Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 30

Recent AfDs: Today Yesterday

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

< 29 June	1 July >

Guide to deletion

Purge server cache

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Speedy close by nominator. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

11th Jutra Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable awards ceremony. Only one reference - fails GNG. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Jutra Awards are a notable awards ceremony, and the only reason this has been nominated at all is to try to get pointy revenge at me for nominating an unrelated topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 30. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was Withdrawn by nominator Speedy close by nominator. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

8th Jutra Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable awards ceremony. Only one reference - fails GNG. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Jutra Awards are a notable awards ceremony, and the only reason this has been nominated at all is to try to get pointy revenge at me for nominating an unrelated topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Prix Iris (the main page for this award), so just a note that if we kept it we would need to change the name to “8th Prix Iris awards” for consistency. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:58, 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 Withdrawn by nominator Speedy close by nominator. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

9th Jutra Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable awards ceremony. Only one reference - fails GNG. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Jutra Awards are a notable awards ceremony, and the only reason this has been nominated at all is to try to get pointy revenge at me for nominating an unrelated topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge with Prix Iris (the main page for this award), so just a note that if we kept it we would need to change the name to “9th Prix Iris awards” for consistency. Same argument as made for the 9th year... Its certainly not notable enough for each year to have its own page. Horse Eye Jack (talk) 16:59, 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 Withdrawn by nominator Speedy close by nominator. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 23:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

10th Jutra Awards[edit]

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

Non-notable awards ceremony. Only one reference - fails GNG. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. The Jutra Awards are a notable awards ceremony, and the only reason this has been nominated at all is to try to get pointy revenge at me for nominating an unrelated topic. Bearcat (talk) 22:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Canadian Securities Institute. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Canadian Securities Course[edit]

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

This is the product of the Canadian Securities Institute. It does not meet standards of notability; there is only one reliable, independent, and significant instance of coverage I was able to locate, a J Source article from six years ago: "The Canadian Securities Course: Pricey Endeavor or Valuable Investment for Journalists?" There do appear to be practice test books for sale out there, but I'm not sure if that really qualifies as notable coverage, per se. ~~Also worth noting that the page has not seen any non-automated edits since 2004.~~ Insofar as mention of the course is already made in a paragraph on the CSI page, merging would be redundant in my opinion. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. WhinyTheYounger (talk) 22:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Canadian Securities Institute. Agree with the nom that this course is already sufficiently covered there. --Lockley (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect per Lockley. Mccapra (talk) 05:17, 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 redirect to Owen discography. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 14:55, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Owen/The City on Film Split 7"[edit]

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

Barely found anything about this "album", which is more of an EP. Easily fails WP:NALBUM. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional note: It's best for the article to be redirected to Owen (musician) if ever. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 03:39, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:32, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 03:27, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and Redirect to Owen (musician) User:Davidstewartharvey
Redirect to Owen (musician) and remove from Template:Owen. No evidence of significant coverage in independent, reliable sources and nothing worth merging. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 19:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Redirect to Owen discography, currently there is no mention in Owen (musician) and the discography article is a better target anyway. (t · c) buidhe 10:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: There is consensus to redirect, but the precise target is still in question, and User:Buidhe brings compelling arguments...
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 21:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentI am now wavering towards Buidhe merge direction.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 07:15, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am willing to accept Buidhe's target, as well. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 15:54, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Valley2city^‽ 17:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Invento Robotics[edit]

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

This page is effectively a duplicate of Mitra Robot, an article we already have. All the citations here are for the product Mitra Robot, practically all of the notable coverage is for the product, the company doesn't even have an independent website for itself (the website is www.mitrarobot.com). Lacks notability per WP:NCORP for its own page.

Not to mention the page being created and edited by a SPA, as reported on COIN. The page reeks of promotional editing; it's so hopeless it would likely need to be started again per WP:TNT even if it were notable, despite other editors' attempts to clean it up. I mean, it's literally promoting their robot allegedly "de-risking" your room of coronavirus. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Technology-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 21:18, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Pure PR. Guy (help!) 21:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - Unlikely to be notable, clearly promotional, single-editor, duplicate content. Darren-M talk 22:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment the article itself is a big ad. I found two kinds of sources in a search: puff pieces that are churned out of press releases, and a few sources that look like actual coverage. This India Times article is good. This Financial Express (real pub or fake? Who knows anymore) article looks somewhat OK. There is also coverage in Huffpost India, Entrepreneur India, the Hindustan Times, the South China Morning Post and this book published by Sage. I don't really care if this is kept or deleted. But it strikes me that the problem here is that the company has engaged in so much promotion and marketing in the media, and likely in this article via UPE, that it's very hard to tell what is real and independent coverage.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 02:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - This is a purely PR/Promo article. -- Dane ^talk 03:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: This is, as JzG says, pure PR, even substantially cleaned up. I find a great number of the sources highly suspect (ie: not RS). Not 100% sure about notability, *maybe* it meets the threshold by a small margin once you weed out the paid garbage, but I'm really not inclined to let them try to use Wikipedia as a marketing vehicle, either, especially with all the duplicate content involved with the Mitra article and without declaring per the ToU. That book source appears to be an interview, and material cribbed from an interview. Hindustan Times, interview. SCMP doesn't even appear to mention Invento or Mitra except as an "also ran" at the very bottom. Entrepreneur.com is a passing mention. The Economic Times article is a press release. FinancialExpress is primarily about Niramai and frankly looks like a press release from Niramai. ExBulletin is an interview. This really isn't looking good... Waggie (talk) 03:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I de-tagged it for A7 as there was a (somewhat) credible claim of significance, making it ineligible for A7 in my view. I'd kept an eye on the article to see what became of it following this, fully intending to send it through AfD if it did not improve. The de-tagging however, does not mean that (a) it is notable, or (b) it is not promotional. In relation to notability - the coverage in reliable sources is incredibly difficult to identify as most seems to be regurgitated PR junk, even in seemingly OK publications. I am on the fence as to whether it meets the notability guidelines for articles or corporations as I am struggling to find coverage which seems truly reliable. In terms of promotion; the article (even in its' significantly pared back state) is irrecoverably promotional. To the point where the only way forward appears to be to blow it up and start over. Wikipedia is not for advertising. --Jack Frost (talk) 06:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
!Keep. Invento Robotics is one of the major company in India in the field of Robotics. I think the references given from credible sources like the Hindu, week ,Indian Express etc and other sources validate the content and hence the company warrants a mention in wikipedia. Anuj 0601 (talk) 07:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC) — Anuj 0601 (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Delete fails WP:NCORP and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 18:27, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete company spam, and not notable. Joseph2302 (talk) 15:04, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Drive-by from the COI noticeboard. It is some nick. Spam. scope_creep^Talk 16:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per all of the above Spiderone 17:50, 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. Sandstein 07:22, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Cecep Arif Rahman[edit]

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

I'm not sure this person meets WP:NACTOR or WP:GNG. There are some Google News hits, but most of them don't seem to pass WP:SIGCOV. Also note that there is a draft at Draft:Cecep Arif Rahman. Adam9007 (talk) 21:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete meets neither notability for actors nor anything else.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NACTOR and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 23:52, 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. We normally redirect candidates known only for their candidacy, but the (weak-ish) consensus here is that she's notable for her other work. Sandstein 07:25, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Annamie Paul[edit]

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

WP:BLP of a person notable only as an as yet non-winning candidate for the leadership of a political party. As always, this is not valid grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself -- a person has to win a notable political office, not just run for one, to become notable as a politician, and absent that they qualify for an article only if they can demonstrate preexisting notability for other reasons independent of the candidacy. And no, the historic firsts that she will represent if she wins in the end don't already make her special today, either -- because if she loses, then she doesn't still keep that historical significance anymore, and the next one who comes after her will be able to make the exact same claim again. But this article does not demonstrate that she would have gotten an article for any other reason, and is referenced to a mix of routine coverage of the campaign itself (which is not notability-clinching coverage in and of itself, because every candidate can always show some of that) and primary sources (pieces of her own writing about other things, raw tables of election results, the self-published websites of organizations she's directly affiliated with, etc.) that are not support for notability at all. As usual, no prejudice against recreation after the leadership convention if she wins -- but nothing here is valid grounds for her to already have a Wikipedia article today. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Canada-related deletion discussions. Bearcat (talk) 21:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - This interpretation of NPOL prevents us from improving the encyclopedia, so it should be ignored. Furthermore, SNGs don't override the GNG. Paul sails over the GNG, and held a number of positions before her candidacy. She was a human rights lawyer, liaison to the EU, and the Green Party's appointed foreign policy critic. There's plenty of RS info on her life and background so that the article isn't just a campaign summary. I'll also add that in the current political climate, deleting this article could look really, really, really bad for Wikipedia and we should consider that as well. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 21:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, any job she held before running for the leadership of a political party makes her notable enough for a Wikipedia article only if she can be shown to have gotten reliable source coverage in those contexts at the time. If you have to use her own employer's self-published content about itself to support the fact that she held any given job, because third party media coverage about her work in that job is non-existent, then that job does not count as a notability claim at all — and a past job is also not a notability maker just because you source it to brief mentions of it as career background within coverage that exists in the context of the campaign, if you can't show any evidence of older coverage that existed while she was holding the specific job in question.

But the very few sources here that are real media are all covering her specifically in the context of being a candidate for the leadership of a party she is not yet the leader of. But such coverage does not count as GNG-making coverage for a political candidate that would exempt her from having to pass NPOL in and of itself — because every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage, if campaign coverage were all it took then every candidate would always pass GNG, and NPOL itself would never actually apply to anybody at all anymore because everybody in politics would be exempted from it. One of our rules, when it comes to politicians, is that it is not our job to be a repository of campaign brochures for unelected candidates for political office — our job is to restrict ourselves to people who have accomplished something that passes the ten year test for enduring significance, not just to retain articles about every single person whose name happens to be temporarily newsy. That means actual holders of notable offices, not unelected candidates for them.

GNG is not, and never has been, just "count up the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number of them". GNG most certainly does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for, and GNG most certainly does deprecate some contexts (like being a candidate for an office that the person has not yet been elected to) as not notability-clinching contexts. Bearcat (talk) 22:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't care and I didn't read this blathering wall of text. Have fun with your crusade to destroy the encyclopedia. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Three short paragraphs with section breaks is not a "blathering wall of text", defending Wikipedia's consensus-established rules is not "destroying the encyclopedia", and nobody cares what you do or don't care about. Bearcat (talk) 22:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You post the same blathering wall of text on every politician AfD so there's no point in reading the same thing over and over and over again. In this case the consensus is clearly wrong so IAR applies and it must be ignored. The good news is the tide is turning on this and I'm seeing more and more people in recent months realizing the rank stupidity of your interpretation of NPOL. Peace out. And once again use edit summaries for christ's sake. It's the least you can do as an admin. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The reason I say the same thing on every AFD about a politician is that I'm correct. This has nothing to do with "my interpretation" of NPOL — Wikipedia has an established consensus that this is how NPOL works. If you're really so concerned about the destruction of Wikipedia, then trust me: insisting that Wikipedia keep an article about everybody who was ever a candidate for political office, even if they lost, is one of the best ways to ensure the destruction of Wikipedia. Because if we do it that way, then we're not actually an encyclopedia anymore, but just a pointless repository of outdated campaign brochures for people who aren't actually of any enduring public interest.

