the last 24 hours about her as well. So there are at least three independent events covered in multiple news outlets about her, which seems to qualify as notable, if barely. (Also pinging creator of article, @Lily Flingg:, to see if they have anything to add. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 22:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

- After reading about the actress in times of India. I came to Wikipedia to get information about her. But I saw the page was redirected to another page which mentioned that she was part of it cast, Bade Acche Lagte Hai. I was free as it was sunday so I took my time to update the article. Found many links on google. I'll respect decision taken by you guys but still I'm trying to update it. As of now I have attach two sources of two different occasions.Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lily Flingg (talk • contribs) 17:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:20, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:30, 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 keep. Nominator has Withdrawn the AfD (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Statue of Christopher Columbus (New London, Connecticut)[edit]

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

Statue of Christopher Columbus (Hartford, Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Statue of Christopher Columbus (Middletown, Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Statue of Christopher Columbus (New Haven, Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)
Statue of Christopher Columbus (Norwalk, Connecticut) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

These statues don't seem to have any real significance or notability other than recent decisions to remove them. I can't find any other significant discussion of them (ie as artistic pieces, tourist sites, etc) that indicates any need for separate articles. I'm not opposed to redirects either to List of monuments and memorials removed during the George Floyd protests#Christopher Columbus or List of monuments and memorials to Christopher Columbus#Connecticut, which already contain all of the information in these two-sentence stubs. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Withdrawing: Upon further reflection, the sources added by Another Believer and ThatMontrealIP are enough to establish plausible notability. Certainly the articles are all now different enough that a bulk AfD makes no sense. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 02:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 22:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep (New London). First, it's not fair to group these together as it dilutes and confuses the AfD. Setting aside current events, these statues have history and sources are easily found. I have added two book sources (with pictures of the unveiling of the New London statue) and several other sources. I think the best thing to do here is withdraw this group nomination and resubmit them individually, if so desired.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Hartford). Same story here: added four sources. It's starting to be clear that this nomination did not involve WP:BEFORE. These are 90 year old statues, there is coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 00:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Yes, run-of-the-mill coverage of installation is available, as it is for any public statue. Yes, I noted that when doing BEFORE. Such coverage explicitly does not prove notability, and I repeat that I can't find any other significant discussion of them (ie as artistic pieces, tourist sites, etc) that indicates any need for separate articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well you missed this two-page section of a book for the New London statue, with four pictures of the unveiling and SIGCOV text.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep all per GNG (disclaimer: article creator). I'm not sure I'm willing to drop what I'm doing to rescue all of these pages, but there's almost certainly coverage for each of these, based on my experience working on many articles about public art and sculpture. I also agree, these should not have been nominated together. Are we really supposed to start collecting a list of sources here to show all 5 are notable? Also, more than just 'Googling' is required; I've promoted at least a dozen public artwork articles to Good status and always found newspaper archives most helpful. If the nominator has not searched in local library archives, regional art museums, etc, then IMO the nomination is premature. ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also, could WikiProjects Public Art and Sculpture be notified as well? ---Another Believer _(Talk) 01:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

- I chose the most appropriate deletion list pages I could find. There are not deletion list pages for public art or for sculpture. You are welcome to notify those Wikiprojects. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 01:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (Middleton) I added about five or six sources here. This one is not as strong of a keep as the two above, as it was only installed in 1996. However it was the subject of a fascinating run of vandalism that was widely covered in RS. Added to article.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep (New Haven) Eight sources added. Other arguments for keeping are as above.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep (Norwalk) the coverage on this is fairly recent. I do believe there would be lots of coverage in a newspaper search or similar, but all I have access to at the moment is the recent coverage. This one was initially installed at a school, them moved to the city's "heritage Wall" , so it may have less of storied history than, say, New Haven's. Three sources added.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 01:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Necrothesp (talk) 00:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Enough sources for concluding that the subject is notable for more than one event. desmay (talk) 04:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Keep all of them. scope_creep^Talk 11:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep Nominator withdrew above (at top). 24.151.50.175 (talk) 19:08, 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) 22:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Chantelle Ducharme[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a television host, not reliably sourced as passing our notability criteria for television hosts. As always, she isn't automatically entitled to have a Wikipedia article just because she has a job -- but the only notability claim being made here is that she exists, not that she earned any of the distinctions (e.g. awards) that would make her existence encyclopedic, and the only referencing present at all is the self-published websites of her own employers rather than any evidence of third-party coverage about her in media independent of her. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Keep~~ - I added a couple of independent references. Nfitz (talk) 22:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It takes more than just a smalltown hyperlocal and a minor specialty magazine to get a person over WP:GNG in lieu of actually having to be notable for any specific reason. GNG is not, and never has been, just "count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes two": GNG tests the sources for their depth, their geographic range and the context of what they're covering the person for, not just the number of footnotes per se. Bearcat (talk) 23:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Primary concern seemed to be referencing. The Portage La Prairie newspaper is probably good for one GNG reference, despite the locality of it. I did a deeper dive for more material ... but it's like she vanished off the face of the earth in 2012. I'm struggling to find another good reference, so I'm going to withdraw the keep. Nfitz (talk) 16:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: I can't find any significant coverage to demonstrate notability. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Manitoba-related deletion discussions. Nfitz (talk) 08:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator's very insightful analysis of the issue.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:28, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kamar Uddin Arman[edit]

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

Non-notable actor & model, who fails WP:GNG. He just participate a comedy show, So it's eligible for WP:BLP1E. Since he has not won any major national or internationally significant actor awards Fail WP:GNG. All of news source are only Zee Bangla show related news even here he is second runner-up so, its not means he is something or notable person. maybe is it WP:TOOSOON? . I believe that this article WP:COIEDIT related. This article should be delete. ErrorShadow420 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ErrorShadow420 (talk) 21:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@ErrorShadow420: Without going through every single one (unless you want to) could you briefly summarise why the 24 sources in the article are not sufficient for a pass of GNG? Those of us who can’t read Bengali are a bit stuck with this kind of article and sourcing. Thanks Mccapra (talk) 19:05, 5 July 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, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

Delete, doesn't pass WP:GNG (might be WP:TOSOON apply). Although there are 24 refs, ref no 1 & 11 are primary (interview) and all of others are just a passing mention. আফতাবুজ্জামান (talk) 14:31, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:32, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Crazy Girls Undercover[edit]

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

Film with some notable cast members, but not the coverage or significance to meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 21:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 21:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:36, 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 redirect to National Premier Soccer League. Fenix down (talk) 06:30, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central Florida Panthers SC[edit]

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

Does not meet notability criteria for football as they have not played for the national cup. All sources primary save one, and most coverage would likely be local and WP:ROUTINE. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. Walter Görlitz (talk) 20:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ NPSL teams can be notable, but this one doesn't appear to have received any qualifying secondary coverage in my before search. SportingFlyer T·C 21:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect per GiantSnowman, below. SportingFlyer T·C 01:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just looking for clarification, I thought all teams in USL League Two and the National Premier Soccer League get articles through WP:NFOOTY from being national level leagues? --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 21:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NPSL clearly has a regional structure, even if it's all under the umbrella of one league. Also, the article appears to fail WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 22:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Just tried doing some research and couldn't find anything re: NPSL being a national level league so yeah, I'll go for Delete. --ArsenalFan700 (talk) 17:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, but lean Keep: I disagree on the first point since there are other "national leagues" (USL League Two and the National Premier Soccer League) teams that haven't qualified for the U.S. Open Cup (or their league's national playoffs) but have pages. The sources part I do concur with, but there are warnings we can put on the top of the page for something like that rather than full deletion.

From what I've seen in regards to "national leagues", teams that play within those usually qualify for pages by default. I've always assumed this was based on the league's national status which separates it from something like the United Premier Soccer League (most of those teams don't have pages, and that's something I agree with) and that's why I made this. If this page is deleted, may I ask we try to make a clear rule on this matter since there are plenty of teams in both "Division 4" / National leagues that might fall into this category (EX: Cedar Stars Rush, Austin United FC, & Houston FC just to name a few). ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 22:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've always assumed "national level of the league structure" to mean a league that isn't split out into regions like this one, even though the season ends with a national cup tournament. Still, WP:GNG isn't met, which is more important. SportingFlyer T·C 01:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In delete discussions about three years ago, FOOTY project editors from the UK would usually say, "Fourth level? Keep." Then the tide changed and they started to say,, "they've played for the national cup? Keep." So I guess it depends on how it's being interpreted. If WP:OSE, or other teams exist at this level, we can take them to AfD later, but for now, does this club, or possibly, just the team, meet any notability criteria. I don't think they do, which is why I nominated. Walter Görlitz (talk) 02:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If the team playing in the NPSL does not automatically qualify it, which was my original assumption, then I would agree as well. I will take this under advisement in the future. However, GiantSnowman's idea of turning the page into a re-direct to the league's main article might be better than outright deletion. I know that's what most USPL teams do. ColeTrain4EVER (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm fine with the redirect. SportingFlyer T·C 18:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to National Premier Soccer League as possible search term. Giant Snowman 11:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Premier Soccer League, normally I'd argue keep, but with an almost complete lack of any coverage, no US Open Cup appearance, and not knowing how many years before they play 4th-tier soccer in Florida again ... then this team may not survive that long. No prejudice on recreating when there's some coverage. Nfitz (talk) 21:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to National Premier Soccer League as a possible search term.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:15, 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. Sandstein 06:08, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mask shaming[edit]

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

At best this page should be moved to the page for masks Sgerbic (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 20:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or merge into the article on COVID itself. Also concerned about FRINGE here with this. Jerod Lycett (talk) 20:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per WP:TNT. Weird, POV ramble sprinkled with tangential footnotes. XOR'easter (talk) 01:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Only one of the five references actually uses the term "mask shaming". Roping them together to make the case that "mask shaming" is the preferred term for this supposed behavior is against policy, and we definitely shouldn't be preserving text that violates policy by merging it somewhere else. If the lexicographers conclude that this neologism has become established, then we can write about it, but not before. In other words, stop trying to make "fetch" happen. XOR'easter (talk) 00:43, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: some of this could arguably merged into one of the Covid-19 pages or possibly peer pressure, but this page is too broad, vague and brief to stand alone. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Mask shaming is a real thing. There is no POV push here. There is SIGCOV to support this article, therefor it is a keep. Lightburst (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION Is there enough to write about for its own article or should it be merged to the article about the virus? There was news in England of people standing out on their balconies at a certain time each day to show support for the health care workers, and then some people harassing others who weren't doing it. People are getting upset about all sorts of things. Dream Focus 00:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: We don't have an article on mask-wearing as a response to COVID-19 at all, despite a litany of national and local government recommendations and regulations. We should create such an article, and merge this there. BD2412 T 02:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. This article is a good example of synthesis and OR in the way it bends and stretches its sources. If there's a valid idea here, it would belong in Social stigma associated with COVID-19 (and would mention shaming of people who wear masks). --Lockley (talk) 04:51, 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 delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Augusta Convention Center[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:NOTABILITY. It exists and is mentioned locally, but no more. Boleyn (talk) 20:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete No indication of notability. Mccapra (talk) 12:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge It's fairly new still. While it becomes established, we can cover it briefly in a more general page about downtown Augusta such as Riverwalk Augusta or Augusta Downtown Historic District per WP:ATD and WP:PRESERVE. Andrew🐉(talk) 10:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 01:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A few local sources shows that WP:ITEXISTS, but does not demonstrate any notability beyond that. Rorshacma (talk) 15:57, 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 redirect to Economic sanctions. Sandstein 06:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weaponization of finance[edit]

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

There is no cohesive theory or account of weaponization of finance (WoF) as such. All mentions of it are rather rhetorical flourishes used in discussion of economic sanctions, which the current WoF article details at length (even after having most of its specific context transferred to Economic sanctions). It should be noted that this page is tied to Ian Bremmer and the Eurasia Group, which have been involved in extensive paid editing dating back years (see here). The current sources used are inadequate:

Source	Independent?	Reliable?	Significant coverage?	Count source toward GNG?
Source assessment table:
(Dead link) Bremmer, Ian and Kupchan, Cliff. PDF of report, January 2015.	Appears to have been a primary source where the concept is outlined, specifically as one of the yearly "top 10 risks" the Eurasia Group publishes to advertise its risk analysis services	Non-published; produced by for-profit firm run by Bremmer		✘ No
Holodny, Elena. [1], "Business Insider", January 5, 2015.			Spends several paragraphs outlining theory as argued by Bremmer.	✔ Yes
Bertrand, Natasha and Kelley, Michael B. [2], "Business Insider." April 1, 2015.			~ This piece draws from a WaPo article. Makes note of weaponization of finance in title, briefly mentions it in body as something devised by Bremmer, but mainly repeats what the WaPo article says. Does not engage with WoF as idea on its merits; basically just says "Bremmer says it's this"	~ Partial
Bremmer, Ian. Obama pushes power of weaponised finance to its limits, "Financial Times," March 3, 2015.	Written by Bremmer			✘ No
(Dead link) "U.S. use of unilateral "weaponization of finance" makes top ten geopolitical risks of 2015". www.unitedliberty.org. Retrieved 2017-09-16.	?	Internet Archive from around time WoF was devised by Bremmer seems to show some sort of blogroll/article aggregator from a now-defunct libertarian think tank.	? Title suggests it is just parroting Eurasia Group press release cited in the first row of this table.	✘ No
Miroslav., Nincic (1988). United States foreign policy : choices and tradeoffs. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press. ISBN 0871874490. OCLC 17264286.	Written decades before WoF was ever devised, actually	Published book	Used as original research, makes no mention of WoF as such	✘ No
Administrator. "The Adverse Consequences of Economic Sanctions". www.globalpolicy.org. Retrieved 2017-10-26.		This is a copy of The Bossuyt Report on Economic Sanctions made to the UN in 2000	At no point mentions the idea of WoF, or even the word "Weaponization." Used in the article as original research.	✘ No
Kim, Hyung Min (2013-03-01). "Determining the Success of Economic Sanctions". Australian Journal of Political Science. 48 (1): 85–100. doi:10.1080/10361146.2012.731488. ISSN 1036-1146.		Published scholarly article	Original research, makes no mention of WoF as such	✘ No
Dambisa, Moyo (2010-03-02). Dead aid : why aid is not working and how there is a better way for Africa (First American paperback ed.). New York. ISBN 9780374532123. OCLC 429024670.`{{cite book}}`: CS1 maint: location missing publisher (link)		Published book	Original research, Moyo makes no mention of WoF	✘ No
This table may not be a final or consensus view; it may summarize developing consensus, or reflect assessments of a single editor. Created using {{source assess table}}.

Things get tricky because the phrase "weaponization of finance" itself is not novel, and has been used before. But I believe such mentions of WoF ultimately are just about what falls under the traditional scope of economic sanctions (or criticisms of US monetary hegemony, inter alia) rather than "weaponization of finance" as a theoretical concept per se, and thus do not meet a threshold for an independent article:

Fouskas & Gökay (2018), "Placing the USA–Turkey Standoff in Context: The USA and the Weaponization of Global Finance", Journal of Global Faultlines. I was unable to access this article through Wikipedia Library, so I am unsure of its exact contents, but the first page suggests it is about the US tariffs imposed on Turkish aluminum and steel–a form of sanctions.
Farrell & Newman (Dec. 2019), "America weaponized the global financial system. Now other countries are fighting back.", Washington Post. The article relies in part on arguments made by the European Council of Foreign Relations, which describes the "weaponization" as a form of "secondary sanctions."
Maharrey (2018), "SWIFT and the Weaponization of the U.S. Dollar", Foundation for Economic Education.
The only citation of Bremmer and WoF I found in academic work is in passing in the first page of Lin (2016), "Financial Weapons of War", Minnesota L. Rev.

