Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 29

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< 28 June 30 June >

Purge server cache

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 01:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Adnexal and skin appendage neoplasms[edit]

Adnexal and skin appendage neoplasms (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This article is pointless. Notability of an article that describs all adnexal and skin appendage neoplasms doesn't exist and isn't demonstrated. The title exists because it is an ICD heading and it matches the title of an infobox that was created to match. It's likely an ICD heading because it is a convenient way to describe mostly cutaneous neoplasms that don't come from the skin tissue. This article has remained unedited since its creation for this reason - it's not an article editors are searching for because it's such an arbitrary title. I think this article should be plan 'ol deleted. Tom (LT) (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. The nom is right, this is just a heading in the International Classification of Diseases categorisation tree. It makes no more sense to have this than to create articles for all the Dewey Decimal Classification headings for library book sorting. Some, perhaps even most, of them will undoubtedly be topics suitable for an encyclopaedia article, but it doesn't follow that all of them will be. SpinningSpark 11:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Further comment. There is some kind of tautology going on with this phrase since adnexa means appendages. If adnexal neoplasms includes neoplasms besides those of skin adnexa, then we could just have "adnexal neoplasms". If it only includes those of the skin then the title could be shortened to "skin appendage neoplasms" or "adnexal skin neoplasms". Even if this is an encyclopaedic topic, the title needs to go. SpinningSpark 12:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Especially when it can be covered somewhere else. Tessaracter (talk) 15:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Not notable. If it had any actual content I might suggest merging it into another article. -Kj cheetham (talk) 13:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. I don't think there's any value in relisting this; opinion is split down the middle with reasonable arguments to keep, delete and merge. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 10:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vegetable sandwich[edit]

Vegetable sandwich (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

An article about what constitutes a vegetable sandwich (including cheese, apparently). The references are all to recipe pages. Fails WP:RS, WP:OR, WP:NOTRECIPE. Unsalvageable. Andyjsmith (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
yep! Sounds like a monty python sketch Delete Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Cheese sandwiches has 39 member articles! Clearly not desperately in need of another one. SpinningSpark 16:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yeh. How a burger comes under a sandwich is something confusing to me. A burger comes in a roll, sandwich is made witslices of bread! Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • After some thought on this one overnight, keep. First of all, NOTRECIPE is not a proscription against using recipe books as sources. In fact, they are the very place one might expect to find reliable information on a food dish. NOTRECIPE does not even proscribe including a recipe in an article. What it does proscribe is a howto description in the imperative mood, but a list of ingredients would be fine (but not just that).
It's inclusion in Mumbai Roadside Snacks together with the Veg Recipes of India article "Mumbai Vegetable Sandwich" is enough to convince me that this is a definite thing in India and not just random creations by food writers. I would be similarly convinced that this was a recognised Western dish by its inclusion in Professional Cooking, except that the dish described there is a "vegetable sandwich with goat cheese and sun-dried tomatoes". Not so sure that makes "vegetable sandwich" a definite dish. While bacon, lettuce, and tomato sandwich is undoubtedly still counted as a bacon sandwich and an egg and cress sandwich is still undoubtedly an egg sandwich, this one is pretty borderline. SpinningSpark 11:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If "Mumbai Vegetable Sandwich" is a thing then maybe that's what this article should be about. Maybe it's what the article is supposed to be about, except it doesn't say so. What it's actually about is the generic concept of vegetable sandwich which is not a thing in any meaningful sense any more than you would walk into your local sandwich bar and ask for a "meat sandwich". Beef, pork, what? Also, zero reliable sources explaining why "vegetable sandwich" is a thing and what sort of thing it is. I originally tried cutting out the references to cheese (obviously) and then the suggestions about mushrooms etc which clearly are just some editors' recipe ideas, and in the end the article boiled down to "A vegetable sandwich consists of vegetables between two slices of bread". Hence this AfD. Andyjsmith (talk) 12:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The fact that Subway might "grill" me over what exactly I wanted in my meat sandwich is not very relevant, or at least not a policy-based rationale. I can imagine an equally Pythonesque conversation about what exactly I wanted in my cheese sandwich (39 to choose from in category:Cheese sandwiches). The relevant question is have food writers written about vegetable sandwiches. Well have they? [1][2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10][11]. SpinningSpark 16:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
*sigh* My point was that once you've removed the POV stuff the article is meaningless, because "vegetable sandwich" is such a hopelessly generic topic that you can't say anything about it. There's no history, no nutritional issues, no controversy, no social implications, no national or ethnic connotations and so on - if there were they would be about specific vegetables or specific recipes. A Mumbai vegetable sandwich is characterised by the inclusion of chutney and spice; a Danish vegetable sandwich often uses pickles but never any spices. Lots of people have written about vegetable sandwiches in the sense of specific sandwich recipes but I'm not aware of anyone saying anything meaningful about a universal vegetable sandwich which is what the article is about. That's why I say it's unsalvageable. God, this is a facile conversation. Andyjsmith (talk) 13:32, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. So basically the article comes down to this: A vegetable sandwich is a sandwich with vegetables and possibly a few other ingredients. There's not enough meat to justify an article, nyuk, nyuk. Clarityfiend (talk) 06:53, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Clarityfiend: Sure there is a lot of variation, but there is just as much, if not more, for sponge cake and salad for instance. I can see at least two specific subtypes which have a more definite form; the Bombay sandwich already mentioned and the rainbow vegetable sandwich. I'm willling to work on putting in some sub-types along the lines of the sponge cake article if that would persuade one or two people. SpinningSpark 10:36, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well the sponge cake article starts with an interesting history, explains the recipe(s), discusses different types, mentions religious celebrations... that's what I call a proper article. The Sandwich article is equally full of fascinating facts. But is there anything to say about the generic concept of vegetable sandwiches that's not fully covered in a single phrase of the first sentence of Sandwich? Come to think of it why don't I just redirect the article to Sandwich? Andyjsmith (talk) 13:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please don't WP:BADGER, the question wasn't addressed to you and you've already told me three times where you stand. SpinningSpark 14:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - You can't make a strong WP:TNT argument for an article that only has 4 paragraphs. I think the discussion so far has demonstrated that the topic is notable. If the article is "not proper", take the initiative to fix it. ~Kvng (talk) 14:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to List of sandwiches. We don't need separate articles on anything you can put between a couple slices of bread, content can be covered perfectly well there. Don't care for your WP:OSE of topics that aren't as generic and non-specific, with more sources beyond recipes and blogs. Reywas92Talk 20:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Per Andyjsmith's reasoning, I agree an article called "vegetable sandwich" is unfixable. Since there are no visible sources with coverage of the concept of "vegetable sandwich", only specific examples, this is unverifiable, synthesis, and OR. Thanks to Andyjsmith for taking the initiative to fix this problem. --Lockley (talk) 03:45, 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. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

David Orth[edit]

David Orth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

A non notable actor with no evidence of independent sources. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ontario-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 22:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for improving this article significantly and so quickly. I will withdraw my nomination. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep WP:HEY. Had the lead in The Lost World. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient sourcing from RS's and having the lead in a notable series. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ray Dragon[edit]

Ray Dragon (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Despite to the many claims of notability in the article the sources do not prove notability: 1) his name is not even mentioned, 2) it's an interview and it's from his own web site, 3) it's an image from his own website, 4) TLA is not reliable (shop), 5) TLA is not reliable (shop), 6) very, very short picture of an article an it's from his own web site, 7) his own web site. AlejandroLeloirRey (talk) 22:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This debate has been added to the WikiProject Pornography list of deletions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Michigan-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:18, 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 The Amazing World of Gumball (season 5). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The News (The Amazing World of Gumball)[edit]

The News (The Amazing World of Gumball) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Most of the episodes of The Amazing World of Gumball do not have an article. No significant coverage -- not in compliance with WP:GNG. It has poor references (only two). I should also mention this is one of the lesser watched episodes of the TV series. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If there is support to delete, we should do a bundle deletion of the other episodes of this TV show that have episodes (they are by the same creator). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 22:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Some Dude From North Carolina: I don't think it is, the show only got 2M views at best in Season 1. Most show that have articles for all episodes have triple that in the amount of viewers at best and usually have that amount on average (or more). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 23:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@P,TO 19104: But what would be the problem with making articles on a few episodes? Some Dude From North Carolina (talk) 19:33, 29 June 2020 (ET)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The notability standard is not measured by the show's ratings or popularity. It's based on independent reliable sources writing about the subject of the page — the individual episode. In this case, the two sources cited aren't very good. One of them is just the ratings chart, which doesn't even mention the specific episode. The other is a "listicle" that basically just lists the personal top ten favorites of someone who writes for a website. The list items don't talk about what's good about the episode, so there's nothing to work with there. I would suggest finding better and more specific sources before you try making more episode pages. I think start with finding reviews of the specific episode. Does anyone review Gumball episodes? — Toughpigs (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well yes, of course, but if the TV show isn't popular it probably won't have very good refs (like this article) for each episode. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect A priori, we can assume that it is unlikely to be notable. (Very few episodes are.) But the series is notable enough to warrant redirects to the season's article, in this case season 5. Aside from TAWoG, this user created articles for each episode of the YouTube series Freelancers, each of which is referenced only to the episode itself and a site that tracks views for YT videos. I'd recommend going straight to a bulk nomination of this user's creations, adding the following articles to the nomination:
List of episodes

Do you concur? –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 06:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@LaundryPizza03: I do concur, as said above it would be a good idea to do a bundle (I didn't do this initally b/c I wasn't sure it would be appropriate). P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 14:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Video Production Company for the Freelancers episodes. The Gumball ones can still be treated as bundled with this one. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 00:56, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment@LaundryPizza03: Let's wait to bundle the Amazing World of Gumball episodes. It could result in a trainwreck if we do that. I think it would be a better idea to do that in a separate deletion nomination. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 16:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge into the main page. As wp:ntele says, unless an individual episode has received it should be kept in the main article. I don't see the evidence here that it meets that or gng. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 06:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and Merge Gumball is a notable show, but this episode does not merit its own page. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Eltee skhillz[edit]

Eltee skhillz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject of article lacks in-depth significant coverage in reliable sources hence doesn’t satisfy WP:GNG. Furthermore he is a musician but doesn’t satisfy WP:MUSICBIO. A before search shows no evidence of notability. Celestina007 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 22:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Another beneficiary of a Nigerian online publicity blitz. It is too soon for a Wikipedia article because he has not yet received significant media coverage beyond the usual press releases. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 01:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Non-notable musician, and the title of the article has a spelling mistake (but that's the least of its problems). GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Articles all read like press releases; no independent coverage. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC) OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable musician.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete article subject is not notable. There is also a version I reviewed at the AFC Draft:Eltee Skhillz created by the same user.Em-mustapha talk 00:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, promotional, not notable.--Chuka Chief (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete poorly written, somewhat promotional, lacks much notability. Eternal Shadow Talk 00:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Not notable , promotional article. Alex-h (talk) 09:27, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Very much a promotional article with no secondary sources. Maybe later in career when has a few more albums and coverage, but, not now!! ZeusBeard2018 (talk) 17:20, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soluto[edit]

Soluto (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Nothing significant is found to be notable for wikipedia. all media and typical investment news. Wiki is not for press coverage. fails corporate depth. Light2021 (talk) 22:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This was a popular piece of software to improve Windows XP and 7 optimisation. Article is not typical investment news, but rather describes the company which was acquired in 2013. I'm not sure if nominator was aware company ceased in 2013, so I have added fate info to the infobox – BlueMax1914 (talk), 09:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Israel-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Winning the TechCrunch Disrupt and being written about by Ed Bott is pretty notable in this industry; given the challenge of mining sources for something that peaked 10 years ago, this seems reasonably sourced to pass WP:GNG. OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC) OhNoitsJamie Talk 13:28, 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 speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn. (non-admin closure) ZLEA T\C 22:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fatemeh Amineh Borazjani[edit]

Fatemeh Amineh Borazjani (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NSPORT. ZLEA T\C 21:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. ZLEA T\C 21:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ZLEA T\C 21:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. ZLEA T\C 21:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ZLEA T\C 21:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:47, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

King Apparel[edit]

King Apparel (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No indication of notability for this apparel brand. It's blatantly promotional and full of editorialization/puffery. The one source I found seems to be from a company that brands pay to use, so it's not a RS. The three sources in the article are not RS and do not establish notability. Kbabej (talk) 21:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Kbabej (talk) 21:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America1000 13:57, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:04, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Richard Longworth[edit]

Richard Longworth (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Clearly fails WP:NCRIMINAL Rogermx (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of South Carolina-related deletion discussions. Rogermx (talk) 21:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: The similar article David Rocheville, about his partner in the murders, should probably also be AfD'd. Somehow an unrelated comment about YouTube appears in this AfD in the list for June 29th. RobDuch (talk·contribs) 08:34, 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 malformed nomination --Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:25, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Non-notable Youtuber. Only 100k subscribers. Fails WP:BIO. scope_creepTalk 21:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not transcribed properly. Starting again. scope_creepTalk 08:55, 7 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 23:07, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tim Craven[edit]

Tim Craven (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I have found and added one reference for this comedian, but I don't think he meets WP:GNG or WP:ENT. His website says he is no longer working as a comedian. Tacyarg (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arts-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Tacyarg (talk) 20:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete a non-notable comedian.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - There is nothing in the article to suggest anything like the sort notability that would be expected for the subject of a Wikipedia article. Dunarc (talk) 20:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was speedy delete. Speedy deleted G4. I noticed after I nominated it that the re-created version was 100% the same as the version deleted at the 3rd nomination AfD, and the only changes since then have been to remove some uncited material. Black Kite (talk) 19:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhar Mann[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Dhar Mann (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The only reliable sources in the article are about him being found guilty of a mid-level crime. His company weGrow has an article, but that's nbot a lot better. Case of WP:BLP1E? Black Kite (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 keep. No consensus to delete, and after a WP:HEY by Sariel Xilo, a consensus to keep. (non-admin closure) Britishfinance (talk) 11:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Sundering[edit]

The Sundering (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

There is no significant coverage in reliable third party sources to write an encyclopedic article here, as best practiced in the general notability guideline. There are some WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs of this in the context of the actual notable fiction itself, but even within the fiction, it's an obscure background detail that has never been written about to be more than just a WP:PLOT detail, which is what Wikipedia articles are WP:NOT. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Forgotten Realms#Dungeons & Dragons 5th edition, where it is already covered. The only non-primary sources being used here are both just covering the same announcement of the in-universe event, and in both cases, the coverage is limited to "this is the name of an upcoming D&D event". Searching for additional sources brings up just some brief mentions of it being the name of the event, with no in-depth coverage demonstrating notability. It might also be useful if the Redirect were renamed, with the current disambiguation page for the term moved to this space instead. Rorshacma (talk) 19:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:HEY. Sariel Xilo's complete revamping of the article to be about the real-world products rather than the fictional event allow this one to stand on its own. Rorshacma (talk) 05:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed my view to Keep if the article focus is shifted from fictional plot summary to the actual books & adventures released. See comment below. Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's a variety of different types of coverage that seems to easily pass WP:GNG. —Torchiest talkedits 01:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also not convinced that they demonstrate sustained coverage - there were basically two time periods where several, similar articles were released - Aug-Sep 2012, when the event was announced, and then around August 2013, when the event began. The only sources above that don't fall into those two "announcement" periods is a short article a couple months later that is, itself, just another announcement about product releases, and then two creator interviews. In addition, outside of the creator interviews, the contents of all of these articles are simply reports of Wizards of the Coast's announcements. Rorshacma (talk) 03:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sariel Xilo (talk) 18:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment I started to revamp the article away from an in-universe style and towards details of the actual event (books/adventures) but I don't have time to continue this right now. If an editor could continue fleshing out the Reception section and incorporating the sources listed by Torchiest above, that would be great. Thanks! Sariel Xilo (talk) 20:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. The sources found suggest that the topic is, surprisingly, notable per NFICTION/GNG. Hopefully, someone can indeed rewrite it so it is less in-universe plot fancruft and more the analysis of significance to the real world franchise etc. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:11, 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 keep. WP:HEY Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:00, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hypertime[edit]

Hypertime (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This is a term from a comic book series that has no coverage in reliable third party sources, failing the general notability guideline. Even as is, this is a fictional term that only has WP:TRIVIALMENTIONs in the primary sources itself, and is really just a list of plots that have mentioned it. Wikpiedia articles are WP:NOTPLOT details, and there's no third party coverage that will allow us to give this a proper encyclopedic treatment. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 19:38, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:43, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wiktionary's entry is "Any of various fictional or theoretical time-like constructs that extend beyond normal time, usually by encompassing or spanning many distinct timelines (sometimes infinitely many)." That's just what we have here; no difference. Andrew🐉(talk) 19:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • That just means that comic books cribbed the real life idea. Perhaps a compromise can be found if the article's scope was changed to "hypertime" as a sci-fi concept, while the comic book usage became a section of it.ZXCVBNM (TALK) 19:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete or redirect/merge per Rorshacma. The source Andrew found ([12]) is actually not bad (yes, I was surprised too, but it happens). Still, it is just one source and we need at least two to satisfy GNG requirement of multiple in-depth sources. If anyone can find one more, I'd reconsider my vote, although per ZXCVBNM, it should likely be renamed to Hypertime (DC Comics) if the term is indeed also used in real science, with the current title becoming a disambig. PS. Yes, Andrew also found one more source but I think the coverage of this term there is in passing and not in-depth, just a few sentences and not even a proper para dedicated to the concept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:03, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Non-notable. Also, more fundamentally, we can't verify fictional sources. --Lockley (talk) 02:18, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Huh? But you can verify real sources writing about fictional works or concepts. You have confused WP:Truth with WP:Verifiability. 7&6=thirteen (☎) 14:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect, it fails notability but may be redirected to Multiverse (DC Comics), Alex-h (talk) 09:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added another two many good sources. I am sure there are more. Meets WP:GNG. No compliance with WP:Before, as the revised state of this article now proves. WP:HEY 7&6=thirteen (☎) 18:29, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I added more sources, seems to pass WP:GNG, plenty of independent coverage in reliable sources. Theroadislong (talk) 19:14, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment This reference is a fansite, and not a reliable source. This one and this one are the same source, just reprinted in two different publications, and the latter cites its information to a geocities fansite. This one was published by Lulu.com, as in, a self-published book that is therefore not a reliable source. And finally this one is a single sentence mention of the word that doesn't even really explain what the term means. So no, many good sources were not added here. Rorshacma (talk) 22:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: I added the passage from American Comic Book Chronicles: The 1990s, an independent, published reliable source that speaks directly to the topic. Folks can keep nitpicking on sources, but I think that it's been demonstrated that Hypertime has been discussed in books and in the comics press as a somewhat controversial topic, more interesting as an out-of-universe narrative trick than it is in-universe. The article needs to be cleaned up and improved, but the subject is notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 02:02, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • KEEP The article has been massively improved since the deletion nomination. [13] Reliable sources have been found proving it passes the general notability guidelines. Dream Focus 16:41, 7 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 20:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dixie Mall[edit]