And at any rate, Wikipedia does not have any rule that the use of edit summaries is mandatory, especially in AFD discussions — because, for one thing, the only edit summary one can actually use when posting a response in a discussion thread is "response", which is not helpful or informative. There are contexts where the use of edit summaries is advisable — but an AFD discussion is not one of them, and there is no rule that use of edit summaries is always mandatory. Bearcat (talk) 22:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm already gonna get blocked for this so I no longer give a shit. Use goddamn edit summaries. Jesus christ. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 22:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She was a human rights lawyer, liaison to the EU, and the Green Party's appointed foreign policy critic. Not every lawyer working as part of Canada's diplomatic mission to the EU (there are many) is notable. She has a brief mention of this role in her 2020 political run, minimal significant coverage at the time. And being a lawyer doesn't entitle one to a Wikipedia article either. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Speedy~~ Keep - article easily meets GNG with references in the article - so all the SNGs it fails has no relevance. This is an atrociously poor nomination, and I suggest the nominator remove it. Nfitz (talk) 23:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC) not speedy with redirect (which surprises me with 2002 in-depth GNG article. Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

People do not pass GNG just because they happen to have a small handful of coverage in the context of being a candidate for a political office they have not won. Politicians pass GNG only when they start garnering coverage in the context of holding a notable office, and non-winning candidates pass GNG only if they can show that they had already garnered GNG-worthy coverage in the context of whatever work they were doing before they stood as candidates — but all of the sources here that are supporting her prior work are primary or unreliable ones, while the few media sources exist only in the context of being a candidate.

As I said above, GNG does not just count the footnotes and keep anybody who passes an arbitrary number; it does take into account the context of what the person is getting covered for, and it does treat some coverage as not GNG-building if it exists in non-notable contexts (like campaign coverage of an unelected candidate, or "local kid does stuff" human interest coverage in a smalltown hyperlocal, or an article in the real estate section about the subject's taste in interior design when their notability claim has nothing to do with interior design per se.) And as I also said above, if the existence of some campaign coverage were all it took to hand a non-winning candidate a GNG-based exemption from having to pass NPOL, then every candidate in every election would always get that exemption, and NPOL itself would be meaningless because nobody would ever actually have to pass it at all anymore. Campaign coverage is routinely expected to exist for all political candidates, and just makes her a WP:BLP1E — what hasn't been shown here yet is a reason why her candidacy itself would be of enduring public interest that transcended the question of whether she wins or loses in October. Bearcat (talk) 23:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's not how GNG works, even if you ignore the quarter-century of media coverage they had before running for the leadership. If there's significant, detailed, independent, in-depth coverage, than they are notable. Even if it's for peeling potatoes. Please study this further, and stop with these unnecessarily disruptive nominations and don't WP:Don't bludgeon the process. Nfitz (talk) 00:51, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is zero evidence being shown that she has "a quarter-century of media coverage" before running for the leadership — literally the only reliable source in this entire article dated any earlier than 2020 is just a glancing namecheck of her existence in an article about somebody else, which is not support for Annamie Paul's notability because it isn't about her. Outside the context of her leadership run itself, this article is otherwise referenced entirely to unreliable sources, with no evidence whatsoever of any media coverage predating 2020.

And I am correct about how GNG works; candidates do not pass GNG, as an exemption from having to pass NPOL, just because they can show the same depth and volume of campaign coverage that every other candidate in every other election can also show. Political candidates do have to show that (a) they are more than just a WP:BLP1E, and (b) their candidacy is of such unique importance that they would still pass the ten year test for enduring significance regardless of whether they win or lose. If candidates were exempted from having to pass NPOL just because they could show that campaign coverage existed, then every candidate would always be exempted from having to pass NPOL, and our entire concept of having any notability standard for politicians at all would be meaningless because nobody would ever have to pass NPOL anymore.

Political candidates are one of those groups of people who are especially prone to misusing Wikipedia as a public relations platform to promote themselves and their candidacies advertorially, which is precisely the reason why we have a dedicated SNG for politicians at all. So the test for political candidates is not just "does campaign coverage exist", because no candidate would ever actually fail that — the notability test for political figures requires evidence of enduring importance, not just evidence of temporary newsiness. Bearcat (talk) 01:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How did you miss the media articles back to 1994 in your search WP:BEFORE you nominated? In particular, how is not the over 1,300 word article primarly about her, and her campaign on page E4 of the [[ProQuest 438460247|June 25, 2002 Toronto Star]] not good evidence of GNG? Please withdraw this nomination, and please check for notability BEFORE nominating. Nfitz (talk) 03:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good article on her, but it's not sustained coverage - it's an interesting feature article. My WP:BEFORE search did not include the Star, but I found only three articles which quoted her, only passing mentions. Anyways, I'm a delete/redirect, so this shouldn't be withdrawn. SportingFlyer T·C 03:30, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Because GNG is not automatically passed by just every possible source that exists — in order to help support her notability, a source has to be covering her in a noteworthy context, which "local newspaper writes human interest piece about a local lawyer getting a fellowship grant from a non-notable organization" isn't. The question of whether a source is useful for verification of a fact and whether it's actually helping to bolster her notability or not are two different things — a source most certainly can be fine for verification of a fact while not actually helping to boost her GNG score at all, if the context of what it's covering her for isn't noteworthy in its own right. For other examples of how this works, you can also use Q&A interviews, in which people are speaking about themselves in the first person, to support purely biographical facts that don't impact on notability — but you can't count them as data points toward whether the person passes GNG or not. Bearcat (talk) 04:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She seems to be getting coverage and notability, because of the diversity of her candidacy. The 2002 article is literally all about diversity in politics. I'm remain shocked by this nomination. Nfitz (talk) 05:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Paul is notable both her pre-Green Party work (having contributed to Canada's overseas presence and to multiple notable organizations), and for her work in the Green Party. Articles about her have been published across the globe in Jewish circles because the fact that she is running is notable to the global Jewish community in and of itself. Her position on the Green's Shadow Cabinet is notable too. GNG says "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." There is more than enough coverage for that presumption, and in my opinion enough even without that guideline. She is just a notable person.

Also, adding in the fact that this is a fully fleshed out article. If it was just a stub, sure, we could talk about there not being enough there, but it isn't. The inclusion of this article is a net positive to Wikipedia and its users. TimeEngineer (talk) 23:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where in this article is there even one reliable source that is about her pre-Green Party work, for the purposes of making her notable for that? The reliable sources are all specifically about her candidacy itself, thus just making her a WP:BLP1E, while her prior work is referenced entirely to primary sources that aren't support for notability at all. Bearcat (talk) 23:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Outside of the wikipedia definition, she is an interesting and ′notable′ person for her pre-Green Party work. That adds to her WP:GNG notability, and as a whole person is enough for wikipedia.

Also, to your point that all political candidates get campaign coverage, how many have an article syndicated to 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 different reliable newspapers? Only the ones that people are really interested in. TimeEngineer (talk) 00:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not a question of whether the person has done "interesting" things or not. Qualifying for a Wikipedia article is not a question of what the person has done, it is a question of how much media attention has or hasn't been given to their achievements. If all a person had to do to get into Wikipedia was to anoint themselves as important, then everybody on the planet would do that and we'd just be a social networking platform — so making a person notable enough for Wikipedia requires their significance to be established by external sources, which do not have a vested interest in promoting the person's career.

And as I already explained more than once above, candidates for political office do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates per se. Literally every candidate in every election always gets some degree of media coverage in that context — but what every candidate doesn't always have is a reason why their candidacy is of enduring significance that will still be of public interest ten years from now. So candidates get Wikipedia articles only if they pass one of three specific tests: (a) after election day if they win, (b) if it's properly established that they were already notable enough for a Wikipedia article for some other reason independent of the candidacy, or (c) their candidacy is somehow so much more significant than everybody else's candidacies that it would pass the ten year test as a thing people will still be looking for information about in 2030. The mere existence of a handful of campaign coverage, in the context of an election the person has not won, just makes them a person notable only for a single event, not a topic of permanent importance. Bearcat (talk) 00:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So in order to be notable, they need to have media attention. Ok, thats done in spades. "Every candidate has some media coverage"? Ok, how many of them have syndicated articles in more than 4 countries and two languages? Very few. And was she already notable? Well, she had coverage in several articles about her work on the CCPL, so even that is approaching a 'yes'. TimeEngineer (talk) 04:39, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

She only has media attention in the context of being a candidate for a political office she has not won, which means you need to reread my second paragraph. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for being candidates in elections they have not won — and that still applies even if they have some media coverage in that context, because every candidate in every election always gets some media coverage in that context. A person has to show career coverage in the context of holding a notable office before they become notable as a politician, not just campaign coverage in the context of running for one. Bearcat (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is blatantly not true, as evidenced by the significant in-depth detailed coverage about the subject in the 2002 article in the Toronto Star, which does not mention her decision to seen the leadership of the Green Party 16 years after the article was written. Please withdraw this time-wasting nomination. Nfitz (talk) 07:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is more than enough coverage for that presumption, and in my opinion enough even without that guideline. She is just a notable person. - there is no such thing as 'inherent notability'. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep Reasonable depth-of-coverage in Haaretz, CBC.ca, National Post and others satisfies WP:GNG; the "weak" part would be due to the WP:NOTNEWS argument; Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of person, which is questionable at this point. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 02:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to the Green Party election. At this point, she fails WP:BLP1E, since the only reason why she's notable at this point is the fact she's a candidate for party leadership, which I'm not sure is even an automatic WP:NPOL qualifier, and arguably WP:PROMO (while the text isn't overly promotional, it is clear the article has been written to support her candidacy.) Her lasting notability hasn't been proven yet, since if she loses the election, she won't be notable. SportingFlyer T·C 02:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Concern about the 'Redirect' vote. According to this (sorry, not sure what the proper shortform would be), Redirect should be used when "the page has no unique and usable content, but information about the topic is found in another article." I don't think that exactly applies here. That said, if the page were to be deleted, I think 'having' a redirect would be a good idea haha TimeEngineer (talk) 03:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We frequently redirect/merge information about candidates who are only notable for being candidates in an election to the page about the election. It just means she's not yet notable enough for a standalone article - we can definitely mention her in the encyclopaedia since she is a candidate. "Merge" may be a more appropriate term here, but redirect is what normally gets used in discussions like these. SportingFlyer T·C 03:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the clarification! I appreciate it TimeEngineer (talk) 05:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is this BLP1E, @SportingFlyer:? A quick search for her, finds media discussion as early as 1994. The 2002 Toronto Star piece that I just added to the article, is 1,300 words long, in-depth, and detailed - and a great GNG source, in addition to all the recent coverage. Nfitz (talk) 03:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From my search, she was quoted in an article as a student in 1994. The Star article is fine, but it's a one-off article. It doesn't change the fact she's currently only notable as a candidate. If there were other feature stories out there which discuss her, I'm happy to revisit my vote. SportingFlyer T·C 03:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's a few articles from that time-frame talking about diversity in politics. What about the Kitchener Record piece from 2003? Relatively brief compared to the excellent Star piece ... but I'm puzzled why several significant articles that count to GNG over almost two decades isn't good enough for this particular person. What is different between this person, and so many others, where much lesser evidence is fine? Nfitz (talk) 04:10, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Including this article (Dylan Perceval-Maxwell) of a person from the same election, with far less coverage and a significantly lower degree of interesting history: TimeEngineer (talk) 05:09, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the catch. Read our WP:WAX rule, and then check out that article again to see what just happened. Bearcat (talk) 05:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Here's a question - can you write an article on her that passes WP:GNG without any election coverage at all? All of the coverage I've seen of her online talks about her as a Green Party leadership contestant, none of that coverage discusses her as someone who is known for any other reason, and my historical search, which is indeed different from yours, only brought up three articles, none of which was significant coverage. I know there's an argument to be made that she's notable as it is for the coverage of her candidacy, but I'm explicitly asking whether we can completely remove the promotional political element from the discussion here (which is always going to exist) to see if she's otherwise notable. SportingFlyer T·C 06:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's literally only one line with two short sentences, and only one new reference in the article about her candidacy for the leadership. The 2002 Toronto Star reference alone provides enough information for an article, in my opinion. Nfitz (talk) 09:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't create standalone articles based off one single feature article, that's not how notability works. She is only notable because she is running for the leadership. It's disingenuous to say there's only one reference in the article about her leadership quest, since almost all of the references are to "meet the person running for the Greens leadership." SportingFlyer T·C 17:48, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We don't ... and we didn't. There's some other stuff, but not quite enough. But there's lots of recent national coverage, which is not surprising running for the leadership of a prominent federal party. That leadership run would meet GNG, except that it violates BLP1E. I'm not saying that the 2002 article makes the article a keep. I'm saying the sum of GNG coverage makes the article keep, and because of the 2002 coverage (and other decaades-old coverage, BLP1E doesn't apply. Nfitz (talk) 18:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: at this point I believe that we can. After digging into the references from CCPL and BIPPHUB (including in Catalan and Spanish), the article now focuses more on Paul's civic engagement work. The information about her electoral history and future could be removed an still leave an interesting notable article. That being said, I still believe that the coverage of her candidacy is more than other, similar candidates would/do receive because of the interest it has generated. TimeEngineer (talk) 16:11, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Unfortunately the article's now source bombed and it hasn't helped with WP:GNG at all. The civic engagement work is full of sources that don't even mention her. The acknowledgement she is not otherwise notable means she shouldn't have a standalone article, at least for now, as there's nothing at all demonstrating her candidacy has any lasting coverage. We need to call this article what it is: campaign spam. SportingFlyer T·C 18:00, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, one of the outcomes of the AfD process is that the concerns of the reviewers are addressed and the article is improved. On wikipedia, everything is supposed to be attributed to a source. I tried to do that, not 'source bomb'. I hope that that particular issue will be fixed by a more experienced editor that myself.