In short: this article fails WP:GNG because weaponization of finance is, at best, another way to refer to economic sanctions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 20:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Economic sanctions because, essentially, if it is "at best, another way to refer to economic sanctions", then that makes it a likely search term. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:39, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to economic sanctions per RandomCanadian. The article asserts that such tactics are (1) novel (2) derive from some evolution of muskets in 1776, bombers in 1945, bank accounts in 2015, which ~~is fatuous~~ shows a poor grasp of history (3) practiced only by the U.S. (4) limited to action between nations (in one section) or aimed at cybercriminals (in another section), and on and on. This thing is a mess of semi-connected words and phrases. Its foundations are bad. There's a persistent fragrance of Ian Bremmer, whoever he may be. --Lockley (talk) 04:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - As suggested above. WP:ATD-R. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:48, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:37, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mario Ochoa (criminal)[edit]

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

Article fails WP:PERP. Not notable at all. Darius (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Darius (talk) 00:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Argentina-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing more than routine news coverage for crimes.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:33, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks,   Kadzi   (talk) 19:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - WP:NOTNEWS seems to be the case here. Haven’t seen anything to create the impression of lasting notability at the moment (noting, though, that maybe that’s not the case in Argentina, but sources need to be available to show that). Red Phoenix ^talk 20:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article fails to describe any way this would be particularly important, compared to the huge number of other crimes and criminals in the world. /Julle (talk) 22:28, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Erika Smith[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 GNG. She also doesn’t satisfy WP:NACTOR as she merely appears in cameos. Celestina007 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 19:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Of the sources in the article, 3 are not independent, and 1 is a news item unrelated to her being an actress or celebrity impersonator. This leaves just one viable source for notability and that item from dreadcrentral is insubstantial. I can find no better coverage in my own searches. -- Whpq (talk) 19:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete clearly not enough sources that are relible, 3rd party indepth sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:35, 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) Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:19, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Game Face (game show)[edit]

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

Information on the article is certainly not enough to warrant its own article, especially considering the fact the originally-announced June 13 premiere date did not happen, nor has there been any information since the series was first announced. WP:CRYSTALBALL should be considered in this too, as the series has now passed the original premiere date without any word on it.

Even if it did premiere, the article (in its current state) is not enough to warrant an article itself. Even Group Chat (which did actually premiere...) doesn't have its own article at this moment. Best to have this article delete until if/when more information comes out and if/when the series does actually premiere. Magitroopa (talk) 05:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Don't know why I forget stuff when I'm typing/working... probably best at this moment to move it to draftspace to be worked on, as the article itself would need some work anyways, previous info about it not even premiereing on the original premiere date apply to the reasoning too. Magitroopa (talk) 05:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose:We have a host, premiere date, and name change--BaseFree (talk) 18:03, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Magitroopa: Since you yourself have added it to the Nick originals template, shall we ask this be closed as keep?--BaseFree (talk) 18:26, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@BaseFree: I do see now that it has a new date, etc. which I'm glad they didn't just announce it and then do nothing else later... I know I added it to the template, but I'm still not 100% sure if it does warrant its own article, like I stated previously. Group Chat with Annie and Jayden has been running since May 23, and that doesn't even have an article here, as there's barely enough information to warrant it having an article. Maybe this one will have more info to warrant an article, especially considering it will be a game show rather than just people chatting and doing quick games/activities/talking... Magitroopa (talk) 18:30, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as moved. The article has since been moved to Unfiltered (game show) and a new premiere date has been announced which is less than two weeks away. The article has sufficient sources to establish that this will be a nationally broadcast TV series on a major cable network (Nickelodeon). I have removed some of the more promotional-sounding adjectives from the article to tone down the hype. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as there's no point to deleting the article two weeks before the show's premiere. The sources are fine. — Toughpigs (talk) 00:29, 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 merge to Powa Technologies. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:37, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

ZNAP[edit]

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

This article including all the companies which is not even functional or being merged into one another. this is classic example of blatant misuse of wikipedia being used for promoting one self and his own companies. This article has misused all the parameters from using Press coverage, non-notable media mentioned to the editing by none other than paid editor on wikipedia. I am nominating all of his companies on the ground of misuse of wikipedia for promoting personally. Light2021 (talk) 06:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Hong Kong-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Powa Technologies, which acquired MPayMe, which created the mobile business platform ZNAP per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion. Cunard (talk) 09:55, 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 19:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Powa Technologies as per Cunard above. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:11, 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 keep. Clear consensus has been reached here. (non-admin closure) Eternal Shadow Talk 16:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nazma Anwar[edit]

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

Does she satisfy WP:ENT? Looks like quite a common actress, nothing notable. P. S. Please take care with facts, because another article of the same author has such fake information: "when the article says he exhibited at the Louvre, they don't mean the Musée du Louvre, they mean the Carrousel du Louvre, a shopping mall". Wikisaurus (talk) 18:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bangladesh-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 19:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - passes WP:GNG and WP:ENT. There are four references from The Daily Star ([3], [4], [5], [6]) and one from The Daily Ittefaq, all with significant coverage about the actress. In this article, popular actress Sara Zaker giving a tribute to Nazma Anwar while this article talks about the homage paid to the actress by different theatre and cultural groups, indicating her large fan base and significant contribution to the field. Actor Mamunur Rashid states, "she was among a few artistes of Bangladesh whose popularity crossed the boundaries of the country". --Zayeem ^(talk) 14:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - As clearly explained by Mr. Zayeem. The subject was an important figure of Bangladeshi drama and film industry. - Julian ray 789 (talk) 11:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep clearly passes general notability guidelinesMajun e Baqi (talk) 18:51, 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. Tone 17:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Corey Edsall[edit]

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

All coverage is WP:MILL, consisting of non-independent coach profiles or local coverage. Wasn't a starting QB in college, and has held only assistant coaching positions. Not seeing WP:GNG or WP:NGRIDIRON. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of American football-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Willsome429 (say hey or see my edits!) 17:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable assistant college football coach without the level of coverage to justify an article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:31, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Compact[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Deleted at last AfD, in 2006, when our standards were much lower. Boleyn (talk) 08:35, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Bizarre two different things on one page! One not meeting gng and the other not even referenced!!! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. I agree with Davidstewartharvey: this should be two articles, but the first wouldn't pass GNG, while the second would need to be nuked and rebuilt as Compact (UK government) or something similar - and even then, it would probably fail WP:DICDEF. ~dom Kaos~ (talk) 08:10, 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, per the trend following Cunard's showing of sources. BD2412 T 00:13, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Global Benchmarking Network[edit]

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

Doesn't meet WP:ORG or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 12:29, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

McGaughey, Ronald E. (2001-12-01). "Internet editorial". Benchmarking. 8 (5). Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/bij.2001.13108eag.001. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
English, Michael J.; Baker, William H. (2006). Winning the Knowledge Transfer Race. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 197–198. ISBN 978-0-07-145794-1. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Watson, Gregory H. (2007). Strategic Benchmarking Reloaded with Six Sigma: Improve Your Company's Performance Using Global Best Practice. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. xxxiv–xxxv. ISBN 978-0-470-06908-0. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Madsen, Dag Øivind; Slåtten, Kåre; Johanson, Daniel (2017-04-03). "The emergence and evolution of benchmarking: a management fashion perspective". Benchmarking. 24 (3). Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/bij-05-2016-0077. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2010). A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. p. 7. doi:10.17226/14402. ISBN 978-0-309-15482-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
Dahlgaard-Park, Su Mi, ed. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Quality and the Service Economy. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-4522-5672-6. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
QFinance: The Ultimate Resource. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. 2009. p. 1569. ISBN 978-1-84930-000-1. Retrieved 2020-06-28.

Sources with quotes

McGaughey, Ronald E. (2001-12-01). "Internet editorial". Benchmarking. 8 (5). Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/bij.2001.13108eag.001. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
The Global Benchmarking Network (GBN) describes itself as "an alliance of leading benchmarking centres worldwide who share a common vision and mission". The membership of GBN includes benchmarking centres in 17 countries. GBN was founded in 1994. In 1998, GBN became affiliated with the Benchmarking Exchange Inc., an organization based in the USA, as a "partner for technology". The Global Benchmarking Network is an interesting and unusual site. Unlike many sites, it is not comprised primarily of links to reports, services, newsletters, articles, and such. The links available on this site are links to member pages. It is from the standard GBN member pages and member Web sites that visitors can obtain much benchmarking related information. The GBN site actually serves as a gateway to the 17 member centres. The 17 centres are located around the globe – there are centres in Europe, Africa, America, and Asia. The home page of GBN contains some basic information on GBN's vision, mission, affiliates, structure, benefits and services. The GBN home page also houses a list of GBN officers, an invitation to join, and contact information. The most significant feature of the GBN home page is the links to member centres.
The GBN "Member" links provide access to member pages, all of which have a relatively standardized format. Each member page is comprised of a description of the centre's institutional background, a statement of the centre's vision and mission, a general description of services, and beyond that, the centre descriptions tend to reflects the uniqueness of each centre. Even though the content of each member page is different, the uniform formatting employed on each makes it easy for the visitor to quickly inspect each GBN member page, to discover more about each centre. Each member page has contact information prominently displayed at the top, right-hand corner of each page. Addresses, telephone numbers, fax numbers and e-mail addresses are included in each centre's contact information. On the left side of each Member page are links, in the form of national flags, to every other standardized GBN member page. GBN did a very good job of organizing the GBN site to facilitate easy access to Member centres and to make it easy to learn about each centre. Perhaps the most useful item found on member pages is the link, or in some cases links, to their unique centre Web sites.
English, Michael J.; Baker, William H. (2006). Winning the Knowledge Transfer Race. New York: McGraw-Hill Education. pp. 197–198. ISBN 978-0-07-145794-1. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes:
The Global Benchmarking Network

In 1993, discussions were held between the UK Benchmarking Centre, the Strategic Planning Institute (United States), the SIQ (Sweden), the IZB (Germany), and the Benchmarking Club of Italy to evaluate the possibility of a cooperative network. In 1994, after debate and agreement, the Global Benchmarking Network (GBN) was officially established by these founding members as a community of legally independent benchmarking centers, with the objective of achieving a consistent understanding of benchmarking as a management method and promoting its worldwide spread and utilization. Camp, whom some call the "father of benchmarking," came from the Best Practice Institute of the United States and was appointed the first head of the network. Since the GBN's founding, its members have held at least one meeting per year to discuss GBN matters and to exchange and share information on their respective activities. In 1998, the members agreed to annual affiliation fees when they approved a GBN logo and launched a Web site (www.globalbenchmarking.org) to facilitate communication among members and promote marketing. The network has been successful since at least 1996, facilitating the worldwide exchange of benchmarking activities among centers and companies as well as public institutions. GBN affiliates now respond to requests for benchmarking expertise from governments, including those of Germany and the U.K., and government ministries, like the Department of Trade and Commerce of the Slovak Republic, including such actions as the creation of national benchmarking centers. GBN affiliates also support several international organizations, such as the Benchmarking Competitiveness Group of the EU in Brussels and the International Trade Centre (ITC) of the World Trade Organization in Geneva. Current members represent 20 countries: Czech Republic, Denmark, France, Germany, Hungary, India, Ireland, Italy, Malaysia, Mauritius, Moldavia, New Zealand, Poland, Russia, Slovakia, South Africa, Sweden, Switzerland, the U.K., and the United States. They serve as focal points and operate benchmarking centers in their countries as well as serve as delegates to the network.
Watson, Gregory H. (2007). Strategic Benchmarking Reloaded with Six Sigma: Improve Your Company's Performance Using Global Best Practice. Hoboken, New Jersey: Wiley. pp. xxxiv–xxxv. ISBN 978-0-470-06908-0. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes:
Two channels for benchmarking are worthy of particular attention: the Internet and the Global Benchmarking Network (GBN).
...
In 1993, discussions between the U.K. Benchmarking Centre, the Strategic Planning Institute (SPI) in the United States, the Swedish Institute for Quality (SIQ) in Sweden, the Informationszentrum Benchmarking (IZB) in Germany, and the Benchmarking Club of Italy came together to evaluate the possibility of a cooperative network. In 1994, the Global Benchmarking Network (GBN) was officially established by these founding members as a community of legally independent benchmarking centers, with the objective to achieve a consistent understanding of benchmarking as a management method and to promote its worldwide spread and utilisation. I view the GBN as an extension of the Benchmarking Council of the Strategic Planning Institute, which preceded the founding of the APQC International Benchmarking Clearinghouse but focused on a few member companies following the model used by The Conference Board for cross-company sharing, thereby reducing its impact on diffusion of the benchmarking methods to a wider audience.¹⁴ The GBN currently includes benchmarking centers of 17 nations. Together, they represent more than 25,000 businesses and government agencies. The President of GBN is Dr. Robert C. Camp of The Best Practice Institute in the United States and author of the first book on benchmarking.¹⁵
Madsen, Dag Øivind; Slåtten, Kåre; Johanson, Daniel (2017-04-03). "The emergence and evolution of benchmarking: a management fashion perspective". Benchmarking. 24 (3). Emerald Group Publishing. doi:10.1108/bij-05-2016-0077. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The article notes:
There are several international organizations which have spread the word about benchmarking around the world. For example, the Global Benchmarking Network (GBN) was founded in 1994 and has played an important role in popularizing benchmarking (http://www.globalbenchmarking.org/home/). Benchmarking guru and author Robert Camp has served as the President of GBN (Mann, 2015, p. 133). GBN has Published reports such as the “Global survey on business improvement and benchmarking” (Mann, Abbas, Kohl, Orth, & Gomer, 2010). GBN has also launched different initiatives such as the Global Benchmarking Award¹ founded in 2012 (Mann, 2015), as well as the GBN roadshow², which has a stated purpose to increase understanding of the practice of benchmarking.
National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine (2010). A Methodology for Performance Measurement and Peer Comparison in the Public Transportation Industry. Washington, DC: National Academies Press. p. 7. doi:10.17226/14402. ISBN 978-0-309-15482-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
The book notes:
In 1994, the Global Benchmarking Network (GBN) was established to bring together disparate benchmarking efforts in various nations, including the U.K. Benchmarking Centre, the Swedish Institute for Quality, the Informationszentrum Benchmarking in Germany, and the Benchmarking Club of Italy, along with U.S. benchmarking organizations.
Dahlgaard-Park, Su Mi, ed. (2015). The SAGE Encyclopedia of Quality and the Service Economy. Thousand Oaks, California: SAGE Publications. p. 33. ISBN 978-1-4522-5672-6. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes:
The Global Benchmarking Network

The Global Benchmarking Network (GBN) is an international body that supports and promotes benchmarking in more than 25 countries. It is a global network of organizations and experts that work together to sponsor and support benchmarking research projects and activities including an annual conference and the Global Benchmarking Award.
The GBN was formed in 1994 following discussions between the UK Benchmarking Centre, the Strategic Planning Institute (United States), the Swedish Planning Institute (Sweden), the Informationszentrum Benchmarking (Germany), and the Benchmarking Club Italy. Camp, who pioneered the benchmarking method at Xerox, was appointed the first head of the network and now serves as the honorary lifetime president of the GBN.
QFinance: The Ultimate Resource. London: Bloomsbury Publishing. 2009. p. 1569. ISBN 978-1-84930-000-1. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes:
The Global Benchmarking Network (GBN)

The GBN is a membership-based organization for those organizations that promote and support benchmarking within their country. Currently it represents over 25 countries. The purpose of the GBN is to promote and support benchmarking worldwide and the international exchange of best practices. Its members consist of the world's leading experts in benchmarking, and its president is Dr Robert Camp, the founder of benchmarking.