Dixie Mall (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Unnecessary dab. Neither entity is called "Dixie Mall". Previous AFD was "procedurally closed" for an inexplicable reason. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 19:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Shopping malls-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Disambiguations-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Both entities are also called "Dixie Mall"; necessary disambiguation unless one of the entities is identified as the primary topic for a WP:PRIMARYREDIRECT from the base name. -- JHunterJ (talk) 19:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • There's no immediate evidence that either is called Dixie Mall though. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 21:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Google search, as mentioned in the last deletion discussion, as well as the bus station name for the Canadian mall, and cited article text for the Illinois mall. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Something about this name is triggering weird responses among experienced editors, with two recent malformed/procedural closes. This logo File:Dixie Outlet Mall logo.png comes pretty darn close to indicating this is or was a common name for that mall. It is what it is. The presence of this title on Wikipedia should not be construed as "support" for the name by Wikipedia editors. And in Illinois, "In a last-ditch effort to bring back shoppers and tenants, the mall underwent a renovation in 1976 and shortened its name to simply Dixie Mall." If we never redirected from former names, then {{R from former name}} would be deleted. There is also {{R from alternative name}}. – wbm1058 (talk) 03:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note that the move request that triggered your experienced editor weird procedural close as malformed wasn't malformed. Redirects can be moved, and letting that discussion resolve would have avoided this one. -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      JHunterJ, the fact that redirects can technically be moved doesn't mean that they should be moved. Your request was flagged as malformed by my bot. Articles are moved; redirects are retargeted or deleted. If you wanted to move Dixie Outlet Mall to Dixie Mall (Ontario) you should have said so. I don't really understand what you were proposing or why anything should have been done with that other than what I did. wbm1058 (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • at 12:23, 29 June 2020 Wbm1058 deleted page Dixie Mall (G6: Deleted to make way for move)
      That your bot flagged it as malformed doesn't mean it was malformed. I didn't want to (nor did I propose to) move the outlet mall to the qualified title. In this case, moving the redirect would have been useful for keeping its history for use in the disambiguation page (which the disambiguation page is using, but I had to re-create the redirect). WP:MOVEREDIRECT. In any case, if in your opinion the request was malformed, the result shouldn't have been to simply execute the request, but to re-form it. Consider updating your bot to allow for WP:MOVEREDIRECT cases, or at least examine its reports with that caveat. -- JHunterJ (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I still don't understand. The history I deleted to make way for the move consists of just three edits, all redirects, all yours. There are no "disambiguation edits to use" there. What purpose would be served by moving that to another page, other than to confuse matters? wbm1058 (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I moved some of the history to Dixie Mall (Illinois)] (a redirect). The history of the redirect (which was my edit) to the Canadian mall could have been moved to Dixie Mall (Ontario) (a redirect). The current disambiguation page uses both of those redirects. How would any reader be confused by those redirects' edit histories? -- JHunterJ (talk) 13:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Searching for Dixie Mall brings up a surge of references for Dixie Square from the mid-70s at newspapers.com. The mall very clearly used it in their own marketing as early as Christmas 1975. Raymie (t • c) 06:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Wbm1058: @Raymie: but is there any evidence that Dixie Outlet Mall ever dropped the "outlet" part? Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 08:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • An "outlet mall" is a specific type of mall, but it's still a mall. Some reviewers here are questioning the worthiness of the term "outlet" as a proper description of the mall. wbm1058 (talk) 11:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@TenPoundHammer: Well, if you mean in a legal sense, I doubt that the name has been legally changed from "Dixie Outlet Mall" (if indeed that was ever its legal name (doubtful in itself), its original public name was "Dixie Plaza"), but informally, and in news reports, it is often referred to as "Dixie Mall" "Dixie Mall sold: Mississauga landmark will 'evolve,' but not be demolished under new ownership" where the new owners consistently call it "Dixie Mall", "Dixie Mall Developing More Sinkholes", "Walking Maps - Dixie Mall", The Fertilizer Institute of Ontario, 1250 South Service Rd., Suite 203, Dixie Mall from Directory of Fertilizer Plants in the United States page 6, "WGG! is a LAN centre at Dixie Mall ( 1250 South Service Rd) in Mississauga known for their Halo 3 and to a lesser extent, their Cod4 tournaments.", "Man stabbed during robbery inside Dixie Mall", "Man suffers life-threatening injuries in hit-and-run near Dixie Mall", and many more. --Bejnar (talk) 01:16, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: It's really not needed. Also, locals call the Ontario one the Dixie Outlet Mall, from my experience. But we could get the same amount of information by just having a link at the top of each page says "For the Dixie Mall in XXXX, click here" TimeEngineer (talk) 05:04, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Which one, if either, should Dixie Mall land the reader on, in order to find that hatnote? -- JHunterJ (talk) 11:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Probably the Ontario mall, since it's still open and operating. TimeEngineer (talk) 13:52, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    wbm1058, this is why the correctly-formed move discussion should have been allowed to play out. -- JHunterJ (talk) 14:00, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep proper WP:D which aides our readers. Lightburst (talk) 16:46, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:09, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soder Cola[edit]

Soder Cola (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This doesn't rise to more than a list of times a minor plot detail appeared in the background of the WP:PLOT. And the policy on what Wikipedia is WP:NOT says that articles need to include more than a list of plot details. All articles need significant coverage in reliable third party sources, as described by the general notability guideline. Even as is, it's a WP:TRIVIALMENTION in the fiction itself, let alone secondary sources, which prevents us from writing an encyclopedic article. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 20:10, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal ecology[edit]

Transpersonal ecology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Compare to transpersonal sociology. In this instance, it looks like it is connected to only Warwick Fox and I fail to see why there should be two articles when one will suffice. The biography seems the natural place to keep this content. jps (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Environment-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There doesn't seem to be enough here to warrant a stand-alone article, and the content doesn't really need to be preserved via merging. I did like Fox is important to the field according to Fox in an article by Fox., though. XOR'easter (talk) 14:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete This sentence of the article summarizes the notability clearly: "Fox is important to the field according to Fox in an article by Fox." --mfb (talk) 03:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was redirect to Transpersonal disciplines#Transpersonal disciplines. Further discussion of whether the redirect is appropriate can take place at WP:RFD. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:46, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Transpersonal sociology[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Transpersonal sociology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

"There is no there there," as they say. Truly, it seems that this is just an article of synthesis glomming on to anyone who has mention the transpersonal framework with respect to sociology. As far as I can tell, however, it does not represent a coherent movement. The closest they got was a newsletter that ran for two years. We can cover that in the transpersonal discipline article more than adequately. Standalone this article does not deserve. jps (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Social science-related deletion discussions. jps (talk) 19:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support deletion per nom. JoelleJay (talk) 22:29, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 12:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Transpersonal_disciplines#Transpersonal_disciplines where it is mentioned. Per the nom's argument, multiple authors have discussed sociological aspects of the transpersonal framework and covering it briefly in the transpersonal disciples article is a reasonable approach. The topic is a reasonable search term and so a redirect is warranted. Any RS could be merged there as well. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 16:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect as suggested by Mark viking. XOR'easter (talk) 23:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, not very confident in the suggested redirect target, looks to be all from a couple of fringe journals. fiveby(zero) 22:24, 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 redirect to History of Arda#First Age. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:45, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

War of Wrath[edit]

War of Wrath (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I appreciate that fans of this fiction might care about this one, but I couldn't find a single source outside of Tolkien, or paid licensed works. Wikipedia is WP:NOTPLOT and articles based on primary sources can't meet fundamental guidelines about verifiability and original research, let alone proportionality. Third party sources are still the basic level requirement, as seen in the general notability guideline, and there just aren't any that give this more than a passing mention, as a relatively obscure part of Tolkien's more notable fiction. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shooterwalker (talk) 19:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"as far as I can see" - well, why not prove it? What do the sources say? What do they compare the War to, and why? What are its literary, religious and mythological precedents? If the sources are substantial and directly detailed on the topic as you claim, rather than covering far wider areas as their titles and summaries indicate, why don't you add a few cited sentences describing what each source says to the article? David Day's multiple sources that you've linked above are borderline usable (a bit of coverage, just about reliable) but certainly not scholarly. The scholarly sources, and I had a widespread look around at those, seem mainly not very interested in the war itself, mentioning it only in passing. If you can prove this estimate wrong, I'll be delighted, but I'm afraid that the "as far as I can see" level of discussion doesn't cut it for me. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:28, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, I have recently started out improving an article in a less clear case. In the middle of it, the deletion discussion was closed as redirect, my effort was ignored. Or, why should not rather the deletion/redirect voters improve it, rather than throw content out, who obviously are more averse to the current status of the article than me? Or, in a less person-directed phrasing: AfD is not for improvement. Rather "Consider whether the article could be improved rather than deleted" is explicitly what should be done before a nomination for deletion.
With "as fas as I can see" I meant: I am convinced that WP:GNG is met by the sources. I simply do not claim to know "the Truth" on the matter, and am open to discussing the sources I have uncovered. Sorry, if this was not clear. I am happy to present my opinion in more factual statements, if this is expected in an AfD discussion - though I personally think, opinions are far too often phrased as "facts".
You may be but unfortunately nobody else is.
The fact that David Day's books may not be scholarly is irrelevant with regard to WP:GNG, except if there should by any doubt about their reliability. Is there?
There is some doubt; as I said, he is at best a marginal source, not a scholar. Since Tolkien himself made a (weak) comparison to Ragnarök (saying it was not very much like it), we can believe Day on that much. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What's the doubt? (I am required to "prove" my statements, how is it with that one?) Daranios (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have already tried to shortly summarize for each secondary source what it provides. Why don't you look at the original texts yourself, if you are unsatisfied with that? (At least some are freely available at Google Books.) I could quote them, but I think that would be a copyright problem.
As a compromise I'll try to answer your questions in a slightly more extended summary: The War of Wrath is compared to Norse and Christian mythology, to Ragnarök and Armageddon, where Day compares a number of indiviual participants and elements, as well as juxtaposition, between Tolkien's Work and its inspirations. The War of Wrath is compared, to World War I and II and prior major wars. Why: Due to it's influence on Tolkien and his generation. Within Tolkien's work, it is (unsurprisingly) compared to the war of the Last Alliance and the War of the Ring/Battle at the Pellenor Fields. It provides a turning point within the narrative. Again compared to the major wars of the 19th and 20th century, which were similar turning points in real-world history. Despite its importance within Tolkien's narrative, it is not presented by Tolkien as long as one might expect, making way for more personal stories. Within the War's description, it is remarked how it focuses on personages like Eärendil rather than the major powers like Melkor.
If you still want more, I have to look closer again at the sources next week. Do you want me to count sentences to "prove" they are not passing mentions? Would you believe my count? Daranios (talk) 12:49, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We can't tell from that sort of summary what info came from what source, or how much each source had to say, which is crucial. One editor's "count" will not "prove" anything. At this stage I doubt if the !voters will believe anything less than the addition of multiple new paragraphs added to the article and cited separately to reliable scholarly sources, with quotations to demonstrate extensive coverage in each of the sources. Multiple wobbly Day-style sources only weaken your case. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds like a "Keep" opinion has to be proven, "Redirect"/"Delete" opinions don't have to be. Whatever happened to good faith? I am asked to put in a few hours of work to prove my point, while "Redirect"/"Delete" opinions don't even need to consider the new points I have raised? That sounds... assymetrical.
I feel that deletion nominations are done much easier than article improvements. I don't want to believe Wikipedia's supposed to work like that.
Personally, I have decades worth of "homework" from past discussions on improving articles. Still, I would consider putting in this work in this case, but that would take me a few weeks (or more if lot's of new deletion discussions of interest to me spring up). If somehow there was a guarantee that the article would not deleted until then, I would start. Otherwise I have to decline due to negative experience, and hope for recognition by the closer. Daranios (talk) 17:58, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Everybody here is a volunteer, more or less. I have worked on dozens of Middle-earth articles, including some that people wanted to delete, and found sources for them. I'm afraid I just don't think, from the range of scholarly books and papers that I've seen, that this topic is worth that effort: I think it's marginal but worth a paragraph in the History article. If you, alone of all the editors here, think it is worth a whole article, then you are welcome, indeed invited, to demonstrate the topic's notability. If you don't think that worthwhile either, then, well, join the club. Chiswick Chap (talk) 18:05, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Noone who has formed the opinion "Redirect"/"Delete" has commented on the content of any of the sources I have suggested and described, so I can only assume they have not looked at the sources. And yet when they say "the opinion that these contain worthwhile content is wrong", that should carry weight?
The one exception is you, but content-wise you commented only on the Day sources saying "Day is marginal and doubtful", but without explaining why.
To grab at the last straw, you stated that my extended summary isn't helpful because it doesn't say "what info came from what source, or how much each source had to say". If I told you what of my summary came from which source, would that make any difference to you? I'm thinking not, because you already stated that if I alone told you how much there is in each source, that wouldn't help. And as I said, so far noone else seems able or willing to look at the sources themselves. But if I am mistaken, and can make a difference to you without investing a number of hours, let me know. Daranios (talk) 22:30, 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. After extended time for discussion, consensus has fairly clearly fallen on the side of the subject's collection of points of notability establishing general notability. BD2412 T 00:46, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Stanton-King[edit]

Angela Stanton-King (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not appear to meet WP:GNG. There's WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E issues with this subject, as there are some WP:GHITS relating to her pardon, but not much. Also notability is WP:NOTINHERITED from her godmother. Also fails WP:NPOL as an unelected candidate, and she's not going to beat John Lewis. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Georgia (U.S. state)-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect > 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia or List of people granted executive clemency by Donald Trump Djflem (talk) 20:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. People do not automatically qualify for Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won: the notability test at WP:NPOL is holding a notable office, not just running for one. But this makes no credible claim that she has preexisting notability that would have gotten her into Wikipedia independently of the candidacy, and is not referenced to anything like the sheer explosion of media coverage it would take to make her candidacy markedly more special than everybody else's candidacies. Obviously no prejudice against recreation on or after election day if she wins. Bearcat (talk) 22:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Multiple non-trivial reliable sources exist on the suject and are in the article. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 00:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. She is not notable as a candidate, as a family member, or just generally. SportingFlyer T·C 01:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Stanton-King is not getting more references than any other candidate for US house. If she were to pass notability than every US house candidate would, and we have decided that they all do not. If Stanton-King is elected she will be notable, until that happens either in this election or some future election for a position that meets notability guidelines, she will not be notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep passes GNG, and not just for her candidacy. SIGCOV sources include the following: [14], [15], [16], [17], [18], [19]. There is clearly enough material to write a useful article about more than just the campaign. I do not agree with the higher standard for politician notability (and keep in mind NPOL is only a guideline, not a policy), and there is substantial coverage in national sources, not just local sources. This includes an in depth profile in the Washington Informer, a DC-based publication, as well as the usual national outlets. This is a clear keep to me. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • She fails WP:NPOL and more importantly WP:NOT, since almost all of her coverage is in the context of the election apart from her pardon, which wouldn't make her wiki-notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I don't get what you guys are talking about. The first par of NPOL is about people who don't meet the GNG but are still considered notable, and the rest says if you meet the GNG then you're notable. So it's a lower bar than the GNG. In this case she meets the GNG, so what am I missing here? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 16:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Pretty much all candidates meet WP:GNG, but you can pass WP:GNG and still not be eligible for an article - that's why WP:NOT applies. She fails WP:NOTNEWS and WP:BLP1E (and no, getting pardoned is not a "second event") as an unelected candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 17:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you for clarifying that you really meant NOTNEWS and BLP1E. I don't agree that it's only one event, ant that those are reasons to delete, but at least those guidelines could possibly be a reason to delete. Peregrine Fisher (talk) 19:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We don't keep articles for people who are only notable for being candidates. The keep !votes which mention sources exist don't actually mention all of those sources are directly tied to her candidacy - she was not notable for being pardoned, as she was merely listed in a couple articles for having "connections." She's extremely unlikely to win - if she does, we can recreate the article. We could redirect to the election article if we want to keep the information. SportingFlyer T·C 18:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:29, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Not 1E: anti-choice activist, reality TV star, author, pardoned, candidate. Passes BASIC. pburka (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Pburka:. Anti-choice activist? So are a lot of people. What makes her more notable than any other citizen who engages in activism? Reality TV star? The docu-series on which she appears ran for two seasons with no proof provided she was even in multiple episodes. Author? Her book [author https://www.barnesandnoble.com/w/life-of-a-real-housewife-angela-stanton/1128598297 has a Barnes and Noble sales rank of ~552,826]. Pardoned? That in of itself does not meet notability as it is a single event with minimal society-wide reprecusions (though happy for her). Candidate? Multiple posters have maintained candidate in of itself does not meet notability unless it passes the Christine O'Donnell test for historical significance.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No one's arguing she doesn't - almost all political candidates will meet GNG for their campaign activity. However, WP:NOT trumps GNG, and even if we assume she's not a BLP1E (she is) this article still fails WP:PROMO (as it was created exclusively to support the campaign) and WP:NOTNEWS (as all of the significant coverage is of her campaign.) SportingFlyer T·C 16:54, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Since this article is not a dictionary entry; is not a publication of original thought: is not a soapbox or means of promotion, not a mirror or a repository of links, images, or media files; not a blog, web hosting service, social networking service, or memorial site; is not a directory listing; is not a manual, guidebook, textbook, or scientific journal; is not a crystal ball making prediecations; is not a newspaper article; is not an indiscriminate collection of information, which specific part from the guideline NOT is being referred to? And how it trumps GNG? (the part about censorship might come into play here, which deletion would speak to.) Is there a special place or RS one can go to check to see how this article "created exclusively to support the campaign" or is that just conjecture? Djflem (talk) 21:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a means of promotion - it's an article created solely to support a political campaign - and it is a WP:NOTNEWS as the coverage of her isn't lasting, since it's all a part of her campaign, with the exception of two articles where she's mentioned. This is accepted procedure. For discussion of how this works, check Wikipedia:Village_pump_(idea_lab)#Rethinking_notability_standards_for_political_candidates. GNG is just a presumption - if something passes GNG but fails one or more of WP:NOT, then the article shouldn't be kept just because there are sources. I also do not like the fact you've accused me of censorship both here and at another AfD just because I'm trying to apply the same standards to this article as we apply to articles about any candidate. SportingFlyer T·C 22:12, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I created this article. I didn't create it to support a political campaign, not even a little bit. Why do you keep saying it was created solely to support a campaign? What am I missing here? Peregrine Fisher (talk) 23:02, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can we now agree the claim made not once, but twice, was to why the article was created is clarified and stop attempting to read minds and presume to known why articles are written?Djflem (talk) 00:03, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Because she is a current candidate with no other claim to notability! The pardon doesn't come close to GNG, someone mentioned a reality TV show but that's not mentioned in the article, and notability is not inherited through her family. SportingFlyer T·C 01:13, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I also want to make clear I have no issue with a merge/redirect to the article on the election. SportingFlyer T·C 03:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
An assertion is not a "because". Also, absolutely no PROMO here. Article is completely written with a Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. If otherwise, please point out which language is promotional and that can be easily corrected. Djflem (talk) 10:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia#District 5. Essentially all the coverage of her which has been presented is about her run in the 2020 Congressional elections (which she is almost certainly going to lose, as far as I can see). Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of people (WP:NOTNEWS), and being in the news does not in itself mean that someone should have an article (WP:BLP1E). She fails the three tests which BLP1E lays out: reliable sources only cover her in the context of one event, she is otherwise likely to remain a low profile individual (losing an election does not have long term significance), and the event is not nearly significant enough in itself to overcome this. Hut 8.5 15:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I did a quick news search and stopped looking after four pages - there's easily enough sustained coverage to write an article. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:49, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. No one is arguing that there is not enough internet content to write an article. Does her criminal activity meet Wikipedia:Criminal? No. A car theft ring is not unusual nor do the sources about that ring indicate there was different than any other ring. Does her activism meeting Wikipedia:Politician? Her advocacy for the First Step Act does not meet the standard of "significant national spokesperson for a political issue" as described in the common outcomes for politician articles. Did she testify about the bill? Did she lead an organization dedicated to it? No. She is also involved in Donald Trump's black outreach efforts, but she is only described as "one of Trump's black supporters," not an organizational leader. By that logic every Black Republican precinct captain would be eligible for a Wikipedia article. Does her presidential pardon? No and I think that's fairly established receipt of a pardon does not make one notable.--Mpen320 (talk) 03:09, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That dissection is very good argument why this article is not BLP1E. But, of course, we look at the whole picture and the combined activities, accomplishments, and awards in a biography. Djflem (talk) 05:32, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nothing I have said there should indicate that this makes the article notable. I'm literally saying that this proves she fails notability. Her activism is covered only so far as it is related to her candidacy. Thus, reliable sources cover the person only in the context of a single event. There is no reason to believe that in the immediate future she will become a high profile individual based off of this candidacy or any of the other few things that are cited. Finally, none of what has been described constitutes a significant event in which the individual had a substantial role. I would argue that none of the events in questions are Wikipedia notable. Please see Wikipedia:Biographies_of_living_persons#Subjects_notable_only_for_one_event--Mpen320 (talk) 16:06, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Except we don't. That coverage is about a single event which is her campaign.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: plenty of WP:SIGCOV this not WP:BLP1E. The subject also received a Presidential Pardon. No such thing as WP:BLP2E so we are good. Lightburst (talk) 19:14, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment. No we aren't. The candidacy is not Wikipedia notable. The pardon is not Wikipedia notable. Feel free to scroll through the list of people who have received pardons for a full list of how many not Wikipedia-notable people have received a pardon.--Mpen320 (talk) 20:40, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. I came by to consider closing the discussion, but I felt strongly enough about this that I would rather comment instead. The coverage cited in the article and linked here is clearly enough to pass GNG. Other guidelines like NPOL are alternative lower bars, and should not be applied in a way that invalidates the presumption of notability earned by passing GNG. To put it another way, just because she's running for an office and hasn't yet been elected doesn't mean that she can't still be notable. Other policy concerns, like BLP1E, should of course be considered, but I don't believe they apply in this case. Her claim to notability is not just her candidacy or her pardon, but the sum total of these factors. Sufficient coverage exists to write an article that complies with WP:V and WP:BLP, and that is the entire point of the notability guideline. –Darkwind (talk) 23:08, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also, just because coverage exists because of one event (in this case, her candidacy) does not mean that the coverage is only about that one event. Yes, people are writing about her because she's running for office, but they're writing about more of her history than just this race. That gives us enough coverage to write a more comprehensive article and avoid BLP1E problems. –Darkwind (talk) 23:13, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:44, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Broward County Library[edit]

Broward County Library (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I often tolerate articles about non-notable subjects, as long as paid editors don't come along and add puffery. When the paid puffery arrives, it's time to delete the non-notable article in question. We have too many other articles to maintain. Plus, we don't really need an article about this library system, anyway: they have a good website.

I did a bit of Google searching; I'm not convinced that the subject is notable. If you disagree, please show us your two or three best sources only.