Also, I take issue with your allegation that these edits and this article are being done to spam Wikipedia and help a campaign. TimeEngineer (talk) 18:30, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - Wikipedia isn't meant to be logically consistent. You may have a candidate running for office that isn't notable, then another that is simply by virtue of their race, but the press might've given more notice to the 2nd, and it may indeed be significant, and hence deserves an article. Ultimately, it isn't correct to say "everyone running for office shouldn't have a wiki article", specific circumstances go into each one. There's a discussion on the intersection between GNG and NPOL currently ongoing at WT:N. In my view, and as generally applied, both are not required, although they help determine a rise to notability. However, we do often apply different interpretations of policy to different areas. To quote Cullen from the village pump discussion on the matter: These editors have done outstanding work helping keep campaign brochures masquerading as encyclopedia articles off of Wikipedia., and, to paraphrase slightly, [The vast majority] are not truly notable because their coverage is routine, mostly local, run of the mill, and predictable. If NPOL was gutted, there would be a dramatic increase in promotional biographies written by COI editors, and that would be a terrible burden on our volunteers who struggle to keep promotionalism out of the encyclopedia. A fine balance has to be kept, here.

This is a comment rather than a keep because my comment applies generally to articles of this kind - whether this candidate meets GNG well enough isn't something I've fully evaluated yet, so I'll update this when I have. At this stage I feel like there are non-notability reasons for the !votes above, and I do see the case for the nominator bringing this to AfD. "Speedy keep" criteria is certainly not met. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 10:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - User:CactusJack asserts that the interpretation of political notability taken by User:Bearcat prevents improvement of the encyclopedia and so should be ignored. It is not clear what interpretation is meant. The political notability guideline is unambiguous, and has been understood and agreed on for years. Political notability states that holders (not candidates) for certain offices are ipso facto notable, and that anyone else must satisfy general notability. If CactusJack and Bearcat are disagreeing about GNG, that is all right. But if they are disagreeing about political notability, one of them is misreading it, either through confusion, or intentionally. Maybe CactusJack means that general notability should be applied expansively. But claiming that political notability should be applied expansively is reading it in a language other than English. Who is saying what about political notability? Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Speedy Keep is more often misquoted, sometimes corruptly, than correctly quoted. It is only meant to apply to certain nonsensical nominations, and this is not one of them. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy was withdrawn when it became apparent that snow wasn't in the forecast. Nfitz (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - This AFD raises legitimate issues of applying general notability. But there are arguments being used that are handwaves at best and appear to be deeply confused. Robert McClenon (talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Whilst I have no opinion on the notability either way, yet, I can sympathise with this comment. This AfD has turned into a circus, with pointy deletions, extended arguments amongst above parties and other conduct ending up at ANI. Something tells me this isn't discussion about notability policy. This AfD is too much of a mess by this point. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 03:59, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with significant, indepth sourcing, particularly for her Green Party work. Lots of it is recent, ut it shouldn't be discounted. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 02:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - I used to think that I was a moderate deletionist. I am not sure whether my views have changed, or Wikipedia has expanded (which it has), or my interpretation of inclusionism and deletionism has matured, or what. On the one hand, political notability is a clear ipso facto rule, and she is not politically notable. On the other hand, the application of general notability to political candidates is as difficult as the application of general notability to any biography, which is difficult. There are two extremes that we should avoid with regard to applying general notability to political candidates. The first is to deny any general notability for political candidates, and only let them in if they satisfy another special notability guideline. The other extreme to avoid is to make it too easy for candidates to pass general notability based on their campaign publicity. The basic question is, in my opinion, one of when do we allow someone to be notable by being famous for being famous? It should not be easy to be covered in Wikipedia by being famous for being famous, but a very few celebrities do pass that test (even if they are not known for anything else). Similarly, it should not be easy to be covered as someone who is famous for being a famous political candidate. There are only a few people who pass that test. Annamie Paul is one of them. Weak Keep. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - I think this AFD will end up at DRV no matter what the result is. That is, some editor is going to be a jackass (or jennyass) about this AFD. Robert McClenon (talk) 03:42, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this will end up at DRV since consensus seems to be breaking towards a keep. I just think it's unfortunate that we're deciding to rally around biographies that have been clearly created to promote a candidacy, and that it's become disruptive. If this is kept and she loses, we can always take another look at it when it will be less controversial. SportingFlyer T·C 04:22, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per WP:TOOSOON. Might meet WP:NPOL once elected, but not yet. --bender235 (talk) 19:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Samsmachado (talk) 04:55, 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. Valley2city^‽ 17:28, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LifeWise Health Plan of Oregon[edit]

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

Only source is its own website. No notability. Promotional page. Balle010 (talk) 17:54, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Oregon-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nominator. Falls short of notability and coverage guidelines in WP:ORG. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 21:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete, a promotional article, even though the org does not exist anymore, sourced only to its own website. Clear fail of GNG and WP:NCORP. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, no sources + references. Devokewater (talk) 19:00, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete: No sources, and the company is a subsidiary of a similar company with its own wiki page. Any information here could be added there TimeEngineer (talk) 04:49, 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 delete by Athaenara under criteria G11.(non-admin closure)Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 17:47, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lksudhish[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NPOL.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 20:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 20:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete even if sufficient coverage exists to pass GNG, this is a textbook case of WP:TNT. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 20:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - I already tagged it for speedy deletion per WP:G11 --DannyS712 (talk) 21:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete should be speedied via WP:G11. Best, GPL93 (talk) 21:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was redirect to Lubo Kristek. As a compromise between delete and merge: editors can decide what, if anything, they want to merge from the history. Sandstein 07:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Barbed Wire of Christ[edit]

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

GNG fail. It looks like it is well sourced but the three books used as sources all boil down to one academic who is publishing all the books, with Kristek as author in at least one. Part of a small walled garden on the artist's works. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is one of a group of three similar articles nominated. The other two are Soundproof Aesthetic of Luxuriety and Promenade with a Neurotic Fox. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:14, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Religion-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the Article Rescue Squadron's list of content for rescue consideration. Lightburst (talk) 22:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This non-notable sculpture fails to meet GNG guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete when I reviewed the article for WP:NPP, I did not recognize that the Research Institute of Communication in Art has only published things about Kristek, and that the only other source is Mueller(1976) in Collage : Zeitschrift für Literatur und Grafik in der BRD. [1] Update: strongly object to merge, because the article has no usable sources. Vexations (talk) 22:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lubo Kristek per WP:ATD-M. See also WP:BEFORE, "If the topic is not important enough to merit an article on its own, consider merging or redirecting to an existing article". Andrew🐉(talk) 10:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
REQUEST Can someone who speaks Spanish search for coverage? Does Google news cover as many news sources in that language? Does the region mention this in their tourist information as a tourist attraction? Dream Focus 13:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My Spanish is limited, but I ran the title through a translator: Alambre de púas de cristo, and did a search. All that came up was the artist's wikipedia article in Spanish - zero press coverage, zero tourism info (does tourism info count towards notability?) The section in the Spanish article on the sculpture does not have any citations to support this work either. There may be something out there somewhere, but it seems unlikely. Netherzone (talk) 15:50, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Dream Focus: I am guessing that if there was coverage of the item as a tourist destination, we would see some in English.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 17:42, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MERGE Since nothing can be found proving this is notable, just merge it with the article for the artist. Dream Focus 16:49, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

UTC)

MERGE Most of this is about the artist, his history, &cet; this deserves a line in his bio and a photo there, but an an article is mostly needless reduplication. Qwirkle (talk) 17:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge into Lubo Kristek per WP:ATD-M Lightburst (talk) 22:47, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. I have questions about the sculptor's notability. --Lockley (talk) 01:38, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep Going against the grain here and saying I think there is coverage here that makes it barely pass GNG.★Trekker (talk) 23:09, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have recently copyedited the artist's page and looked for the sources. It is possible to find the titles in another languages by the images. I have found this artwork (Kristův ostnatý drát) in a Czech article as part of the list of important work by this artist (I added the source to the article). According to the sources, I would say Weak keep, but I "vote" for merge, because there are, in my opinion, pieces of information that should be in the main article about the artist. I see no sense in having basic information divided in more articles.Bibliof (talk) 16:06, 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. Sandstein 07:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Promenade with a Neurotic Fox[edit]

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

GNG fail. Has two sources, one of which is self-published (the Barbora Půtová item). Part of a small walled garden on the artist's works. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is one of a group of three similar articles nominated. The other two are Soundproof Aesthetic of Luxuriety and Barbed Wire of Christ.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment This "art" work is currently an online exhibition [2] by the Research Institute of Communication in Art, Brno. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the "the Research Institute of Communication in Art" seems to be the main publisher of books and media about Kristek, and not much else.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The books are a funded art project by the European Union from the European Regional Development Fund according to Barbora Putova's page [3]. Looking at the rest of the www it looks like RICA have the archive of Kristeks work. Looking further at refs on the internet this work is not exactly notable by wp rules, so should be deleted or merged into Luboks page (which seems to have no mention of this art work!)Davidstewartharvey (talk) 11:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This non-notable artwork/performance fails to meet GNG guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The artist's article Lubo Kristek is a possible merge target, but as discussed elsewhere, it may have its own notability issues. --Lockley (talk) 19:00, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge - there was some partial info on Lubo Kristek′s page I recently copyedited. It seems to me that it is not very notable artwork itself (I might be wrong, there can be more printed material that is not available so far, but we don’t have it now), but it is an important part of the artist′s body of work in my opinion. I would merge the information with the Lubo Kristek’s page so that it wouldn′t get lost.Bibliof (talk) 15:53, 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. Sandstein 07:29, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Soundproof Aesthetic of Luxuriety[edit]