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

Cunard (talk) 10:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 17:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Keep: As per Cunard's excellently detailed comment citing various reliable sources. - Harsh 07:15, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A'typisk[edit]

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

No references other than a chart listing. Fails WP:BIO. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 17:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Unless reliable sources can be found in Danish, perhaps with different spellings of his name. Under "A'typisk" or his given name Amin Kevlar, I can find nothing but typical social media, streaming, and retail sites. This is odd because he really made the Danish charts several times. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON is the best explanation. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 13:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 19:52, 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 WFMU. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Night People (radio show)[edit]

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

There is nothing indicating any notability whatsoever. The only sources are the radio station. A WP:BEFORE didn't garner anything either. Kbabej (talk) 16:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note. I have since found one article on the show, which mentions they have about 1400 listeners and broadcast in the "dead of night". It doesn't seem the show has had a widespread impact. --Kbabej (talk) 16:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to WFMU: Barely found anything about the show. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 00:51, 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. Tone 16:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anthony Labruna[edit]

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

This AfD was created on June 15 but was malformed and did not get properly listed here. I am recreating it as a courtesy. The original reason for AfD was: "The subject does not appear to be BLP level notable, has not attracted substantial 3rd party notice since the announcement of his appointment, and appears unlikely to become more notable in the near future. If this changes, of course, we can recreate the page. BrxBrx(talk)(please reply with @BrxBrx:) 6:42 pm, 15 June 2020, last Monday (6 days ago) (UTC−7)" MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 15:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Coverage is about the administration's hiring of unqualified individuals, not that the individuals are themselves notable. Routine news about the goings-on of low-level staffers. Reywas92^Talk 21:15, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I believe the article meets WP:GNG. The individual has received coverage from reliable sources such as Politico, The Hill, Slate, and MSNBC. Labruna is notable for being a very young person installed into a fairly notable position in the Trump administration. KidAd (talk) 17:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This at best clearly fails not news guidelines. The deputy liasion to anyting is never notable. This is a low down entry level position, and the holder of it is never notable, and nothing else Lebruna has done yet rises to the level of notabilty either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 11:05, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 16:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Per not news and Johnpatricklambert. The position and person are simply not notable. --Kbabej (talk) 16:36, 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 merge to Peter Done. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 16:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peninsula Business Services[edit]

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

I am unable to locate any references that meet the criteria for establishing notability. Most are based on PR/announcements or PRIMARY sources, others are inclusions on lists for "best places to work", references fail WP:ORGIND/WP:SIGCOV/WP:CORPDEPTH HighKing⁺⁺ 16:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge/redirect to Peter Done, the founder of Peninsula Business Services, per Wikipedia:Deletion policy#Alternatives to deletion.
Here are sources I found:
1. https://www.ft.com/content/96aedd18-6efd-11d9-94a8-00000e2511c8
  The article notes: "The brothers have also built up Peninsula Business Services, the UK's largest health and safety and employment law consultancy, with 14,000 customers. They set it up 20 years ago after losing a tribunal case over a dismissed employee. Last year, its revenues rose 15 per cent, to Pounds 36.6m: 'If you watch what is coming out of Brussels in terms of new employment, health and safety laws, this has to be a growth business.'"
2. https://www.ft.com/content/656e5b28-86d6-11e5-90de-f44762bf9896
3. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/record-turnover-peninsula-group-revenues-16203175
4. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/salford-slums-billionaire-businessman-lesser-15543747
5. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/canada-launch-hr-experts-peninsula-13865374
6. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/professionals/peninsula-business-services-rebrands-peninsula-11598931
7. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/peninsula-eyes-100m-sales-after-6336291
8. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/peninsula-wraps-up-the-red-tape-1112836
9. https://www.manchestereveningnews.co.uk/business/business-news/peninsula-on-hunt-for-new-acquisitions-after-866337
Cunard (talk) 00:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment a Merge seems sensible, the Peter Done article already makes mention of this company. HighKing⁺⁺ 19:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - Into Peter Done. Not independently notable. --Jack Frost (talk) 04:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Tone 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wang Shiyan[edit]

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

non notable artist. no reliable sources found after a decade. RZuo (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. RZuo (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doesn't look promising; I see a few sources but cannot read them. I'm also not familiar with reliability of sources like sina.cn (example). Another is here.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Contents in these two sources are the same, only trivial mentions. --94rain ^Talk 14:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete with 1 of two sources being the subject's own website I do not even have to know what the other source is to know this article absolutely does not pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:20, 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 and Rename. There is clear consensus for the article to be kept. There is further consensus for the article to be renamed. At present that consensus appears to be to rename to World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union, although it seems somewhat likely that the article may again be renamed as improvement efforts continue. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 02:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

German war crimes against Soviet civilians[edit]

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

It looks like this page was supposed to be merged with (it could be redirected to) German war crimes. We could also redirect to The Holocaust in Russia. This article is not written like an encyclopedia article. It also has poor references and many dead links. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of History-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rename World War II German war crimes in the Soviet Union and expand. It's a topic that deserves its own article. No redirect to The Holocaust in Russia, as many of the victims were not Jews. (German war crimes should be split into at least three separate articles, World War I, World War II, and other.) Clarityfiend (talk) 23:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename as per Clarityfiend. The article at the moment is awful ("spiritually ill people" got my attention) but that's reason for clean-up not deletion. The topic is important. Zero^talk 03:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Concure with Clarityfiend and Zero0000 that this subject is notable for it's own page - needs a clean up not a delete.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename agree with Clarityfiend - GizzyCatBella🍁 04:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the topic although this fragmentary content doesn't look that helpful. See the fr. and es. versions for patterns of what this topic would/should/could be. Just assessing the related existing content in en. would be a major task. We may have found a hole in our encyclopedia. --Lockley (talk) 06:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rename (or Keep) and clean up -- The list of atrocities is quite long enough to warrant a separate article, even if the present one needs more work. The present name might do, but Clarityfiend's is better. Redirecting to German war crimes would not do as this is a list of events with (appropriately) little detail, but the heading in that should not be Russia as Ukraine was part of USSR, but not of Russia. Peterkingiron (talk) 14:51, 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 for Double Live and redirect the other three to Rheostatics. There was enough consensus to redirect the other three as an alternative to deletion. Not enough participation after two relistings to build consensus on whether the mentioned sources are enough to satisfy any notability guidelines. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 07:31, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Calling Out the Chords, Vol. 1[edit]

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

I'm nominating a few articles of live albums by the band Rheostatics. I feel that none of them are notable, as they do not fulfil either GNG or music notability guidelines. A re-direct to Rheostatics would be my preferred outcome. The band is notable and at least some of their studio albums appear to be notable, but I do not think these live albums worthy of their own articles. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. JohnmgKing (talk) 19:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am also nominating the following related pages because I do not think any of these live albums are sufficiently notable to warrant their own article. I do not think there is significant coverage on any of them.

JohnmgKing (talk) 19:50, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Double Live - Just starting to look at these, but sometimes clumping albums together isn't great. Exclaim! writes of Double Live: "Double Live is released with low expectations, but becomes their second-biggest album and a touchstone for a new generation of fans. Says Bidini, "Double Live was the #1 campus radio record that year in Earshot, which freaked me out. Because, whatever, it was a live record sandwiched between albums. We didn't really do anything to promote it. We sold a lot; I think that and Melville are neck and neck. For whatever reason, that one registered." Improbable for aging Canadian cult heroes, the Rheostatics' audience starts to get younger." There's also the very positive AllMusic review, Have Not Been the Same, Vancouver Sun (can't read it)... I'm in the States, so don't know too much about other Canadian sources... Caro7200 (talk) 20:43, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all - None of them have any significant coverage. Especially Calling Out the Chords, Vol. 1, which has no content, or significant sources that mention the album at all. There are many album articles out there lacking sources, and I'll try to find some more. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 20:58, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I did notice the Double Live coverage, but Allmusic is not a reliable source. The Exclaim source features a band member in what appears to be an interview-like format, reducing its reliability- also its reference to 'Double Live' is very brief. In any case I don't see evidence of independent notability guidelines being met. I do mostly nominate single articles and will be careful when 'clumping', perhaps these articles are not similar enough to do so? As they are all poorly sourced articles about live albums by a single band, I feel they are good candidates for this kind of nomination. JohnmgKing (talk) 21:26, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AllMusic is a reliable source when it comes to reviews and staff-written biographies. Exclaim! is also a reliable source. I wouldn't call that article an interview; however, interviews published in reliable sources are edited and fact-checked. I agree that the other albums may not be notable. Caro7200 (talk) 21:36, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the clarification and useful comments, I didn't know that about AllMusic. JohnmgKing (talk) 22:12, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect all to Rheostatics: Barely found anything about the albums. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:39, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Double Live, delete and/or redirect the rest. These were created at a different time in Wikipedia's history, when our notability standards for albums were very different than they are today — once upon a time, the only notability claim an album actually had to have was that a notable band had recorded it. That's quite obviously and rightly no longer the standard that applies today: albums need to have much stronger notability claims, and much better sourcing to support them, than they had to have in 2007 or 2012. Double Live actually does have that — in addition to the sources identified by Caro7200 above, there are also several pieces of coverage from major daily newspapers available in a ProQuest search — but the others don't. Difference being, they were still at the height of their careers when Double Live came out — by the time any of the others did, they were on hiatus and basically just cleaning out their archives, so those albums just never had the same impact. I've already bolstered the referencing on Double Live, for the record (pun semi-intended). Bearcat (talk) 04:07, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, -- RoySmith (talk) 01:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Please add comments, thanks
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BEAMALEXANDER25, talk 14:44, 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 keep. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Na'Taki Osborne Jelks[edit]

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

Freshly minted PhD who does not (yet?) meet WP:PROF. As mentioned on the article's talk page, the claim to notability per WP:NACADEMIC is based on an award, Champions of Change, and two articles: one in the New York Times, the other in People. However, the NYT article is an opinion piece (which only mentions the subject in a single sentence), and the People article is a human-interest story, which means neither should suffice per WP:RSEDITORIAL. And as for the award: Champions of Change is not an academic award but instead a recognition for activists. It has been given to literally hundreds of people during Obama's term in office, almost none of whom have a Wikipedia article (and certainly none for just that). bender235 (talk) 20:38, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 20:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Pi (Talk to me!) 20:43, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. WP:TOOSOON for WP:NPROF for this assistant professor (and Champions of Change doesn't seem relevant to that standard). However, I think the People profile contributes strongly to notability (although we should be cautious of the fact-checking there, per the nom). Together with the NYTimes mention and national award, it seems already enough for GNG. Helping support is an interview in this book. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 11:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Russ Woodroofe: I thought we generally exclude human-interest stories when determining notability. We could easily find hundreds of stories similar to the "mom's breast cancer" People article, like say this one, but we generally don't assume it justifies notability by itself. Or maybe I'm wrong, and we now need an article like “Allison Brown is a Covid-19 survivor who has been featured in USA Today.” --bender235 (talk) 16:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think we'd exclude Allison Brown under WP:BLP1E. I don't think WP:BLP1E applies here, as the activism work is ongoing. What do you think about the interview in the book? Russ Woodroofe (talk) 19:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The book itself seems like a reliable source. But again, like pretty much all the sources in the article so far, this is describing the subject as an environmental activist, not an academic. Do we have special notability criteria for those, or do we just go by WP:SIGCOV? I actually been wondering about this since AfD/Carl Smith (activist), because we have plenty of activist biographies that are marginally notable at best. --bender235 (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability_(people) doesn't seem to have anything for activists specifically. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

...so we just have GNG to work with. Here, the substantial People profile together with the book interview definitely looks like significant coverage from multiple independent sources to me. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 09:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Definitely doesn't meet WP:NPROF, but not sure yet if notable on other grounds, am learning towards weak delete though. Kj cheetham (talk) 08:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:08, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep under WP:GNG as there is some reliable independant coverage. Kj cheetham (talk) 10:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Borderline case; consensus NPROF not met, but could be GNG; however, specific refs that would meet GNG not fully in evidence yet
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I think WP:NPROF / WP:NACADEMIC are the wrong guidelines to apply here, so this nom got off on the wrong foot. She got an award from the White House in 2014, two years prior to even getting her PhD. I believe she meets WP:GNG as written based on the White House, NYTimes and People links, and should be kept. --Krelnik (talk) 13:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Rind tribe. Merge and redirect SpinningSpark 09:49, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rind Khan[edit]

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

Person seems to be not notable as per WP:ANYBIO ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pakistan-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 15:46, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Delete Doesn’t meet WP:GNG in any way. The sources are extremely unreliable and the article contains original research. Red River 660 talk 16:02, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Already removed some unreliable references. The article already has 2 reliable newspaper references and another reliable source. I'll add some more reliable sources soon. Person is certainly notable! Ngrewal1 (talk) 22:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The information stated in the article may not be supported by references YET but it’s all fact-based. This article was created not too long ago so I think it’s understandable that not much work has been done on it yet. More references will be present in the article soon. Do not delete it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowahid Mohsin (talk • contribs) 00:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Currently at the time of typing, 11 reliable references are present, and I believe that it should be enough to remove the “article for deletion” tag because almost every sentence is now supported by at least one reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mowahid Mohsin (talk • contribs) 01:27, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mowahid, you are new to wikipedia and do not fully understand how wikipedia works. Please read the policies WP:RS and WP:SYNTH. Only a single reference cited counts towards notability of this person, as I demonstrated below. I suggest you to accept the "merge" option I proposed. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Due to the removal of the unreliable references, I am switching to keep, although count this !vote as more of a “weak keep”. I think that this article may still need some more development though. Red River 660 talk 01:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 17:02, 24 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]
Delete for the subject failing personal GNG standards for having his own stand alone article. I see lists of relatives - wikipedia is not Ancestry.com. I see sources that don't specifically pertain to the article's subject. For example three citations are the same - the definition of "rind". Three are lists of Baloch tribes. I didn't cross check all the citations but the first citation from the Dawn news site makes no specific mention of a "Rind Khan". This article seems to be a good-faith effort to elevate a person who is seen as deserving broad recognition but doesn't have sources to support notability. Blue Riband► 16:26, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Concerns raised by the Deletes have not yet been addressed
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 14:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The flaws of the article were unreliable references and lack of references, both have been fixed. The reference from Dawn News which was mentioned earlier can easily be removed. And instead of complaining about the article’s flaws, why don’t much more experienced editors help to correct it? Only minor references mistakes are left which can be fixed and I disagree that there is a reason to delete it now.

Response I took a look at the revised article and there I see two citations to baask.com which is a message board forum. These types of sources are not considered reliable as anybody can post anything with no fact checking and no editorial oversight. (You may find it helpful to look at WP:VERIFY which explains in detail what are reliable sources.) The citation to the Daily Times regarding Punnu Fort makes no mention of him. Generally speaking, if one is having trouble finding sources to support a person's notability then that person doesn't have the accomplishments or depth of historic coverage for inclusion. Blue Riband► 00:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The nonreliable baask.com source basically retells A glossary of the Tribes..., so I am replacing baask ref with glossary ref.

India Today ref says not a word about him either. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Asiatic society mentions him only once in a long pedigree of a some person, from whihc it follows that he is a son of Jalal Khan. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Journal of Turk-Islam world is used to support a hypothetical stamenent "Rind Khan like the rest of Baloch people...", and nothing about him. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge No refernces which discuss the person in depth, but since he is a founder of a a main Baloch tribe, all reasonable info is to be merged into Rind tribe. Staszek Lem (talk) 00:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging Blue, L235, ~ Amkgp User:RedRiver660 Ngrewal1 to review their votes after my cleanup and another option. Staszek Lem (talk) 01:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Part of me is thinking weak delete and another part of me is thinking weak keep. It seems like merge is more reasonable then both. Do note that I changed my name to Eternal Shadow. Eternal Shadow (talk) 15:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Rind tribe as per the in-depth analysis and current state of the article ~ Amkgp 💬 15:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wanted to mention another thing... there are many articles on Wikipedia which have only a few lines and 1-3 references (for example the article on Rind Tribe). How come those articles are totally safe but this one got nominated for deletion? That’s why I think:

Merge Since the article on Rind Tribe has a few lines and this one has some references issues, I think it would be better to merge them into a single article. The info regarding the tribe should be at top and all info regarding Rind Khan should be under a heading at the bottom of the article. That way the information in both articles will remain on Wikipedia and this issue would come to an end.