Draftification would be inadequate here. Please delete per WP:ORG and WP:NOTFORPROMOTION. If deletion is impossible, let's merge our article into Broward County, Florida, which has significantly more watchers. Thank you for reading this! —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Museums and libraries-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Florida-related deletion discussions. —Unforgettableid (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Paid editing is certainly a reason to delete some of the article's content, but I still think the subject itself is notable by passing WP:ORG and WP:GNG. These sources (1, 2, and 3 ) are, I think, sufficient for establishing notability. I would also add that while COI editing is problematic, it is less problematic when done by an institution like a library compared to a corporation. Zoozaz1 (talk) 21:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. You only found local news articles. 1 includes a paragraph or two about the library's electronic resources, but the rest of the article is about a minor controversy over the library's spending habits. 2 and 3 mostly focus on current events: how the library's practices and services have changed during the pandemic. Routine local news coverage is nothing special. I was hoping for significant coverage: please see WP:ORGDEPTH. As WP:TWOPRONGS states: "If we lack sufficient secondary source coverage to build an encyclopedia article about a subject, we usually should not have an article on that subject". Regards, —Unforgettableid (talk) 00:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is true that I found only local news articles, however that does not mean they don't contribute to notability. WP:ORGDEPTH states that singificant coverage is "coverage provides an organization with a level of attention that extends well beyond brief mentions and routine announcements." The first source I found has 1/3-1/2 of the story detailing electronic offerings, the rest relating to those offerings through a controversy. The other two stories do focus on current events, but that focus does not mean they don't contribute to notability, with each of the stories giving significant attention to the system and then detailing its current changes. WP:TWOPRONGS, while useful in general, is an essay, which would not carry as much weight compared to policies or guidelines regarding notability (and one could argue that the sources provided are enough to write a basic article on the subject.) Zoozaz1 (talk) 01:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. Berry, John (1996-06-15). "Broward County Library: Library of the Year 1996". Library Journal. 121 (11). Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.
    2. Jasper, Catherine; de la Peña McCook, Kathleen (August 1998). "Broward County Library". The Florida Library History Project (PDF). University of South Florida. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

      The article is also available at https://digital.lib.usf.edu/SFS0000134/00001.

    3. Halper, Marsha (1997-04-20). "5 projects planned to expand system". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.
    4. Halper, Marsha (1997-04-20). "Not just books pack libraries. System struggles to keep up". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.
    5. Sachs, Susan (1974-06-02). "Broward Library Friends Spread Word". Fort Lauderdale News. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.
    6. Nolin, Robert (2015-02-28). "From humble beginnings, Broward library reaches millions". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06 – via Chicago Tribune.
    7. Li, Linus; Storey, John (2011-02-11). "A Comprehensive Analysis of the Broward County Libraries Division's Public Library Services" (PDF). MGT of America. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

      The report was presented to Broward County Library.

    8. Hiaasen, Carl (Winter 1994). "Broward County Library turns 20". Cultural Quarterly. Vol. 8.

      The article is referenced as a source in https://digital.lib.usf.edu/SFS0000134/00001. I do not have access to the article.

    Sources with quotes
    1. Berry, John (1996-06-15). "Broward County Library: Library of the Year 1996". Library Journal. 121 (11). Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

      The article notes:

      WHEN THEY TALK about partnerships in Broward County, Florida, one of the partners mentioned is likely to be the Broward County Library (BCL). The BCL's other affiliations, nearly 500 of them, include businesses like banks, airlines, brokers, and travel firms. Some partners are organizations, and they range over all fields, from education and philanthropic supporters to commercial and trade associations. There are alliances with local, county, state, and federal government agencies and jurisdictions. Educational connections are a BCL staple, and there are significant projects involving school boards, universities, community colleges, and schools, plus organizations of teachers and/or educators. BCL also has partners among the county's religious groups. Finally, of course, there are relationships with other libraries and library organizations throughout Florida and the United States.

      ...

      When BCL opened in 1974 it included two city libraries (Hollywood and Fort Lauderdale), 100 employees, and a budget of $1.5 million. Today BCL's budget totals about $29 million, of which 95 percent still comes from the county property tax. The library is governed by the county and is part of the same division of county government-the Department of Community Services-that handles mass transportation, parks, and other such services.

      ...

      The 33 units of BCL include the big main library, three regional libraries, and 29 branches spread throughout the count Scheduled bookmobile service reaches some 30 neighborhoods that are not near permanent library facilities. The BCL mix features nearly every type of library found in the United States, along with an unusual variety of collections and services. Key unions, among the many that make BCL unique, enhance this variety of library type and service.

    2. Jasper, Catherine; de la Peña McCook, Kathleen (August 1998). "Broward County Library". The Florida Library History Project (PDF). University of South Florida. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

      The article is also available at https://digital.lib.usf.edu/SFS0000134/00001.

      The article notes:

      Broward County Library Broward County Library is a consolidated library system, chartered in 1974 by the Broward County Commission. It is a division of the Community Services Department, a unit of Broward County Government.

      The system started with only two municipal libraries: the Fort Lauderdale Library (consisting of three libraries, Fort Lauderdale, Riverland and Mizell and two bookmobiles) and the Hollywood Library. The fledgling system had a budget of $1.3 million dollars.

      A 1978 bond issue provided a basis for the existing library system and was preceded by a strong public relations effort. A library committee made recommendations to the county for the size of the bond issue and the number of facilities to be included. A special task force was organized to "sell" the concept.

      As a result of that bond issue, 13 facilities were either built or expanded. The Imperial Point Library, which opened in April 1988, was the last facility to be completed from the funding of the 1978 bond issue. From 1978 to the present, over $60 million dollars has been spent for the construction of facilities, including the Main Library building. Four libraries were built with federal community block grants.

    3. Halper, Marsha (1997-04-20). "5 projects planned to expand system". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      Five projects are planned within the next five years to keep pace with the growing needs of the Broward County Library system. Four are for construction of new libraries and one is for the expansion of an existing library, said Kathleen Imhoff, Broward County Library assistant director. Here's what's planned:

      The article discusses the "African-American Research Library on Sistrunk Boulevard in Fort Lauderdale", "Collier City Library in unincorporated Broward near Pompano Beach", "Emerald Hills Library on Stirling Road in central Hollywood", "Pembroke Pines Library about one mile east of Interstate 75", and "Wiles Road Library in Coral Springs". The article lists facts about the library: number of books is 1,985,088, number of computers is 342, number of full-time employees is 636, number of libraries and reading centers is 33, and annual budget is $27.2 million.
    4. Halper, Marsha (1997-04-20). "Not just books pack libraries. System struggles to keep up". Miami Herald. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      Patrons stream in seven days a week. But unlike Broward County Public Schools, which can add portable classrooms to ease its crowded buildings, the Broward County Library system can't easily add on to existing libraries.

      ...

      Broward County Library is negotiating with requests from other cities for more library space. The county's five-year plan calls for a new community library at Emerald Hills in Hollywood. The $5.2 million, 20,000-square-foot project is slated for design in 1999.

      ...

      Residents of Weston successfully lobbied for Broward County Library to open the Weston Reading Center, which primarily serves children. At 1,200 square feet, it's the smallest in the systeem and one of the busiest. Now the city wants a bigger commitment from the county, for a full-size library.

    5. Sachs, Susan (1974-06-02). "Broward Library Friends Spread Word". Fort Lauderdale News. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06 – via Newspapers.com.

      The article notes:

      When the Broward County library system becomes reality in a few weeks, it will find itself a bevy of friends just waiting to spread the good news to residents.

      Concerned citizens are forming a Friends of the Broward County Library to act as a mobile information source for those residents who suddenly find themselves able to use library facilities without paying a dime.

    6. Nolin, Robert (2015-02-28). "From humble beginnings, Broward library reaches millions". Sun-Sentinel. Archived from the original on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06 – via Chicago Tribune.

      The article notes:

      Created at the urging of library activists and the League of Women Voters, the Broward County library system was established in June 1974. When it began issuing cards, the library controlled 270,000 items for loan in four branches.

      Today, the library system has grown tenfold, operating from 40 locations — regional libraries, branch libraries and reading centers. The ninth largest lilbrary system in the country, it has some 3.5 million items to loan, including videos and electronic books. More than 1 million people hold library cards, and some 10 million folks visit county libraries every year.

    7. Li, Linus; Storey, John (2011-02-11). "A Comprehensive Analysis of the Broward County Libraries Division's Public Library Services" (PDF). MGT of America. Archived from the original (PDF) on 2020-07-06. Retrieved 2020-07-06.

      The report was presented to Broward County Library.

      The report notes:

      The Broward County Libraries Division (Libraries Division or BCL) was established by the County in 1973 to replace localized city library systems with a comprehensive county-wide library system. In 1974, the County began BCL operations when it opened four branches with approximately 270,000 collection items. In 1978, the first of a number of city libraries—the Hollywood branch— joined BCL, with many other cities following in the 1980s. BCL’s main library opened in 1984, and the County added additional branches in subsequent years; by 1989 BCL consisted of 23 branches housing 1.5 million collection items. In the late 1990s, the County began planning for an expansion using a construction bond measure to fund a series of new branches throughout the County. The County’s main reason for this expansion was to update the libraries to take advantage of new technology and to meet the needs of an increased County population.

      In 1999, Broward County voters approved a $139.9 million construction bond—a significant point in BCL’s evolution. The resulting bond-funded construction greatly increased the size of the BCL branch network, establishing new branches in previously un-served or underserviced areas, and expanding capacity in existing branches. Using bond funds, BCL was able to build or renovate facilities, including 4 regional libraries, 5 community libraries, 12 neighborhood libraries, and to expand space in existing facilities.

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

    Cunard (talk) 05:12, 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. Numerically, we're at 11 keep to 19 delete in my count, which is close to a 2:1 majority for deletion.

In terms of arguments, Cunard has made a strong (if overlong) case to show that this is indeed a classification of people reflected and discussed in reliable sources. Any strong argument for deletion would therefore need to be something other than non-notability.

The "delete" side does make such an argument: in their view, there are no clear inclusion criteria because almost every celebrity has been called a sex symbol by somebody at some point. Cunard rewrote the list during the AfD to attempt to address this argument, but many people subsequently wrote that they do not think that this resolves the problem of fans re-adding their favorite celebrity based on low-quality sources.

While we are fond of saying that AfD is not cleanup, I am ultimately convinced that the "delete" side's argument that the lack of consensus about inclusion criteria prevents us from writing a high-quality list with this title is a strong one. Together with the "delete" side's numerical majority, I am satisfied that we have rough consensus for deletion until there is a solid consensus among interested editors for establishing inclusion criteria. To establish such consensus, the article can be draftified or userfied, and if such consensus can be established, the article can be restored. Sandstein 08:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Deletion requires steward permissions; I have made the required request. Sandstein 08:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of sex symbols[edit]

AfDs for this article:
List of sex symbols (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This list serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted. It exemplifies everything that's broken with the way people have been applying the list notability guidelines in deletion discussions in order to keep garbage like this. It is an affront to all that is good and holy about Wikipedia.

Not again. The line must be drawn here. This far. No further!

Even if "Sex symbol" is a topic worthy of an article, it does not follow that a list like this is. A puff piece in the entertainment section of a newspaper that hypes Actor X or Actress Y as a "sex symbol" is no basis for inclusion into a list. That's not a reliable source. There are no reliable sources for something like this. Maybe you could convince me that a good scholarly study in a sociology journal could pass muster. But that's not what this list is, nor what it ever has been, nor what it ever would be. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:48, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sexuality and gender-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 02:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per NOT. Attempts to strengthen the inclusion criteria has gotten nowhere. Judging from the references, being a "sex symbol" is almost a requirement for a broad swath of the entertainment industry, and a commonly used label by publicists. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 03:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    To clarify, the approach we're taking just results in a list of people promoted as a "sex symbol", which is a fairly indiscriminate label when it comes to publicity. There may be a related, encyclopedic, article that we could create with a similar topic, if we can focus on historical significance rather than routine publicity. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 17:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, but drastically trim (Bela Lugosi???). Inclusion should require near-universal acknowledgement (e.g. Marilyn Monroe) by respected sources, not the opinion of some random writer. Clarityfiend (talk) 05:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in reliable sources.

    The subject passes Wikipedia:Notability#Stand-alone lists, which says, "One accepted reason why a list topic is considered notable is if it has been discussed as a group or set by independent reliable sources, per the above guidelines; notable list topics are appropriate for a stand-alone list." I will show below that "sex symbols" has been treated as a "a group or set by independent reliable sources".

    Sources

    1. Siegel, Scott; Siegel, Barbara (1990). The Encyclopedia Of Hollywood. New York: Facts on File. pp. 379–382. ISBN 978-1-4381-3008-8. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      The encyclopedia has an entry titled "Sex Symbols: Female". It lists these sex symbols: Theda Bara, Clara Bow, Joan Crawford, Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Jean Harlow, Hedy Lamarr, Betty Grable, Veronica Lake, Rita Hayworth, Lana Turner, Ava Gardner, Jane Russell, Marilyn Monroe, Grace Kelly, Elizabeth Taylor, Carol Lynley, Carrol Baker, Ann-Margret, Jane Fonda, Sophia Loren, Virna Lisi, Gina Lollobrigida, Ursula Andress, Elke Sommer, and Bo Derek.

      The encyclopedia has an entry titled "Sex Symbols: Male". It lists these sex symbols: Tyrone Power, Montgomery Clift, Rudolph Valentino, Charles Boyer, Cary Grant, Rock Hudson, Sylvester Stallone, Francis X. Bushman, Rudolph Valentino, John Gilbert, Clark Gable, Victor Mature, Burt Lancaster, Marlon Brando, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Warren Beatty, Kevin Costner, Tom Cruise, John Travolta, and Richard Gere.

    2. Hovey, James (2008). "Sex Symbol". In Malti-Douglas, Fedwa (ed.). Encyclopedia Of Sex And Gender. Vol. 4. Detroit: Macmillan Reference. pp. 1339–1340. ISBN 978-0-02-865964-0. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      The encyclopedia notes:

      Film star Theda Bara (1890–1955), known as The Vamp, is considered the first female sex symbol of the silent era ... Although nice girls such as Mary Pickford (1893–1979) and Clara Bow (1904–1965) would later become sex symbols of a different case ... Rudolph Valentino (1895–1926) is generally regarded as the first male cinematic sex symbol ... ... Bill Clinton ... Sean Connery ... Some of the most famous male Hollywood sex symbols include Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Marlon Brando, James Dean, Burt Reynolds, Paul Newman, Robert Redford, Denzel Washington, Tom Selleck, Mel Gibson, and Brad Pitt. ... The most famous female Hollywood sex symbols include Greta Garbo, Marlene Dietrich, Rita Hayworth, Jean Harlow, Dorothy Dandridge, Lana Turner, Jayne Manfield, Elizabeth Taylor, Marilyn Monroe—the most famous of them all—Halle, Berry, and Angelina Jolie. Two of the twentieth century's greatest sex symbols, Brigitte Bardot and Catherine Deneuve, were stars of the French cinema, and another smoldering sex symbol, Sophia Loren, began her film career in Italy before coming to Hollywood. ... Other film industries such as India's Bollywood have produced sex symbols, such as Jaya Bhaduri ...; Vyjayantimala ...; Madhuri Dixit; ... and Mallika Sherawat. Chinese actresses such as Zhang Ziyi are developing an international following, as is Mike Ho, a young actor from Taiwan. Antonio Banderas is one of the most famous male sex symbols in film in the 2000s, and Mexico's Salma Hayek has achieved international fame.

      The encyclopedia article also lists sex symbols in sports: Tyra Banks, Naomi Campbell, Russian tennis stars Maria Sharapova and Anna Kournikova, Swedish tennis star Bjorn Borg, American tennis champion Andre Agassi, Olympic track star Florence Griffith Joyner, Britain's David Beckham, Britain's rock star sting, Britain's Mick Jagger, Michael Jackson. It also lists Jewish actress Vamp Theda Bara as a sex symbol. It also lists African-American film star sex symbols: Dorothy Dandridge and Denzel Washington.
    3. Behrens, Kristen; Chesler, Lawrence; Elias, Megan J.; Fried, Katrina; Liu, Nicholas; Lubell, Peter; Mark, Rona; Odyniec, Karen; Peterson, Monique; Tabori, Lena (2003). Fried, Katrina; Tabori, Lena (eds.). The Love Almanac. New York: Welcome Books. Andrews McMeel Publishing. pp. 176, 186. ISBN 978-0-941807-91-3. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      The book has a chapter titled "Top Ten Female Sex Symbols" which it lists as: Pamela Anderson, Jean Harlow, Farrah Fawcett, Mae West, Jennifer Lopez, Brigitte Bardot, Sophia Loren, Josephine Baker, Madonna, and Marily Monroe.

      The book has a chapter titled "Top Ten Male Sex Symbols" which it lists as: Sean Connery, Richard Gere, George Clooney, Mick Jagger, Frank Sinatra, Marlon Brando, Humphrey Bogart, Brad Pitt, James Dean, and Elvis.

    4. Peary, Danny (1988) [1978]. Close-Ups: Intimate Profiles of Movie Stars by Their Co-Stars, Directors, Screenwriters, and Friends. New York: Simon & Schuster. ISBN 0-671-65758-5. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      The book's fourth section is titled "The Sex Symbols" and lists these sex symbols: Theda Bara, Douglas Fairbanks, Rudolph Valentino, Jean Harlow, Marlene Dietrich, Clark Gable, Mae West, Charles Boyer, Errol Flynn, Betty Grable, Rita Hayworth, Jennifer Jones, Ava Gardner, Rock Hudson, Kim Novak, Elizabeth Taylor, Warren Beatty, Raquel Welch, Burt Reynolds, Jacqueline Bisset, and Jodie Foster.

    5. Klingaman, William K (1992). Turning 40: Wit, Wisdom, and Whining. Plume. pp. 86–91. ISBN 0-452-26821-4. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      The book has a list of sex symbols and quotes from them: Brigitte Bardot, Victoria Principal, Bette Middler, Woody Allen, Jane Fonda, Joan Collins, Elizabeth Taylor, Raquel Welch, Ellen Goodman, Frank Sinatra, Tom Jones, Casanova, Colette, Jeanne Moreau, Paul Newman, Reggie Jackson, Farrah Fawcett, Sophia Loren, Elizabeth Taylor, Laurence Olivier, and Julio Iglesias.

    6. Moger, Art (1983). "Sex Symbols". Hello! my real name is--. Seacaucus, New Jersey: Citadel Press. pp. 25–36. ISBN 0-8065-0802-7. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      The book lists photos of sex symbols, and three names, and asks the users to select the right names on pages 25–36 with answers on page 154.

      The sex symbols are: Liberace, Fred Astaire, Ginger Rogers, Mary Pickford, Sophia Loren, Raquel Welch, Virna Lisi, Bo Derek, Marilyn Monroe, Rita Hayworth, Elke Sommer, Cheryl Ladd, Linda Christian, Sally Rand, Carole Landis, Angie Dickinson, Twiggy, Ann Sheridan, Rita Moreno, Capucine, Leslie Brooks, Zsa Zsa Gabor, Denise Darcel, Cher, Julie Newmar, Lili St. Cyr, Terry Moore, Joey Heatherton, Morgan Fairchild, Diana Dors, Mamie Van Doren, May Britt, Kim Novak, Corinne Calvet, Jayne Mansfield, Marie Wilson, and Suzanne Somers.

    7. Mercer, John (2013-03-06). "The enigma of the male sex symbol". Celebrity Studies. 4 (1). Taylor & Francis: 81–91. doi:10.1080/19392397.2013.750125.

      The book notes:

      represents the moment when Daniel Craig the actor ‘became’ Daniel Craig the sex symbol. ... more than that this iconic sequence established Ursula Andress as one of the sex symbol of the 1960s. ... Halle Berry was not the first black ‘Bond Girl’. ... consolidated her prominence as one of the new sex symbols of the twenty-first century. ... another sex symbol of the 1960s, Sean Connery. ...  figures such as Marilyn Monroe, whose star signification is entirely bound up with notions of the sex symbol ... Theda Bara for example, perhaps one of the prototypical sex symbols of the early years of the twentieth century. ... there are those whose sex-symbol status is latterly conferred. The contemporary example of David Beckham ... The recent example of the British comedy actor Hugh Laurie, whose status as a sex symbol has been conferred ... the casting of Channing Tatum, Matthew McConaughey and Joe Manganiello, three actors who have all had the status of sex symbol applied to them ...

    8. Tashman, George (1976). I Love You, Clark Gable, Etc: Male Sex Symbols of the Silver Screen. Richmond, California: Brombacher Books. ISBN 0-89085-082-8. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      Natalie Wood wrote a forward to the book.

      The book notes that "my basic defense of the twenty-two performers I've selected as subjects for this book is that they might well be termed universal male sex symbols." Here are the 22 sex symbols: Rudolph Valentino, Douglas Fairbanks, John Barrymore, John Gilbert, Ronald Colman, Gary Cooper, John Wayne, Clark Gable, Cary Grant, Charles Boyder, Robert Taylor, Errol Flynn, Tyrone Power, Humphrey Bogart, Frank Sinatra, Yul Brynner, Marlon Brando, Rock Hudson, James Dean, Robert Wagner, Paul Newman, and Robert Redford.

    9. Pascall, Jeremy (1976). Hollywood and the Great Stars: The Stars, the Sex Symbols, the Legend, the Movies and how it All Began. New York: Crescent Books. ISBN 978-0-517-18683-1. OCLC 2748194.
    10. Wallace, Irving; Wallace, Amy; Wallechinsky, David; Wallace, Sylvia (2008) [1981]. "Sex Symbols". In Kempthorne, Elizebethe (ed.). The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People. Port Townsend, Washington: Feral House. pp. 15–45. ISBN 978-1-932595-29-1. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      This is the 2008 edition of the book. (There is also a 1981 edition that has a different list of sex symbols.)

      The book's table of contents lists sex symbols and the page numbers they are discussed on:

      Josephine Baker (15)… Clara Bow (18)… Lord Byron (20)… Casanova (24)… Jean Harlow (28) … Mata Hari (31)… Prince Aly Khan (34)… Marilyn Monroe (37)… Porfiro Rubirosa (41)… Anna Nicole Smith (43)… Rudolph Valentino (45)

    11. Wallace, Irving; Wallace, Amy; Wallechinsky, David; Wallace, Sylvia (1981). "Sex Symbols". In Orsag, Carol (ed.). The Intimate Sex Lives of Famous People. New York: Delacorte Press. pp. 481–512. ISBN 0-440-04152-X. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      This is the 1981 edition of the book. (There is also a 2008 edition that has a different list of sex symbols.)