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

Non-notable artwork. There some coverage, but I don't see that it rises to the point where this is demonstrated as a notable subject. The fact that Kristek was a co-author on the source by Barbora Purkova has been conveniently left out. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 20:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: this is one of a group of three similar articles nominated. The other two are Barbed Wire of Christ and Promenade with a Neurotic Fox. ThatMontrealIP (talk) 18:13, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - This non-notable sculpture fails to meet GNG guidelines. Netherzone (talk) 21:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. The artist article Lubo Kristek has its own notability issues in my view, not a great merge target. --Lockley (talk) 02:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Lockley: I agree with you on the notability issues, but someone has gone to a lot of effort to create some and publish several dubious sources for his work. but that's another discussion.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 03:23, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi -- we agree. Lubo Kristek looks to me at least 30% composed of the artist's intentions, as thrillingly outré as they may be, and I suspect its foundations are bad. .....and (smile) that's a different discussion. --Lockley (talk) 14:21, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @ThatMontrealIP: and @Lockley: I am also in agreement that there are notability issues with Lubo Kristek. The whole article seems over-blown which makes me question a lot of the claims in it. Netherzone (talk) 18:46, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete I can't find any sources that are independent of the subject. The Kristek Thaya Glyptotheque and the Research Institute of Communication in Art are closely affiliated. It would be different if the works had been acquired by a museum or notable collection of some sort, or been mentioned in an independent source. Vexations (talk) 15:45, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge I have found an independent source (I added it to the article). The title of the artwork in Czech is "Odhlučněná estetika luxusna" and is mentioned in the selection in the added article. I have recently copyedited the artist's page and added more sources (incl. an encyclopedy). I think there is not enough source and information for a main article about this work of art. However, I think that the information should be merged with the artist's page as it seems to me that it is an important artwork within the scope of his body of work.Bibliof (talk) 16:23, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think you are vastly overestimating the importance of this work. For an important work would it would be easy to find half a dozen sources.ThatMontrealIP (talk) 16:44, 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 merge to West Texas A&M Buffaloes although there's not really much to merge. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 06:49, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First United Bank Center[edit]

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

Questionably notable college basketball stadium. I couldn't find anything about it in a WP:BEFORE. Except for maybe some passing mentions in articles about other stuff and the article doesn't cite any sources. So, there's nothing that would help it pass WP:GNG. Adamant1 (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Basketball-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Texas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to West Texas A&M Buffaloes.--User:Namiba 10:19, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge is a good idea, either to Namiba's suggestion or to Canyon, Texas. --Lockley (talk) 21:27, 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) 22:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Piet Jeegers[edit]

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

A non notable professor and musician. WP:BEFORE shows no evidence of reliable secondary sources. AfD resulted in Keep in 2008 but with no reliable sources added to the article since that date. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Cardiffbear88 (talk) 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete apparently back in 2008 people confused prolificness with notability. We need 3rd party sources covering a person which are totally non-existant here.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of notability via secondary sources. However outside of wp rules, he is notable for his mouth pieces in the world of clarinet players. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He may be notable outside of wp rules, but he is not notable in context of Wikipedia rules. I did not find anything reliable, just unreliable stuff like Discogs, Rate Your Music, Facebook, retail sites, Wikipedia mirrors, his official site and trivial mentions. He does not have an article on the Dutch Wikipedia either. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:06, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Fenix down (talk) 12:26, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tziarra King[edit]

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:NFOOTBALL. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

KEEP: Clearly meets WP:NFOOTY by having played in the NWSL. A quick Google search shows GNG as well. Seany91 (talk) 19:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question I didn't think qualification rounds passed NFooty, :/ Govvy (talk) 19:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Not sure what you're referring to. What qualification rounds? Seany91 (talk) 19:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a person who only played in one game does not pass any reasonable notability criteria, if there is a criteria she passes it should be scapped because it is absurd.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- You mean this reasonable notability criterion? Seany91 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete WP:TOOSOON Davidstewartharvey (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Based on what criteria? Seany91 (talk) 22:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentIt is based on that 1.The NWSL Challenge Cup is not a professional league as per WP:NFOOTBALL#2, it is a pre-season tournament (it does not appear on the wikipedia list. I have said this rule is wrong as the women's game is mostly semi pro). 2.WP:NSPORTQ7 says that A7: Routine news coverage of sporting events, such as descriptions of what occurred, is not considered to be sufficient basis for an article, following Wikipedia's policy of not being a place for routine news coverage. There should be significant coverage directly related to the subject. In addition to Wikipedia's guidance on reliable sources, also see Wikipedia's guidance on biographies of living persons for more information which means the march report is routine. This leaves the draft reference only, which is not multiple refs which it quotes in WP:NSPORT Q5: The second sentence in the guideline says "The article must provide reliable sources showing that the subject meets the general notability guideline or the sport specific criteria set forth below." Does this mean that the general notability guideline doesn't have to be met? A5: No; as per Q1 and Q2, eventually sources must be provided showing that the general notability guideline is met. This sentence is just emphasizing that the article must always cite reliable sources to support a claim of meeting Wikipedia's notability standards, whether it is the criteria set by the sports-specific notability guidelines, or the general notability guideline.[5]. That is why it's WP:TOOSOON. It could be moved to drafty until she becomes notable, as she has only just started her career. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 05:55, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You're deliberately misinterpreting the language in WP:NFOOTY, and the 2020 NWSL Challenge Cup is not a preseason tournament. Utah Royals FC and Houston Dash are NWSL teams that just played a competitive match; NWSL is a fully professional league (see WP:FPL). Therefore, NFOOTY is satisfied. No one is saying that the article doesn't need to be improved from a stub, but WP:GNG is an inherent quality and in this case the next step is to improve the article by adding prose and sources, not to delete it. Seany91 (talk) 12:29, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep First of all, does meet WP:NFOOTY through the appearance in the NWSL Challenge Cup. Secondly, there's plenty of coverage to meet WP:GNG. See [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] – these encompass significant, reliable, independent secondary sources. There's also plenty of more routine coverage around her goal today, being drafted, etc. to write meaningful prose. Keskkonnakaitse (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep page passes WP:NFOOTY as she has played in a competitive game between two teams from fully professional leagues Joeykai (talk) 21:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY plus all of the reliable and verifiable sources about her that satisfy the notability standard. Alansohn (talk) 02:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:NFOOTY Carter (talk) 16:35, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep easily passes NFOOTY. She got her first professional appearance in the season opener only yesterday, where she came in at the 70th minute, and scored a goal in the 89th to tie the game (which not surprisingly is getting media coverage). How is this tournament any different than the MLS is Back Tournament? We've long held that people should hold off creating articles for players until they get their first fully-professional appearance. How is this not that? Perhaps User:Govvy is not aware of the status of the 2020 season - could the nomination be withdrawn? Nfitz (talk) 22:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy keep as she's made a professional appearance, and OP was apparently just a little confused about the NWSL cup. Seany is completely right, NFOOTY is completely satisfied. Nole (chat·edits) 03:08, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - meets NFOOTBALL, and plenty of sources out there for improvement/expansion. Notable. Giant Snowman 17:35, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Dutchy45 (talk) 17:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep REDMAN 2019 (talk) 10:35, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was soft delete. Based on minimal participation, this uncontroversial nomination is treated as an expired PROD (a.k.a. "soft deletion"). Editors can request the article's undeletion. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

OrangeLoops Software[edit]

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

Lacks clearly WP:ORGCRIT, has not been the subject of significant coverage in multiple reliable secondary sources that are independent of the subject. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 17:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Uruguay-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 18:09, 30 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) 00:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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) 22:07, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dizzie the Wizard[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO scope_creep^Talk 17:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Arkansas-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Dallas Observer is the only RS I found, and it only links to a song. Caro7200 (talk) 18:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable rapper.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No reliable sources, just the usual unreliable stuff like streaming service entries, social media pages and retail sites. I have also found an interview with him but that's it. The Allmusic page is blank which does not indicate any reliability either. An up-and-coming rapper. WP:TOOSOON applies. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 08:14, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as it seems WP:TOOSOON at this stage, a hit on a Billboard chart would be a major help for future inclusion, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 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 redirect to 2020 United States Senate election in Kentucky#Candidates 2. We're close to a consensus to delete, but the redirect takes into account the substantial "keep" minority, and it's also what we usually do with non-notable candidates. Sandstein 07:33, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Broihier[edit]

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

Non-notable political candidate. No coverage of this individual outside of his campaign for Congress. Does not meet WP:GNG or WP:NPOL. Not likely to receive any further coverage. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kentucky-related deletion discussions. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. All the sourcing is built around his candidacy, so this fails WP:NPOL and is a WP:BLP1E situation. --Nat Gertler (talk) 17:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - While the article could be further improved to be less promotional, he has received significant coverage from reliable sources beyond local media (i.e., Newsweek, Rolling Stone) and meets general notability guidelines. "Not likely to receive any further coverage" is a prediction of the future and not a valid reason to delete. --ZimZalaBim ^talk 17:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
ZimZalaBim, a lack of WP:LASTING notability is a reason not to have an article. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, WP:LASTING is about lasting events, and it also notes that "This does not, however, mean recent events with unproven lasting effect are automatically non-notable". --ZimZalaBim ^talk 20:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - Broihier finished third in a high-dollar, high-profile primary, in which he was endorsed by two presidential candidates. In their endorsement announcements, both the Lexington Herald-Leader and Louisville Courier-Journal encouraged Broihier to run for office again. He has already told the media that he is considering future races. Should he not announce within a reasonable period, deletion is warranted. But it is capricious to delete before results have even been certified, much less before a new election cycle can even begins. Barring extraordinary circumstances (death or incapacity), the work required to create and maintain an article should be preserved. --Swarles Barkley (talk) 18:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- if we revert it to a redirect, all the text will remain in history, ready to be restored should notability ever be established. --Nat Gertler (talk) 03:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I came across this through other means, and I'm not advocating one way or the other, but he is not the Democratic candidate for the Senate seat. I don't know how that will affect the other !votes here, or affect future votes, but his page hasn't yet been updated to reflect that (and actually reads as if he is the candidate). Primefac (talk) 19:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per above; subject has received significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources sufficient to write a useful article. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable political candidate. To show notability we need coverage outside the context of the election.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
When a policy or guideline prevents improving the encyclopedia, it is to be ignored per WP:IAR. NPOL is clearly having that effect, in this case and many other cases, so it should be ignored likewise. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He's only notable for being a political candidate, and he fails that test - the article was properly redirected to the election in which he participated, and about five weeks ago a user who has now been banned for being a sock recreated the article. The election was a week ago. He has no other notability apart from being a candidate, and while he does pass WP:GNG that's irrelevant as there's only coverage of him as a candidate. I do not mind if the redirect to the election is restored, but he should NOT have his own article, and precedent is clear on this. SportingFlyer T·C 21:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SportingFlyer: Before I take a position, can someone explain why passing WP:GNG isn't enough? WP:NPOL says "such people can still be notable if they meet the general notability guideline." Lots of people are notable only for one role. Numbersinstitute (talk) 00:26, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Per WP:GNG, "A more in-depth discussion might conclude that the topic actually should not have a stand-alone article—perhaps because it violates what Wikipedia is not" ... and among the things that Wikipedia is not is WP:NOTNEWS , where you'll find Wikipedia considers the enduring notability of persons and events. There is not going to be much of interest in someone who was only covered because they were in a primary and took third place, and if that's the only source of interest, then we can WP:BLP1E them and cover them briefly in the article about the election. --Nat Gertler (talk) 00:49, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NatGertler beat me to the punch and I agree completely. The other thing I want to note is what Bearcat says below: every candidate could pass GNG based on campaign coverage alone, but the people covering the campaigns aren't necessarily choosing to cover the person but rather that person's campaign. That's why these frequently end up redirected to the election article. SportingFlyer T·C 01:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per SportingFlyer. - 188.182.13.127 (talk) 02:03, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. People do not get Wikipedia articles just for running as candidates in political party primaries, but this article demonstrates neither that he had preexisting notability for other reasons before running and losing in a primary, nor a credible reason why his candidacy could be considered more special than everybody else's candidacies. The mere existence of some campaign coverage is not in and of itself enough to exempt him from having to pass WP:NPOL, because every candidate in every election can always show some evidence of campaign coverage. And no, candidates are also not handed any extra notability points on the basis of who did or didn't endorse them, either. Bearcat (talk) 05:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:BLP1E and WP:NOTNEWS. His only notability derives from running in a primary in which he came third. Unless he does something else in the future he doesn't have any lasting significance. Hut 8.5 12:13, 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 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:03, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rap-Tout[edit]