Reply You make a good point about Wikipedia stub articles containing only 1-3 references. What should matter is 1) establishment of notability 2) with reliable sources. This editor has questions the Rind Khan article on both criteria, although some here see things otherwise. Blue Riband► 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don’t think that the deletion of this article should even be a thing now because out of the seven users who have voted so far, only one user says that it should be deleted. And then it’s being stated that the article should have at least 2 reliable references, well, there are currently 5 references and one of them is from a book and another from a newspaper and those 2 are fairly reliable. And literally every sentence in the article is supported by a reference so I think this matter should come to an end already. And another user didn’t like the list of relatives saying that Wikipedia is not Ancestry.com, the list of relatives is also removed now. And the last thing I wanted to mention to prove that this deletion matter is totally un fair is that the article on Jalal Khan (the father of Rind Khan) literally had 2 sentence, one regarding the meaning of his name and other saying that he was the founder of Baloch Tribe before I added much more content in that article almost a month ago. That article was published from years without getting noticed and had no useful info at all but it was totally safe but this article gets nominated for deletion? Wow. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 06:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply What generally happens is that an editor comes across an article, reads it, then asks "What exactly has this person done or accomplished?" This is probably why User:Amkgp made this AfD proposal. I still don't see what accomplishments Rind Khan made to deserve inclusion, but the decision won't be mine. Blue Riband► 17:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mr. Blue Riband, you are currently the only one who voted for “delete”. And you ask what Rind Khan has accomplished? Well, I don’t know whether you have noticed or not but establishing a whole new tribe ain’t that easy and it should be enough to be remembered. And I must also add that this article didn’t even have had the chance to get more information added into it because it got nominated for deletion on the 1st or 2nd day after being created. The article has been cleaned up of all mistakes that were the reason of it being nominated for deletion so... it should be alright now shouldn’t it? References: added, Mistakes: removed, Unnecessary info: removed, Faulty references: removed, Why should he be remembered?: cuz he’s the founder of one of the main Baloch Tribes, What to do now: either remove the “nominated for deletion” tag nor merge it with Rind Tribe article. Simple. No need to waste anyone’s effort or time. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 05:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mowahid Mohsin, an admin will take an action soon. Don't remove the deletion tag or merge yourself. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I won’t remove it, don’t worry. By the way why is there even a need to argue that the article should be deleted? All mistakes have been corrected and only one out of 7 users suggests the article to be deleted. Isn’t this enough to close this case? I’m tired of fighting for the article that I created and I’m not willing to waste more time on this pointless argument. If this matter would not have been brought up in the first place I’m pretty sure that there would have been a lot more info in the article. The Makran area of the subcontinent was not very advanced in literature and other stuff 700 years ago so not much is known about Rind Khan. If who ever is in charge of this matter permits, I’d like to spend time researching about him for Wikipedia instead of wasting time trying to prevent the article from getting deleted. Wikipedia should be a website where information is provided to the knowledge-hungry people by other people who are kind enough to do that for free instead of being a place where text-wars are going on. Mowahid Mohsin (talk) 05:27, 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. Tone 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Steve Fowler[edit]

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

One significant role, but not enough to meet WP:BIO and doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete at best we have one source that is independent. We need multiple independent, reliable sources to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:10, 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 — nomination withdrawn, no !votes to delete (non-admin closure) XOR'easter (talk) 01:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Maxine Leeds Craig[edit]

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

Borderline (hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years) but she doesn't seem to quite have the level of publication and significance for WP:PROF or the level of post, or to meet WP:GNG. Successful woman, but doesn't pass the threshold of notability. Boleyn (talk) 14:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:14, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There appear to be plenty of reviews of her two books for WP:NAUTHOR; here are four: [7][8][9][10]. Both books are well-cited, giving some support from WP:NPROF C1. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per reviews identified by Russ Woodroofe. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Based on citations, publications, full-professorship, and notable award(s). Re: awards, there are others in addition to what is in the article as per a WP:BEFORE search. Meets meets notability criteria for WP:AUTHOR and WP:GNG and if I'm not mistaken, WP:PROF. Article should be improved rather than deleted. Netherzone (talk) 17:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC) Additional comment: prior to promotion to Professor when she was an Associate Professor of Women and Gender Studies at UC Davis, she was also the Chair of the Designated Emphasis in Feminist Theory and Research there. Also was awarded Best Book award on the Political History of Ethnic and Racial Minorities in the U.S by the Section on Race, Ethnicity, and Politics of the American Political Science Association. Additionally, is/was deputy editor of Gender & Society. [11] Netherzone (talk) 18:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:AUTHOR and multiple published reviews each of multiple books. —David Eppstein (talk) 18:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination oer all helpful comments above. Boleyn (talk) 20:32, 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 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ryan Bennett (sportscaster)[edit]

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

Biography of a sports commentator which has had no inline citations/footnotes at any time since it was created in 2006 (until I added one today – it is a SPS but at least it supports some of the info). It survived an AfD at the time, but as we know, notability criteria have developed a lot in the past 14 years. There are several external links in the article, but none of them indicates notability for him. I can't find any significant coverage of him (almost everything that turns up is a Wikipedia mirror), and as for more specific notability criteria, WP:CREATIVE and/or WP:ENT seem to come closest and neither one appears to be met. Again, there would need to be sources for that, and I fail to find any. bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Utah-related deletion discussions. bonadea contributions talk 14:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: previous AfD discussion is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ryan Bennett. --bonadea contributions talk 14:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 17:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I don't understand how this article survived its first AfD, but perhaps I'm missing something. I'm not seeing any notability criteria that he meets. Even the source added by Bonadea is from the website Bennett started. The rest of the coverage seems to fall under WP:NOTMEMORIAL. I'm not voting at this time to give others a chance to show me why he's WP notable. Papaursa (talk) 11:23, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) -- puddleglum^2.0 00:03, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liza del Mundo[edit]

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

Potentially non-notable voice actress. No third party sources given in article (only one IMDB link in the article) and none found. Article potentially fails WP:GNG. Fails WP:NACTRESS since she has only 1 main cast role in her repertoire. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Popular culture-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Magic-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 13:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I found two sources about her which together satisfy the "multiple reliable sources" requirement of the WP:GNG (and WP:BASIC), plus some additional content.
1. At least 2 (possibly 3) pages of a book – admittedly mostly photographs of her roles, but getting those still counts as major coverage, and there are descriptions as well: [12] (ISBN 0738555983 in case the link stops working)
2. This article (which also indicates that a news archive search for further sources could be useful): [13]
3. Also this (and related theatre sources), which while not about her specifically could be used to expand the article: [14] Modernponderer (talk) 09:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Modernponderer, I disagree with the first. They look like passing mention and not major coverage. The second looks to be notable and the third is more a first-party source as it's an interview. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @User:Tyw7, a "passing mention" is something like a single sentence in an article on another topic. This source includes multiple pages of photos and descriptions of her roles. It absolutely contributes to notability, though it's an open question as to how much (which is why I included the third source to help tip the balance). Modernponderer (talk) 14:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  Modernponderer, I'm not sure how much weight is put into first-party sources ie interviews such as the third link. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 15:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  @User:Tyw7: I'm not sure what your point is here. That's not one of the main two sources I'm using to show notability. It's a supplementary source that could be used to expand the article. Modernponderer (talk) 01:30, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: There's a segment in this book where she's partially discussed. With that and the links indicated by Modernponderer, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Superastig, I don't have the book but it seems a passing mention? She was name-dropped as an "example." --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 08:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tyw7, I was able to get a few snippets in that magazine by searching her name. Here's a few excerpts from a certain article:

"...Liza Del Mundo, who stars as Mrs. Marcos."

"Liza Del Mundo has "it." Having co- starred in numerous television roles, such as in "The Bernie Mac Show" and "CSI: Miami," the Filipino American actor from San Diego already shows the determination and diligence to be a working actor..."

"For the lead in "Imelda," Del Mundo read every biography ever published about Mrs. Marcos, to deconstruct the icon and understand why she made the choices she did. The actor had to grasp how Imelda would have felt to lose the country, her husband and almost everything she cared for."

It's not a passing mention at all. The article is not just about the play Imeldific. Part of it explains Liza's career from starring in a number of TV shows to how she got to portray as the title role. Therefore, that also adds to her notability. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Superastig, well one notable source is not usually adequate and several is usually needed. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Her portrayal as Imelda is talked about in Variety and Talking Broadway; these are not passing mentions at all. This book mentions her as voiceover of Polaris in Wolverine and the X-Men and this also mentions her as voiceover of Hay Lin in W.I.T.C.H.

Tyw7, the sources Modernponderer and I indicated are considered multiple reliable sources since they fully or partially discuss Liza's acting career, including her portrayal as Imelda Marcos. Therefore, they're good enough for the article to pass WP:GNG (and perhaps WP:NACTOR). I have explained more than enough. And I won't reply from hereon. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:45, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Albert Braut Tjåland[edit]

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

Child footballer, not at all likely to establish himself as a first-tier professional this year. He did sign for a pro club as a junior player. Notability WP:NOTINHERITED from his first cousin. Geschichte (talk) 13:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Giant Snowman 11:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. Might make it as a pro when is older, might not, so for now we delete. Giant Snowman 11:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Still plenty of time to make it, at the moment know, he doesn't qualify for an article per the policies. Govvy (talk) 11:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet our overly broad notability criteria for footballers.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Jackson Guitars. Redirecting no-participation AfD as WP:ATD since it's a plausible search term, rather than consigning it to the limbo of relisting. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:42, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jackson Outcaster[edit]

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

This doesn't have the coverage to meet WP:GNG or the significance to meet WP:ORG. A possible WP:ATD is merge/redirect to Jackson Guitars, though at the moment it has no mention on that page, so I don't think it would fill well or be needed. Boleyn (talk) 13:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. BhaskaraPattelar (talk) 15:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 00:13, 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. References supplied demonstrated the subject's notability. (non-admin closure) Dps04 (talk) 14:14, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Muthoni Drummer Queen[edit]

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

Not notable. Fuddle (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Fuddle (talk) 13:02, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the article that you tagged for speedy deletion, I created it because I was running an edit workshop and I was demonstrating to participants how articles are created directly on Wikipedia other than Sandbox. Kindly remove that speedy deletion tag and help improve it. Bobbyshabangu _talk 16:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep - Note that neither the nomination nor the above vote actually discuss what does or does not make the musician notable enough for a Wikipedia article. This woman has been featured in some fairly robust magazine profiles: [15], [16], [17], though these tend to consist of softball interviews. She seems to be getting some viable notice, though I would not necessarily argue with anyone who wants to see more evidence under the WP:TOOSOON standard. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 21:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Her majesty has been profiled not only in local Kenyan media, but in worldwide media: RFI, Le Temps, CBC, FRANCE24, NPR. She is an icon.--Chuka Chief (talk) 19:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as has significant coverage in multiple reliable sources identified above such as OkayAfrica, CBC, and NPR and so passes WP:GNG and should be included, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 00:02, 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. Tone 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moose Allain[edit]

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

Fails WP:BEFORE and WP:BIO and WP:SIGCOV. No real sources. scope_creep^Talk 12:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:59, 28 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, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-03 ✍️ create

Delete: Isn't enough significant coverage to justify notability. - Harsh 07:05, 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 delete. Tone 17:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Min Khant[edit]

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

Non-notable fashion designer. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creep^Talk 12:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Myanmar-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources are not at a level to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:56, 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. Additional references supplied that clearly show the person is notable. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 11:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sunbeam Mitchell[edit]

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

Fails WP:SIGCOV. Non-notable. Very little coverage. scope_creep^Talk 12:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - All the existing sources are RS, there are more to be found online, and Mr. Mitchell is important to both music history and African American history. Caro7200 (talk) 13:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

They are passing mentions, a single small paragraph, as far as I can see. Please add the ones you know about, so we can look at them. scope_creep^Talk 14:03, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many of the references go on for paragraphs and pages, so you may want to look again. Here are a few more: [18], [19], [20], [21]. Caro7200 (talk) 15:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Sunbeam Mitchell is an important figure in the Memphis Blues scene. There are pages written about him and his establishments in the books that are in the references. Those books include Soul of the Man: Bobby "Blue" Bland and Dewey and Elvis: The Life and Times of a Rock 'n' Roll Deejay. Memphis magazine mentions him extensively in the article Chitlin Circuit.Twixister (talk) 14:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Caro7200:, Hi @Twixister: What you have given me is sufficient to establish notability. If you don't mind I'll withdraw the nomination tommorrow. Thanks for your work. scope_creep^Talk 19:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination Withdrawn Sufficient references been presented to satisfy WP:SIGCOV and probably WP:MUSICBIO. scope_creep^Talk 11:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Marting[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

A non notable fitness trainer. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable secondary sources. Was previously subject of an AFD in 2009, appears to have been kept on the basis of two uncredited appearances on magazine covers, I’m not sure this would satisfy WP:BLP by current policy standards. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Health and fitness-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't see any significant independent coverage. An occasional quote from him in an article about something else, but nothing substantive about him, his videos or his writing - nothing that would contribute towards a pass WP:GNG, or that would meet any applicable SNG that I can think of. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete we cannot keep an article where the only source is the subject's own website.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:01, 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 Kazakhstan and the United Nations. Content can be merged from history. Sandstein 06:00, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazakhstan's membership in the United Nations Security Council[edit]

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

This seems to be a content fork. I don't a reason why this article stands out against other countries' membership like Germany to the UN Security Council. Interstellarity (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kazakhstan-related deletion discussions. Interstellarity (talk) 15:03, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete reads like an ad for Kazakhstan's membership in the UNSC. Fails general notability and shouldn't be a stand-alone article. We don't have articles on other nations for a very specific reason: Nations don't act independently of the UNSC. Anything that gets done in their capacity as a member can be mentioned in the UNSC's article, or a relevant sub-page. It is highly unlikely that any individual nation will ever get enough analysis of its particular role to merit an article like this, except for possibly the United States and Russia and maybe China. Sure there are articles in newspapers (1, 2, 3, 4) but they don't say much worth writing about, except for the fact that the country supports reform of the security council (but everybody does). They held the presidency (but the presidency rotates). Not really any indication that Kazakhstan was incredibly significant or that people will particularly care about their membership specifically in ten years. There's a case for redirection to List of members of the United Nations Security Council, but this title strikes me as particularly un-helpful. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Kazakhstan and the United Nations. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Interstellarity and Eddie891 re content. Metropolitan's redirect suggestion may be a good one, though that article itself isn't a lot better. But probably would meet standalone notability, whereas this one I don't think does. hamiltonstone (talk) 01:39, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This article appears to fall short of the expectation of Wikipedia, if every country that has ever served on the UNSC should have an article to tell the story on their two-year stint, we would have a flood of articles and some countries like mine, Nigeria, that has served more than once, will have several articles! It should be merged with either the Article on Kazakhstan or any article that covers the countries foreign relations if such an article exists — Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelias (talk • contribs)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 11:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge - to Kazakhstan and the United Nations. Some of the content is actually helpful, but not notable enough for a stand-alone article. Merging would be great. Koridas 📣 18:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge as per Koridas Zoozaz1 (talk) 02:44, 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 keep. The nominator did not want this deleted from the outset and discussion at AfD clearly shows that there's no consensus to delete it. Any further discussion should take place on the article's talk page. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 11:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fading puppy syndrome[edit]

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

This page was in mainspace for over a year, since 15 May 2019. It doesn't seem to fit the criteria for moving to draft space, per WP:DRAFTIFY, since it is not a new article. At WP:DRAFTIFY, it says to start a discussion at AfD for objecting to an article being moved to draft space. This is an objection to that move. This is a notable subject, e.g. Fading puppies – reality or myth?, Fading Puppy Syndrome Associated with Toxocara canis Infection, Possible Association of Thymus Dysfunction with Fading Syndromes in Puppies and Kittens DferDaisy (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. DferDaisy (talk) 23:03, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep: This is not the place to object to moving articles into draftspace. What DRAFTIFY says is "Articles may be moved to become a draft as a result of a deletion discussion," I see nothing about using AfD to contest moving. Further, the article has been moved back into article space. The nom is clearly not proposing deletion, and I don't believe that DGG is either, just that they think it's under sourced. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:34, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The current wording is If an editor raises an objection, move the page back to mainspace and list at AfD, so it's understandable someone would assume an AfD discussion is a requirement. But yes, speedy keep. – Thjarkur (talk) 23:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected-- never seen it happen but I suppose technically this is the place to discuss it. Regardless, the topic is clearly notable based on the journals linked by DferDaisy and no argument for deletion has been advanced. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 23:59, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep this is a notable subject. The AfD nomination rationale is not clear: if the nominator believes the subject is notable then WP:NEXIST and WP:NOTCLEANUP. We do not draftify notable subjects - see WP:IMPERFECT Lightburst (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The purpose of draft space is to provide a place where an article can be worked on until it's ready for main article space. If an article's topic isn't notable, then, since no amount of editing can overcome a lack of notability, the article cannot be improved until it's ready for main article space. Therefore, it should be deleted, not draftified.