      The book notes:

      15. Sex Symbols

      Prince Aly Khan (481) ... Clara Bow (483) ... Lord Byron (485) .... Casanova (489) ... Sex Questionnaire on Casanova (493) ... Jean Harlow (496) ... Mata Hari (499) ... Adah Isaacs Menken (503) ... Marilyn Monroe (505) ... Porfirio Rubirosa (510) ... Rudolph Valentino (512)

    12. Weinberg, Thomas S.; Newmahr, Staci, eds. (2014). Selves, Symbols, and Sexualities: An Interactionist Anthology: An Interactionist Anthology. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications. p. xiv. ISBN 1483323897.

      The book notes:

      Men, as well as women, are seen as sex symbols. In the 1910s and 1920s, the actor Douglas Fairbanks, who played in what were called "swashbuckling" roles (i.e., in what we now call action films), was seen as the ideal man. In the 1920s, his status as a sex symbol was challenged by Rudolph Valentino, who was seen by women as the romantic ideal. Men, however, compared him negatively to Fairbanks, and there were those in the media who considered him effeminate because of his impeccable dress and slicked down hair (Ellenberger and Ballerini 2005).

      In the 1930s, movie stars were seen as sex symbols, such as Errol Flynn, who was another swashbuckler, Gary Cooper, and Clark Gable, were the epitome of masculinity. The 1940s found men with a more sophisticated persona like Cary Grant still masculine but more refined. The 1950s was the era of the "bad boy" image, personified by James Dean, who played a troubled teen in 1955's Rebel Without a Cause, and Marlon Brando, who played a motorcycle gang leader in the 1953 film The Wild Ones.

    20 more sources
    1. Rosen, David (2016). Sin, Sex & Subversion: How What Was Taboo in 1950s New York Became America's New Normal. New York: Skyhorse Publishing. p. 102. ISBN 1631440454.

      The book notes:

      Marilyn Monroe introduced the era's iconic female image, the unthreatening, eroticized, dumb blonde, in two 1950 movies, John Huston's The Asphalt Jungle and Joseph Mankiewicz's All About Eve. Her on-screen celebrity led to being pictorially profiled in Playboy's legendary 1953 first issue. Other '50s female movie sex symbols included Bardot, Jayne Mansfield, in The Girl Can't Help It (1956), and Jean Simmons, in Guys and Dolls (1955). A new generation of male sex symbols included Marlon Brando in On the Waterfront (1954); Paul Newman in The Silver Chalice (1954); James Dean in Rebel without a Cause (1955); and Elvis Presley in Jailhouse Rock (1957). They reconceived masculine identity.

    2. Evans, Adrienne; Riley, Sarah (2012-03-29). "Immaculate consumption: negotiating the sex symbol in postfeminist celebrity culture". Journal of Gender Studies. 22 (3). Routledge. doi:10.1080/09589236.2012.658145.

      The article notes:

      Elvis ... Marilyn Monroe ... Madonna ... These celebrity sex symbols are credited with taboo breaking, alleviating nations of their sexually repressed characters and revealing the cultural narrative of women’s entry and engagement in and around discourses of sexuality in the twentieth century (Dyer 1986, 2004). ... the new female celebrity sex symbol is understood ... For example, Paglia (2010) has claimed that singer Lady Gaga ... Brooke Magnanti’s blog and autobiography penned under the name Belle de Jour proved an interesting point of discussion in relation to the capacity for the postfeminist celebrity sex symbol to be self-made and money-making.

    3. Synnott, Anthony (2002). The Body Social. New York: Routledge. pp. 150–151. ISBN 1134850255.

      The book notes:

      This list of blonde sex symbols is not exhaustive, but it must include Jean Harlow, Jayne Mansfield, Lana Turner, Mae West, Marlene Dietrich, Marilyn Monroe (who once said, 'I like to feel blonde all over'), Brigitte Bardot, Doris Day, Goldie Hawn, Grace Kelly, Ursula Andress, Bo Derek, Dolly Parton and Madonna. Models have included Cheryl Tiegs, Christie Brinkley and Twiggy; actresses include Farrah Fawcett, Loni Anderson, Suzanne, Somers, Linda Evans, Morgan Fairchild, Cybill Shepherd, Cheryl Ladd, Michelle Pfeiffer and Kim Bassinger.

      ...

      Male sex symbols on the other hand have tended to be 'tall, dark, and handsome': Clark Gable, Humphrey Bogart, Cary Grant, and perhaps Elvis Presley and Marcello Mastroianni in the sixties and seventies; and more recently Burt Reynolds, Erik Estrada, Tom Selleck, Tom Cruise, Kevin Costner and Keanau Reeves. The only blonde sex symbols that spring to mind are Robert Redford, Patrick Swayze and Nick Nolte, and perhaps Rod Stewart and Sting.

    4. Watson, Eldwood; Martin, Darcy, eds. (2004). "There She Is, Miss America": The Politics of Sex, Beauty, and Race in America's Most Famous Pageant. New York: Palgrave Macmillan. p. 10. ISBN 978-1-4039-6301-7. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      The book notes:

      For the most part, there were no black counterparts to white sex symbols such as Marilyn Monroe and Ann-Margret; such figures were largely absent from the pages of magazines and newspapers. Lena Horne, Dorothy Dandridge, and Eartha Kitt were rare exceptions.

    5. Drop, Mark (1992). "Sex Symbols". The Hollywood Storyteller. New York: Mallard Press. ISBN 0-7924-5540-1. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      Chapter 3 of the book is titled "Sex Symbols". The book notes:

      You'll also follow the steamy paths of Hollywood's many sex symbols, such as Errol Flynn, Betty Grable, and Raquel Welch.

    6. Arogundade, Ben (2000). Black Beauty. London: Pavilion Books. pp. 43, 46, 59. ISBN 1-56025-276-6. Retrieved 2020-06-22.

      The book notes:

      Hattie McDaniel ... consistently starred opposite the quintessential white sex symbols of the day such as Jean Harlow, Vivien Leigh, Barbara Stanwyck, and Olivia de Havilland. ... The fair skinned Ethel Moses was billed as "the Negro Harlow," Bee Freeman was called "the sepia Mae West," Lorenzo Tucker "the black Valentino," and Slick Chester "the colored Cagney." In movies such as Temptation (1936) and God's Stepchildren (1937), these early black sex symbols operated in a parallel universe, outside the Hollywood mainframe, and became stars within the community. ... But former LA Rams football hero Woody Strode did break through when ... he became one of the era's only black male sex symbols.

    7. Montgomery, James (2014-12-29). "25 Hottest Sex Symbols of 2014". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    8. Abrahams, Sam; Kenny-Cincotta, Raffaela; Montgomery, James; Morgan, Wallace; Shuham, Matt (2015-12-18). "25 Hottest Sex Symbols of 2015". Rolling Stone. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    9. Hakala, Kate (2012-10-17). "The 50 Greatest Female Sex Symbols in Film History". Nerve. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    10. "Sex symbols over 50". The Daily Telegraph. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    11. Gallagher, Pat (2015-03-23). "The 12 Ultimate Sex Symbols Of Yesteryear We'll Never Forget". The Huffington Post. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    12. Ianzito, Christina (2015). "AARP's 21 Sexiest Men Over 50". AARP. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    13. "The Brit List: 20 Sexiest British Celebs of Yesteryear". BBC America. June 2006. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    14. Lo, Ricky (2005-10-08). "More sex symbols who became good actresses". The Philippine Star. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    15. "The 100 Hottest Women of All Time". Men's Health. 2013-11-22. Archived from the original on 2016-03-07. Retrieved 2016-03-07.
    16. "The Greatest African-American Sex Symbols". Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. November 2005. pp. 152–156. ISSN 0012-9011.

      The magazine lists sex symbols from '40s to '00s:

      '40s: Billy Eckstine

      '50s: Harry Belafonte and Dorothy Dandridge

      '60s: Marvin Gaye and Lola Falana

      '70s: Jayne Kennedy, Billy Dee Williams, and Pam Grier

      '80s: Philip Michael Thomas and Janet Jackson

      '90s: Denzel Washington, Halle Berry, and LL Cool J

      '00s: Tyson Beckford and Beyoncé

    17. "40 Years of Black Sex Symbols". Ebony. Johnson Publishing Company. November 1985. pp. 89–94. ISSN 0012-9011.

      The magazine notes:

      On the following pages are 13 persons who have been viewed as sex symbols during Ebony's 40 years of publication. Only some of them consciously play up their sensuality: none of them plays it down.

      It lists as sex symbols: Billy Dee Williams, Diahann Carroll, Dorothy Dandridge, Harry Belafonte, Lena Horne, Herb Jeffries, Billy Eckstine, Eartha Kitt, Calvin Lockhart, Pam Grier, and Richard Roundtree.
    18. Levine, Elana (2007). Wallowing in Sex: The New Sexual Culture of 1970s American Television. Durham, North Carolina: Duke University Press. ISBN 0822339196.

      The book notes on page 18:

      Brief profiles of competitors often focused on their physical attractiveness and included such footage as sex symbols Suzanne Somers and Lynda Carter exercising in full-make up and striking attractive poses.

      The book notes on page 13:

      Starring the established sex symbols Teresa Graves (known for her bikini-clad role on NBC's Laugh-In) and Angie Dickinson (of Hollywood films), both shows put their policewoman heroines in weekly jeopardy as they went undercover to capture criminals.

      The book notes on page 120:

      In Howard's initial play for Jennifer's attention, he references popular female sex symbols, first Olivia Newton-John and then Farrah Fawcett-Majors.

    19. Kar, Law; Bren, Frank; Ho, Sam (2004). Hong Kong Cinema: A Cross-cultural View. Lanham, Maryland: Scarecrow Press. p. 274. ISBN 0810849860.

      In a section titled "Sex Symbols", the book notes:

      During the 1930s and 1940s, cinemas in Shanghai and Hong Kong had their share of sex symbols, but because of censorship or social mores, the sexiness was never explicit and was conveyed mainly through swimming scenes or in domestic baths. The career horizon of a pinup girl was extremely short, so recognized sex symbols still appeared in more serious roles. Even the sexiest stars could not afford to make sex appeal a specialty à la Mamie van Doren or Diana Dors.

      ...

      Since the early 1960s, Run Run Shaw had openly recruited young women—mainly from Taiwan—for grooming in Hong Kong as sexy starlets. The likes of Chang Chung-wen, Lily Ho, and Mang Lei were followed by Shirley Huang, Angela Yu Chien, and others, who decorated various genres in or half out of contemporary dress or period costumes.

    20. Gregg, Robert; McDonogh, Gary W.; Wong, Cindy H., eds. (2005). Encyclopedia of Contemporary American Culture. New York: Routledge. ISBN 1134719280.

      The book notes:

      Perhaps because of the importance of the Hollywood studio system, sex symbols in the 1940s and 1950s emerged from film. In the 1950s, women who moved from this realm onto the pages of magazines, newspapers, and posters, and into the popular imaginations of men, seemed to reflect the growing economy of the country. These women, such as Marilyn Monroe and Jayne Mansfield, were buxom, breathy, blonde and, at first glance, seemed to exist for the sexual and visual pleasure of men. Sex symbols stood in contradistinction to the more appropriate standards of domesticated femininity that were being portrayed in television in the 1950s. These women stood outside traditional marriage and were more interested in seeking out fun than in keeping a good, clean home.

      Similarly, the male sex symbols that emerged out of the crumbling studio system, James Dean, Marlon Brando, Paul Newman and Montgomery Clift, unlike the efficient corporate model of masculinity, were intense brooders who refused to fit into suburbanized America.



    The list is not indiscriminate.

    Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information says Wikipedia articles should not be: "Summary-only descriptions of works", "Lyrics databases", "Excessive listings of statistics", and "Exhaustive logs of software updates". This article is none of these, so it is not indiscriminate.

    The list is not subjective. The inclusion criteria is clear and compliant with the list guideline.

    One editor wrote at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of sex symbols (3rd nomination) that "This list is subjective and uncontrollable" and another wrote that "inclusion is too subjective and arguable". I disagree that the list is subjective. From Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people:

    A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:

    The article complies with the guideline at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people by listing only notable people whose membership in the list is verified by reliable sources.

    Puff piece sources that hype actors and actresses as sex symbols

    The nominator wrote, "A puff piece in the entertainment section of a newspaper that hypes Actor X or Actress Y as a 'sex symbol' is no basis for inclusion into a list." This is an argument for trying to achieve consensus on the talk page to have the list selection criteria (Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Selection criteria) exclude "puff piece" sources that "hype" actors or actresses as "sex symbols". It is not a policy-based argument for deleting the entire list.

    The list might never be complete, which is fine.

    It is fine for the list never to be complete per Wikipedia:WikiProject Lists#Incomplete lists:

    Because of Wikipedia's role as an almanac, a gazetteer, as well as an encyclopedia, it contains a large number of lists. Some lists, such as the list of U.S. state birds, are typically complete and unlikely to change for a long time.

    Some lists, however, cannot be considered complete, or even representative of the class of items being listed; such lists should be immediately preceded by the {{Expand list}} template, or one of the topic-specific variations that can be found at Category:Hatnote templates for lists. Other lists, such as List of numbers, may never be fully complete, or may require constant updates to remain current – these are known as "dynamic lists", and should be preceded by the {{Dynamic list}} template.

    For example, List of people from Italy likely never will be complete. It was discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of Italians, where there was a strong consensus for retention.

    The AfD close for List of unusual deaths

    Here are the first two paragraphs of the 2013 AfD close of Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/List of unusual deaths (7th nomination), which was upheld at Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2013 November 3:

    The result was keep. I can find no way that this list violates WP:IINFO and/or WP:LIST, per the criteria. Furthermore, the list is not automatically WP:TRIVIA just because all of its entries don't have independent articles. Therefore, that argument is invalid. On the other side, the article being mentioned in Time magazine has absolutely no impact on our decision making here, and thereby that is a completely irrelevant argument for keeping this list. The same goes for the amount of page views this article has had, even if that puts the "want" for the information in perspective.

    To the point that this list is subjective OR: It isn't, as long as the items in the list are referenced to sources calling the deaths unusual. If there are items in the list where this is not the case, they should be fixed if possible and removed if not. But, improper items on the list is not a good argument for the deletion of the article as a whole. Calling the article "crap", and or stating that there isn't a good enough inclusion criteria yet are also terrible reasons for deletion. The article can always be improved, (this isn't a BLP1E type situation here). And the inclusion criteria can and should be drafted by a community discussion on it, not by deleting the article. If editors feel that this still hasn't been hammered out properly, an RFC should be started and the results of that RFC should be drafted into a firm policy on the matter.

    I quote this here to emphasize that 1) the list is not subjective original research and 2) the inclusion criteria can be discussed on the talk page if editors disagree with the current inclusion criteria.

    General notability guideline

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

    Cunard (talk) 09:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I'm not denying that the concept of sex symbols is notable, but what a sex symbol is is too ambiguous to have an article listing them. If we go by the usual requirement of 1 source saying they are a sex symbol then we could have people who are jokingly referred to as a sex symbol in one or two articles put on the same list as Pussy Galore and Maralyn Monroe. There are just too many problems with this article for it to be on Wikipedia. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep we shouldn't downplay the citations listed above that discuss sex symbols in detail. Also, the nominator's comments on keeping "garbage like this" and that the page "serves no encyclopedic purpose and should be deleted" are thinly veiled WP:IDONTLIKEIT points. The purpose of this page is to show that there are various people that society/the media has found sexy, though some admittedly are more famous for this distinction than others. While the article might not be perfect, AFD isn't supposed to be a place for cleanup. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 12:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    This list cannot be cleaned up. I called it garbage because it is garbage. I don't like it. It's unencyclopedic garbage, and we should delete unencyclopedic garbage. Not again. The line must be drawn here. This far. No further! –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Personal taste is irrelevant to whether something warrants an article. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 15:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@SNUGGUMS: My concerns are that: 1) The purpose of the page is to list people promoted with the label "sex symbol" which can apply to anyone with enough publicity behind them. 2) A "List of people notable for being sex symbols across multiple decades", or something similar where historical significance is clear, might be encyclopedic, but that's a different article entirely. Could you address these two concerns? (Apologies if they already are to some extent in your lengthy commentary). --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 16:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. From what I can remember, there was a point where somebody tried to limit citation use to those that specifically said "sex symbol" and not just synonyms (which may have at least partially been an attempt to avoid overfilling the page). Promotion of labels did not appear to be a concern as long as we kept our own personal views out (i.e. not saying we found one person sexier than another or that someone didn't deserve to be called sexy) and precise descriptions were used by a credible publication and the article accurately reflected what scholars/the press had written. 2. Using something like "notable for" in an article title is inappropriate POV and editorializing. A better idea might be splitting this into subpages for decades as that would give clear and neutral criteria plus could be easier to manage. See Lists of people on the United States cover of Rolling Stone and its listed subpages for an example of what I mean. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 18:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm afraid I was unable to convey my concerns, as that response doesn't address either. Additional information in an attempt to clarify:
1) Because "sex symbol" is used fairly indiscrimately, we have ended up simply echoing publicity campaigns rather than present information that belongs in an encyclopedia.
2) You appear to dismiss this concern based upon the title I gave that served as an example, while completely ignoring the purpose: to stress historical significance. It's how we should separate WP:SOAP from clearly encyclopedic content. Further, I'm saying any such change in inclusion criteria will be a different article. I also am suggesting we indicate the tighter inclusion criteria in the title itself, to avoid SPA editors from repeating what they've done with the current article. --Hipal/Ronz (talk) 18:31, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
My apologies for how that didn't help your concerns. Regarding the first point, I was saying that issues over promoting labels didn't seem to be problematic, at least when I was editing this article ages ago. Not sure how to filter out the worthy inclusions from the unworthy ones now when there's currently over 1,400 citations (substantially more than I ever remember seeing in the past). As for the second point, I knew what your purpose was, I just object to the proposed title suggestion. Any new inclusion criteria should probably be established within prose. I admittedly can't think of a good way to do that at the moment or how to appropriately convey it in the article title. SNUGGUMS (talk / edits) 22:25, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak Delete - after giving this one some thought, while I think there's no issue with the notability of this list, there is a problem with WP:SALAT because I don't see a way to set an unambiguous inclusion criteria short of "has been called a sex symbol". Unfortunately that's a term that people, including reliable sources, throw around without a lot of clarity about what they mean other than that, well, they think someone is attractive. And if that's the case, why wouldn't we include synonyms? Include "sexiest man/woman alive" lists and "heartthrobs" and "hunks" and "babes"? What's the difference? The closest thing I can think of to a sensible criteria is to only include people in sources that are about the concept of "sex symbols" (maybe even limited to scholarly literature). That's potentially problem prone in itself, and probably sufficiently limiting that it couldn't get buy in among those who would edit such a page, so I wind up as weak delete. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as there is no doubt the topic is very notable with an abundance of coverage in many reliable sources as shown in the list and analysis presented earlier. Though I would suggest that the inclusion criteria be tightened to include people who have been considered as sex symbols by reliable sources over a period of time say perhaps ten years so that temporary promotional descriptions of sex symbols would not be enough for inclusion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 17:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Today the term simply means "sexually attractive", which is applicable to 90% of young actresses, 100% of porn stars and 25% of male actors, and now this is nothing but a WP:PEACOCK term for a pretty celebrity. This renders the list basically useless. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. The sources available and cited in the article show how well many entries can not only be verified but contextualized in cultural history. The nominator and deletion !votes too easily disregard that and are either coming from WP:IDONTLIKEIT (as with the nominator's quite obvious contempt) or WP:SUSCEPTIBLE (as with Staszek Lem's slippery slope fear that this would somehow explode to include the entire porn industry). postdlf (talk) 21:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as overly broad, bordering on indiscriminate. Virtually every celebrity today has a puff piece or two calling them a sex symbol, and trying to narrow it down to people "primarily known for being a sex symbol" or other stronger criteria ends up being too subjective, so we're heading towards a list of every celebrity who was under 40 years old at some point. This list already exceeds the post-expand include size limit due to the number of references (which technically makes it fail WP:V and WP:BLP since that prevents citations from being displayed), so any criteria that requires multiple references would make the problem worse and is unworkable. Requiring backlinks (e.g. requiring the celebrity's article to call them a sex-symbol) will just result in more title-stuffing in lead sentences of those articles (it's bad enough that so many celebrities articles start with "So-and-so is an actor, musician, DJ, model, entrepreneur, businessman, philanthropost, author, presenter, fashion designer, speaker, creative consultant, voice over artist, and activist" -- we don't need to add "sex symbol" to that list). --Ahecht (TALK
    PAGE    ) 21:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC) (edit to clarify that I still support deletion after Cunard's changes, as the new format is so prose-heavy that it seems like it would be better as prose than as a list per WP:LISTDD --Ahecht (TALK[reply]
    PAGE) 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC))
    • If the page is too large, the solution is to WP:SPLIT it. And no, IT display issues have no bearing on V or BLP; the sources exist and are in the page code regardless of any rendering problem. We can also always subst: citation templates to bypass the issue entirely. postdlf (talk) 15:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • @Postdlf: Citation templates are intentionally not able to be subst:ed. ----Ahecht (TALK
        PAGE        ) 17:55, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Then the cite can be typed in manually. Templates are for editor convenience, they are not necessary to use. postdlf (talk) 18:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete There's no meaning or consistency.  There are various lists of sex symbols, and it's fine to cover and summarize them in various articles, separately. But, we can't mix and match different sources using different criterion. I don't want a lists of people who are stupid, ugly, pretty, dorky, nerdy, rude, polite, honest, dishonest, competent, incompetent, good, bad people etc... I can find an endless abundance of sources for lists of each of these types of things, but the lists mean nothing. A list of "sex symbols" is WP:SYNTH, as you're creating a fresh list, that no single source would ever put together, or approve of. It's wanton misinterpretation to mix a source calling somebody a sex symbol because of their body, with somebody who bases it on their mind, or personality, or how they move, or how they dress, or maybe they just wanted to pay a compliment. Just because two sources use the same literal words , does not always mean they are talking about the same thing. --Rob (talk) 23:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per Cunard. Well sourced and has an encyclopaedic purpose. For complaints about there being too many people: WP:AFDISNOTCLEANUP. We aren't at the point of WP:TNT - not even close. You can purge poor entries that don't meet WP:LISTCRITERIA, but I would note that each has 2 sources. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Over the years I gravitated to a deletionist position, but I think this list meets LISTN. But as I said before, only referenced entries should be kept. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 05:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, as per my views from 14 years ago. Inclusion criteria are irredeemably POV and pretty much every female celebrity of any sort (as well as plenty of the males) gets described as a sex symbol from time to time. Stifle (talk) 08:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The nomination doesn't make a clear case while Cunard has done an excellent job of demonstrating the notability of the topic. The main work needed is to expand the list, not delete it, as my impression is that it is dominated by Hollywood types and so is missing people like Lili Li and Eugen Sandow. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep What happens to the names and citations if the list is deleted? If appropriate, move each half of the contents to the proposed split pages, if it's still too large. That list has been live for almost 19 years, or since October 2001. I edited that more than 500 times since late 2017 and added dozens of names if the sources have stated that they self-identified, or were externally identified, mentioned, or described as sex symbols. Santiago Claudio (talk) 01:14, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • The fact that we're adding people that self identify as a sex symbol shows exactly how meaningless this list is. --Ahecht (TALK
      PAGE      ) 18:12, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I agree that self-identification should be completely irrelevant here but that's easily corrected, and I don't think it would be difficult to establish and demonstrate a consensus on the talk page (if there isn't already in the archive) that would require third party sources. postdlf (talk) 18:44, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep – Our policy regarding lists of people says:

A person is typically included in a list of people only if all the following requirements are met:
• The person meets the Wikipedia notability requirement.
• The person's membership in the list's group is established by reliable sources.