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

Article is mostly unsupported fancruft, discussing the song's complex political satire in ways that can be deconstructed by geek fans but of little interest to everyone else. The source currently at footnote #3 is the most robust media treatment of the song that I can find, and that is also an interpretation of the lyrics that does not help with the song's notability amongst the press and public. Otherwise all that can be found on the song are the usual streaming and retail sites. It can be mentioned briefly at the group's article if necessary. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 17:09, 30 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) 00:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-02 ✍️ create

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

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

The result was delete. Fenix down (talk) 15:50, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vincenzo Potenza[edit]

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

As far as I can see this manager hasn't managed in a fully pro league, which fails WP:NFOOTBALL and I don't see enough for WP:GNG. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sportspeople-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 17:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I didn't see it on the log before, but it seems this might be speedy G4. Govvy (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Football-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 17:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in WikiProject Football's list of association football-related deletions. Govvy (talk) 17:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete and salt. Article was recreated 13 days after it was deleted. He still fails WP:NFOOTBALL and WP:GNG.Dougal18 (talk) 10:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and salt per above Spiderone 07:44, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete and SALT per last AFD. Giant Snowman 17:34, 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) 22:09, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of commencement speakers at Johns Hopkins University[edit]

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

Not notable, basically a copy of https://commencement.jhu.edu/our-history/commencement-speakers/ (though perhaps not enough prose to count as a copyvio, not sure) DannyS712 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 16:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists of people-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - I'm wondering about the purpose of this list, along with List of Georgetown University commencement speakers and List of Williams College commencement speakers. Are the lists considered notable, just because the orgs are? I'm learning towards not. -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Delete, Not a notable topic -OXYLYPSE (talk) 08:40, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - A mess, but likely notable under WP:LISTN. It does need better citations and general cleanup / improvement. I wouldn't say this is a copyvio - doesn't really meet the threshold of originality. ProcrastinatingReader (talk) 18:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete This is never going to be a notable topic. If the speaker being there was inpactful enough to remember 50 years later it can be included in the main article, there is no reason to trace every one of these and this is going to lead to major creations of even more unneeded lists if we do not nip this craziness in the bud.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a notable encyclopedic topic, and the links above should be reconsidered as well. Not covered as a group independently Reywas92^Talk 21:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete If these people are notable, their commencement speeches can be listed in their article. This seems like an odd list to have been made. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 21:15, 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. Sandstein 07:41, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mafia (Indian Web Series)[edit]

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

Lack of significant coverage (not just passing mentions) about the subject in published, reliable, secondary sources that are independent of the subject. Self published sources. Fails WP:RS. Creator has already declared a paid editor by ZEE5. Note: the user only creates article for ZEE5. Please check here DMySon 16:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Television-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 17:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - zero evidence of notability Spiderone 12:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 17:41, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

T-code[edit]

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

Exists, but doesn't meet any aspect of WP:NOTABILITY. Boleyn (talk) 16:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 16:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The topic easily passes WP:GNG because entire books are written about it: [16]; [17]; [18]. Andrew🐉(talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Week Keep page needs improvement with addition of refs which show its notability. As Andrew showed there is books written on the subject. Davidstewartharvey (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Article name seems a bit pretentious for the SAP T-code (perhaps more properly Transaction code given alternative candidates like [19] and perhaps bank transaction codes but that may just be a Google search AI guess based on the WP redirect. At best should probably be a sentence on SAP; the article as it stands if probably more appropriate for WikiBooks if anyone has the energy to preserve it there (I haven't). The article may be relying on sources in the external links not just the references, which while not best practice needs to be accounted for.Djm-leighpark (talk) 08:37, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep the subject passes our general notability guidelines. Andrew D has found several sources which show that the subject is notable. Lightburst (talk) 17:14, 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) 22:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Fairview Cemetery (Amsterdam, New York)[edit]

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

Doesn't have the coverage or significance to meet WP:NOTABILITY. Was de-prodded but no reason given. Boleyn (talk) 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nothing to indicate this place is notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Classic baseless prod removal by A.D. Nothing indicating notability besides perhaps WP:ITSOLD. Generic small cemetery within a stone's throw of two others. Reywas92^Talk 20:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Completely generic old cemetery. Nothing important here. Hog Farm (talk) 20:47, 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. The "keep" opinions do not reflect any critical assessment of the sources, unlike HighKing's analysis, which is persuasive. Sandstein 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bitit (French company)[edit]

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

Non notable organization that does not satisfy WP:CORP. A before search shows that sources that discuss the organization are mostly paid publications & generally are unreliable sources. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Business-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of France-related deletion discussions. Celestina007 (talk) 06:15, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am sorry if this is wrong place to post the message but I think there is some misunderstanding because the sources are not paid publication. For instance this [20] VentureBeat article was written by their European Correspondent. This Forbes [21] article is written by their own journalist. The Coin Telegraph [22] article was written by their literary editor etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Freaintanl (talk • contribs) 06:34, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not surprising that coverage is in the trade press, but I's like evidence that these sources are unreliable. Rathfelder (talk) 09:03, 6 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 00:06, 7 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, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

Keep the article because the nomination is incorrect. The sources are not unreliable.Freaintanl (talk) 05:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 23:44, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:34, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 04:53, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

But why? Which sources are unreliable and paid? I asked the same question to the nominator. Freaintanl (talk) 05:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rathfelder, could you please place your vote? Freaintanl (talk) 05:50, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. There are 8 different sources. No evidence that they are not reputable. Rathfelder (talk) 09:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It is not a question on the number of sources or whether the sources are "reputable". The criteria for establishing notability for companies/organizations as per WP:NCORP is for multiple sources (at least two) of significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and (this bit is important!) containing "Independent Content". "Independent content", in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. None of the sources I've seen meet the criteria. For example, this VentureBeat article mentioned above is entirely based on a company announcement and subsequent interview and relies entirely on information/quotations from the company. There is no independent opinion/analysis attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company and this reference therefore fails WP:ORGIND. This CoinTelegraph reference is a very similar article and fails for the exact same reasons, this second reference is also entirely based on a company announcement and subsequent interview, fails for the same reasons as above and this third reference is marked as a Press Release and also fails WP:ORGIND. Finally, the Forbes references. The first one is entirely based on an interview (with an "entrepreneur") and contains no Independent Content, this fails WP:ORGIND. The second article is a mention-in-passing containing a quotation from the founder, also fails WP:ORGIND. None of the references meet the criteria for establishing notability, topic therefore fails GNG/WP:NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 12:45, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If I understood correctly, you mean all these reputable publishers and their staffs are not independent of the subject? If you read the references, Forbes for instance is not an interview. The owner's name has been mentioned to verify the claim and this is why it stated like "...confirms Nicolas Katan". This is indeed an fact-checking and independent opinions. If you are kind enough to suggest me what kind of references you want to see then maybe I can find it as lots of references are also available in French language.Freaintanl (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apart from these, I also checked Wikipedia's articles on other Bitcoin exchanges here-https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Bitcoin_exchanges and I found that my sourcing was way better than many other articles in that list.Freaintanl (talk) 08:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freaintanl, nobody has questioned whether the publishers are "reputable" or their staff is "independent" but this is a common misinterpretation of the criteria for establishing notability. Check out WP:ORGIND which explains how to interpret "Independent" source which includes a requirement for "Independent Content". As per WP:ORGIND, Independent content, in order to count towards establishing notability, must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. I think you understand what is required based on your comment in relation to "...confirms Nicolas Katan" but in my opinion this does not meet the requirements for Independent Content since the "fact checking" provided by the journalist was to simply ask a company representative and this method does not meet the requirements for the fact-checking to be "clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated with the company". Examples (and signs) of good sources - and this isn't an exhaustive list - are reports by analysts who might be covering the sector and include a description of this company, articles which don't rely on the company/executives for all the relevant information, articles where perhaps a reviewer gives an independent review of a product and includes a good background description of the company which isn't simply a copy-pasta or bland generic description, a book that includes a description of the company which, again, isn't simply regurgitating company-produced material, etc. As to the other Bitcoin exchanges - if you believe they don't meet the criteria for inclusion and you cannot find sources that meet the criteria, there are processes such as PRODding the article or you can nominate for deletion. HighKing⁺⁺ 11:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for the detail explanation and I checked that you mentioned the second point of WP:ORGIND i.e. "Independence of the content" and the references I used satisfy the 1st point i.e. "Independence of the author" because these are regular staff reporters not guest posts or opinions. Could you please check the post by HackerNoon.com [23] is of any use for independent coverage? Freaintanl (talk) 21:02, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freaintan1, first off and is my opinion, HackerNoon.com fails WP:RS as a reliable source. The website appears to encourage anybody to "publish" and it is unclear if any editorial oversight exists. and also allows companies to publish as author posts. Essentially it appears to be a website of user generated content. Leaving that aside, the coverage is not significant and WP:CORPDEPTH defines inclusion in lists of similar organizations, particularly in "best of", "top 100", "fastest growing" or similar lists as Trivial Coverage. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you for assessing the link. Please check this news[24] on complying with the Financial Action Task Force's guidelines where it mentions Bitit as one of the important exchanges to comply with the rules.Freaintanl (talk) 07:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Freaintanl, I don't know how many other ways to say what is required. We need significant coverage with in-depth information *on the company* and containing independent content. The last link is a mention-in-passing containing nothing *about the company*. HighKing⁺⁺ 16:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisting again to get some more eyes on the sources.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 16:26, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete muchh per Highking's sound analysis: what appears superficially to be indepth sourcing on closer look is revealed to be more in the way of MILL. ——Serial^# 16:31, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Carlos Camino[edit]