If, as you say, "We do not draftify notable subjects" and, as I just pointed out, we do not draftify non-notable subjects, then what are all those pages doing in draft space?

Of course we draftify articles on notable subjects. Largoplazo (talk) 02:38, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Return to draft space' as I attempted to do. The purpose of draft space as WP:DRAFTIFY says is The aim of moving an article to draft is to allow time and space for the draft's improvement until it is ready for mainspace. The reasons they are not ready for mainspace are usually insufficient demonstration of notability from lack of sources, or lack of sufficiently reliable sources, , but sometimes because of promotional content, unencyclopedic writing, or various other reasons. The hope is that they will get improved, moved to mainspace, and not sucessfully challenged there, though the reality is that most never do reach that state and are never moved and thus eventually deleted as stale drafts, whilesome get moved, and are challenged and delted in various processes. Normally this is done for new articles, , and I think the rationale is that it is not usually helpful to expect improvement if the original editor is no longer present to improve it. But there seems to be no rule against doing so.

WP:DRAFTIFY is not WP policy of guideline: it says This is an explanatory supplement to the editing and deletion policy pages. This page is intended to provide additional information about concepts in the page(s) it supplements. This page is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines, as it has not been thoroughly vetted by the community. Not only in there no policy or guindeline requiring it to be done only for brand-new article. it is explicitly provided for as one of the alternatives to deletion. for (from WP:Deletion policy]] "articles which have potential, but which do not yet meet Wikipedia's quality standards" This was one year old. I think it wa reasonable. DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC) DGG ( talk ) 08:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Draftify, allow another editor to bring to an appropriate standard then return it to main space, currently the sources are abysmal. Cavalryman (talk) 09:10, 14 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Several academic sources have been added to the article since it was nominated. Phil Bridger (talk) 15:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, DMySon 11:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Notable topic and well-sourced to the scholarship. ——Serial^#

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:34, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Markham College of Commerce[edit]

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

The article is full of claims but hardly any citation to back it up. It's purely promotional in nature, poorly formatted, and quick Google News search doesn't yield any notable result about this institution. Infogapp1 (talk) 20:26, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:32, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete or redirect: The article is detracted by the massive chunk of peacockery that was dropped by this WP:SPA edit. I would guess it originated from a college prospectus or website, but they no longer appear to have a functioning website. Leaving that aside (and noting the variety of commencement dates there and in the rest of the article and infobox), I did add a source that confirms this to be one of many colleges affiliated with Vinoba Bhave University. Aside from that I am finding brief mentions in police incidents ([22], [23]) and about a cricket match [24] but these fall short of establishing that this private college is notable. Redirecting to Vinoba Bhave University could be a possible alternative to deletion. AllyD (talk) 07:06, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting to enable discussion between rediretion or deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ——Serial^# 16:36, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Appears to have been an accredited degree-awarding tertiary institution, which we invariably keep. Like many Indian articles, it is indeed full of peacockery, but that doesn't affect its notability. -- Necrothesp (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 15:31, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge encyclopedic content (to the extent that there is any) and Redirect to Vinoba Bhave University, the actual degree-granting institution. WP:SCHOOLOUTCOMES specifies independent degree-granting institutions are presumed notable. That does not appear to apply here. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 03:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- As has been pointed out many times, this is not how it works in India. Colleges are accredited by universities, but they are entirely independent institutions. They are not part of the university that accredits them. Just like the degrees of all British polytechnics were granted by the CNAA; this didn't make them part of the CNAA. -- Necrothesp (talk) 18:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Excessively promotional, lacks citations to coverage in reliable sources as required by WP:N. Contrary to what is asserted above, there is no guideline establishing automatic notability for any educational institution. Sandstein 09:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. Tone 17:03, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dark the Suns[edit]

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

I don't think this passes WP:NBAND or WP:GNG. It has articles in other language Wikipedias, but the information there didn't convince me it was enough to meet criteria for notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I found an Allmusic biography, a Blabbermouth article and many other big metal magazines covering them. Keep. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 15:53, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as passes criteria 2 of WP:NMUSIC (only one criteria needed) with a charting release on a national chart as shown here which is a reliable source. Other coverage here, and here and there is a lot of coverage on non English metal websites, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:39, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 11:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per sources identified by Atlantic306. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:56, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 21:04, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andre Eikmeier[edit]

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

Borderline, but I don't think it passes WP:ENT or WP:GNG. Was in a commercial, played a centaur - not very relevant. The Pacific Drive part is, but is the only role that could count towards notability. Boleyn (talk) 08:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete His acting background is not at a level to establish notabiity.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:16, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wine-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 20:59, 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 11:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, in the series Pacific Drive whence he is supposedly known, he only featured in a single episode. Geschichte (talk) 13:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Article existed for more than 11 years and crisis with notability are self-explanatory. NHS2008 (talk) 17:07, 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 speedy keep. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 18:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Millennium Park (Kolkata)[edit]

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

~~Doesn't meet WP:GEOLAND or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 16:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Amusement parks-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: I don't know why the nominator didn't discuss the five sources currently present in the article, including Telegraph India, The Times of India and The Financial Express. It's possible that these have been determined to be unreliable, but the five-word nomination rationale does not make that clear. Therefore, I vote to keep the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Toughpigs, It was added/improved after the AfD nomination ~ Amkgp 💬 16:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Keep the present version meets the WP:GNG ~ Amkgp 💬 16:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination per good points above. Boleyn (talk) 17:00, 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. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Seyed Ali Jaberi[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Like Saleh Sokhandan, which is also currently nominated for deletion, this article was penned by a user who disclosed that they received payment from the article's subject for writing the article. At first glance, this article has an impressive list of references, but a closer investigation reveals that all the references are garbage -- ranging from user-generated content like last.fm and discogs to trivial announcements of concerts and short bios in music listening services. Further investigation leads me to believe that this article's subject might be borderline notable, as there are some mentions in Iranian newspapers. However, I can't read Persian so I can't determine whether those mentions constitute WP:SIGCOV. That's all not terribly important, as the article as it currently stands qualifies for WP:TNT, as the entirety of it was was written by an user who was paid to write a promotional article. Ealuscerwen (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 20:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete people are not supposed to buy their way into having a Wikipedia article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 18:25, 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 10:58, 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 keep. Tone 17:04, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Claes Nobel[edit]

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

This article has been around 2008, but I don't see the requirements of GNG or any specific guidelines being met here. All mentions online seem are in relation to "National Society of High School Scholars," of which he is the "founder" of, and derivative awards, etc. It seems to be almost name dropping by the organization (in all the mentions I found in the article and online, it's the same couple of sentences mentioned about him in conjunction with some local educator or student), and I don't think it merits an article for him. The stub as is reads kind of like an advertisement as is. A short sentence could perhaps be included in Nobel_family. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. Sam-2727 (talk) 23:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete just because a person has notable relatives does not mean they are notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep John Pack Lambert is of course right, but a quick search of Google Books and Google Scholar throws up enough about Claes Nobel to pass WP:GNG. Moonraker (talk) 05:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 10:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marginally surprised to see this one get relisted. I think I tend toward keep or at least some WP:ATD rather than delete, but I have no strong opinion on the matter. I do not think he is strongly notable but the results in Google Books are slightly surprising since I didn't look for them Back When. --Izno (talk) 14:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per Moonraker. Notability is indeed not inherited and simply being of the Nobel family doesn't meet the requirements, but I think the sources in the article and the Google Books results are good enough to merit inclusion. /Julle (talk) 12:43, 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. The article is a mess and has been a vandalism target for years. Notability is questionable, despite a list of references in obscure law publications and a bunch of dead links. Honorary consuls aren't notable, and neither are temporary administrative law judges. If he becomes notable in the future, there's a clean slate. Katie^talk 13:42, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Peter Romary[edit]

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

The subject of this article appears to lack notability on any plausible basis. An honorary consul doesn't come close to meeting WP:DIPLOMAT. While his legal career seems laudable, there's nothing that meet any criteria of notability. Many of the sources cited are dead, couldn't be repaired, and didn't seem to indicate notability under WP:GNG. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Fiachra10003 (talk) 00:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Keep" Wow, the article has been through the grinder with vandalism and looks like original author made some claims, about 6 years ago, about being asked to do it, said the subject self-edited (if the guy did doesn't look like it for years and looks like the original author seems more angry he was canned on website work). With all the back and forth and vandalism etc it might be fairer to the guy to delete it, BUT, this is an encyclopedia.

Let's apply WP:AnyBio "People are likely to be notable if they meet ANY of the following standards" Three are listed, let's look at TWO (and this is for "anyone"

Criteria #1 "The person has received a well-known and significant award or honor, or has been nominated for such an award several times"Wikipedia:Notability

It seems the guy is notable for several reasons.

He received the Ellis Island Medal of Honor (very prestigious) "Past medalists include seven U.S. presidents, several world leaders several Nobel Prize winners, and other leaders of industry, education, the arts, sports and government" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellis_Island_Medal_of_Honor http://medalists.eihonors.org/index.html Seems it also got in Congressional record: https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/CREC-2004-06-22/html/CREC-2004-06-22-pt1-PgE1210-2.htm Their criteria seem to be similar, maybe a bit more demanding, than Wikipedia: https://www.eihonors.org/medalists (The highest civilian honour sanctioned by both the US House and the Senate that is awarded solely to US citizens, I guess because others can be given to any national https://web.archive.org/web/20121020133144/https://allafrica.com/stories/200801290686.html .

He is a New York Times Bestselling Author / Co-Author https://www.amazon.com/Get-Truth-Former-Officers-Persuade/dp/1250080592 "Instant NYT Bestseller" . He was reported to be "contributing editor on another one (see cite at end) . "The British press it is said reported that he was only the second British native to be specially honored by having their name in lights in Times Square, the first being Sir Winston Churchill".

He was also the winner of National Law Journal Pro Bono Award in 2002 (more below) and of 14 states highest civilian honors https://directory.campbell.edu/people/peter-romary/ . He also got the Verizon Men For Change Award https://web.archive.org/web/20111208002859/https://www.ecu.edu/news/romaryhonored.cfm. (sorry for extra addition but there is stuff there as I shut down)

Also looks like something he and someone else did together for university safety was rated one of top 4 in nation: https://web.archive.org/web/20121216055320/www.ecu.edu/news/newsstory.cfm?ID=1927

Being a Hon Consul in normal scheme is not a huge thing, absolutely agree, but it looks like Namibian President was part of the announcement of his appointment which marked the first diplomatic post for any African nation in North Carolina. That may not seem much to some in Wiki-world, but I have no doubt it was a big deal to that nation, their President, their Ambassador and their people (famous for being mispronounced by Trump as "Nambia") and likely also a big deal for African Americans in North Carolina https://web.archive.org/web/20121020133144/https://allafrica.com/stories/200801290686.html .

Criteria #2: "The person has made a widely recognized contribution that is part of the enduring historical record in a specific field."

No matter how obtained, a world record is a world record on the verdict front (seem to be several references). Also NYT Bestseller is enduringhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_New_York_Times_Best_Seller_list. Again, National Law Journal Pro Bono Award = THE top pro bono attorney in the nation for that year. I have no idea how many millions of attorneys there are in the USA (too many probably) but #1 in the nation for doing good work, without charge, for good?? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_National_Law_Journal https://www.law.com/nationallawjournal/?slreturn=20200527225050 Looks like it has largest circulation of any legal newspaper in USA (which probably means world because of so many lawyers)

No need for me to go on and I'm too tired anyway. May be best to {{cleanup biography}} or Rewriting it yourself not something I want to do.

I think we need to be wary as there seem to be vandals, allegations of blackmail outside of Wiki-world and some people could be playing with fire. Original author seems to have a huge axe to grind here and they has kept up on their Talk page items in clear violation of Wikipedia policy for any page including (especially) talk pages. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:No_personal_attacks. "Accusations about personal behavior that lack evidence. Serious accusations require serious evidence, usually in the form of diffs and links". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Attack_page WP:NPA It would not surprise me to suddenly see a whole bunch of "Delete" comments coming in from people. I may even get attacked as I live in North Carolina, I may have driven past his car on highway. But, "I'm a Tar Heel Born and a Tar Heel Bred and When I die I'll Be a Tar Heel Dead" and I like seeing people who do good things and get recognized be recognized. After all the proverbial hitting the fan with vandalism etc HE may want it gone. Like I say "Keep" BUT that may be a poisoned chalice!

All of that said, I found in 2 minutes links that show winning a top award and NYT Bestseller - if they were up here and taken down maliciously that is problem and it may be kindest to delete. But do we delete something that meets guidelines because people use it for target practice. Just some thoughts. ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 03:00, 28 June 2020 (UTC) ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of North Carolina-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:45, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am a close friend to his family. I know that this page has been used by people to attack him and them various times. The original writer's page first claims that he did not know the subject or his brother and then complains about being let go from writing a website. Then he started making off the wall claims about police and threats from the subject's mother. I can see that it's too much for the family and they have wanted it gone for years. It's much more trouble than it's worth and should just be deleted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Eirekakuna (talk • contribs) 15:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep pretty much per ZeusBear. Notable topic with GNG-satisfying coverage. ——Serial^# 14:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I know I've posted before on this BUT if family and subject want it down then maybe "Delete" may be better option. I will add that the Dreddhk talk page should be blanked as it has sat untouched for over 6 years. There is zero sourcing of of personal allegations (about stuff outside of WP or even related to WP on it, they would not let someone remove a post, and seems they reposted it themselves, that asked for information consistent with threats and matters outside of Wikiworld and seemed to run afoul of litigation threats caution. Also WP:UPNOT WP:UPPolemic WP:Up#Goals and many others from https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:User_pages#What_may_I_have_in_my_user_pages? seem to apply as reasons for Admin to delete (I won't as the person seems to get quite annoyed when people take things down). I agree with Eirekakuna that kind of unsourced (and contradictory when you read it) aside from being stuff that seems to show someone who has a big grudge, Must be removed to protect the integrity of this site. Especially in a time when Congress is being asked to look at repealing the protections of sites by the Communications Decency Act. ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 16:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Only borderline notability, supposed "prestigious" awards aren't. I don't think we lose a damn thing by deleting this article. Beyond My Ken (talk) 22:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - There is a dearth of secondary sources about the subject here. All of the support for notability discussed above are primary source. The Ellis Island Award goes to a hundred people every year, and there is little evidence that it is prestigious in a given field. The book's promo materials claim that it was an "instant New York Times bestseller," but there is little in the way of reviews or other secondary source coverage (I found one short blurb). The NLJ pro bono award does not go to a single individual but is awarded to a number of people. They are mainly used by attorneys for self-promotion. agtx 16:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete- To be fair to Peter Romary, this page should be taken down. As a law student, I learned how Wikipedia pages and other online Platforms are used as blackmail. Wikipedia's value is in its user driven content. However, placing content editing ability in the hands of the public brings with it great risk if it is not properly monitored. Without properchecks, it grants malicious users the ability to directly attack the reputations of figures such as Romary in attempts to compel speech or certain actions related to pending legal actions.I am a good friend and former student of Peter and it has been painful to watch his reputation be drug through the dirt for things he did NOT do and that has been (or in certain matters - will be) shown through appropriate legal action that he did NOT do. Such public attacks not only harm the individual, it harms the family members and business contacts asthe individual as well. The content that has appeared on Peter's page has been recently used for apparent obstruction of justice here in the U.S. The information that appeared in this page and the motivations behind certain content posted on it is likely a crime in other interested nations as well. At this point, the content on this page has gone way beyond just being rude or distasteful. To uphold the integrity of platforms like Wikipedia, thus enabling the platform to be used for it's intended purpose, and to be fair to Peter, this page should be taken down. The public Wikipedia misinformation campaign needs to stop.