All entries are notable enough to have their own article, and all of them are called "sex symbols" by reliable sources. Editors of the page have already reinforced inclusion criteria by requiring two citations for each entry, and I would agree that we should further tighten our standards by banning anecdotal mentions, jokes, puff pieces, and third-rate sources. That's a worthy discussion for the talk page, not AfD. — JFG talk 22:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete I'm sorry, but I no longer see the purpose of a list like this. Plus, overall, I think the list of sex symbols, particularly the 2000s and 2010s sections, is just too long. Mr. Brain (talk) 14:29, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete/TNT Massive list does not serve a useful purpose to the reader. While the sources provided above could well contribute to the Sex symbol article or a selective list that provides deeper discussion about a limited number of the best known sex symbols, this is merely a indiscriminate list of attractive celebrities. Why do many people become celebrities? Because they're sexually attractive to some people – not that many ugly people make it big in showbusiness. Countless more celebs around the world have modeled or played a role in a romantic film or whatever else that makes them sex symbols, a term clearly used very broadly, and such a catalogue of any pop culture news article that uses the term does not make a distinguishing characteristic. If you don't want to ignore "citations listed above that discuss sex symbols in detail" then freaking use them in detail, not as an unencyclopedically context-free, overly broad bullet-point list. Reywas92Talk 20:12, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per JFG. RadioDemon (talk) 16:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • delete on the basis of TNT. This needs to be nuked from orbit and rewritten in a way that identifies only people who are clearly described as sex symbols but MULTIPLE RS. Not one off mentions in teenbop "omg look at these sex symbols!" It needs to be a defining characteristic and right now this list is so trivial and indiscriminate it's useless. Praxidicae (talk) 18:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In fact, digging through this in an attempt to clean it up, it's also a massive blp vio but if for some insane reason this listcruft is kept, it should be moved to it's correct name which would be A list of anyone who has ever been referred to a sex symbol on the internet. Praxidicae (talk) 19:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
List of HOTTIES, List of Google search results for "sex symbol", [[List of famous folks some rando tabloid writer found attractive (but we're not gonna give you context about any of them, mostly because there isn't any as this has apparently become a meanless phrase applied in passing to anyone conventionally attractive [or not, just popular])]] Reywas92Talk 21:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Primefac (talk) 18:58, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete (or rename per Praxidicae's suggestion) - overly broad list based on subjective labels too commonly applied to be of any encyclopedic value. edit 30 Jun 20:22, to add: After Cunard's added edits to the article, my view is still delete per reasoning aptly stated below by Rhododendrites and Reywas92. Just adding this clarification to show that I'm aware of the changes in the article since I first posted, but that I still stand by my opinion. Schazjmd (talk) 22:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. This article is a disaster. In principle, if editors here took sourcing requirements seriously, this could be done, but practically speaking it can't, and so we have 400k of stuff, much of which drivel sourced to this or that tabloid. And Praxidicae's point about the BLP should be taken seriously as well, given the paucity of the sources. Drmies (talk) 22:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per Ahecht ("Virtually every celebrity today has a puff piece or two calling them a sex symbol, and trying to narrow it down to people "primarily known for being a sex symbol" or other stronger criteria ends up being too subjective, so we're heading towards a list of every celebrity who was under 40 years old at some point") and Staszek Lem. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just make the article better: It makes me sad that the excellent work that Cunard did above may end up as an archived AfD discussion and not actually added to the vastly under-written sex symbol article. All of the time and energy spent in this discussion should be put to use improving the existing article/s. I don't think it matters whether this ends up as one article or two. This is obviously a notable subject with historical and sociological significance. Just make the article better. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The consensus that is building here is that the label "sex symbol" is too subjective for a Wikipedia list, unlike, say, List of films considered the worst (which is based on broad consensus of reliable sources), and is applied indiscriminately. The label can raise BLP concerns due to its POV nature, especially when unsourced or poorly sourced. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 05:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Cunard's new version is a huge step forward, well done. This is an area of real interest in the history of culture and entertainment, and deserves to be taken seriously. I think that we'll have to find the right balance for what kind of coverage is suitable to support these entries. Obviously, someone being called a "sex symbol" for the purposes of a magazine cover story is not serious; the writers are exaggerating in order to write an eye-catching article. On the other hand, I think Ahecht's proposed standard that the writer has to have a Wikipedia page is too restrictive; we don't require that for reliable sources on any other article. I think that published books like the ones that Cunard quotes above can be good sources. One possible standard is that the person is discussed as a "sex symbol" (not just in a list) in multiple published books/journal articles. Elizabeth Taylor is discussed in five of the sources that Cunard excerpted, and there's undoubtedly more discussion in published biographies and works of film criticism. But these standards can be worked out through editing and discussion, not as part of an AfD discussion. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There has already been lots of such editing and discussion over the years (including the proposal to require multiple sources), see the talk page archives. We are here because this has consistently failed. Regards, HaeB (talk) 02:13, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The reason to require a notable writer is that calling someone a sex symbol is inherently subjective, and we have to be very careful about what opinions we're presenting as fact (by including them in a list definitively naming them as sex symbols) about living people. It provides a clear bright-line, unlike other vague terms such as "reputable sources", and allows for easier sorting through the thousands of entries that this page would quickly grow to otherwise. The alternative is that we go back to having dozens of edit requests per day to add to the article, and people reviewing those edit requests will quickly get burnt out and not do their due diligance, or renaming the article to something like List of people considered sex symbols to make it clear that we're presenting some people's opinion. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 14:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - So with the new, shorter version, what is the remaining reason for retaining this as a stand-alone article? Not only is a smaller list a sensible inclusion at the main sex symbol article, but Cunard has done us the favor of using primarily prose. This seems clearly more at home in a main article. I still see this AfD as supporting a "this shouldn't be a stand-alone article" regardless of whether there's a merge. — Rhododendrites talk \\ 17:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Thank you Cunard for your TNT of the article! I concur with Rhododendrites that this still does not need to be a separate page. Sex symbol is practically a stub, and short details about some of the best-known sex symbols can go there. I will still say that there are a lot of people known for being attractive and capitalizing on their appeal – that's kind of how celebrity works – and even limiting the list to those with more in-depth discussion in reliable sources is unsustainable. Just pick a top handful perhaps to show the cultural position of bombshells over time, illustrating what it actually means that the public is captivated by sexiness, but not as a list that attempts to be comprehensive. Reywas92Talk 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that's a good-faith way to respond to the page's improvement. Cunard has set forth a starting point to revamp the page in a more serious, well-sourced way, which answers the basic criticisms of the original page. What I'm hearing is essentially, "hey, great work, now delete what you've done, and let's forget about it." — Toughpigs (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not at all. I interpret it as "hey, great work, now merge it into Sex symbol since it is so prose-heavy that it doesn't make much sense as a stand-alone list. --Ahecht (TALK
PAGE) 21:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it's a good start, but includes 9/10 people on the original list who were pre-1900, taking quotations from the sources starting at the top. I guess it's hard to compare since obviously this term is used retroactively for these folks, and perhaps with more candor than how much it's thrown around for the current celebs, but addressing my concerns that the list is "context-free" and "bullet-point" doesn't necessarily address "overly broad". So this is excellent for a limited number but can still get out of control since a fraction of the original 1000+ names is still huge and not going to be useful to a reader. Depends who would put in that work and how "in-depth" is defined... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Reywas92 (talk • contribs) 21:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - vague and subjective. IWI (chat) 18:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment – I support Cunard's bold initiative. A list with detailed analysis of how and why a person has been considered a sex symbol of their era is a much better encyclopedic way of approaching the subject matter. I would be happy to contribute to expansion of the list with other instances. Regarding the potential merge into the main Sex symbol article, I think it's too soon to decide. I think the list will easily get expanded to 100–200 entries, and that would be a bit heavy for the main article. However we should definitely expand the main article with citations to some of the better in-depth sources that are being surfaced in this discussion. — JFG talk 21:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete While Cunard has done a good job of cleaning it up, I fear this list is going to be blp problematic for eternity. Also, the idea that someone says "xyz is a sex symbol", even if the source be reliable, and we then go ahead and add them to the list is sketchy at best. Add to this the fact that the term itself is ill-defined and subjective (for example, what if one article blares "sex symbol" and another yells "plain Jane", do they cancel each other out?). --regentspark (comment) 22:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Re-Delete, just as it was deleted in 2006. This is an inherently subjective list; and there is and cannot be a criterion for whether an individual is a "sex symbol". This unencylopedic list can never be more than what it is now, a list of persons that some published writer (often just a headline writer) somewhere has used the term "sex symbol" (often ironically) to describe. TJRC (talk) 00:05, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Standalone article

    I agree with JFG (talk · contribs) that "I think the list will easily get expanded to 100–200 entries, and that would be a bit heavy for the main article. However we should definitely expand the main article with citations to some of the better in-depth sources that are being surfaced in this discussion." I have added nine more entries to the list (there are now 18 entries in total). The latest additions are from the 1900s to 1920s section of the list's previous version.

    Inclusion criteria is not subjective or vague

    The article's inclusion criteria is not subjective or vague. It meets the selection criteria at Wikipedia:Stand-alone lists#Lists of people by including only notable people who have received substantial coverage in high quality reliable sources about why they are considered sex symbols.

    It is fine for sources to conflict

    RegentsPark asked, "for example, what if one article blares 'sex symbol' and another yells "plain Jane", do they cancel each other out?" If the source that calls the person a sex symbol is a high quality reliable source that provides in-depth discussion of why that person is considered a sex symbol, then yes, the selection criteria would include the person. It is fine for Wikipedia articles to rely on subjective reliable sources as long as Wikipedia editors themselves are not being subjective.

    Regarding the source that calls the person a "plain Jane": The source should be included only if it has in-depth discussion of why the person should not be considered a sex symbol. Otherwise, the source is not relevant for use in a sex symbols list. A "plain Jane" could still be considered a sex symbol, so it would be original research to make the assumption that a plain Jane is not a sex symbol. Here is an example to illustrate the point:

    Example of someone with a facial wart who is still considered a sex symbol

    "The example of the greatest sex symbol classical music has ever produced - Franz Liszt - shows that looks are hardly the most important thing. True, Liszt was mesmerisingly good-looking when young ... But, 30 years later, Liszt had a facial wart to rival Oliver Cromwell's, and was routinely dressed in an abbé's vestments. Yet he still fascinated women (and not elderly ones either). One of his admirers disguised herself as a man to pursue him across Europe."

    This complies with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view#Balance, "Neutrality assigns weight to viewpoints in proportion to their prominence. However, when reputable sources contradict one another and are relatively equal in prominence, describe both points of view and work for balance."

    It is fine for reliable sources to be conflicting. Some of the films in List of films considered the worst might have received positive reviews from some critics. We are not deleting that article for being subjective or ill-defined because it has well-defined inclusion criteria just like "list of sex symbols does".

    BLP and promotion: tightening the selection criteria

    Regarding WP:BLP, the revised list currently contains only dead people. To address the BLP and promotion concerns, the list's selection criteria could be tightened to allow additions of only dead people who received in-depth coverage from posthumous reliable sources about how they are sex symbols. I think excluding living people would be too restrictive, so another way to tight the inclusion criteria would be to adopt the suggestion by Atlantic306 (talk · contribs): only include "people who have been considered as sex symbols by reliable sources over a period of time say perhaps ten years so that temporary promotional descriptions of sex symbols would not be enough for inclusion".

    The list's inclusion criteria is a content matter and can be discussed on the article's talk page. Deletion should be considered a last resort if the BLP concerns cannot be addressed, which they have been.

    Cunard (talk) 11:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per Ahecht and Staszek Lem. To add another perspective:
Since 2008, I have been trying to do my share to curate this list and make it work. (I'm only #11 by number of edits, but might be near the top by number of reverts.) I too thought at some point that the problem could be solved with enforcing sourcing requirements more strictly and defining inclusion criteria, but these attempts have consistently failed. This makes the "keep" votes above that basically go "but, but, this time it will really work, trust me, and if not, we could try X, Y and Z" very unconvincing. 18 years is long enough for this experiment.
While I appreciate the TNT attempt, augmenting the list with mini articles/essays about the sex-symbolness of each entry creates its own problems, and the format is unlikely to be maintained for long - editors have already started to add entries without that extra text. Also, it will likely just get reverted anyway to the old format after this AfD closes.
Regards, HaeB (talk) 15:03, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment now that it has been turned into a well referenced list with prose descriptions the reasons for deletion seem to have been countered and we should certainly not delete articles because of disruptive editing, page protection is the answer to that problem. The reliable sources coverage shows the article passes WP:LISTN and with a sensible inclusion criteria such as only permitting entries that have been classed as sex symbols by reliable sources over a span of say ten years would avoid celebrity pr coverage from expanding the list unnecessarily. Such an inclusion criteria would prevent the page being expanded too much. Finally criticising the prose such as mini-essays is not correct as this is the sort of prose that is included in featured lists so is totally acceptable. Overall then I can't see a policy based reason for deletion remaining that is valid in any way, in my opinion, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:53, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep if good criteria for inclusion can be established. M.Clay1 (talk) 13:13, 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Akshay Sharma[edit]

Akshay Sharma (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

The person does not seem to be notable as per WP:ANYBIO WP:AUTHOR. Out of six references two are same references 'Times of India' (whose reliability is itself disputed as per Times of India RFC) describes of winning an award at a non-notable event 'Gurgaon Literature Festival'. Mid-day and Asian Age are a frequent offender of publishing churnalism and disguising it as legitimate journalism. See also this advert here ~ Amkgp 💬 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:23, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 18:23, 29 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, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create, 2016-09 ✗ A7
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 18:17, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Juan Tyrone Garcia[edit]

Juan Tyrone Garcia (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Appears to be a hoax. References are almost all to a fansite. Even the IMDB listings purporting to be for the subject's films are what appear to be spurious creations for films "in development." No reliable, independent sources can be found for the existence of this article's subject. Geoff | Who, me? 18:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete I suppose it's not impossible this guy existed, even if he wasn't a generation defining figure who turned down the lead in Star Wars, but there aren't any reliable sources about him. The article is referenced to a fansite, "hollywood-conspiracies.com" and other comically bad sources, and there doesn't seem to be anything better out there. Somebody has made a documentary about him, but they seem to have used Wikipedia as a source. Hut 8.5 18:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Seems to be a hoax. Nothing bar the mad mex film which says he was someone who made out he was good at Judo, but wasn't!Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Martial arts-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mexico-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. This is an example of huge claims with no sources. The fact that a hoax like this has existed for 10 years, complete with claims that the subject turned down a role in Star Wars, tells me that Wikipedia has much bigger problems with its actor coverage than I realized. This is what we get for allowing articles sourced only to IMDb to fester for over a decade, we get totally false articles like this.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete A hoax, subject does not exist. Nika2020 (talk) 20:34, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Lots of claims with absolutely no reliable sources. Perhaps one promotional source said it best--"the most famous fighter that never was"--because it combines wild exaggeration with no facts or evidence. Papaursa (talk) 17:48, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Nothing to indicate that the article subject is notable, and a lot to indicate that the article is, in fact, complete bollocks. --Jack Frost (talk) 14:56, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete No significant coverage --James Richards (talk) 17:18, 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. clear consensus to keep, users had time to get further involved and chose not to (non-admin closure) Smartyllama (talk) 17:50, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Giulliano Gonçalves Guedes[edit]

Giulliano Gonçalves Guedes (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't pass the threshold of WP:BIO or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:03, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Giulliano played in the fully-pro Campeonato Brasileiro Série C (6 matches) and Campeonato Mineiro (17 matches) during 2014 and 2015. He doesn't appear to have played any additional matches at that level, and almost all of the online coverage of him stems from those seasons. I'd like to spend a bit more time checking for GNG-compliance, but so far I've found little in Portuguese-language sources. Jogurney (talk) 14:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: I'm not sure of people who have just commented are going to get further involved. No harm in giving them time to, but at the moment, the consensus is to keep
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 17:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes all relevant criteria Spiderone 07:48, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:40, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Athena Starwoman[edit]

Athena Starwoman (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Tagged for improvement since June 2011 - 9 years is long enough for this stub of a stub - time to go. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spirituality-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Sgerbic (talk) 16:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It's not a "stub of a stub" though it's mis-tagged and there's no deadline, so the deletion nom fails. It also is properly verified so the tag itself is wrong. There's also more [20] available sources. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Being tagged for improvement is not a valid rationale for deletion, see WP:NODEADLINE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. There's also a fair bit of coverage, see: NYTimes profile, SMH 1, SMH 2 (Australia's most famous astrologer), Daily Mercury, The Age, CNN, and likely more. Unless I'm very mistaken, that's a pretty clear pass of GNG Eddie891 Talk Work 18:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Eddie891, do you intend to add that to her page? CatCafe (talk) 03:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
CatCafe, I've added them in a 'further reading section'. Right now I don't have time to incorporate the sourcing, but I will try and remember to get around to it. Eddie891 Talk Work 12:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - Eddie891 makes some good points. Deus et lex (talk) 11:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - There are enough reliable sources on this article to justify its existence. --- FULBERT (talk) 01:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep, meets WP:BASIC, sources added to article emphasise this. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. That "$3m sea change" source is only a passing mention at the beginning of the article, and Dr. John Demartini is not a name known to wikipedia. That said, a quick tour through newspapers.com has her first mentioned around 1979, multiple photos, quotes, stories that suggest she successfully concealed her birth name. A book on Amazon. And she did appear in U.S. Vogue in the 90s. --Lockley (talk) 08:12, 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. Standalone articles require significant coverage in multiple reliable, independent sources. czar 23:05, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ddw[edit]

Ddw (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

appears to be paid for spam sourced to completely unreliable sources and black hat seo. in fact the only source in here that is legitimate is Time which has a one sentence mention of a YT video from "DDW". Praxidicae (talk) 16:32, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't disagree but sometimes it's best to put a final nail in the coffin. You know, so the undead can't escape. Praxidicae (talk) 13:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete — Promotional article for a non notable magazine with next to no encyclopedic value. Celestina007 (talk) 14:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and redirect to the disambiguation page, DDW. BD2412 T 02:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Unnecessary as entering 'Ddw', 'ddw' or 'DDW' will take you to the disambig by default if the article is deleted without a redirect. 86.146.209.237 (talk) 12:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, Per abone, a non notable magazine. Alex-h (talk) 11:12, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Don't Delete please. I have added 2 more sources to the page. Feriautan (talk) 21:02, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • It has been nominated for the CSS design awards 2020 which makes it pass criteria 2 of the WP:NMAG. Feriautan (talk) 16:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was no consensus. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Faraday Technology[edit]

Faraday Technology (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of notability on Google. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 12:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 12:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 12:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Taiwan-related deletion discussions. RedBulbBlueBlood9911Talk 12:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.
    1. 林宏文 (2002-08-22). "誰是智原科技第二？ P.58" [Who Is Faraday Technology?]. zh:今周刊 (in Chinese). Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
    2. 伍忠賢 (2006). 科技管理 [Technology Management] (in Chinese). Taipei: zh:五南文化. p. 510. ISBN 9789571142449. Retrieved 2020-06-27.