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

There appears to be some conflict of interest with this article. Only two sources provided is not enough to support WP:GNG in my opinion, there also is a feel of this being WP:PROMOTIONAL. Govvy (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Govvy (talk) 16:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 16:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not enough sourcing to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No secondary sources for WP:BIO or WP:GNG notability. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:11, 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) 22:12, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Philip Ehrlich[edit]

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

No claims of non-academic notability, and no evidence that he passes the average professor test. Discussion at a relevant Wikiproject didn't turn up any further evidence of notability. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Logic-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Philosophy-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. JBL (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. The citation counts are not actually bad for such a low-citation subject but they become much less impressive when one realizes that two of the top five listed in Google Scholar are edited volumes and one more is an erratum. A few reviews for a couple of edited volumes don't count for much, certainly not enough for WP:AUTHOR. And there seems to be nothing else. —David Eppstein (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- The entry for the erratum appears to be Google Scholar being weird and combining citations to the erratum with those for the original paper. XOR'easter (talk) 23:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. The article does not make the case that the subject is notable (under any of the notability criteria), and some outside effort has also failed to make the case. Mgnbar (talk) 16:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete does not meet any of the inclusion criteria for academics.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete To evaluate someone who works in the philosophy of mathematics, I'd look for book reviews first, and a few do exist [25][26][27], but his two books were co-edited collections rather than treatises he authored himself. I'd hesitate to call that the kind of "body of work" that the notability guideline for authors asks for. Nor does it seem like those two co-edited collections attracted more than a baseline level of attention. I'm not seeing prestigious awards or journal editorships, either. XOR'easter (talk) 23:54, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Little Cory Gory[edit]

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

Minor independent film with no known actors/directors, with no third party independent reviews Donaldd23 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I'm not seeing anything reliable or in-depth on this movie in my searches. Appears to fail GNG and NFILM ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 16:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete No evidence of WP:GNG whatsoever. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:43, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The Final Kiss[edit]

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

Low budget film with no known actors/directors, with no third party independent reviews Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 15:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a website connected to a film and IMDb in no way show the film is in any way notable. Just because it was made does not make a film notable.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 01:02, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Allemaal naar Bed[edit]

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

Non notable film with nothing to support it having its own article. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Netherlands-related deletion discussions. Donaldd23 (talk) 00:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:55, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Note that it means "All to bed" in English. Only mentions of the film are from generic film websites that seem to list all and every film. Fails the general notability guideline in my opinion.

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Noting also the potential copyvio. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:14, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Christ Lutheran Church (India)[edit]

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

No reliable information regarding the existence and location of such a church in Tambaram. Although a "Christ Lutheran Church & Charitable Society" exists in Mannivakkam as per local directory and listings.

In any case, the place of interest is not notable enough for a standalone page, per WP:LOCAL.

Major parts of the content are plagiarised from [28] (~90% copyvio on Earwig's tool)

Hence, nothing salvageable to warrant a merge to locality Tambaram or Mannivakkam. Warrants a full deletion. - Harsh 08:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 08:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Christianity-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:18, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 14:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Almost speedyable per WP:WEBHOST. No secondary sources. OhNoitsJamie ^Talk 23:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - no assertion of notability Spiderone 19:10, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Sandstein 07:44, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dos Corazones[edit]

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

Non-notable upcoming short film, production has no significant coverage by independent sources, per WP:NFF BOVINEBOY2008 23:32, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 14:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since I could not find significant coverage about this film. Furthermore, while the director is blue-linked, they may not be notable either, since they created their own article back in 2015. Erik (talk | contrib) ^{(ping me)} 13:51, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was speedy keep. Nomination withdrawn after article improvement. MelanieN (talk) 19:25, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Board of Peace Officer Standards and Training[edit]

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

This is a minor administrative unit in the state government of Minnesota, not notable enough for an article of its own. It has recently received a few mentions (nothing more) in news stories, but absolutely no substantive reporting about the board itself. This is demonstrated by the references, which consist of one link to the board’s own website and 6 news stories that mention the name of the organization. MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Law-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. MelanieN (talk) 14:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BEFORE recommends those nominating articles consider the underlying notability of article's underlying topic. Complying with BEFORE requires nominator to perform their own web searches. If the underlying topic of an article measures up to our notability criteria, but the contributor considering making a nomination for deletion, has concerns over the current state of the article, they are supposed to raise their concerns on the article's talk page, or other fora, or place editorial tags, or contact those working on the article. When the underlying topic of an article meets our inclusion criteria, deletion is supposed to be reserved for a last resort, when good faith attempts to improve the article have failed.

I've started working on an essay offering guidance about how to comply with BEFORE. It is a work in progress, but I'll link to it, in its incomplete state - User:Geo Swan/opinions/When complying with BEFORE is not straighforward

Since the AFD was placed I added eight new references, and expanded the article. Geo Swan (talk) 23:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Disclaimer, I started this article. Nomination states the organization is "not notable enough for an article of its own", even though (1) it has the Board has the serious responsibilities of setting the curriculum, and supervising the training of all Police officers, in Minnesota; and it (2) has the serious responsibilities of issuing and revoking the licenses to serve as Police officer. In addition (3) it was the first Board of its type in the USA.
Nomination incorrectly claims there is "absolutely no substantive reporting about the board itself." The October 2017 Star Tribune's four part investigative report into Policing in Minnesota is hundred paragraphs long, and approximately half of those paragraphs deal with the Board. Then, since it was the first such Board in the USA, there is substantial scholarly coverage - the two scholarly articles I added being just scratching the surface. Geo Swan (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. This board appears to meet GNG at face value and the work that Geo Swan has done since this nomination proves there are sufficient sources to build a Wikipedia quality article.--Mpen320 (talk) 17:20, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Withdraw nomination I’m withdrawing the nomination. Most of the references are still just mentions, but reference #3 (the Star Tribune article) and #16 (an actual analysis) are probably enough to meet the notability standard. (Incidentally, neither of those references turns up in a normal Google search; Geo Swan is to be commended for the thoroughness of his searching.) -- MelanieN (talk) 20:07, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. Arguments seem to be mostly "she's notable" "no she isn't" "yes she is". Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 15:27, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Elena Johnson[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:12, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:52, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable badminton player.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep, meeting GNG with articles about her in secondary sources: BBC, Guernsey Press. SportsOlympic (talk) 19:00, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 16:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:NBAD. Currently unranked and highest lifetime ranking was #1434 in mixed doubles with no ranking in women's singles or doubles. Merely competing at the Commonwealth Games does not show notability. Coverage is routine sports reporting and fails to meet WP:GNG. Papaursa (talk) 20:01, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:SPORTBASIC. Stvbastian (talk) 23:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC talks about competing at the highest level. The Commonwealth Games are not that level and there's been no case made that every competitor at those Games is automatically notable. Her doubles partners, Chloe Le Tissier, just had her article deleted at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Chloe Le Tissier and playing in the women's singles round of 32 at the Commonwealth Games doesn't show notability. Being a player manager at the Island Games doesn't show notability and the Island Games are too minor an event for success to show notability, especially with coverage being dominated by routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 22:52, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:SportsOlympic. Florentyna (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources meet GNG as pointed above, and the article fails WP:NBADMINTON. Clear deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:59, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Javnyuy Joybert[edit]

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

Current copy is promotional. Supposed awards are more like participation to the program, and not actual awards.

1. Queen's Young Leader Award Winner Runner-Up, 2018 - unable to verify as the site is down and there's no cache: https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://https//www.queensyoungleaders.com/runners-up
2. Same with the Mandela Washington Fellow, and the Obama Leaders program. Simply participating in leadership programs do not automatically make people notable, especially when they’re one of the hundreds, if not thousands who participate. Being a 'delegate' does not necessarily confer notability.
3. Citation #12 is very promotional of the subject and anyone can sign up on the site: https://www.thinkers360.com/tl/javnyuyjoybert
The rests are self-initiated interviews. I would suggest either delete or merge with one of the programs with the subject has participated in. Infogapp1 (talk) 16:10, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

https://www.queensyoungleaders.com/runners-up/?filter_search=joybert this link works well, the site is up and running. Citation 12 can be removed. Patrickselamo (talk) 06:42, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Cameroon-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:11, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:12, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 20:07, 22 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, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Logs: 2020-06 ✍️ create

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: The creator has implicitly objected by participating in this AfD, so it is not eligible for soft deletion.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 14:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete All these claims together don’t make the subject notable. Mccapra (talk) 21:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable entrepreneur and youth leader with no evidence of satisfying WP:BIO. GSS ^💬 05:28, 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. Consensus is sufficiently notable for keep. (non-admin closure) scope_creep^Talk 11:50, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lynika Strozier[edit]

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

While this is a tragedy indeed, this person holds a job that thousands of other people hold and is really just an early career professional with a some publications. If this were a notable article then every professor in America would be considered notable for Wikipedia. A plethora of obits and some local articles are not indicaitvie of notability and although the person is impressive they have not even come close to having a substantial impact in their field at this point in their career. They may have been on their way, but haven't really scratched the surface RandomEditor7623 (talk) 13:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Alabama-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 14:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep. Fails WP:NSCHOLAR, however she had a full profile back in 2012 in the Chicago Tribune, some additional non-trivial coverage in the interim, and very significant obit publishing (New York Times, The Scientist, many Chicago outlets including TV). Absent the significant obit publishing she probably wouldn't have passed GNG, as a single in-depth item is not sufficient. With the obit carried so widely, this is probably just over the threshold of GNG.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉) 14:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The article has numerous sources that specifically focus on the subject and easily establish notability. ElKevbo (talk) 14:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep I would like to point out (for whatever its worth) that the nominator has a grand total of 3 edits on Wikipedia at this time, all of which are connected to this AFD. I don't know about you, but the first three edits I made to Wikipedia certainly weren't to delete something. The article should be kept because the person clearly meets WP:GNG. I implore the nominator to go create some content instead of starting your Wikipedia career with a deletion. --Krelnik (talk) 18:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per WP:GNG, rather than WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 18:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It doesn't matter that this is my first edits under this screename and I have edited under another. The case for this person is weak at best. Answer this: Had they not passed of COVID and had a NYT obit, would they have a page? The answer is an obvious 'NO.' This is the only reason a page is even being considered. This is an early career scientist. There are many of those people living and doing work that don't come close to notability. This person does not come close to meeting the academics guidelines for notability. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.99.124.70 (talk • contribs) 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- "It doesn't matter that this is my first edits under this screename" suggests that this is a !vote by the nominator. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I agree that the way this is worded, seems like its the same user as the nominator. first edits under this screename and I have edited under another also raises the question about why they are not using their previous account/screen name. — Maile (talk) 19:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by exactly the same logic: they did die of COVID and do have an NYT obit, which twinned with the prior coverage establishes general notability. --Tagishsimon (talk) 19:11, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 19:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep by the unscientific rubric that I've heard of this person via Facebook independently of any coverage listed here. That suggests a level of notability/awareness beyond the norm - coupled with the coverage of her death I think a keep vote is well-warranted. --Ser Amantio di Nicolao^{Che dicono a Signa?}_{Lo dicono a Signa.} 19:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - The subject of the article meets general notability criteria WP:GNG. Netherzone (talk) 19:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Not notable under WP:PROF perhaps, but is notable by virtue of independant sources being available. Kj cheetham (talk) 09:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep since there are ample independent, reliable sources. In the same way that people are not (generally) inherently notable, neither are they inherently non-notable. Thincat (talk) 10:31, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Calling for an early closure as per WP:SNOW. The only delete here is from the nominator, and the nominator is a single purpose account, created solely for this nomination. Geo Swan (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Snow keep - Notable and inspiring. — Maile (talk) 00:29, 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) 22:16, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rainer Hesse[edit]