"Neutral" If pushed I would go with weakdelete out of respect for the guy, based on what's been posted here and the amount of time passed since awards and acts that go to notability. I do think that properly edited and with citations replaced it meets all the standards for notability. NLJ Award: maybe 4 of 1.5 million lawyers honored per year (don't confuse with their law firm honor roll used to placate consciences it seems).

I would ask people to please be respectful in their comments, and I mean this in good faith and with respect.

For example: Back in 2001, a quick search shows, that over 10,000 people were nominated for the Ellis Island Medal of Honor and about 50 got it. That's notable.In 2004 it was closer to 20,000 nominations out of 300 million citizens in this country and since inception the number awarded per year has ranged from 50 or so to 100. Pretty exclusive. BUT the subject got it over 16 years ago, almost 20 years for NLJ award. If anyone wants to know about prestige of EIMH read the biography of Rosa Parks see interview of Ali on YouTube after he got it (greatest boxer ever) or see this from Nixon Presidential Library: https://www.nixonlibrary.gov/museum/exhibitions/ellis-island-medal-honor#:~:text=Recognized%20by%20the%20United%20States,have%20distinguished%20themselves%20in%20their

or this from a Senator https://sd25.senate.ca.gov/news/2019-05-13/senator-anthony-j-portantino-awarded-ellis-island-medal-honor-prestigious-award#:~:text=The%20Ellis%20Island%20Medal%20of,recipient%20into%20the%20Congressional%20Record.

-NYT Bestselling author (I bought it based on an article in Forbes magazine so I know it's in there, and wired and was on BBC World Service).

-World Record, agree not many secondary sources.

-The stuff about Masonic Lodge? Zero notability no idea why it's in.

-Jobs? Zero notability. Looks like he left the university.

-Name in lights in Times Square? - Media said (and I knew because Gloria Steinem got it on 56 women side, he was "one of only 56 men from around the world recognized for combat violence against women" NASDAQ and Lifetime TV sponsored that, but again years ago.

-"First Diplomatic post for any African nation in NC"? - Those were words of head government people from Namibia. Yes, notable as a first BUT again, looks like it was closed out when he finished his "tour" and again that is a number of years back.

I think we MAY have notability in things and so collectively. But, the most recent award in the entry was 2011 and others are reaching back to almost 20 years ago. So, notable NOW? Maybe to some students, maybe to lawyers but it seems he (or friends) don't see him as notable and he does not seem to be ongoing.

I also believe I read somewhere that he made a lot of money and now lives mostly in the UAE, again I could be wrong, but believed I saw reference to him, ton of money and living in UAE. Do NOT hold me to that!

This is BarnabytheBear, but I'm stopped on the way to Celebrate July 4th!! 96.10.31.98 (talk) 15:05, 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. Tone 17:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Siya Kakkar[edit]

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

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}}.

WP:NOTMEMORIAL, there is no evidence she passes WP:GNG. Having 1.1 million followers on TikTok does not make them notable, and if she wouldn't have passed WP:GNG last week, then her death doesn't make her notable (WP:1E, WP:NOTMEMORIAL). Coverage of her death is mostly the same article posted on multiple websites, and some questionable British tabloids making questionable asssertions to her cause of death- non of these tabloids are reliable sources. A sad story, but not a notable individual Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Joseph2302 (talk) 10:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I agree that it was my fault to create a controversial article like this where the focus is mostly given related to the death of the subject more than the career of the person. I agree the article is obviously is a WP:1E and fails to comply with WP:GNG. I actually thought twice before whether it will be suitable to create an article like this. But I created this article after seeing a wide media coverage globally excluding India about this person including CNN. It was my bad to use The Sun as a source in the article given its accuracy issues. It was just a random contribution from me for the Women in Red campaign. I agree to what fellow Wikipedians think about whether to keep this article or delete this. Thanks. Cheers. Abishe (talk) 12:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - A very tragic case but not notable. Her popularity on social media would not have passed muster at WP:GNG and her untimely suicide does not add any notability. Velella ^{Velella Talk} 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - nothing shows this person is notable, outside of dying, clear WP:1E situation Best Wishes, Lee Vilenski ^{(talk • contribs)} 12:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Lee. Java Hurricane 13:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Per nom, obituary article with nothing significant. Gotitbro (talk) 13:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Part of Internet culture. Article in most important world news agencies. Neo139 (talk) 15:53, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete – Much too obscure & personal. – Sca (talk) 15:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per nominator and many of the above, a sad case but not notable JW 1961 Talk 16:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - although obviously a sad event, there are probably hundreds of similar influencers in the world who meet tragic ends over a span of time. And what strikes me most is that 15 years of life is no time at all in which to build up a true notability through her craft. Ref ^(chew)(do) 20:28, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Her 15 minutes of fame were cut short. WWGB (talk) 09:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Per WP:1E. Outside of her unfortunate death by suicide, the person isn't really all that notable. JaventheAldericky (talk) 09:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per basically everything above. - Poydoo can talk and edit 16:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep/Move - WP:1E. Since the event is the only thing that makes this article notable, it should only cover the event - while the person is not notable, the event certainly is. Renaming the article to Siya Kakkar suicide should suffice. GameIsWikipedian (talk) 16:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Seems very borderline to me. Deb (talk) 18:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 14:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. A glance at this article's 15 inline cites will instantly confirm that this was and remains a heavily publicized event to a degree equal to or greater than the suicides engendering full-length Wikipedia entries such as Suicide of Tyler Clementi, Suicide of Megan Meier, Suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons, Suicide of Phoebe Prince or Suicide of Amanda Todd, to give but five examples. See many other examples under Category:Bullying and suicide and Category:Suicides by country. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 08:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Most of those articles had either a change in law or convictions for people seen as responsible for contributing to the person's suicide. Not true here, and the sources aren't anyway near as good:
[25] - Wikifeed is not reliable
[26] - Wikifolder is not reliable
[27] - doesn't load for me, but appears to be an image
[28], [29] - tabloids, which aren't the best newspapers, Mirror in particular is highly questionable
[30], [31], [32], [33], [34], [35], [36] -all just say that she committed suicide, very little other information, lots of them are just reprinting the same info. CNN has section about TikTok in general, which doesn't demonstrate her notability
[37]- a few basic details about her TikToking
[38]- just speculation on possible causes
Therefore, I don't believe that she passes WP:GNG, and no evidence that her suicide will have longevity to pass WP:NEVENT and WP:GNG. Clear WP:1E. Joseph2302 (talk) 09:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Just because an event is heavily publicized doesn't necessarily mean it is suitable for an encyclopedia article.-- P-K3 (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By its very definition, a heavily publicized event is almost always suitable for a Wikipedia article and, in fact, almost always becomes a Wikipedia article. Here are ten additional "Suicide of..." Wikipedia articles — Suicide of Kurt Cobain, Suicide of Ryan Halligan, Suicide of Hamed Nastoh, Suicide of Tom Pappas, Suicide of Nicola Ann Raphael, Suicide of Jamey Rodemeyer, Suicide of Terry Rossland, Suicide of Tyrone Unsworth, Suicide of Rohith Vemula and Suicide of Kevin Whitrick.

There are actually scores of these WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS Suicide of... articles, with many under the name of the non-notable victim, rather than under Suicide of... As for notability of Siya Kakkar, she was actually better known to the public during her lifetime than 99 percent of the victims whose suicides are the subjects of these lengthy Wikipedia articles.

The most obvious among the remaining one percent would be two separate English Wikipedia entries for Kurt Cobain and Suicide of Kurt Cobain and, while teenage internet celebrity is not comparable to being a rock star, Siya Kakkar, in view of her young age, had sufficient fame for her suicide to engender publicity comparable to that of a movie star. If one were of a mind to start nominating teenage suicide articles for deletion, there would be a number of likelier candidates ahead of this one. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As has already been pointed out, those suicides all had some wider impact such as legislative change. We just don’t know if that will happen yet with this young girl. If it does, then sources will be available in the future to write such an article. Right now it’s just a WP:1E. P-K3 (talk) 21:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It could not have been already pointed out, since the ten Suicide of... main title headers listed above (at 20:14, 1 July 2020) had not been previously submitted for consideration — only the five headers presented beforehand (at 08:27, 1 July 2020) had been commented upon and were said to serve a higher purpose in that those entries resulted in some wider impact. A further ten Suicide of... titles could be submitted as additional examples, unless the contention is that although WP:OTHER STUFF EXISTS, the Siya Kakkar entry is the one that must be cleansed from Wikipedia despite the fact that it has received more publicity than most other such entries. —Roman Spinner (talk • contribs) 03:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete : As per wiki:NOTNEWS Shrikanthv (talk) 09:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: Search results yielded news about her death, an indication of WP:BLP1E. Other than that, I barely found anything about her. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:09, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Meanwhile, amid this AfD, there's a request to rename the page to Suicide of Siya Kakkar. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 06:09, 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. Tone 17:16, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

John Medina (actor)[edit]

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

Im requesting for someone to nominate afd on this articles on Andre Tiangco Zaijian Jaranilla Victor Basa Lito Pimentel John Medina (actor)‎, as they contain only a single sources and far to be notable. 70.113.36.219 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles nominated by the same IP:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: Escapes being BLP nominated by being improperly sourced by IMDb through the "External links" so actually has no references. Search results may be biased but the burden of proof is on anyone wishing inclusion and a BEFORE didn't turn up anything substantial. While this practice was allowed at a point this does not mean it should continue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Otr500 (talk • contribs) 20:51, June 21, 2020 (UTC)
Delete IMDb is not a reliable source. It is high time Wikipedia removed everything sourced only to IMBd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article can still be saved by editors willing to put in the work to provide reliable references to this article. Gardo Versace (talk) 13:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per Gardo Versace. Sources have been recently added in the article, including as his role in hit series Walang Hanggan and portraying as stunt double of Coco Martin in Minsan Lang Kita Iibigin. I believe the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 10:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as since the nomination a number of references have been added to the article that show significant coverage in multiple reliable sources so that WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are passed and deletion is no longer necessary in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, per improvements since the article was taken to AfD. /Julle (talk) 22:26, 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. per nomination and the (admittedly limited) discussion Nick (talk) 13:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milad JT[edit]

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

same old same old. fake sources (blackhat seo) and 0 notability. Praxidicae (talk) 08:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

i think this article is notable sources based on WP:CITENEED and WP:V and also WP:NOTE /* Milad JT */ Dj and investor. more famous in Los angeles and Irvive, producing techno tracks, connected with well known actors like Mohammad Reza Golzar

Delete does not meet any of the notability criteria for musicians.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Music of the Gran Turismo series[edit]

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

Per the result of this RfD. I will be nominating this restored article for discussion on whether to delete or keep this page. Or maybe even merge to Gran Turismo (series). Note that I don't have any opinion on this article whatsoever. Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Pandakekok9 (talk) 08:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep No reason to delete is provided and so there is no case to answer. Please see WP:BEFORE. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Come on, don’t waste people time with bureaucracy like that. Take the briefest look at the article. It’s nothing but like 10 track lists. Not encyclopedic in the least. We’re not Discogs. Sergecross73 msg me 12:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment from RFD nominator: I did mention the gamecruft nature of the article being the reason it was originally redirected, and since the subject matter wasn't on the target I originally RFD'd it. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 09:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - As I mentioned above, it’s not even an “article”, it’s just like 10 large track lists strung together. The guidelines don’t even usually recommend including track lists in the articles themselves, let alone in a dedicated fashion like this, so it’s not even worth merging. Sergecross73 msg me 12:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - And let's talk about this, shall we? I will bring up some extremely valid issues here. First of all, this is literally just a soundtrack list. None of the sources establish the notability of the subject independent of Gran Turismo in any form, and even Gran Turismo (series) doesn't seem to value the music of the series enough to cover it at all. Unless there were a highly significant amount of coverage on just the music (and there isn't, I did my WP:BEFORE), anything about the music that does come up should be in the series main article, and even so there isn't coverage in reliable sources for that much at this point. Secondly, and even more worrisome, it's full of outright falsehoods. That Crush 40 would be listed here at all is outrageous given they're an in-house band for Sega, who has no connection to Gran Turismo at all. Thirdly, I'm quite convinced by the WP:GAMECRUFT arguments of the RfD. This would be best suited to a fan wiki, and only if they purged it with fire of all the inaccuracies first. Red Phoenix ^talk 12:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: 100% WP:GAMECRUFT content. OceanHok (talk) 13:49, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. Nothing but track listings sourced to sites that are just track listings which, per WP:NMUSIC are not valid for establishing notability. There are no reliable, secondary sources discussing the music of the series as an overall topic in any kind of depth, and as the vast majority of this information in not sourced at all, nothing should be merged or preserved. Rorshacma (talk) 16:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Something like this with little context belongs in Wikia, fails WP:LISTN._{ZXCVBNM (TALK)} 05:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Track listing after track listing after track listing after track listing. No actual information about composition, release, reception, etc. Game trivia, suited for a dedicated wikia. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 09:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Suggestion What if we renamed this article List of Songs in the Gran Turismo series or something alike? That could fix some of the issues above (of it being non-encyclopedic) b/c it would make it a list.

How would that help? The name isn't the issue, it's the large amount of WP:CATALOG information. soetermans. ^{↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK} 15:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There's nothing that makes the music itself independent from the series in a way that allows it to have its own article (I mean hell, not even Gran Turismo (series) talks about its soundtrack). This is just a catalog of songs that is of no use to anybody outside of hardcore fans. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 17:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
QUESTION https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/music-supervisors-guild-unveils-film-680092 apparently there are awards for the best music in a game series, and it was nominated. How many of the games had their music nominated for a notable reward or had their music mentioned in a game review? Dream Focus 17:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Then that's a bit for either Gran Turismo (series) or the specific game that was nominated. It's not proof of notability for the music of the series to stand alone. Red Phoenix ^talk 18:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This only talks about the music in Gran Turismo 6, not the entire series. That's something that can easily be added into the GT6 article instead of dedicating an entire new article to it. Namcokid 47 ^(Contribs) 18:04, 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) ~ Amkgp 💬 02:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Zaijian Jaranilla[edit]

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

Im requesting for someone to nominate afd on this articles on Andre Tiangco Zaijian Jaranilla Victor Basa Lito Pimentel John Medina (actor)‎, as they contain only a single sources and far to be notable. 70.113.36.219 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles nominated by the same IP:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:28, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not notable. There are issues. The first TV production I randomly checked, Wansapanataym, the subject is not listed in the "Cast and characters" nor as a star. I am not sure the intent but first, this is why we use references, especially inline citations, so there is not a lack of credible information. Second, lacking such sourcing verification becomes difficult beyond expectations (certainly for a BLP), if not impossible. Listing credits is one thing (part of the article) but if the subject has only a small role (bit-part) it should not be presented as to advance notability that is not there. -- Otr500 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you do not have enough info on what Wansapanataym is. It does not have a permanent cast since it only uses short stories as plot, somehow like a short comic book adapted into a TV show. After just an episode. a few weeks, or months, it changes the story. HiwilmsTalk 14:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: He's a notable former child star known for portraying as Santino in hit series May Bukas Pa, including his conversations with "Jesus". He also bagged leading roles in Lorenzo's Time and Hawak Kamay. This year, he lands a leading role in an iWant-exclusive series. He's also partially discussed in these reliable sources: [39], [40] and [41]. With the reliable sources indicated, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Looks like sources have been added in the article as of recent. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 01:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Subject easily passes WP:GNG. This is a notable child star from May Bukas Pa (2009 TV series). Article may need additional sources, but WP:DINC. HiwilmsTalk 14:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per WP:HEY as multiple references to reliable sources coverage have been added to the article since its nomination that show that the actor passes WP:NACTOR and therefore deletion is no longer necessary imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:36, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) - Flori4nK ^{t • c} 14:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Victor Basa[edit]