      The book has a section titled "智原科技的矽智財交易中心" ("Faraday Technology's Silicon Intellectual Property Trading Center"). It has a subsection titled "台灣最大的矽智財公司: 智原科技"  ("The largest silicon intellectual property company in Taiwan: Faraday Technology").

    3. Wang, Lisa (2019-07-25). "Faraday soars on sales outlook". Taipei Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.

      Faraday Technology is publicly traded. The article includes information from Jih Sun Securities Investment Consulting Co (日盛投顧), which indicates Jih Sun Securities is tracking the company.

    4. "MarketLine Company Profile: Faraday Technology Corporation". MarketLine. 2019-08-08.

      The report notes:

      Faraday Technology Corporation

      3035 Taiwan Stock Exchange

      No.5, Li-Hsin Road III, Hsinchu Science Park

      Hsinchu City

      Taipei

      The report notes that there are 840 employees.

      The report notes:

      Faraday Technology Corporation (Faraday) is a semiconductor company that provides application specific integrated circuit (ASIC) and silicon intellectual property (SIP) components and services. The company's product portfolio includes cell library, memory compiler, ARM-compliant CPUs (central processing units), DDR controller, low-power DDR1/2/3, MIPI, V-by-One, MPEG4, H.264, USB 2.0/3.0, 10/100/1000 ethernet controller, serial ATA, PCI express, and programmable SerDes. It also offers SoC design service, FPGA to ASIC service, AI and HPC solutions, and turnkey solutions, among others. The company operates in China, Europe, Japan, Taiwan and the US. Faraday is headquartered in Hsinchu city, Taipei, Taiwan.

      The company reported revenues of (Taiwanese Dollars) TWD4,904.7 million for the fiscal year ended December 2018 (FY2018), a decrease of 8.2% over FY2017. In FY2018, the company's operating margin was 5.8%, compared to an operating margin of 4.4% in FY2017. In FY2018, the company recorded a net margin of 5.4%, compared to a net margin of 15.6% in FY2017. The company reported revenues of TWD1,214.9 million for the second quarter ended June 2019, an increase of 10.7% over the previous quarter.

      Faraday Technology Corporation (Faraday) is engaged in designing, manufacturing, and testing application specific integrated circuits (ASICs) and related components. The company also provides silicon intellectual property (SIP) components. It operates in Taiwan, Japan, China, Europe and the US. The company primarily provides ASIC services and Silicon IP solutions. Faraday's provides SoC design services for architecture exploration, integration, and verification exploration. Faraday offers performance exploration platform and virtual platform to fulfill architecture design requirements. The company also provides network-on-chip (NoC) technology-based SoC designs. ...

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

    Cunard (talk) 10:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I grant that there is coverage in the Taipei Times ([21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28], [29], [30] [31], [32]) It notes relatively little, other than basic economic analysis, that usually isn't included in quarterly detail within company articles. I cannot locate the MarketLine source online, for whatever reason, but the description quoted here from MarketLine is more descriptive than many other sources including Reuters or Bloomberg. Are there any other sources that cover details of the company's operation and history like the Chinese-language sources, and not ones that merely assert WP:LISTED? Vycl1994 (talk) 16:47, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The two Chinese sources I listed, the MarketLine source, and the Pearson Education book I've provided below all cover details of the company's operation and history. Cunard (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As MarketLine seems to be run by GlobalData, a data analysis company, I am unsure if it can contribute to GNG. The second paragraph of the quote from MarketLine is nothing but a restatement of the company's own economic data. The first paragraph is product and services cruft, and the third paragraph repeats the first by restating Faraday's area of operations. Similar to the Taipei Times coverage, and the links to Bloomberg and Reuters that I provided, GlobalData as a company largely focuses on economic indicators for other companies, which establishes WP:LISTED, but unlikely to fulfill WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. I acknowledge Pearson and the Chinese language publications as WP:THREE good sources, but still do not see GNG or WP:HEY Vycl1994 (talk) 01:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Three good sources in the Chinese sources and the Pearson source means the company passes Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline. Cunard (talk) 01:18, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Listing company reports and product listing doesn't make company notable. Listing of company stock prices, money raised, margins, profit increases are explicitly disallowed per WP:NCORP. Hardly reliable, nor independent. scope_creepTalk 16:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Here is another source I found. The book provides two pages of coverage about Faraday Technology.
    • Rosenberg, David (2002). Cloning Silicon Valley: The Next Generation High-Tech Hotspots. London: Pearson Education. pp. 186–187. ISBN 1-903684-07-2. Retrieved 2020-06-27.

      The book notes:

      Focus Company: Faraday Technology

      In its efforts to chart the course for its IC design services business, Hsinchu-based Faraday Technology faces a set of challenges common to much of Taiwan's technology sector. It benefits from being in the centre of one of the world's biggest IC industries and has an advantage over many other Taiwanese concerns by virtue of the fact that it has developed and controls a fairly substantial body of proprietary technology rather than simply being an efficient manufacturer. But that is no longer enough: Faraday has to manage a gradual move to more sophisticated designs in order to avoid the trap of falling into competition with mainland China at the lower end of the market. To do that, it must carefully pick the IP brains of American and other foreign companies. The company was formed in 1993 as a spin-out from UMC where Hsaio- Ping Lin, now Faraday's president, was in charge of computer-aided design (CAD). He went out with 12 people and with UMC as the main shareholder. Faraday's business was to provide ASIC design services for IDMs and design houses making chips for computers, communications and consumer electronics. The company over time came to push out foreign competition and dominate the domestic ASIC segment. The problem now is that Faraday has little room to expand at home. It is already by far the biggest of the dozen or so IC design services firms on the island. If it wants to continue growing the company has two routes it can take: go up-market to America and Japan or go down-market to China. Lin is determined to pursue both.23

      First, the US and Japan. Their markets are huge but also considerably more sophisticated than Taiwan's. 'Right now in Taiwan, companies are still one generation behind the US and Japan. For example they are using 0.35-micron technology while in the US they are using 0.25 or 0.18 technology. Taiwan has a lot of design houses, but US design houses really advance projects ; in Taiwan they just look to see how to advance existing features,' says Lin. He is working to deepen the technological capabilities of his staff in part by encouraging Taiwanese customers to upgrade their own chips to 0.25-micron and add features. But that's a slow process and it's hard to recruit engineers in Taiwan with the necessary experience, especially since Faraday doesn't enjoy the galmour of being a manufacturing company. To start building its IP base quickly, Faraday acquired a US company, ASIC Semiconductor Corp, in 1995 and now services all its American clients from there. In Japan, a harder market to penetrate, Faraday has a Tokyo office although the work for Japanese clients is still done in Taiwan. Competing against US design-service companies, Faraday holds an important asset in being based in Taiwan and close to the IC industrial cluster. 'Customers need a vendor to deliver the goods on schedule and a very efficient way to deliver the goods. We can support this kind of service very well. We know the foundry, we know the testing house. We know everyone very well and the efficiency is so high,' Lin says. China presents a different problem that requires a more defensive strategy because a cluster very much like Taiwan's is.

    Cunard (talk) 23:11, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 15:36, 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) 18:11, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Amanda Becker[edit]

Amanda Becker (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully pro league or for a senior international team. WP:GNG is failed due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete does not meet our insanely broad footballer notability guidelines.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - fails GNG and NFOOTBALL. GiantSnowman 11:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Article about semi-pro footballer who isn't the subject of significant coverage in reliable sources. Jogurney (talk) 13:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per all of the above Spiderone 07:47, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Shari Nishikawa[edit]

Shari Nishikawa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully pro league or for a senior international team. WP:GNG is failed due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 14:26, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Virginia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing is not enough to establish notability. We need 3rd party coverage, not coverage from cites dedicated solely to soccer coverage or coverage from the college she attended.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 18:12, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jamie Bell (football)[edit]

Jamie Bell (football) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

She fails WP:NFOOTBALL having never played in a fully pro league or for a senior international team. WP:GNG is failed due to a lack of significant coverage. Dougal18 (talk) 14:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 11:26, 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. Consensus is the topic is notable via WP:GNG. Consensus is the article needs considerable improvement. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 18:45, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kazutaka Kodaka[edit]

Kazutaka Kodaka (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Subject not notable for an article. Clearly fails WP:GNG Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 12:20, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Aren't "the series writer of the Danganronpa franchise" and "the founder of a notable video game company" enough for the criteria of being notable? And could you explain more on why it "clearly" falls WP:GNG? Thanks. -Hijk910 (talk) 12:31, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it (original) a "significant coverage" in your opinion? Btw, Keep (do I make it right? Not so sure how it works in English Wikipedia. I'm from the Chinese one). -Hijk910 (talk) 12:40, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Article needs expansion. Danganronpa is a notable work. Ashishkafle (talk) 13:02, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Notability is not inherited. There are very few sources that independently cover him rather than his games, so I'll say to redirect to Danganronpa, his most known work. ~ Dissident93 (talk) 05:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. A Google search indicates there are independent media coverage of the subject and his works. This article only needs more work. Ugbede (talk) 7:08, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 15:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Danganronpa as a valid alternative to deletion, with no prejudice against recreation should someone be willing to invest the time and create a well-sourced article about the author down the road. Article as it is is very under sourced and we should be mindful of WP:BLP in that regard, but a redirect now gives us the best of both worlds - it allows readers access to an article about what the subject is best known for, and retains the old material for building an article when ready. Red Phoenix talk 19:04, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Nonsense. Why not redirect to Too Kyo Games then? -Hijk910 (talk) 04:24, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because even that article makes extensive reference to Danganronpa and is focused heavily on the franchise; it does nothing to change what Kodaka is most known for. So, Danganronpa is still the most logical target. Red Phoenix talk 12:07, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Also Too Kyo Games if you read carefully. Besides, the current references should show he is a notable topic. You will know that if you can understand Japanese. -Hijk910 (talk) 12:21, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • They show that Too Kyo Games and Danganronpa are notable subjects. They don’t show Kodaka is. Show me significant coverage about Kodaka himself. Red Phoenix talk 18:58, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Again, read carefully: [33]. -Hijk910 (talk) 17:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
              • And that is not significant coverage; repeating the same argument isn't convincing. The original interview isn't even just Kodaka, so how can you say he's a notable subject because someone interviewed him and someone else about a game studio? What is convincing is what Toughpigs did below, finding multiple references that have a more significant focus on the subject. I have stricken my !vote, but I'd advise you to read WP:GNG on what is significant coverage and WP:INTERVIEW on the limitations of interviews being considered for notability. Red Phoenix talk 17:37, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Just because I did not use the term "WP:NEXIST" does not mean I did not mean the same thing. I told you to read the current references. Did you read them? -Hijk910 (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Consensus leading to keep, however, there is dispute over the refs that would confirm GNG; use a relist
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Britishfinance (talk) 13:26, 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 15:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Junnardeo[edit]

Junnardeo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Mostly similar to the article Jamai, India. Does not qualify for A10 as this is over a year old. JavaHurricane 13:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. There is some confusion between Junnardeo (w:hi:जुन्नारदेव) and Jamai, India. It seems that they are synonyms for the same small town. Jamai Municipality had population of 22,583 as of 2011.[35] Jamai(Junnardeo) CD Block had a population of 193,301 per the Census 2011.[36] However, Junnardeo is also a State Assembly/Vidhan Sabha rural constituency with 206,841 voters.[37][38][39][40]. Google Maps uses the form Junnardeo for the settlement [41], as does the Hindi Wikipedia, so that seems a reasonable form. Perhaps Jamai should be used for the municipality and Junnardeo for the constituency, or perhaps they should be merged. A Google search on जुन्नारदेव gets plenty of hits. Aymatth2 (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Pppulated towns are notable.† Encyclopædius 12:36, 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 keep. A discussion to redirect can happen outside the scope of this AfD. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:05, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Realms of Sword and Thunder[edit]

Realms of Sword and Thunder (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

This game seems to have generated very little attention in its day (apart from the lengthy review given in the article already), and to have been totally forgotten since. Nothing useful stood out in the Google hits, the one source that looked promising (Fantasy Gamer #1) turns out to be an advert text only. There may be more in some old print magazines of course, but it will remain rather obscure in any case. No obvious redirect target as the company doesn't have an article either. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Games-related deletion discussions. Fram (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to list of play-by-mail games. It was covered in depth by at least one reliable source, so this preserves the edit history and allows the existing text to be restored in the future if more sources are uncovered (for a subject this niche and specialized, Google won't necessarily be representative of all extant RSes). A redirect won't cause undue confusion among readers as the relationship between the articles is clear. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 03:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Added a review from Dragon, and sourced another review, still looking for a copy of the latter.Guinness323 (talk) 15:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • That Dragon review is a very short one though, in a long list of games (14 or so of these very short reviews, and then 4 others which get an actual in-depth review). Fram (talk) 07:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Very promising. Leaning closer to keep given these new discoveries, but will hold off on officially changing my choice for now. JimmyBlackwing (talk) 04:58, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per above comments since there are WP:RS to retain, per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. Failing that, a merge to list of play-by-mail games as suggested by JimmyBlackwing would be preferable to deletion since there are at least two reviews. BOZ (talk) 17:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • weak keep sourcing probably barely gets over the bar. Hobit (talk) 17:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect & merge / weak delete. We have one review and one mention in passing, and GNG / NBOOK require multiple in depth sources. If one more source is found, this could survive, otherwise I don't see much option but merge this to the list that Jimmy linked above. PS. The game is so obscure we can't even find information on what year it was published in...? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 02:21, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: The reviews are enough to put it over notability. There's no compelling reason to remove the article. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:53, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Catal's reagent[edit]

Catal's reagent (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Article about a substance that has no publications on it yet. There is so far a preprint, not yet published that is referenced in the article. No independent publication references this or mentions it. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 12:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

To be fair, it's been through peer review and is described as "in press", implying that it will be published. But that still doesn't make it notable. That happens when independent researchers cite the paper and, ideally, tell us whether it does what is claimed. SpinningSpark 00:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete: Calling it Catal's reagent makes it sound notable but in truth it's anything but. There's no evidence that it's being used by anyone other than the group which developed it. Too soon. --Project Osprey (talk) 19:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. • Gene93k (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There is also a Turkish version still named with less modesty.... (see links on the English page) Michael D. Turnbull (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. For the reasons above. To be fair, many new editors are unable to separate themselves from their thesis work, their own projects, their coworkers, .... Just a matter of growing up. Also, a "minor detail" there is no ferrous sulfate in solution so how could one detect it? There is a ferrous aquo complex and there is sulfate, but they arent bonded. --Smokefoot (talk) 23:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

(This Wikipedia account was created to participate in this discussion). In the paper, it was mentioned that all metal salts were tried, no metal salt reaction other than iron II sulfate was reacted with only iron II sulfate salt. As explained in the study; When the kit solution is treated with iron II sulfate, it acts as a sensor for this salt (both spectrophotometrically explained and it has been reported that physical color change is observed), and the iron dissolved from the iron II sulfate in solution forms a complex with the molecule in the structure of the kit. The kit thus prepared is a sensor for iron II sulfate and can be used in the application areas of iron II sulfate.

Fenton reaction is the most basic reaction showing the radical formation in hydrogen peroxide environment and is a reference study explaining the decomposition steps of hydrogen peroxide. The Fenton reaction is referenced to explain these decomposition steps when the kit in our study was treated with hydrogen peroxide. The fenton reaction, which is a basic reaction for the decomposition steps of hydrogen peroxide, not only for the entire kit mechanism is referenced, and also should be written in the Wikipedia entry.

National / International PCT patent protection number was obtained for the study. In addition, the kit; cement, textile, wastewater-environmental analysis, food, paint industry etc. New posts can be made for each separate application area. As shown in the paper, there are supplementary data which will be released, soon. So, more details will improve the entry.

As a result, the entry is open to improve, and should remain. The title of the entry can be renamed and detailed as the German version of the Entry. Moreover, more references can be used in Wikipedia same as used in the published paper. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dodecylthioanthracene (talk • contribs) 11:30, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dodecylthioanthracene: the way it works in these discussions is that a policy-based rationale needs to be given for keeping the article in order for any notice to be taken of you. The main policy at issue in this case is Wikipedia:Notability. To demonstrate notability, independent, reliable sources discussing the topic in detail are required. Your own research is not enough, nor is future research from those associated with you, nor is the existence of a patent. The issues raised above of the name, content details, and state of the referencing are secondary issues and not cause in themselves for deletion. If you cannot point to suitable reliable sources then this has no hope of surviving no matter how important you feel the work is. SpinningSpark 13:49, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete It looks obviously [WP:TOOSOON] to me. Maybe an extract of it could be merged into another article? -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:33, 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) 18:13, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Justus Wesseler[edit]

Justus Wesseler (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per ticket:2020062910005526 the subject has requested deletion; as this isn't a clear keep case, bringing this here per WP:BLPREQUESTDELETE. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. ~~ Alex Noble/1-2/TRB 11:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete nothing suggests this person is so notable we should have an article over the subjects own desire to not have an article covering them.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:44, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete at request of subject, as above. Xxanthippe (talk) 02:38, 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. 78.26 (spin me / revolutions) 19:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Er. Awadhesh Kumar[edit]

Er. Awadhesh Kumar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet NPOL or NACADEMIC, coverage does not rise up to GNG. Appears to be managing/founding various small colleges whose name starts with Buddha. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉]) 11:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:14, 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) 19:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Twinzz[edit]

Twinzz (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Does not meet WP:NCORP. Lack of significant in-depth coverage by reliable sources. Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉]) 10:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fashion-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 11:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I know it's ending today anyway, but procedural speedy delete per A7 - I'm not sure why the article wasn't just A7 tagged in the first instance, there doesn't seem to be any credible indication of notability within the article. Either way, after doing a BEFORE check, the only independent SIGCOV I can find is one article talking about a potential international expansion - which isn't sufficient for NCORP or GNG. Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 15:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Naypta:, I did not A7 as the article had a credible claim of significance in that it asserted it is a widely (?, 370 locations) sold fashion brand. That being said, I was also certain that this article had a snowball chance in hell of surviving AfD given sourcing available. I am sure some admins would accept the A7 (as really this is a snowball delete), but a decline of the A7 would be within admin discretion here.--Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉) 15:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    @Eostrix: Thanks for explaining your reasoning; that's fair. I disagree that that's a credible claim of significance, as that would indicate that any product that was sold would have one, but I can see how one might easily disagree. Of course, all these things are subjective! Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 16:22, 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. ♠PMC♠ (talk) 23:47, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Fucilla[edit]

Robert Fucilla (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:NBIO the individual must be the subject of multiple RS. Fucilla only has [42] and it hasn't been cited here. Most of the content is copied and pasted from IMBD, with scant regard for WP:CITEIMDB the author hasn't even bothered to paraphrase. Just compare the first sentence of the IMBD page with the first sentence for the WP page and you will see clear wp:cv. Meanwhile, this statement "In 2018, Fucilla was maliciously targeted and investigated as part of a £7m investment fraud. Fucilla was acquitted by the jury and in 2019 he issued a multi million pound civil action, suing the CPS and Avon and Somerset Police for malicious prosecution and misfeasance in public office" is sourced from the Bristol Post blog, which incidentally isn't mentioned in wp:perennial sources. The also seems to be a degree of wp:synth in the interpretation of the sources and while WP:ORIGINAL may be acceptable over on IMDB it is not acceptable here. Finally, WP:BLPSOURCES states "This policy extends that principle, adding that contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced should be removed immediately and without discussion". Considering that a significant portion of the article is contentious, we might as well pull the whole article. GDX420 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. GDX420 (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage of Fucilla is lacking, and is mostly constrained to his role as an acquitted co-defendant in a fraud case [43]. --Eostrix  (🦉 hoot hoot🦉]) 10:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 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) 19:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Simran Upadhyay[edit]

Simran Upadhyay (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ACTOR. Probably a case of WP:TOOSOON - The9Man (Talk) 07:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. - The9Man (Talk) 07:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - The9Man (Talk) 07:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello The9Man thanks for review my created article Simran Upadhayay. And I saw that you consider my created article as deletion. I have created the article by Times of india news link. And I put everything which I got from news article. So may I know the reason why you consider the article for deletion. If you will tell me and guide me to edit better, then I can edit the article better and in future i can do better contribute in wikipedia. Please reply. Thanks

Hi, I appreciate your effort and time to contribute to Wikipedia. However, the encyclopedia has some guidelines for the articles to be published. For this particular case, the person doesn't have any significant work or major secondary socurces to claim the notability. TOI is not considered as a WP:RS anymore. I suggest you to go through WP:BLP to get a better idea. - The9Man (Talk) 10:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The9Man, I think you meant to write WP:NACTOR above. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 20:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey The9Man , thanks for you reply. You told that TOI is not consider as WP:RS now. But Recently I saw some editor edit article with the reference of TOI. And they got approved. So my question is why my created article got selected for afd. Waiting for you reply. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Myslfsbhijit (talk • contribs) 19:24, 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 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Harshani Mahadoo[edit]