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

Fails GNG for lack of RS. Also, WP:SPS as the “BoD” books are Books on Demand, a German self publishing company. Theredproject (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. Theredproject (talk) 13:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Poetry-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Author of apparently self-published books that have attracted no documentable attention; no influential academic publications that I can find. So, there's nothing for either WP:AUTHOR or WP:PROF. XOR'easter (talk) 00:02, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. It's not very relevant whether his books were self-published or published by someone else; what's relevant is whether they have reliably-published, independent, and in-depth reviews. As far as I can tell, in this case, they do not. And no other case for notability is evident. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:18, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kent Riley[edit]

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

Does not appear to pass NACTOR or GNG. Sources in article are imdb and personal site, and I was unable to find any additional sources in my searching. Article is promotional but still cannot highlight any notable roles the subject has held. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 13:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of England-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 13:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete we have 1 primary source, 1 non-reliable source (IMDb which we have allowed to support way too much falsity see Juan Tyrone Garcia) and the subject's own website. This is so bad, it really should have been sent through proposed deletion, but the die hard IMDb defenders would have stopped it there, so here is inevitable although we have 0 reliable sources on this biography of a living person which should initiate a very quick process of forcing either a reliable source or deleting the article. The fact the article has existed for 13 years makes this whole process even more atrocious.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not sure he meets WP:Nactor but Johnpacklambert quoting Juan Tyrone Garcia and saying how bad this is a bit over the top. Kent is a jobbing actor who played a recurring character in a soap, and has had smaller parts in TV and stage,[[29]] not like Garcia who is clearly a hoax. 13 years ago the rules for notability were different. There is coverage in secondary sources but they are small mentions, like when he was sacked by Hollyoaks, along with 10 other actors.Davidstewartharvey (talk) 19:21, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Satariel (band)[edit]

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

Notable? GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I am not convinced of this band's notability. The article's sourcing is beyond poor - the band's official site, Facebook, Myspace, Last.fm, Metal Archives and Youtube. None of these establish any notability. I looked them up and the results were mixed. I found two reliable sources: Metal Storm and an album review on Metal.de. Other than that, the rest of the results were all unreliable like the aforementioned sites, Google Play, Spotify, Amazon, Discogs, Wikipedia mirrors, lots and lots of trivial mentions and namechecks, and stuff where the word "Satariel" is not in the band's context. I also found some album reviews and interviews scattered here and there, but those sites all look like blogs to me. The article also has an "improve sources" tag on it since 2008. So I am not convinced of the notability of this band. But hey, if anyone found reliable sources other than the two I mentioned, I gladly withdraw my nomination. I did not found much reliable sources. Besides, I don't necessarily want to delete this page, just to talk about whether it's notable or not. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:22, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sweden-related deletion discussions. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 12:25, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Meets WP:MUSIC with multiple albums on important labels within the genre - Hammerheart, Candlelight, Regain. Chubbles (talk) 13:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak Keep - Note that an "improved sources" tag is an invitation to improve an article, not necessarily to call for its deletion, no matter how long it has been sitting there. As for the band, they are obscure and underground, but most of their albums have received robust reviews at sites like Metal Observer and Metal Storm, and they have been signed to at least one notable label. There's not much out there, but possibly enough to barely pass #1 and #5 at WP:NBAND. If the article survives, I volunteer to clean it up. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 16:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Yes, Candlelight, Regain and Hammerheart are major metal record labels. And as for the article, like I said, I did not necessarily wanted it to be deleted, just to talk about its notability as the sourcing is abysmal in the article and I did not found much reliable sources in Google. That's it. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 17:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@GhostDestroyer100: Do you speak/read Swedish? Sam Sailor 21:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Sam Sailor: No I don't. I only vaguely knew very few words because the Swedish language is similar to English and German. GhostDestroyer100 (talk) 22:01, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - I think you'd find that that should be "No, I don't." not "No I don't". To avoid fragmentation, I took the liberty of moving your kind response up here, I hope you don't mind. Yes, you are indeed right, Swedish, English, and German are related and therefore similar, they all belong to the Germanic languages. I might be wrong, but it sounds like you are an anglophone monoglot? Would you be comfortable with an editor who did not fully comprehend English suggesting an article should be deleted about which mainly English language sources were present? Sam Sailor 22:42, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as per Doomsdayer as there is secondary coverage in reliable sources and they have committed to improve the article so deletion is no longer necessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:30, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Added two cite books, both in English, mind you. I have no doubts that this eventually meets WP:GNG. Sam Sailor 22:48, 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. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:18, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

MAG Lebanon[edit]

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

Non Notable with lack of citations Majun e Baqi (talk) 12:24, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of News media-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lebanon-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Looks to me like COI issue, possibly even paid editing; the editor has created three articles (one already deleted) to do with connected businesses and/or businesspersons, with no other contributions history. Pretty sure this falls foul of WP:COI / WP:UPE, but just to be sure I've asked the editor to comment. -- DoubleGrazing (talk) 18:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - clear COI and I intend to block this editor pronto. Deb (talk) 08:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete no indication of notability even without the COI issues. Best, GPL93 (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Fails WP:GNG. P,TO 19104 (talk) (contribs) 15:24, 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. Per WP:CRYSTALBALL, Individual scheduled or expected future events should be included only if the event is notable and almost certain to take place. The article cites Spanish legislation setting the date of the election, thus fulfilling the "almost certain to take place" criteria. The question of notability is a more difficult one for a local election, but consensus seems to be that it is notable, and neither the nominator nor any other user has put forward a case claiming that it is not. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:15, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2023 Seville City Council election[edit]

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

Pure WP:CRYSTALBALL. We have known for certain that that the 2020 Summer Olympics will happen in June and July 2020. Except it won't. There is no indication whatsoever that these elections will actually happen. Pete AU aka Shirt58 (talk) 12:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Spain-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy keep as per WP:SKCRIT#3. You are applying WP:CRYSTALBALL incorrectly: it does not mean you can crystal-ball yourself an hypothetical cataclysmic event to cast off what as of now is a future election with a fixed and certain date (under current law, it is legally set to happen on 28 May 2023, something already reflected by sources). Plus, there is information on that election already being released, such as opinion polls. As WP:CRYSTALBALL establishes, Examples of appropriate topics include the 2020 U.S. presidential election and 2028 Summer Olympics. 2028 is much farther away in time, yet just because a pandemic or an asteroid collision could happen in the meantime does not mean it is not valid. So far, the assertion that this election won't happen in 2023 because of something happening that would pospone or cancel it is more crystal-ballish than assuming it will go ahead as legally scheduled.

Even so, this won't even be a reason for deletion, because the practice of creating articles for future elections in Wikipedia is very common and provided under WP:NCELECT. If anything, uncertainty on the election date (which is not the case here) would mean a change to the title, not an outright deletion. Impru20^talk 12:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep, inline with current understanding of WP:CRYSTALBALL.--Asqueladd (talk) 16:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete having an article on an election that will not happen for 3 years makes no sense.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It makes sense when there's actual verifiable information published by sources about that election (which, btw, is what CRYSTALBALL requires). An event 10 years into the future can have its own article if there is verifiable information about it in reliable sources. In this case, we have opinion polling available already, with the election date being legally set and fixed for 28 May 2023. It's very common practice in Wikipedia to have articles on future elections as soon as there is information available for them (note that 2020 United States presidential election, for example, exists since 30 October 2015. Work on 2016 United States presidential election kept going without issues from 5 November 2012. Likewise, 2012 United States presidential election has existed since 7 November 2008).

I'd like some actual argument justifying the "makes no sense"-bit, because as it stands right now it may be interpreted as some form of WP:IDONTLIKEIT contrary to general practice in Wikipedia. Impru20^talk 21:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Just to point out, there was a recent AfD on a very similar issue here (the only difference being that, for that case, the date of the election was uncertain. Here, it is certain). Impru20^talk 23:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Scheduled events don't fail WP:CRYSTAL. Nonsense to try and claim there is no certainty that these elections will happen IMO. Number 5 7 18:23, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keepas per User:Impru20. Dtt1^Talk 17:58, 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 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CEO Connection[edit]

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

non notable organization, only coverage are WP:MILL announcements/funding and press releases Praxidicae (talk) 12:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:57, 30 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) 00:04, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Related discussions: 2015-11 CEO Connection Mid-Market Convention ✗ Speedy delete

Logs: 2015-12 move to → User:Josserroll/CEO Connection, 2015-12 ↻ restored, 2015-12 ✗ G11, 2015-12 ✗ deleted, 2015-12 ✗ deleted, 2015-11 ✗ G12, 2014-07 ✗ G11, 2010-11 ✗ G11

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

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (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. Previously closed as "delete", now reclosed as "no consensus" following a discussion on my talk page. Sandstein 06:59, 14 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhruv Rathee[edit]

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

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

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

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

No significant coverage, the only thing he's "known" for is his borderline racist remarks which is WP:BLP1E. There is no sustained coverage and the bulk of the sources are not independent (q&as, interviews, etc...) Praxidicae (talk) 09:41, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

50-50 ❯❯❯ S A H A 16:11, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a clear one event case. He is not notable outside his remarks that some did not like, and thus we do not have full fledged notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:GNG and WP:ENT.- Akhiljaxxn (talk) 19:13, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 21:52, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per nom. -Hatchens (talk) 08:10, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 10:07, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete as per WP:BLP1E and above ~ Amkgp 💬 15:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: Passes GNG. Sources like- New Indian Express [30], DW [31], Scroll [32], Mid Day [33] satisfy the conditions of:

Multiple secondary sources
Reliable sources
Independent of the subject
In-depth information

WP:BLP1E argument unfortunately doesn't hold. He was already popular (as far as these so-called "youtubers" and "political commentators" go), prior to his BLM infamy. If the notability criteria is passed for Steven Crowder and other like youtubers, it likely passes for him too. - Harsh 19:52, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

* Praxidicae Do the above 'keep' argument stands? I don't think so. Sources like Mid-day, Scroll are well known for frequent offender of publishing churnalism. ~ Amkgp 💬 06:40, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Weak~~ keep I was on the fence about Rathee's notability during article creation but thought that the very in-depth Scroll article combined with a few other news articles (Indian Express, in particular) constitute sufficient coverage. His videos and comments are frequently cited in the national political sphere. I'll try to find some more sources. M4DU7 (talk) 16:51, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Changed weak keep to keep based on NitinMlk's detailed analysis below. M4DU7 (talk) 06:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails WP:GNG as mentioned. Aside from trivial coverage in like-minded sources, there is not much coming from independent sources. Dhawangupta (talk) 07:33, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete He fails WP:GNG in the sense that the significant coverage is not provided to him by the sources which are reliable, independent from this subject. Free Press Journal, Scroll.in, etc. are just not reliable for notability. The only source from Indian Express is not significant because it talks about a variety of subjects not just this person - doesn't mean that any random person mentioned by the Indian Express deserves their own Wikipedia article TheodoreIndiana (talk) 14:27, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment – It seems articles like that of Deutsche Welle ([34]) and The Indian Express ([35]), combined with the non-trivial coverage that he regularly gets in the mainstream media ([36]), make him pass WP:BASIC. He is certainly not a case of WP:BLP1E, as he has been regularly in the news since 2018, the year in which BBC Hindi interviewed him: [37]. The recent interview by The New Indian Express ([38]) also indicates his growing popularity. Here are a couple of other examples of non-trivial coverage: Forbes India ([39]) & The Week ([40]).