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

Im requesting for someone to nominate afd on this articles on Andre Tiangco Zaijian Jaranilla Victor Basa Lito Pimentel John Medina (actor)‎, as they contain only a single sources and far to be notable. 70.113.36.219 (talk) 11:12, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination on behalf of IP. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Articles nominated by the same IP:

--Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philippines-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:29, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:30, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: as not notable. A 2006 BLP, multiple tagged since 2010, that only has one source. It either has a ton of original research or is improperly sourced through the "External links" section that is a dead link. -- Otr500 (talk) 17:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Per WP:NOTCLEANUP, the article looks outdated & needs some clean up. The only source in the article is a dead link. Good thing I was able to get an archived copy of it, which talks about his early TV career. This article talks about his recent marriage with Stephanie Dan. Part of this article talks about part of his TV career. Basa also talked about his stint in one of the TV shows. With the reliable sources indicated, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:27, 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 08:30, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy Keep: I don't even know why this was listed for deletion when he is clearly a celebrity. I remember seeing this guy in several TV dramas and in Big Brother Celebrity ed. It lacks sources, yes, but that does not necessarily equate to deletion. WP:DINC. Subject passes WP:GNG. This also includes for those other articles nominated by the IP. HiwilmsTalk 14:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hiwilms, well GPG requires third-party sources. So lack of it means the article should be deleted or draftifed. --Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 17:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as since the nomination there has been WP:HEY with the addition of multiple references to a number of reliable sources such as Phillipine national newspapers that show significant coverage of the subject. It is now apparent that WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG are passed and deletion is no longer necessary, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 22:47, 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. Tone 17:14, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keith White (publisher)[edit]

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

Has coverage, but I don't think it meets WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:29, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough indepth sourcing to show a true pass of GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lake El Paso[edit]

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

I don't think that this topic meets Wikipedia:Notability (geographic features). For one thing, I can't find any source that discusses a lake with this name - which would be expected given the lofty claims made in the original version of the article. Secondhandly, while some maps show a lake-like structure at these coordinates, they don't name it nor is there any other information. For a while I was thinking it might be a hoax, given that it is the only edit by the creating editor and the lack of sources. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 19:36, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 23:42, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Lake El Paso appears to be an alternate name for Shadow Mountain Lake/Mountain Shadow Lake, which verifiably existed. [42] [43]. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:47, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep and possibly rename to Shadow Mountain Lake. Meets GEOLAND. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 22:09, 7 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hrm. It doesn't seem like anyone calls Shadow Mountain Lake "Lake El Paso" and while some aspects discussed in the LEP article resemble these of SML others don't. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 10:10, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This... is a really weird one. There are a lot of hits on Newspapers.com. Lake El Paso is an artificial lake and a company, Lake El Paso Inc., that tried to get people to visit the artificial lake and developers to develop around the artificial lake. The coordinates are five miles too far west. It probably isn't WP:GEOLAND but rather WP:NORG, and as it's unsourced, I'm not sure I support keeping this, however it's a notable failed development if someone wants to put some elbow grease into it. Probably a TNT delete or draftify. SportingFlyer T·C 05:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:51, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 15:15, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: This would benefit more from additional dicussion, rather than closing with a no consensus result at this time, in my opinion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:26, 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 speedy keep. The nominator withdrew the nomination (non-admin closure) DannyS712 (talk) 08:07, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Joseph M. Demarest[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

~~Successful, but doesn't meet WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)~~ Withdraw nomination Boleyn (talk) 07:56, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:22, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mark Casey (columnist)[edit]

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

Successful, but I don't think he passes WP:JOURNALIST or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Journalism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment doing a gsearch showed this name is very common and is difficult to research.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 17:36, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not enough indepdent, reliable indepth 3rd party sources to show notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:52, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:27, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbara Snellenburg[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Doesn't meet WP:ENT or WP:GNG. 2009 AfD was no consensus and this has been in CAT:NN for 11 years. Boleyn (talk) 07:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:05, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable as a model or as an actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note that in the last discussion someone suggests that "being mentioned on IMDb establishes notability" which is absolutely not true, although that view explains many of our current problems of huge numbers of articles on non-notable actors and actresses and articles on non-notable films.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The other keep vote argued any credited role in a notable production was enough for notability, when the actual requirement is significant roles. This was a horrid close in 2009, clearly even then against our notability standards for actresses.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:25, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 13:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

HotGen[edit]

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

I don't think this meets WP:CORP or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 07:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - I’m a bit on the fence for this one, but leaning delete. I did a search and found a couple of articles not about HotGen but about products they were involved in. I’ll link one such article later as I’m on a mobile phone right now, but one about a Batman video game contained substantial coverage of HotGen in it. That being said, not being able to find much of anything more than that other than the death of their founder, I don’t think there is enough significant coverage to warrant an article. Red Phoenix ^talk 20:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- This was the article I was talking about, as well as this about the death of their founder, but that's really all I can find. Red Phoenix ^talk 03:08, 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 Moved. (non-admin closure) Mhhossein ^talk 13:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 12 pro[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, It is not necessary to make wikipedia article only then when the device has been officially announced. wikipedia articles can be created before device's announcement based on leaked information from reliable resources after extreme research. If there is any mistake in any of the leaked information then the article can be edited when the original specifications of the device are confirmed. Deletion of the article is not necessary.\

Withdraw nomination - already deleted. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 21:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It wasn't deleted, it was moved to Draft:IPhone 12 Pro, basically bypassing AfD result. (The resulting redirect to draft was deleted.) — HELLKNOWZ ▎TALK 09:16, 30 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 05:47, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 08:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:39, 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 keep. presented sources look reliable, no one has !voted contrary. (non-admin closure) -- puddleglum^2.0 23:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oh My Boss[edit]

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

Short article, too soon and need more reference PradaSaetiew (talk) 21:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Thailand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:44, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 20. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:59, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I started the article and I'd like to clear up some points here re: article is (1) too short, (2) too soon and (3) needs more reference. For (1), I'm not sure if there is a specific amount of words needed for an article when stub articles even exist. For (2), while Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, this and the other TV programmes being AFD'ed were already announced including the artists who are taking part of the series which leads me to (3) the additional references (as published in Thai reliable sources) are as follows:

It would have also been better if concerns raised were discussed on the page's talk page and WP:BEFORE was done. Other articles being AFD'ed in relation to this are Devil Sister, Military of Love, The Gifted: Graduation‎, Friend Zone 2: Dangerous Area, Wake Up Ladies: Very Complicated and A Tale of Thousand Stars. — Emperork (talk) 03:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: It is relevant, and has promotional videos.— Bradford ^💬 09:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Too soon and not Notability.--PradaSaetiew (talk) 09:49, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Concord, California. As a valid alternative to deletion for this non-notable subject which could be a valid search term. (non-admin closure) RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Four Corners, Contra Costa County, California[edit]

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

A few minor references to this as a neighborhood in Concord, Ca. Durham's "Place Names of the San Francisco Bay Area" calls it a locality. No references to suggest that it was ever notable. Glendoremus (talk) 05:16, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Could not find any evidence of notability. –dlthewave ☎ 18:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Concord, California. Four Corners is somewhat well established as a neighborhood name, and there are some businesses in the area that have "Four Corners" in the name. Along with the presence of the name on Google Maps, there's reason to think that a user would search for this locale on Wikipedia, so a redirect is the best choice since it is obviously non-notable on its own. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. I will also create a protected redirect to List of iOS devices#iPhone. An admin may lift the protection once the new model has been announced and there are sources to write an article with. Sandstein 06:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IPhone 12[edit]

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

WP:CRYSTAL, nothing is confirmed yet. This article should be created when the official announcement of the device is made. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 04:27, 28 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 28. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:52, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:42, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Delete the name is wrong (it should be lowercase iPhone, not IPhone) but the concept of the next iPhone is real, some things are known about it I think Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 10:06, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify, see wp:articles for deletion/IPhone SE (2020). ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You mean the deletion discussion that should have been closed as Delete but a non-admin decided to override the !vote and draftify it anyways? Not exactly a glowing example of a reason to reward bad behavior. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Locke Cole: I thing Geoffrey did the right thing, and I'm not being aggressive about it. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 18:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this article was previously listed at RfD, please see wp:redirects for discussion/Log/2020 June 26#IPhone 12 and 13. ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 14:24, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Strong Delete content per WP:CRYSTALBALL, create as Redirect to iPhone and Protect from editing. —Locke Cole • t • c 16:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Draftify per WP:TOOSOON. At this point, it lacks significant coverage, but Apple will be releasing this and it will be notable once they do so. Might as well keep it in the draft space for now so that the article can be continually improved as more reliable sources become available. I don't think this is an example of WP:CRYSTAL, since it is almost guaranteed that this product will be released and will be notable then, whereas CRYSTAL states "Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place." I believe this would qualify. At this point, it isn't just speculation. Reputable sources, including Forbes,^[1] have written about it. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 17:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC) + minor edit --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 15:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Puzzledvegetable: You're rewarding bad behavior (creating articles on topics that are still months away based on rumors and speculation). Moving it to a draft leaves them in the edit history and as a "contributor" when all they've contributed is... rumors and speculation. Rewarding bad behavior is how you end up with MORE of these articles cropping up, not less... —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see no evidence that draftifying this article will "reward bad behaviour" - the bad behaviour is your attitude in this discussion not the good-faith creation of content for the encyclopaedia. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Sort of like being the first across the finish line in a race isn't a "reward" for someone who trips their competitors I suppose... —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That comment doesn't make any sense at all? Whose competing with who? We're here to build an encyclopaedia so we do what is best for that, which means not deleting encyclopaedic content, regardless of whether that somehow "rewards" someone for writing an encyclopaedia article before someone else thinks they should. This article currently contains a mix of encyclopaedic and non-encyclopaedic information, the correct response to that is to trim out the non-encyclopaedic material not to delete all of it and spend time assuming bad faith of those who disagree. Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As there is, at present, no encyclopedic content worthy of an article per WP:GNG, this should be an easy Delete for you then. Also, it makes sense if you consider there are editors out there who like the idea of being able to claim they "started" an article. That was what my race comparison was meant to convey... I do not feel we should reward editors who jump the gun and ignore well established policy against rumors and speculation by letting them have that. —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Have you even read anything other people are saying? Given that I've explicitly said multiple times that this article contains encyclopedic content that is enough for at least a section on an article and, that, with other material out there there might be enough for an article that you can somehow interpret that as you have. I really could not care less whether some editors like to claim they started an article because it is entirely irrelevant - unless your motivation for this deletion is so that in a few weeks you can recreate it and claim that credit? I hope that's wrong because it would be disruptively petty if it were. What matters is that we give the readers the encyclopaedic content they are looking for in the best way possible, regardless of who started an article, when they started it or what their motivation for starting it was. Thryduulf (talk) 11:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As Foxnpichu pointed out below, this article is necessarily going to be recreated. Regardless of whether or not this article should have been created in the first place, once it is already in existence, there is no reason to delete it. This has nothing to do with rewarding past behavior. That's not how we work here. No one is competing for points, and no one is trying to win a competition. We're here to build and maintain an encyclopedia. That's all. And, in case you were wondering, building an encyclopedia does not require regurgitating your argument to every person that disagrees with you. --Puzzledvegetable^{Is it teatime already?} 23:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or merge. Trim to just what is available in the reliable sources and add prose based on that. Much of this is not speculation but encyclopaedic reporting of notable speculation by reliable sources about a product that will definitely exist and is guaranteed to be notable. I'm not sure if there is enough of that yet for an article, but certainly there is enough for a section on an appropriate broader article. Thryduulf (talk) 00:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just spitballing here, but maybe you should do more research before presuming there's enough that it warrants an entire article? Because if you did, you'd see, per WP:NOT, it would be a blank article. —Locke Cole • t • c 06:45, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Locke Cole: Read my comment again without the assumption of bad faith you appear to be assuming everyone disagreeing with you is applying. You will note that I said "I'm not sure if there is enough of that yet for an article, but certainly there is enough for a section on an appropriate broader article." so you can see I have done some research on this. Thryduulf (talk) 13:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: I'm not sure if there is enough of that yet for an article —Locke Cole • t • c 18:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please read the whole sentence and stop quoting people out of context. I trust the closer of this discussion will be sufficiently intelligent to do that and note that my recommendation is to "keep or merge". Thryduulf (talk) 19:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So shouldn't it be Delete or Merge? —Locke Cole • t • c 04:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, because as I explicitly stated I don't know if there is enough for an article or not - there might be, my research indicated there is enough for at least a section and the possibility of there being more. There is no justification for deletion here. Thryduulf (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Article appears to be largely speculative at this point with a lack of substantive and referenced material. Tarheel95 (Talk) 20:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. nothing is yet ready for wiki article. Light2021 (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - If we delete the article, won't we just have to recreate it once it is released? Foxnpichu (talk) 23:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Foxnpichu: yes. Which is partly why I'm arguing against deletion (it's also because it contains some clearly encyclopaedic content, which many of the delete voters seem to have overlooked or chosen to disregard). Thryduulf (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thanks. I'm going to say Draftify so the article can remain in a draft, then be re-released when we believe it is time to do so. Foxnpichu (talk) 20:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Thryduulf: Note: Should I add {{reflist}} somewhere? Your ref keeps appearing on the bottom. Also, could you tell me where to put the reflist? Thanks, ◊PRAHLAD^balaji (M•T•A•C) This message was left at 01:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Prahlad balaji: It's not my reference (it was added by Puzzledvegetable), but I've added {{reflist-talk}}. Thryduulf (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kelly, Gordon. "Apple Suddenly Confirms Surprise iPhone 12 Upgrade". forbes.com. Retrieved 28 June 2020.

Draftify21:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Majun e Baqi (talk • contribs)
Burn it with fire. CRYSTAL-violating rubbish that will just have to be checked for inaccuracies once the phone is released. Keeping (even as a draft) rewards the obnoxious behavoir of creating articles simply for the glory of being first. Oh, DrPizza! (talk) 00:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Do you have any evidence for any of that bad-faith assuming hyperbole? I'm not convinced you've read either the article or the section of policy you reference: It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to report notable speculation by reliable sources, and most of this article is just that. As has been explained above no action we take here will be rewarding anybody, and even if it were that is irrelevant to our consideration here which is exclusively about deciding what course of action produces the greatest benefit for the encyclopaedia we are here to build. Thryduulf (talk) 02:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Yeah, per Thryduulf. Foxnpichu (talk) 11:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There are not prominent leaks yet regarding the camera of the IPhone 12 but it may have 12MP front and 12MP+12MP dual rear cameras.

Yeah, no CRYSTAL problems there...

As mentioned, the benefit to Wikipeedia from deleting the article and starting from scratch at an appropriate time would be avoiding the need to check the extant article for inaccuracies once the phone is announced. Another benefit would be maintaining some vague degree of quality and standards in the meantime.

It is not a violation of WP:CRYSTAL to report notable speculation by reliable sources, and most of this article is just that.