Harshani Mahadoo (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Not notable. No significant coverage. Not elected. - The9Man (Talk) 07:25, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Radio-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:46, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mauritius-related deletion discussions. CAPTAIN RAJU(T) 09:47, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete unelected and so not notable for being a politician and her radio personality role is not enough to establish notablity either.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:37, 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. Stifle (talk) 15:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Valiya Chenam[edit]

Valiya Chenam (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable place. I found absolutely no reliable sources. The only things I found were Wikipedia mirrors. I don't even think this place exists at all. It has not been recognized by any reliable source. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 22:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 🌴Koridas🌴 (Negotiate) 22:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Geography-related deletion discussions. North America1000 02:44, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to Paralam, in which this is located [44]. The Indian census lists Paralam in the "Village Directory of Thrissur District,Kerala" [45], but not Valiya Chenam or Chenam so it does not meet GEOLAND as recognized. Reywas92Talk 17:07, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Chenam is a village within the Paralam Panchayat, it is not the same as village of Paralam (which also lies in the panchayat, see also Venginissery which notes Chenam's existence). Here's a map showing Chenam which I excerpted from the Thrissur district website ([46]). This article was created in 2006 as "Valiya Chenam" and at some point was changed to Chenam. I don't know why, but it wouldn't be the first time an Indian village has alternate names/spellings over time. Since Chenam is a verifiable populated place, I would keep this article.--Milowent • hasspoken 17:45, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    What you're saying is that the article Paralam is downright wrong. While it says "Paralam is a village" and then "Paralam had a population of 7189", you are saying that the Village Paralam does not have a population of 7189, but that the panchayat does. This is exactly why WP:GEOLAND refers to "legally recognized populated places" for automatic notability, not any "verifiable populated place". Chenam and Paralam village are not legally recognized and are not automatically notable, but this panchayat, which has defined borders and a census population. What a mess all of this is. Reywas92Talk 18:18, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reywas92, we could spend our entire lives editing Indian place name articles and not clean this all up! I think the census information on the Paralam article is reporting the population of the Paralam Census Tract (CT) in the 2011 Indian census, since I just looked at those docs. Did the article creator mean the panchayat and "village" as the same thing? I don't know. I wouldn't automatically conclude that Chenam and Paralam (villages) were never legally recognized as their own thing, but they are not listed as separate entities in the 2011 census.--Milowent • hasspoken 18:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. It’s not reasonable to expect editors to try and find and plough through potential sources to try and figure out whether a village like this is notable or not. There are thousands of these and it would be more than a lifetime’s work. I have an increasing level of doubt about Indian geostubs as some editors seem to be creating all sorts of fanciful things to boost their edit count on the assumption that they’re not controversial, and since we insist on sources now there is some very dodgy sourcing going on. I’m not suggesting there’s anything improper about this article but if we can’t be pretty sure it’s reliable info, it has to go. Mccapra (talk) 11:48, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - It's a true distinctive population place. The addresses there are listed as "Chenam." Even the library is called Chenam Public Library.[47]Oakshade (talk) 22:40, 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 no consensus. After two relists, most arguments are still variations of "it's notable", "no it isn't", "yes it is". Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Avenue Creative (company)[edit]

The Avenue Creative (company) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Yet another non notable organization failing to meet WP:ORG. The article reads as though it were a promo page for the organization. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 17:43, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Coverage by major publishers in that market means it must b relevant to several microcosms. Rare advert grammar in article can be removed instread of deleting --Eightnisan (talk) 18:04, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment — The user above is the article creator & a sleeper account. Celestina007 (talk) 18:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 08:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep primary sources Business Day and Punch secondary from source vangaurd ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ Eightnisan (talk) 23:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Eightnisan, you may not !vote keep more than once. Celestina007 (talk) 00:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Celestina007, no biggie! noticed your the UPE tag. You can delete the article or move to a talk space, oh and rest assured no one getting paid here despite what wiki admin tools reveal. Thinking I could appeal after reading your talk page but doesn't look like it.
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wild!! (Terry Silverlight album)[edit]

Wild!! (Terry Silverlight album) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Possibly nonnotable album. No third party sources provided. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Jersey-related deletion discussions. Tyw7 (🗣️ Talk) — If (reply) then (ping me) 11:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:09, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: there's at least one reliable review online, from Jazz Times [48]. One review isn't enough to make a convincing "keep" case, but the artist is very definitely notable, and hopefully other editors who are jazz enthusiasts may have access to more sources that could help the case. Richard3120 (talk) 01:55, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep: Aside from the article from Jazz Times indicated above, I found a few articles which talk about the album: [49] and [50] (optional). With these, I believe the article is good enough to pass WP:NALBUM. My vote stands. ASTIG😎 (ICE T • ICE CUBE) 02:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The first source is a primary source interview with the artist, the second is a blog. Richard3120 (talk) 19:44, 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 08:24, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:14, 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. After disregarding both the nomination and the one "keep" as making no argument, nobody disagrees with Scope creep's deletion rationale. Sandstein 16:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Skillhive[edit]

Skillhive (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Speedy deletion article. Light2021 (talk) 06:58, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Procedural keep. User has been told many times in the past to give reasons for deletion. "speedy deletion article" is not a guideline or policy based reason for AfD. --CNMall41 (talk) 04:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Your reason to keep is as lame as the article itself. for your kind information, all the article I have nominated in past got deleted by people eventually. no matter how you justified these ridiculous articles by saying "Procedural Keep", does not make it reason to keep. On what ground you are saying it is worth keeping? This article is complete nonsense without having any substance. I have over 95% Success ratio of deletion ratio. Which is far more excellent in average. Light2021 (talk) 05:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It took me a minute to understand what you are saying but I believe you mean that this is a justified AfD because you have a high rate of successful AfD nominations? If that's the case, mine is higher I believe so does that make me right when I send something to AfD? If you'd like to make a recommendation based on policy, I would be glad to opine on the notability. --CNMall41 (talk) 21:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is "Procedural keep" on Wikipedia guidelines? Do you have anything to add why should this article be here? or its just because you do not like my AfD? Please avoid any personal opinions because you do not like me. Oh Dear! Please, We are not here on competition race who made more AfD successes. Please keep your points toward the discussion on article, my talk page is there for personal talk. I am happy to know your feedback anytime. :)) Light2021 (talk) 22:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Who said I didn't like you? I don't even know you. I am commenting about your editor conduct, not you personally. However, I guess "procedural keep" can be defined as something that is "as lame as the article itself." You avoided the questions I asked though. Anyway, no need for me to discuss with you any further as its clear to me you want to bait me into a block so do as you will. --CNMall41 (talk) 22:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Delete I'll give the reasons. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. Of the 9 references, 4 are blogs, 1 is press release, leaving 4, of which 1 is the company website, leaving 3, of which 1 is a product page, the other is a press release, and the last one is dead link. And is fairly generic software, performance management and learning optimization, skill identification. Super generic.scope_creepTalk 10:49, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 06:36, 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 💬 03:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hospital El Salvador[edit]

Hospital El Salvador (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No content as of now, except for the infobox. If nothing more is added, this article may not be eligible. Daiyusha (talk) 06:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of El Salvador-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:20, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 06:33, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep This article needs urgent help but the topic is COVID-19-related and clears the notability bar by a country mile. The largest convention center in the country has been permanently converted into a hospital over the last three months. Raymie (t • c) 06:42, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of COVID-19-related deletion discussions. Raymie (t • c) 06:50, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has been expanded and referenced. Rathfelder (talk) 09:43, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep and suggest withdrawal now the nomination clearly no longer applies. If it really is the largest hospital in Latin America then it's almost certainly notable. Hut 8.5 12:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep Notable for the size of the hospital in South America and the connection to COVID-19 pandemic. It meets all three components of the WP:Hospitals criteria for notability--two or more third party sources, in depth sourcing, and source outside of region. Wikipedia:WikiProject Hospitals/Tutorials#Notability -- Talk to G Moore 13:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep The article has since been substantially expanded. Also, the user above me clearly has proved that this is a notable hospital. Scorpions13256 (talk) 02:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep This is a referenced notable hospital that has been expanded. Nika2020 (talk) 20:36, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was keep. Fenix down (talk) 06:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lucio (footballer, born 1982)[edit]

Lucio (footballer, born 1982) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I couldn't find evidence that he meets WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 15:59, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:00, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. GiantSnowman 14:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - passes WP:NFOOTBALL (see Soccerway which confirms this); needs improving, not deleting. GiantSnowman 15:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment - Lúcio has played in the fully-pro Campeonato Mineiro (dozens of matches) and Campeonato Brasileiro Série B (3 matches). I haven't been able to find in-depth online Portuguese-language coverage (lots of routine or superficial coverage though). I'd like to take some more time to look for GNG-compliance. Jogurney (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Fenix down (talk) 06:13, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jean Karat[edit]

Jean Karat (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Entirely unable to find sources other than various Wikipedia forks, namechecks on various music websites, obituaries, and videos when I search in English and Syriac; nothing to indicate that any of the notability guidelines for musicians, people, or general subjects are met. Jack Frost (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support I couldn't find any sources either. Mugsalot (talk) 11:56, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Syria-related deletion discussions. Jack Frost (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Per above. Never heard about this man but I looked him up and I couldn't find anything besides Facebook pages, Wikipedia mirrors, YouTube videos and namechecks. No reliable sources whatsoever. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 16:18, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:10, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Found nothing to suggest notability in a google search. While I can only read English and there could theoretically be sourcing in non-English languages, I'm seeing mostly Wikipedia mirrors and little else. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:30, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per above Shadow4dark (talk) 11:24, 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) 13:48, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Knack (software)[edit]

Knack (software) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

there is nothing about it to being close to notable. Light2021 (talk) 06:34, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:50, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:10, 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 delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 00:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Filmic Achievement[edit]

Filmic Achievement (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Doesn't meet WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weak delete I found litte to suggest a pass of NFILM, results like this use 'Filmic Achievement' to mean a 'good film', not in reference to the movie. There's what looks like a good feature in Pittsburgh City Paper and a very short review in the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, but I think it's not quite enough to push the film into notability as NFILM wants nationally known critics and full-length reviews and wide distribution (I doubt either article is by a nationally known person, and the Pittsburgh PG article isn't a full review, it's mostly plotting summary). A redirect to Authentic Films could also be considered. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom. No sign of notability, no claim of notability, barely even verifiable in 3rd-party sources. --Lockley (talk) 21:35, 7 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) 02:31, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Irene Ros[edit]

Irene Ros (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Struggling to find references that meet the criteria in WP:BIO - additionally, most of the organisations mentioned in the article don't appear to be notable in their own right. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. OcarinaOfTime (talk) 17:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America1000 07:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 06:08, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete, those sources are indeed not reputable. Seems like a very ordinary person who has done a few interviews. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete as doesn't seem to be notable, and as already mentioned, some of the sources are just interviews. Maybe a case of WP:TOOSOON. --Kj cheetham (talk) 14:45, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete listed sources lack reliability and do not speak to the subjects notability with respect to WP:NBIO. Donna Spencertalk-to-me⛅ 16:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Article lacks enough reliable sources and is not notable. Nika2020 (talk) 20:37, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was merge to U.S. Route 422#Montgomery and Chester counties. Sandstein 16:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Schuylkill River Crossing Complex[edit]

Schuylkill River Crossing Complex (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No evidence of sig coverage in multiple independent sources. Appears to be a WP:MILL bridge with little historic or other notable claim. Sources are 1-3 are not independent. Source 4 is newspaper coverage, but it is quite routine coverage in a small local paper and in fact mostly a reprint of the DOT press release. Perhaps something could be merged into U.S. Route 422, but mentioning this bridge in that article may be too much trivia there. MB 04:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. MB 04:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. MB 04:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You seriously contend that a three-sentence article about a hundred million dollar project is too trivial to merge into a five thousand word article? It's more trivial than State Route 87 running concurrently with it for two blocks? Or more trivial than it "runs past more residential and commercial development" in Hershey? These American road articles are all boilerplates churned out on a production line. They consist almost entirely of trivia. Honestly, I don't know why we put up with them. SpinningSpark 23:41, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge with photo to U.S. Route 422 #Montgomery and Chester counties.Djflem (talk) 06:55, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to US 422. A relatively important bridge, that could be recreated if more is added, but I thought it had an actual name rather than "crossing complex". ~EDDY (talk/contribs)~ 17:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Merge to U.S. Route 422, the three sentences that are in the article shouldn't cause the main article to become too long, and this bridge doesn't have enough coverage to justify a standalone article. Username6892 05:05, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 13:46, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

El Salini attack[edit]

El Salini attack (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

PROD by another user contested, an attack that caused 12 deaths seems to be a somewhat routine event (as awful as that sounds) in a war where 1.4 million have been displaced and thousands killed. wikipedia is not news, and what coverage this attack got was limited to news stories like Reuters and Al Jazeera. It seems unlikely this event will have a lasting effect or that it meets WP:GNG. Eddie891 Talk Work 19:21, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Terrorism-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Somalia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 19:54, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:22, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Sandstein 16:27, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Sishui Pass[edit]

Battle of Sishui Pass (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

No reliable third party sources with substantial coverage to create a notable article that would pass WP:GNG and WP:NOTPLOT. Events are already proportionately described in the main article about the novel. (Disclaimer: The story, all names, characters, and incidents described in this article are fictitious. No notability from actual events is asserted or should be inferred.) Shooterwalker (talk) 06:48, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:23, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Toughpigs (talk) 07:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:15, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete. Coverage of fiction in wikipedia must relate to real-world issues in some way. This does not. --Lockley (talk) 01:56, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While it is very rare that fictional events are ever notable, this one is from one of the most well known and celebrated works of fiction of all time, I'd like to maybe see input from some people who has read a ton of Chinese text about this work for their opinions.★Trekker (talk) 23:12, 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. Anyone may create a redirect if so desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:29, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Michael A. O'Connor[edit]

Michael A. O'Connor (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Local mayor who fails to meet Wikipedia's notability criteria Mpen320 (talk) 04:12, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politician-related deletion discussions and list of Illinois-related deletion discussions--Mpen320 (talk) 04:51, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete mayor of a minor suburb of Chicago, this is not the type of position that ever gives notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 14:53, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Berwyn, Illinois#Mayors, fails WP:NPOL and doesn't seem to have done anything particularly notable while in office that would give him an independent pass of GNG. The mayor of a 56k population city needs to be shown to have gotten significant coverage for actually doing something while in (or theoretically out) of office, which O'Conner doesn't seem to have done. Eddie891 Talk Work 15:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. Berwyn IL is not large enough to instantly clinch the permanent notability of its mayors just because routine local reportage of election results can be shown to offer technical verification that they existed — to clear the notability bar, he would have to be referenceable to a significant volume of career coverage. The notability bar for a mayor is not the ability to locate cursory verification of the fact that he won one or more mayoral elections — it is the ability to write and source some genuine substance about his political impact in the mayor's chair: specific projects he spearheaded, significant political successes or failures, significant effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is — and if an article has existed for 15 years yet nobody has ever seen fit to get it up to snuff at all, then it's highly unlikely that anybody's ever going to get it up to snuff. Bearcat (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete another mayor who is not notable in the encyclopedic sense.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. czar 07:50, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pump It Up Contents Creation Contest[edit]

Pump It Up Contents Creation Contest (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Event lacks widespread coverage from reliable secondary sources. All entries that come up after running a simple Google search appears to be limited to social media related sites. ɴᴋᴏɴ21 ❯❯❯ talk 06:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This work-in-process article is also based on the main Pump It Up's home page as I, the creator of the article, have cited references so it will not be too reliable on social media websites like Facebook. Also, the song and character database concerning Andamiro's annual event should be treasured here on Wikipedia other than different sites like Fandom site so that it will attract attention towards players who have voted and/or followed the participants. TargonRedDragon(talk) 15:22, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America1000 15:39, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Nothing in WP:VGRS. --Izno (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete - Lack of significant coverage independent of the subject in reliable sources. Doesn't really look like there's much worth merging, either. Red Phoenix talk 21:35, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:09, 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. Anyone may create a redirect if desired. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 04:28, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thomas G. Shaughnessy[edit]

Thomas G. Shaughnessy (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Thomas G. Shaughnessy is a local politician who I do not believe meets WP:Politician. The municipality itself is in the 40,000-50,000 range. There is nothing about the investigation into his administration that to me breaks the threshold of being more significant than any other local mayor. I will add this article to the deletion streams for Illinois and politicians Mpen320 (talk) 04:05, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Delete per nom - all we have right now is find a grave, no clear guidance that he's any more notable than that. SportingFlyer T·C 05:07, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Illinois-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete the sourcing here is non-reliable or very local to his location coverage. Beyond that, it is not just that Berwyn is a small location, but that it is totally overshadowed by Chicago. If it was this size in an area where it was the largest city around, we might consider keeping a well sourced article on the mayor, with this many people as one of Chicago's small but densely populated inner suburbs, there is no reason to even consider keeping the article unless we have very, very, very broad amounts of sources.John Pack Lambert (talk) 15:17, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Redirect to Berwyn, Illinois#Mayors, fails WP:NPOL and doesn't seem to have done anything particularly notable while in office that would give him an independent pass of GNG. The mayor of a 56k population city needs to be shown to have gotten significant coverage for actually doing something while in (or theoretically out) of office, which Shaughnessy doesn't seem to have done. His obituary in the Chicago Tribune only substantiates that he didn't do anything to be particularly notable. (This should actually probably be redirected to Thomas Shaughnessy, 1st Baron Shaughnessy, who seems to be the primarytopic under the name.) Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 15:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete and/or redirect. Berwyn IL is not large enough to instantly clinch the permanent notability of its mayors just because a single obituary can be shown to offer technical verification that they existed — to clear the notability bar, he would have to be referenceable to a significant volume of career coverage. The notability bar for a mayor is not the ability to locate the names of his wife and kids — it is the ability to write and source some genuine substance about his political impact in the mayor's chair: specific projects he spearheaded, significant political successes or failures, significant effects he had on the development of the city, and on and so forth. But that's not what this article is — and if an article has existed for 15 years yet nobody has ever seen fit to get it up to snuff at all, then it's highly unlikely that anybody's ever going to get it up to snuff. Bearcat (talk) 22:40, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete The title mayor does not convey notability. We need WP:RS to support encyclopedic content. A Trib obit and a find-a-grave does not cut it.-TonyTheTiger (T / C / WP:FOUR / WP:CHICAGO / WP:WAWARD) 15:24, 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. Essentially, the arguments to keep are of better quality than those to delete. Concern has been made about the poor quality of the article, but there is an emerging consensus that can be fixed by straightforward editing. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 19:03, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sanjay Kalra[edit]

AfDs for this article:
Sanjay Kalra (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

no meaningful reliable coverage. Notability is in question. Fails WP:GNG DMySon 02:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. DMySon 02:52, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:00, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. North America1000 03:01, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This should be included in Indian country list. The only thing Nigerian about him is his birthplace. HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 04:31, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Have you ever looked for sources or otherwise contributed to any article nominated for deletion that is not about a member of your church? The imbalance between your opinions of Mormons and non-Mormons is obvious to anyone who looks at AfD discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Phil Bridger (talk) 19:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I note that Kalra has a Google Scholar h-index of about 50, with all of the articles that I checked being about endocrinology, so it looks like most of those are written by the subject. I know that medicine is a highly cited field with lots of co-authors, but have we ever deleted an article about anyone with so many citations? Phil Bridger (talk) 19:24, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Going off of google scholar, he appears to have published 51 papers in the first 175 days of 2020 alone. That is, to put it mildly, quite high. My first thought was that the publication records of multiple people with the same name were being merged. But while I found at least one example of that, the a significant majority of the papers I checked match not only on author name but also affiliation listed in the papers themselves. Maybe at an institute where senior faculty/department heads are added to papers published by any faculty they help supervise? 50 papers in 6 months means he's well on his way to satisfying the criteria of for being one of the 250 odd "hyperprolific" scientific authors in the world. When surveys have been done a fair number of these folks don't meet the criteria for authorship on many of the papers they are listed on. But some do. MoneciousTriffid (talk) 00:53, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete until promotional issues have been resolved. Xxanthippe (talk) 22:53, 27 June 2020 (UTC).[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:03, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]


  • keep but ughhh So what I suspect is happening is related to his role as head of department and as a member of the editorial board of these journals his position on so many papers as first author is odd. That's not a senior author position in medicine. He should be last author at his career stage. Some articles are clearly not his. And yet; there is no proof of gift authorship or undue influence. All of the evidence is circumstantial. Therefore he very likely does meet WP:PROF as much as it pains me. PainProf (talk) 05:31, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • keep Subject is clearly notable and he currently head some notable positions in his field.Em-mustapha talk 13:56, 7 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. While the previous discussion was closed as delete, this discussion has garnered much broader discussion, and the consensus is clear. –Darkwind (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Best of Times (TV pilot)[edit]

The Best of Times (TV pilot) (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

I'm not sure what is going on here, but this exact subject was previously taken to AfD where the result was delete. This version is a completely unsoured article, about a TV pilot that was aired just once, and it likely does not pass WP:GNG – a look in Newspapers.com suggests there may have been a review or two of this at the time, but this is likely not enough coverage to justify a standalone article. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 00:24, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep Show was on a national channel and received coverage at the time, even if it isn't readily available in the age of the internet. I did find one review from The New York Times, which I added to the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 17:33, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • @Donaldd23: Did you look at all at the previous AfD? – One or even two reviews is not enough to meet WP:GNG. The benchmark is "significant coverage" not "any coverage". --IJBall (contribs • talk) 17:42, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Under WP:GNG, Significant coverage says "addresses the topic directly and in detail, so that no original research is needed to extract the content. Significant coverage is more than a trivial mention, but it does not need to be the main topic of the source material." It does not specify the number of sources required. The New York Times article is a full review of the show...not a trivial mention. It also passes the Reliable and independent of the subject clauses of WP:GNG. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:05, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Comment, since I left my "keep" vote, another editor added 2 more reliable sources to the article. Donaldd23 (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTV and GNG. I added some more newspaper stories as references, including a lengthy piece in the San Francisco Examiner that talks about how the original intentions for the show were thwarted by network demands at CBS. NTV says that "Generally, an individual radio or television program is likely to be notable if it airs on a network of radio or television stations (either national or regional in scope)." This was on a national channel, and received coverage. The fact that the show was not well-reviewed and did not do well in the ratings does not affect its notability. Failures can be notable too. — Toughpigs (talk) 18:08, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Like the last nom, I stand by my original rationale; we usually don't give coverage or articles to television pilots that aired once and did nothing but fill a dismal summer timeslot in the days before reality television. The only reason this got newspaper coverage, in turn, was to fill space on a newspaper's television page so a few TV critics could expand on why this show didn't go to series and that viewers should find something else to do that August night; yes, it may have had 'significant coverage', but it was localized to one week with nothing else 'new' on, and then forgotten by all outside of Bill Bixby career completionists. We remember Square Pegs because it was good but wasn't popular in the mainstream; we don't remember this series because it aired once to a disinterested public. Nate • (chatter) 20:25, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yep – even 3 articles (over just two days) doesn't qualify "significant" coverage. In general, I agree with you – even aired "one-off" pilots aren't generally notable enough for articles (and a careful reading of WP:TVSHOW really doesn't imply that they are). If one of the two writers had their own article, I would have advocated "merging" this content to that article. But even this pilot's writers aren't notable, and there's no point in merging any of this to Bill Bixby. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 20:58, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • That sounds like a version of WP:IDONTLIKEIT, namely WP:THEYDIDNTLIKEIT. "We remember Square Pegs because it was good... we don't remember this series because it aired to a disinterested public." A subject doesn't have to be successful in its field to be notable. — Toughpigs (talk) 21:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • @Toughpigs: This looks like you mean to reply to Nate/Mrschimpf, not to me... And, FWIW, that's not what Nate is saying – what Nate is saying, basically, is the fact that this show was only talked about the day it aired and then was promptly forgotten about demonstrates that its not notable. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 21:36, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Obviously the show was not "forgotten" if someone created an article for it. And, if something that only aired once was the criteria, then there would be a lot of TV shows that lasted only 1 season and never went into syndication that would need to be removed from Wikipedia. And that is not the case. This airing has 3 independent reliable reviews support its notability. Donaldd23 (talk) 01:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • "Obviously the show was not "forgotten" if someone created an article for it." That's pretty much the definition of WP:CIRCULAR. But, no – even a show that lasts one season will garner more coverage than a single TV pilot will, because there will be follow-up articles on the show entering production, etc. In general, what needs to be shown for both WP:TV and WP:FILM is significant coverage that covers all aspects of the project – production (e.g. filming and casting) and reception (e.g. critical response). Even three sources does not really demonstrate this. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 01:55, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 04:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep there is three independent reviews that show notability for gng, as they are not just statements but full reviews. The comment that The only reason this got newspaper coverage, in turn, was to fill space on a newspaper's television page is one of the daftest arguments I have ever heard! That would mean all TV reviews are rubbish and could not be used as notability, which would then mean most TV programs would not be on wikipedia. I also argue the case for WP:NOTPAPER; WP:PRESERVE.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:59, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment Stating that television critics are happy to review something in their deadest periods in the past (August was a dead zone for television until cable got traction) is stating the truth, not daft. At that point, there were only three networks and syndication, and they could review everything, including do-nothing pilots to examine why the network rejected it; this analysis helped out television executives in turn, to confirm their choice was right and examine what would work the next season. We don't need to preserve every single thing that went across a television screen, and this was completely forgotten after that evening in 1983 outside a few. Nate • (chatter) 05:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • I don't think that there is any policy that says that we determine notability based on our personal theories of what journalists and television executives used to care about in late summer. "This was completely forgotten" is a WP:ITSNOTIMPORTANT argument. — Toughpigs (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • What does determine notability is determining the standard of "significant coverage", and one day of coverage isn't "significant" (enough). That's Nate's point. --IJBall (contribs • talk) 15:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
          • Comment Your statement of "one day of coverage isn't significant" is ludicrous.  How many Made for TV films have articles and the film was only shown once? Those films usually only have "one day of coverage" too. Should they be eliminated? How about films released direct to video? They are reviewed when released and then never mentioned again, thereby qualifying for your "one day of coverage". Should they be eliminated? No. "One day of coverage" isn't mentioned anywhere. The number of significant reviews qualifies something for notability...and this TV pilot meets that coverage. This is definitely a prime example of WP:IDONTLIKEIT. Donaldd23 (talk) 22:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
            • Got it in one: in fact, most TV movies, esp. ones broadcast in the last 20 years, aren't notable enough for standalone articles. These days, TV movies get very little-to-no secondary coverage. --IJBall (contribs • talk)
              • Comment It had three reviews the one week it aired in August 1983. Going by this article and overall sourcing, its WP:N expired the moment the credits rolled in Hawaii upon its last airing time-zone-wise because it wasn't talked about any further from that point on, and outside Hallie Todd, none of the actors had further success or 'hey remember this?' clip show WP:N based on this pilot (and for Todd it's likely to be in spite of this pilot as she quickly found one of her defining roles a few months later); Brad Pitt wasn't on this show giving it later notoriety for his mere presence. This show does not need an article. Nate • (chatter) 00:15, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
                • Comment None of the actors had further success? Alex Rocco was in it, he won an Emmy Award 7 years after this. Donaldd23 (talk) 14:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep per WP:NTV Lightburst (talk) 16:49, 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 delete. Sandstein 16:26, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apartments Near Me[edit]

Apartments Near Me (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Non-notable company, local source, other make no significant mention. Advert/promotional. BilCat (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. BilCat (talk) 03:52, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:56, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete Doesn't seem to meet WP:NCORP or WP:GNG in any sense. Sourcing could exist, given how hard it is to find anything besides real estate listings when searching for "apartments near me", but seems highly unlikely. Best, Eddie891 Talk Work 00:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Delete per nom as non-notable. --Lockley (talk) 15:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. In particular, Dyork, if you want a copy of the page in your userspace to work on, let me know. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:57, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

GeoTrust[edit]

GeoTrust (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Corporate spam sourced to primary sources, routine announcements and interviews. Lacks coverage in independent reliable sources. duffbeerforme (talk) 04:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 04:19, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 05:21, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

*Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources. This article has reference from Reuters, Theregister, Boston Business Journal, Computerworld, InternetNews, Atlanta Business Journal, Red Herring among others. Theregister article also outlines an important dispute on authentication process for SSL certificates on the Internet that provides the lock symbol on every browser for secure transaction. GeoTrust started the Domain-validated certificate method that is now used to distribute the majority SSL certificates on the Internet today through Let's Encrypt and current GeoTrust brand. If it were to be merged, It would need to be merged with Digicert. All the articles around SSL/ TLS need improvement, this one needs improved citations, but there appears enough to add.

Some sources for reference

  • Liana B., Baker (2017-08-02). "Symantec to sell Web certificates business to Thoma Bravo: sources".
  • "There's certs and certs – VeriSign badmouths rivals". 2002-07-24.
  • "VeriSign buys Cert Rival for $125M". 2006-05-18.
  • Joyce., Erin (2006-03-06). "GeoTrust CEO".
  • "GeoTrust Acquires Equifax Certificate Business". 2001-09-24.
    • >
  • "Mass High Tech, ACG name top Tech Dealmakers for 2007". 2006-05-18.
  • US Granted 8028162, Douglas D. Beattie & Christopher T. M. Bailey, "Methods and systems for automated authentication, processing and issuance of digital certificates", published September 27, 2011, assigned to GeoTrust  }}
    • (talk) 19:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)PKIhistory (talk) 11:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    *Keep: Stuff that relates to root trust certificates and companies doing it is pretty significant.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep/Merge: GeoTrust is notable in being a pioneer in using domain-validated (DV) certificates, which I see as important in the history of leading to where we are today with TLS/SSL. I think this article should continue to exist to help people understand how we got to where we are with certificate authorities. I do agree the article could use some improvement and see some of the sources mentioned above as potentially useful. I indicated Merge at the beginning because I do see that Geotrust's website now says "powered by digicert". If we can determine the publicly stated intent is to merge the two companies, then it may make sense to have GeoTrust redirect to DigiCert and to incorporate some of the relevant history into the DigiCert page. I have not researched it enough to be able to make the determination right now, but I would suggest that for the moment the GeoTrust page is kept. - Dyork (talk) 01:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 20:07, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Note I originally closed this as keep since there appeared to be consensus and there were sources cited, but really that was me being careless and not taking a second to check. All of the sources are WP:ROUTINE (x company was bought by y, ...) or WP:PRIMARY (a patent application). RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 03:01, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Technical relist following re-opening by RandomCanadian. Admins only to handle relist/close from this point. Thankyou.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Djm-leighpark (talk) 03:49, 29 June 2020 (UTC)Invalid "requirement" struck. Primefac (talk) 16:34, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    *Comment: Certificate providers typically will get WP:RS sources from reviews over the years: [51] and [52] to pick a couple online.Djm-leighpark (talk) 04:04, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • Comment: As noted in my previous comment above, I believe that "GeoTrust" is important to the history of TLS/SSL and the article should be kept or potentially merged into DigiCert. I would ask that the page not be deleted so that better sources can be added - or a decision made about merging and appropriate text is incorporated into DigiCert. (I personally think it makes more sense as a separate page, but I'm open to the merge.) - Dyork (talk) 01:29, 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 no consensus. There appears to be significant coverage in local sources, but no consensus on whether there exists one non-trivial, non-local reliable source. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:40, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    ConBravo![edit]

    ConBravo! (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    I tried to reduce this page to a somewhat less-spammy nature and was reverted in significant part (this is my usual course of action for a topic which is not obviously notable). At present, it reproduces content mostly available in non-independent sources, which is thin at best. I am quite doubtful as to it being a notable topic. Izno (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Izno (talk) 18:17, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Anime and manga-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:30, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak delete seems to be a non-notable convention. While it's had some minor personalities speak, that doesn't convey notability, and the only coverage seems to be in local publications. There's a CBC article, but it's an interview of an attendee, not coverage of the convention itself.Eddie891 Talk Work 18:44, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep Additional sourcing - ConBravo festival celebrates everything geek, ConBravo! helping to grow Hamilton’s creative community, Con Bravo in Hamilton – Day Three with Linkara and more! There seems to just be enough sources to justify keeping it. Article needs almost a complete reconstruction, there's a lot of problems with it. Esw01407 (talk) 20:00, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      • Ehhh, WP:AUD (part of NORG) leans away from using local sources. --Izno (talk) 20:47, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Unfortunately, especially with Anime, there are very few in-industry sources doing convention converge (it doesn't make money), so it's often down to local sources for coverage. Tribute though seems to have significant publication numbers. Esw01407 (talk) 20:53, 5 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • KEEP Along with what Esw01407 found [53] has a news bit, you can read it and click the video to see them covering it in person even. The coverage isn't just for one location, its multiple locations. This is a notable conference since it gets coverage everywhere it appears at. Dream Focus 18:42, 9 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America1000 07:15, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete The above-mentioned WP:AUD requires at least one non-local source. The Hamilton Spectator, CHCH, Burlington Post, AM900 CHML and Inside Halton all seem to be local. tribute.ca is national, but I don't think it can be considered reliable. The Cinemassacre source is a blog post. The CBC interview with Mara Wilson doesn't discuss the convention in-depth, that isn't significant coverage. As such, I think the sources we have simply aren't strong enough evidence of notability. PJvanMill (talk) 10:47, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Weak keep. This event is certainly notable and should be kept, but it just needs a few more independent sources. Captain Galaxy (talk) 14:08, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 11:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Speedy Keep Does this need to be relisted for eternity? There are enough arguments to keep it, and while it may need more sources, that is not a valid reason to delete it. Add a tag to the article for editors to add more sources and keep it. --Micky (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 03:47, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America1000 20:32, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep It appears to me that the subject passes GNG based on the sources.★Trekker (talk) 22:17, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete as a non-notable convention failing WP:GNG/WP:ORG with insufficiently in-depth reliable (arguably not) independent sources. The local news coverage is too brief and not in-depth. Being local, it's almost expected it would get routinely covered this way, but no sources "beyond" that. For something that has been going on for many years, I would expect a much broader and in-depth coverage to demonstrate notability. With a couple more sources, it would probably meet the minimum, but I don't believe it does yet. —  HELLKNOWZ   ▎TALK 09:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: I could have closed as delete but am relisting to give those who feel it should be kept an opportunity to address the concerns around WP:AUD advanced by those who have suggested it be deleted.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Close as no consensus: There's enough sources to justify this article, even if they are not national sources. This AFD is not moving forward at this point., I'd prefer to see it revisited later. Esw01407 (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      The exact point is that there's not enough sources of the expected quality. We also do not preempt the appearance of sources. --Izno (talk) 00:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'm not seeing how WP:CRYSTALBALL applies to this at all, can you please explain? Esw01407 (talk) 00:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I'd prefer to see it revisited later implies you believe the sourcing situation will improve at a later date. We should not guess as such. --Izno (talk) 01:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      I will revise my comments to remove any implications then. I still hold the sourcing is sufficient, probably better then enough. Esw01407 (talk) 01:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Esw01407, in that case, not to put too fine a point on it, I would strongly suggest you explain how the sourcing satisfies WP:AUD because the consensus, including by some who favor keeping, suggests that it does not. This would then, on a weighted consensus basis, lead to a delete outcome. As noted in my relist I believe that delete consensus currently exists and anytime after 7 days an AfD may be closed when consensus exists. I relisted in an attempt to give you and others who favor keeping a chance to change that consensus but merely holding that sourcing is sufficient will not change it. Barkeep49 (talk) 01:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      Tribute.ca, which has three articles on events that happened at the 2017 Con Bravo, is part of Tribute Entertainment Media Group. Its main publication has wide distribution in Canada. AM900 CHML falls under Globalnews.ca/Corus Entertainment, a large scale Canadian "mass media and entertainment conglomerate" according to Wikipedia itself. insidehalton is part of the larger Metroland Media Group with numerous newspapers. CHCH, Hamilton Spectator (also part of Metroland Media Group), and Humber News would be the local sources backing up the article. While some of these sources do not have the most depth, they further back up the article's notability. Esw01407 (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

    The result was delete. –Darkwind (talk) 23:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Zemial[edit]

    Zemial (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Virtually unknown band / article with zero sources. Glucken123 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Glucken123 (talk) 15:37, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Greece-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Procedural Keep - No evidence that WP:BEFORE was followed and good evidence that it probably wasn't as this was part of a mass-nomination of dozens of articles about Greek culture over the course of a hour. FOARP (talk) 15:59, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - The sourcing in the article is horrible. Metal Archives, Facebook and some shop site? Oh my god! But anyways, I looked this fellow up and I did not found much reliable sources. The usual crap like Discogs, Metal Archives, Spotify, Bandcamp, Rate Your Music and the like is here, and shops where you can buy merch, and blogs, but I found nothing that indicates notability. Even though I found some interviews and album reviews, those sites look like blogs. So I think Zemial is not notable. But I don't vote yet as there might be some reliable sources I am unaware of. I did not find any in Google. Update: I found this album review in Rock Hard (magazine), a notable German metal/rock magazine. But one source is not enough GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete. I spent a lot of time tidying this up in February 2019 (and again in March this year). At the time, I wondered just what made this notable and tagged it as questionable, in the expectation that someone would improve the sources or supply evidence of notability. Nothing since convinces me it is notable. Emeraude (talk) 17:46, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment What about this one? This album review in German. I think Metal.de is a reliable site. It looks reliable at least. But if it's not then I will change my mind to delete because I could not find anything else that establishes notability. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep as per the coverage in reliable German sources such as Metal de and Rock Hard magazine, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 00:20, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    There is nothing reliable about METAL.DE. Glucken123 (talk) 02:47, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    evidence or just your opinion ? Atlantic306 (talk) 21:49, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 01:30, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep per Atlantic306 unless evidence is provided to back up the "unreliable" argument. --Micky (talk) 00:57, 21 June 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:59, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment How about addressing the issue that the only part of the entire article that is referenced (reliably or not) is the first sentence? In other words, we have a source that the subject exists, but that's all! Emeraude (talk) 16:46, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Sources which prove that something exists, but has not achieved anything, do not validate the existence of an article. If, say, a political party had an article with inadequate sources, it would be deleted, and this underlines the problem of only sourcing an organisation for what they are expected to do, rather than adding what they have achieved. doktorb wordsdeeds 22:52, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 03:14, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Week Keep Althouth there isn't much about him, it looks like he has gained some recognition - notablility as project/mysician Zemial/Archon Vorskaath in the German speaking world [54], but also elsewhere [55]. True, the article is perhaps mainly a product of connected contributors as its history record indicates, and needs editing and addition of proper sources to verify its content. ǁǁǁ ǁ Chalk19 (talk) 08:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Note how Glucken123 did not answer to the question whether there is evidence about "there is nothing reliable about Metal.de" or is it just his opinion. That is always a suspicious sign. I think that's just his opinion and Metal.de is indeed a reliable source. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete If the article was a stub and there was evidence above of being easily expandable, I could consider a "keep", but as it is, with us struggling to find good sources, I think we're best off nuking it and starting again. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:53, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Just looking at the article at face value I see nothing of notable accomplishment. No major labels, gold disks, or industry awards. In general if one is having trouble finding independent coverage for a bio then that person also fails GNG. Blue Riband► 21:20, 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 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. Ritchie333 (talk) (cont) 18:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Pelin Ermis[edit]

    Pelin Ermis (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (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.fTalk 00:47, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Turkey-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 01:28, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Can a Turkish speaker please take a look at this? I googled her and there appear to be a couple of Turkish sources that mention Ermis, but I can't read them to judge their quality/reliability(etc.). Samsmachado (talk) 21:14, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Pelin Ermis is a well known actress inside Turkey. The last serie (Hangimiz Sevmedik?) was watched a lot and she had a quite major role in it. The others are well known aswell but I haven't watched them. Most of the articles you get when you google her are things like "Pelin Ermis Kimdir?" which means "Who Is Pelin Ermis?". In Turkey most people google that about almost every celebrity, so these sources are trustable in my opinion, or the sources are magazines that talk about her look. On the other hand however she doesn't even have a Turkish Wikipedia page. I hope this helps! Styyx (talk) 11:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Delete This article only contains information of her roles in the series and almost nothing about the person itself. Even her exact birthday isn't given. Besides that she doesn't even have a Turkish Wikipedia page. Styyx (talk) 13:19, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: Not having a page on a foreign Wikipedia is not an argument for anything (there are plenty of notable topics which don't have articles). and other editors point out some coverage in non-English sources. More discussion is probably required.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 02:06, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Comment I explained the coverage in non-Engish (Turkish) sources in my other comment. Styyx (talk) 19:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

    The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:25, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    El Manual de los Niños Cool[edit]

    El Manual de los Niños Cool (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Promotional article about a non-notable self-help book for teens. Fails WP:GNG Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007Talk! 01:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete can't see any evidence the subject passes WP:NBOOK. Hut 8.5 12:02, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Delete Besides lacking in coverage at all, it does not pass WP:NB Zoozaz1 (talk) 22:00, 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 RSA Security. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 02:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Aveksa[edit]

    Aveksa (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

    Software company that seems to fail WP:GNG. I couldn't find any significant coverage in reliable sources, only promotional press releases and market reports. Article is a mess of promotional material anyway, so I wouldn't mind a WP:TNT rationale. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Software-related deletion discussions. Ealuscerwen (talk) 23:43, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. North America1000 09:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect to RSA Security where its acquisition in 2013 is included as a list item in the History section. A news article here described the position of this firm at the point of its acquisition but is still ultimately driven by the takeover announcement. I am not seeing a strong rationale or sources to maintain a distinct article; fails WP:NCORP. AllyD (talk) 14:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, The creeper2007Talk! 01:11, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect per above. The available sources largely either cover the subject as an RSA product or cover the acquisition. The article is also very promotional and would largely need to be rewritten to be encyclopedic anyway. Hut 8.5 11:57, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Redirect since no better sources can be created after the aquisition by EMC in 2013. --Ysangkok (talk) 04:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

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

    Benjamin Boas[edit]

    Benjamin Boas (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View AfD · Stats)
    (Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

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

    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Authors-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:23, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    In particular, the English Journal interview is a fantastic in-depth article, but I didn't cite it to support my statements because it's a paper magazine in Japanese and hard to get hold of unless you actually go to a library in Japan. However, reading the exact wording of Wikipedia:Verifiability#Non-English_sources, I probably should. --朝彦 | Asahiko (talk) 03:37, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 08:52, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
    Relisting comment: One last relist, since the first relist garnered no new participation.
    Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, BD2412 T 00:35, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • Keep, while an interview is a primary source and does not contribute to notability, the articles in Kadokawa and Nakano Keizai Shimbun are significant coverage, meaning he passes GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:39, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.
    Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Log/2020_June_29&oldid=966851290"