Notable speculation will be summarised in various articles in the tech press just prior to the announcement. Until the phone's announcement, WP:NOTNEWS applies.Oh, DrPizza! (talk) 22:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, or if you prefer more colourful language; Burn it with fire. This is absolutely a violation of WP:TOOSOON/WP:CRYSTAL based on unverified speculation in dubious niche sources; none of which is encyclopedic information until, at the very least, we get an official statement from the manufacturer. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per above. To respond briefly to the argument about it not being a violation of WP:CRYSTAL: I could reasonably see that perhaps speculation of this sort might be notable in iPhone. It's absolutely not notable enough for its own article. Nothing about this is officially known - including its very existence - so, unless and until it alone meets WP:V, it fails the first sentence of CRYSTAL in my view. Wikipedia is not a collection of unverifiable speculation or presumptions. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 13:58, 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 speedy keep per WP:SNOW. Note also also that WP:DICDEF is not normally a reason to delete as there's usually a sensible alternative such as expansion or merger. (non-admin closure) Andrew🐉(talk) 23:11, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Moratorium (law)[edit]

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

Queried speedy delete as "has already been transwikied to Wiktionary". But this topic is more complicated than a plain definition, and many people will likely want to look it up. In Talk:Moratorium (law) User:Heathflugruger suggested "I propose that Moratorium (law) be merged into Debt moratorium. I think that the content in the Moratorium Law article is the same as the content in the Debt Moratorium article. Both articles are somewhat stubby so a merge shouldn't take much time for the more experienced."; but Moratorium (law) is not all about debts, and the subject is too complicated to be properly covered by a plain dictdef. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 04:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:50, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Whilst the article itself is little more than an definition this is actually a much more complicated legal topic that cannot be covered by a simple dictionary definition. I also don't agree with the merger as as per the above comment "Moratorium (law) is not all about debts". The article could probably be improved to give better coverage of the topic and link into relevant other legal topics but shouldn't be deleted. It is an encyclopedic topic which people will likely search for.Tracland (talk) 09:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Language-related deletion discussions. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 14:10, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. My search on JSTOR and Google Books turns up discussion of moratorium as a term, rather than just usages of the term.^[1]^[2]^[3]^[4]^[5] I think this is enough to pass WP:WORDISSUBJECT. I oppose a merger to Debt moratorium per the above. – Lord Bolingbroke (talk) 16:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Kathryn A. Watts (May 2012). "Regulatory Moratoria". Duke Law Journal. 61 (8): 1883–1955. JSTOR 23267963.
^ Matthew G. St. Amand; Dwight H. Merriam (Summer 2003). "Defensible Moratoria: The Law Before and After the 'Tahoe-Sierra' Decision". Natural Resources Journal. 43 (3): 703–752. JSTOR 24888861.
^ Martha W. Barnett (Summer 2001). "Moratorium: A Growing Movement". Human Rights. 28 (3): 3, 23. JSTOR 27880266.
^ Diane Albert (November 2005). "Building Moratoria: Strategies and Tools for Governing Bodies". Water Resources Impact. 7 (6): 16–18. JSTOR wateresoimpa.7.6.0016.
^ Constitutional Law (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers. 2010. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-7355-8944-5.

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Diamond Infosystems[edit]

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

No evidence of significance or notability. References are routine corporate releases about board member appointments or product launch announcements. Traded only on the BSE which has lax listing criteria as opposed to the NSE. M4DU7 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. M4DU7 (talk) 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom and per WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. Looks like an undisclosed paid PR piece. —Unforgettableid (talk) 04:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom Spiderone 09:12, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kerem Firtina[edit]

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

The subject doesn't seem to be notable. The whole article is referenced to IMDb which is an unreliable source. Couldn't find any independent coverage. Keivan.f^Talk 00:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:29, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:05, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 03:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I see a very small amount of coverage in RIS. One gossip piece, another saying he had an operation. No proper reviews of his book, and nothing substantial to meet the requirements of a BLP. Mccapra (talk) 05:36, 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 delete. The first keep comment has been refuted without response, and the second argues that there are sources but presents none. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Walnut Valley Sailing Club[edit]

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

Non-notable club, fails WP:ORG, fails WP:GNG, has been long tagged for failing WP:N. Ahunt (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Notification of the existence of this AfD has been made at WikiProject Sailing, within whose scope this article falls. - Ahunt (talk) 01:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Article about a historic sailing club. The article has reliable secondary sources. It seems sailing clubs are not treated as hockey, baseball or soccer clubs at WP, just because these clubs don't compete in third, fourth ot fifth ranked leages to meet "general notability guidelines".--Banderas (talk) 07:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Note: - the current three refs cited consist of a broken link that was to a directory listing and two refs from other sailing clubs, that just mention the club in passing. Not even close to establishing WP:ORG or even WP:GNG. Even the club's own website has been removed and displays only a spam-linked placeholder page. - Ahunt (talk) 11:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 08:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Best source I can find is this article in The Wichita Eagle [44][45]. The rest is their website (which is down), facebook, and namechecks. Unfortunately I don't think think the coverage overall meets the threshold of the GNG. However, I'm certainly keeping an open mind so please feel free to ping me to take another look; particularly if anyone finds more sources than I could. --Jack Frost (talk) 02:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 03:32, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - As long as reliabel independent sources can be found. Itlooks like a long established club that is still very active (yes web site is up and running!). A club that is active that long will have a significant footprint in printed media, just needs finding. I am from the UK and sailing clubs are affiliated to the RYA, which keeps detailed records and publishes lists with flag officers etc. Is there something like that in the US which would be a good source? Not necessarily on the internet of course, proper paper publications. Billlion (talk) 09:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Comment - ah, well that is the issue, that no one has located any sources that show WP:ORG. You really can't successfully argue "keep" unless you can show such sources exist. - Ahunt (talk) 12:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Generic local social activity organization, lacks signifiant coverage to establish notability. Reywas92^Talk 20:27, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 19:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nowfloats Technologies[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG/WP:NCORP. Purely promotional. Hatchens (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Hatchens (talk) 06:32, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 03:31, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: An article on a IT provider whose target market is small businesses, sourced to their product announcements, funding announcements, and a sponsored report, all of which fall under WP:CORPDEPTH's trivial coverage definition. Their takeover makes a merge/redirect to Reliance Industries a possibility, though the current article lists only a few of what are said to be their 158 subsidiary and 7 associate companies; adding this one might be undue. Fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 19:14, 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) 22:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Terrence K. Williams[edit]

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

Does not seem to be notable as per WP:ANYBIO and most of the references are not WP:RELIABLE and do not help to determine notability. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:26, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the coverage is not at a level to establish notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Just no to The Epoch Times (WP:DEPRECATED) formerly being the first reference and Reclaim The Net appears to be an advocacy newsletter with little indication of editorial overview on its contact page, Twitter, or their head contributor's bio. CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 20:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Was notable enough to be invited to the White House by the president of the United States.--2601:444:380:8C00:E465:CC5:BBA0:DE5C (talk) 06:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete ^^No source for that. Besides, I have friends who have had children photographed with President Obama inside the White House, does that make them notable? CaradhrasAiguo (leave language) 19:07, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deadwood, Butte County, California[edit]

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

This is a bit of an odd case. The topos do not show a place name here until the 1978 edition, but there was something here, much earlier: the Deadwood Hotel/Sanitarium. This snippet of family history explains how the place came to be, and there are a few pictures of it about. But it doesn't seem to have been a town; it is associates with Concow to the south, and to help confuse matters, there is another Deadwood in Placer County which is far better known. I can't find anything that talks about it as a town, and the sanitarium, while it is documented, doesn't come across as notable. Mangoe (talk) 03:20, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep This photo shows several buildings suggesting a settlement. I found several references in old books which implies that there was a townsite, however small. I'm wondering if it's a ghost town or currently a small hamlet. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 15:18, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That is specifically a photo of the hotel/sanitarium mentioned above; it is one of a couple I came across. But I don't see how it testifies to a town surrounding these structures. At present, there is a single, largish house at the location, according to GMaps, and the aerial view suggests a modern ranch-style house. Mangoe (talk) 15:34, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which books mention a townsite? –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I may have been unclear. I didn't find any specific references to a townsite, rather I found several sources like [46] [47] that I assumed there was a townsite. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 23:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Deadwood does show up on the oldest available topos between 1891 and 1895 (around the end of the sanitarium era), then disappears until the 1970s. Nom's source confirms that this was a sanitarium; even if there was a townsite here at one time, its mere existence does not establish notability. Does not meet WP:GEOLAND since this is not an officially recognized place and has not received sufficient coverage to meet GNG. –dlthewave ☎ 18:01, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence it was ever anything more than a hotel/sanitarium on ranch property. Nothing says it was a town. Glendoremus (talk) 03:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 07:57, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Gimeno[edit]

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

Non-notable musician. Google News turns up news on a rugby player of the same name, and Google Books only returns name-drops and other passing mentions (String: "alex gimeno"). —A little blue Bori v^_^v ^{2020's a bust; thanks SARS-CoV-2} 03:13, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:19, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete - Found a substantial profile of Gimeno [48], as well as a Q&A piece [49] and CD Review [50] (neither of which establish notability). Unfortunately, I don't think the bar of notability (WP:GNG / WP:NMUSICIAN) is met; but we're closer than I thought... --Jack Frost (talk) 01:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Delete Non noteworthy Thanks, (talk) 02:42, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 19:22, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anwar Hadid[edit]

AfDs for this article:

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NMODEL. This individual certainly has famous relatives, but that does not confer notability (see: WP:NOTINHERITED) The page was speedily deleted in 2016, and nothing has changed since then to establish notability. KidAd (talk) 02:43, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:35, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete does not meet the general notability guideline.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Nothing appeared on Google, Nothing appeared on the California Digital Newspaper Collection, and only a few results appeared on Newspapers.com. Unfortunately, the person is not covered enough to meet notability guidelines. Koridas 📣 15:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Per the comments above. — Tom^(T2ME) 14:03, 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 07:55, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kelly Sundberg[edit]

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

This is just a resume for a non-notable person; a recent IP editor noted that this is possibly written by the subject himself. There is nothing inherently notable about this person, and no secondary sourcing that proves notability. Drmies (talk) 01:17, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alberta-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:37, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This was so clearly written by it's subject (EDIT: Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:40, 28 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]
Delete Wikipedia is not meant to be a platform for posting autobiographies.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - this one's easy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheBlueCanoe (talk • contribs) 23:38, 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. Sandstein 05:59, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Grievance-based violence[edit]

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

This is not a going term, considering the sourcing. Drmies (talk) 01:15, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

leaning delete It gets plenty of hits, but they don't discuss it per se, My impression is that they don't see it as a term that needs explanation. Mangoe (talk) 03:25, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 03:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not itself notable, doesn't meet WP:GNG, though perhaps suitable for wiktionary? --DannyS712 (talk) 08:12, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete This is clearly one man's pet phrase that he's made a page for (EDIT: I keep not signing things Trevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:38, 28 June 2020 (UTC))[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioural science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:56, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 16:57, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep or Merge: My gut says that this subject is a big deal but the general public just doesn't have a name for it. We should keep articles about subjects that are notable, even if the name is still rare, if we don't have any better name for it. 99% of the time, the lack of a widespread name in published sources indicates that the subject itself hasn't attracted enough attention, so we don't need to make the distinction; but when there is evidence otherwise, we should go with whether the subject itself is notable, not the name. This subject is a class of behavior that, for lack of having a better term, our culture has recently extended "terrorism" to include even when they don't have a large class of the population as the target. But "grievance-based" isn't just a Wikipedia user's made-up phrase: On Google Scholar (searching scholarly journals) there are 28 results for "Grievance-based violence" in quotes, and 1,660 results for "Grievance-based" violence without "violence" needing to be right afterwards, so the term does have some use in the last 10 years. If you need evidence that the topic is pervasive, see Category:School shootings and Category:Workplace violence in the United States for a start. And the media and schools and businesses certainly talk about it plenty; they just don't use this specific phrase (yet). If we don't keep it, I don't know where it should be merged, but it's an important enough facet to merge to somewhere: Maybe just to Violence if we don't have an article about violence motives. --Closeapple (talk) 17:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as not verifiable. The first sentence starts "Grievance-Based Violence (GBV) is a term in security planning...." Number of meaningful Ghits for the terms "grievance based violence" plus "security planning" comes up as zero. So the very first sentence is false, probably, but it's definitely unsupported by evidence, and that's as far as we need to go. I truly get Closeapple's point about the underlying concept having potential validity, and worth attention, but that's out of scope for this AfD. --Lockley (talk) 05:51, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Using "security planning" as your search term is unduly narrow. Related terms like "security", "terrorism" and "counterterrorism" yield multiple academic and government site hits, including DHS.gov. Looks more like government-speak than a neologism to me. • Gene93k (talk) 11:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not seeing enough to sustain a stand-alone article. To this layperson, this is academic jargon for the nature of terrorism. Most terrorists believe that they are the injured party and their violence is righteous. Might consider a merge or redirect to a terrorism-related topic, given a good rationale. • Gene93k (talk) 13:54, 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 delete. czar 07:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael F Smith[edit]

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

A non notable academic with no sources or external links. Originally nominated for BLPPROD but deprodded by the subject themselves. Subject then expanded their own bio and added self-authored sources which have since been removed by another editor. No evidence of reliable independent sourcing that could help create an objective article. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 01:09, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete for now. I can't find any evidence of impact. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:59, 28 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
My apologies for not being conversant with the esoteric protocols of Wikipedia; all honest attempts at reintroducing references and notability have been rejected. My work with the Strengths and Difficulties Questionnaire (SDQ) was rejected some time back, then all references removed. The SDQ has been used to evaluate the mental health of many millions of children around the world for over 20 years and I am, for better or worse, its key technologist and operator. I wished in part to keep my entry as a means of assuring mental health practitioners of my bona fides. It is difficult not to be somewhat bitter since I note that entries such as "100 Gecs" appear to be judged legitimate, notable and without commercial interest. I must concede to deletion since my publications and efforts in the mental health field find no favour with the editors. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Professor m f smith (talk • contribs)

No one is saying that your work is without value. But to be on Wikipedia, there must be independent, secondary sources to back up facts. Have a read of WP:BLP. If you can point us in the direction of independent analysis of your work, there may be a case to keep the article.Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP I think that this isn't being made by it's subject, but rather that it's maker has put the name of the article they made an account to make as the name of their account aswell, leading to people thinking they were one and the same, not saying it deserves to stay, just that it deserves more timeTrevey-On-Sea (talk) 09:39, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trevey-On-Sea More time won’t help, the BLP has been unsourced for two years. There have been several talk page encounters with other editors that pretty much proves that the subject has written the article, which is against WP:AUTOBIOG. See talk pages User_talk:Wallyfromdilbert/Archive_1#Message_by_Mike_Smith_using_IP_79.79.212.36 and User_talk:79.79.212.36. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 11:22, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Failure of verifiability on top of lack of evidence of passing academic notability. The very common name isn't helping. There are some publications listed for what looks like the right MF Smith listed at [51] (they match the U. Reading and Istel affiliations) but they don't show notability in any way. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete all BLPs need sources, immediately, end of discussion.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:PROF totally unsourced BLP.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 15:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, without prejudice. If evidence of notability later emerges, then good to resurrect. I'll also note that the professor's desire to have a Wikipedia page to assure people of his bona fides is not a legitimate reason to keep. (It's for the best. Having a Wikipedia page about you is a bloody terrifying prospect). TheBlueCanoe 23:34, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy delete as an invalid removal of a prod from a BLP without valid, independent and reliable sources (failing WP:V and WP:GNG). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:32, 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 redirect to Stephen Simmonds. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anomie (Stephen Simmonds album)[edit]

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

Possible non-notable album. Album has no third party sources. A search reveals hardly any information about the album - no charts, no reviews, no news articles Majash2020 (talk) 00:46, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 00:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:44, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Stephen Simmonds: Barely found anything about the album. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 16:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Stephen Simmonds. Fails WP:ALBUM... I tried looking for Swedish sources as well, but had no luck. Richard3120 (talk) 21:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect - As above. Fails WP:NMUSIC and WP:GNG. WP:ATD-R. --Jack Frost (talk) 01:14, 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.

[1] Kelly, Gordon. "Apple Suddenly Confirms Surprise iPhone 12 Upgrade". forbes.com. Retrieved 28 June 2020.

[2] Kathryn A. Watts (May 2012). "Regulatory Moratoria". Duke Law Journal. 61 (8): 1883–1955. JSTOR 23267963.

[3] Matthew G. St. Amand; Dwight H. Merriam (Summer 2003). "Defensible Moratoria: The Law Before and After the 'Tahoe-Sierra' Decision". Natural Resources Journal. 43 (3): 703–752. JSTOR 24888861.

[4] Martha W. Barnett (Summer 2001). "Moratorium: A Growing Movement". Human Rights. 28 (3): 3, 23. JSTOR 27880266.

[5] Diane Albert (November 2005). "Building Moratoria: Strategies and Tools for Governing Bodies". Water Resources Impact. 7 (6): 16–18. JSTOR wateresoimpa.7.6.0016.

[6] Constitutional Law (4th ed.). Aspen Publishers. 2010. p. 43. ISBN 978-0-7355-8944-5.

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]