He is basically a critic of the present PM/government of India, i.e. Narendra Modi and the right-wing Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). I guess 2018 was the year when he created his first widely-reported "controversy" while trying to expose the alleged propaganda machine of BJP through a couple of YouTube videos. As those videos are in Hindi, they were reported by the mainstream Hindi newspapers like Jansatta (published by the Indian Express Limited): [41]. And a retweet of those videos resulted in a defamation case against Arvind Kejriwal (the Chief Minister of Delhi): [42], [43], [44], etc. I guess one of his other "controversies" resulted in a 30-day block by Facebook, although Facebook reversed its decision within a few hours: [45], [46], [47], [48], etc. There are some other such incidents listed in the BLP. Anyway, he has been getting presistent coverage in the mainstream news media for the last couple of years.

PS: The subject has been a persistent target of BJP supporters and Hindu nationalists, and has received so much online trolling, threats, etc. that he neither discloses his address nor details of his family members. So the WP:PPOV !votes should be judged accordingly. - ~~NitinMlk (talk) 15:45, 28 June 2020 (UTC)~~ added a couple of links - NitinMlk (talk) 19:24, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. The above clap-trap about him being a victim, "a target", for justifying a standalone article is irrelevant and unconvincing. I don't think if he even meets WP:BLP1E because the coverage was temporary and the event itself wasn't notable. There are many critics and haters of BJP and BLM, but WP:GNG has to be met. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 05:00, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You not only labelled my policy-based comment as "clap-trap" but also completely misrepresented it. This is not an acceptable behaviour. In fact, this is why I mentioned "WP:PPOV !votes" in my previous comment. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:19, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep A cursory look at the sources suggests ongoing regular and non trivial coverage of the subject. I think the notability in this case is very much reinforced by the press's attitude. If he really didn't matter would people get so angry that they write entire articles criticising him on a regular basis. Per policy, WP:BLP1E does not apply the individual has a major YouTube following so can't be characterised as low profile. WP:BLP1E can only be applied to low profile individuals. PainProf (talk) 03:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:BLP1E can only be applied to low profile individuals. He is a low profile individual, which is why there is no actual coverage of him aside from what I pointed out. Being disliked by notable people does not make one notable. Praxidicae (talk) 12:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it is the other way around: all of his "actual" coverage is outside of the last month's remarks pointed out by you. In fact, those remarks were not even covered by the mainstream media. I guess they were mainly covered in a couple of non-mainstream news sites and an opinion piece of SheThePeople.TV ([49]), a site which claims to be a digital storytelling for women, dedicated to passionately championing and promoting their journeys. And he is anything but a low profile individual. BTW, in case of BLPs, one should be cautious about accusing anyone of borderline racist remarks unless they can back it up with a reliable source – see WP:BLPREMOVE. - NitinMlk (talk) 20:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sources are good enough to pass WP:GNG. He is relevant enough to have 3.2 million YouTube subscribers and for people to write about him. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 20:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
* Number of YouTube subscribers has never been a metric to determine notability of a person in Wikipedia. As it can be manipulated and done by numerous ways to increase or decrease views ~ Amkgp 💬 05:59, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~ Amkgp, I didn't say it was. But a large social media following is indicative of someone with a large level of interest in them. As is a large number of articles talking about someones opinions. AlessandroTiandelli333 (talk) 19:25, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AlessandroTiandelli333, I don't think so. It can be achieved with by hiring a good PR team and usage of bots etc. Its Wikipedia notability that determines the articles eligibility to stay. ~ Amkgp 💬 02:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I am one of his subscriber and appreciate some his work. But, he doesn't have significant coverage in media. Neurofreak (talk) 12:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Per WP:EXIST and WP:ARBITRARY, having thousands or hundreds of subs on YouTube or followers on Instagram or the likes does not prove one's notability. Keep that in mind. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: With sources indicated by NitinMlk along with his analysis, the article is good enough to pass WP:GNG. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 10:36, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep: I just checked about him, he does have enough wp:sigcov to pass wp:rs.Stonertone (talk) 16:03, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The sourcing just isn't there for him to be notable enough for an article. SheThePeople TV is questionable and the coverage of him in otherwise usable sources is trivial and not in-depth enough. Also, Vlogers tend to say controversial things just for media attention. So, IMO you can't separate what's actually notable about the guy because it's genuinely notable from something that receives news coverage because he intentionally said something he knew would receive news coverage to increase his subscriber count. You can't create your own notability in that way. It has to be for something actually notable and it can't be trivial. --Adamant1 (talk) 14:20, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you actually bothered to read sources cited in this discussion then you would know that all relevant aspects about his life as well as nature/motivation/impact of his YouTube videos are already covered independently & non-trivially in reliable sources. And no one even cited SheThePeople to assert his notability. Also, it is quite clear from the sources that he is notable for his political commentary as well as for exposing fake news, which is prevalent in Indian media. In fact, BBC interviewed him in that regard in 2018 and later invited him to cover 2019 elections in India ([50]). Similarly, NDTV also interviewed him in that regard in 2018 ( (see [51]/[52])) and he covered Indian elections for them in the next year, e.g. [53], [54], [55], [56], [57], etc. - NitinMlk (talk) 19:02, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

First, last time I checked judging notability is based on whatever new sources are provided in the AfD and the ones currently in the article. One of which happens to be from SheThePeople. I didn't say anyone brought it up, because someone bringing up a source or not is completely irrelevant if the source is in the article. We don't just ignore them because there's an AfD discussion. So, I'm not sure what your going off about, but it's totally un-called for. Second him being interviewed about stuff, no matter what news outlet did the interview, is completely irrelevant to notability because interviews are considered primary sources, and therefore don't work toward it. Thanks for going on me for nothing though. --Adamant1 (talk) 03:39, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just responded to the points made by you, rather than going off on you. And I gave links of his interviews/works in the context of your comment. Major national news channels like BBC and NDTV don't interview someone just because he "intentionally said something he knew would receive news coverage", let alone giving them the responsibility of election coverage, as that would put their own reputation in jeopardy. - NitinMlk (talk) 17:17, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

BBC (https://www.bbc.com/hindi/india-47730613) here is one of the major Reliable sources about Rathee, can you explain me how it is supposed to be non notable after publications like BBC and The Wire is covering him?, Although I have added few more References which you can check in the article like (https://www.firstpost.com/politics/watch-popular-youtuber-breaks-down-delhi-political-standoff-between-arvind-kejriwal-and-l-g-anil-baijal-4540331.html) First Post. Dtt1^Talk 17:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Dtt1. Read my first comment of this AfD. There are multiple quality sources which cover his life, career, views, YouTube channel/videos, etc. independently and non-trivially. And there is a persistent coverage about him, which I believe is enough to meet WP:BASIC. - NitinMlk (talk) 18:11, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Rathee have publications like BBC and The Wire it must not be deleted as passing RS.Dtt1^Talk 17:52, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment BLP1E this applies to a number of comments. Whilst subscriber count can't be used to show notability. BLP1E refers to low profile as opposed to notability. So who is low profile for this policy? An individual who has not sort media coverage. "Persons who actively seek out media attention are not low-profile, regardless of whether or not they are notable." Therefore, this argument does not apply to this discussion. I don't think it's possible to make the argument he has not sought out media coverage. I stand by my previous comment. From a large number of subscribers it can be inferred the subject has sought coverage and is not low profile. PainProf (talk) 19:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete The subject is not notable for anything. The sources who have provided him coverage are either unreliable or they have only covered interview with the person. Imagine creating articles only based on interviews and partisan sources? Almost anyone can have article then. Ankit 07:52, 8 July 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ankitkr1992 (talk • contribs)
Delete for failing GNG as his youtubing and social media posts are not "publications". Nobody fact checks them nor are they subject to editorial oversight. A regretted tweet would be a one event incident if it rose to such a level that there was widespread coverage. Blue Riband► 03:48, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete agreed with Ankitkr1992. Zoglophie (talk) 09:14, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:58, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tobacco mosaic virus memory[edit]

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

This misleading article seems to derive from the splash made from a few papers from 2006, but while undeniably cool, as far as I can tell this didn't lead anywhere, and it's not something you can buy. DOesn't seem of lasting notability. Mangoe (talk) 15:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 16:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - the broader concept is important, biological data storage. We already have articles on DNA based systems but this is an example of the broader biocomposite memory which is an important concept and one I vsbt find an article for. Can you try find somewhere to include this as the paper seems to have been relatively influential in terms of citations. I suggest redirect here as well https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virus_nanotechnology#:~:text=Plant%20viruses%20in%20nanotechnology,-Plant%20virus-based&text=Plant%20virus%20nanoparticles%20are%20non,by%20Raja%20muthuramalingam%20et%20al.&text=The%20capsids%20can%20be%20produced,a%20variety%20of%20heterologous%20systems. PainProf (talk) 17:14, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not biological storage per se. They simply used the virons as templates for conventional inorganic deposition. I did note the relatively large number of cites, but it appears more as a one-off demonstration at this point. Mangoe (talk) 18:54, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect - per above virus nanotechnology is an appropriate redirect. There is already some discussion of plant virus nanotechnology there. Per Mangoe's point this is just an example of that. PainProf (talk) 19:38, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Every scientific result does not merit its own page, and all this cites is the original research publication. Yeah, these guys did this thing, and it has relevance to others doing something similar, so it gets cited occasionally, but it isn't a notable application. Agricolae (talk) 23:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Agricolae sums up most of my thoughts already on notability. I'll tack on though that this doesn't look useful for a redirect. It looks like it's just a WP:NEOLOGISM, and biological storage/memory would be the terms people would use if they were searching, not this. Kingofaces43 (talk) 18:21, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge and redirect to Virus nanotechnology. My very best wishes (talk) 18:09, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep/merge Notability does not expire because all those papers are still there and the number of sources citing them and reporting them has increased since; it never goes down. Insofar as the specific technique may have been generalised, My very best wishes's suggestion is sensible per WP:ATD-M. Andrew🐉(talk) 11:01, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is just one non-notable (never-notable) experiment, a proof of concept, and contrary to the claim made at the end, there doesn't seem to be any continuing research (it has been 14 years, and not a single one of the authors have cited this paper in a followup paper that I am seeing). It has been cited on average about three times a year, almost all in reviews that, by their nature, cite all research papers deemed remotely relevant to their broader topics, and in the majority of cases reviews that have nothing to do with this specific application (e.g. one is on 'unusual things people are doing with TMV', another is on 'turning bacteria into computers'). This application was not notable when it was published, it is not notable now, and there is no reason to believe it will ever be notable in the future. WP:ATD-M says material in short articles can be merged, but that doesn't mean it should be merged when it isn't noteworthy. Agricolae (talk) 18:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge and redirect to Virus nanotechnology. The stated application is one of numerous possible nanotechnological applications of virus particles, and the material here will fit in well there as a small example. Chiswick Chap (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Sure "notability does not expire" but this was never notable in the first place. Very specific technique that does not warrant an article and is not covered independently. Reywas92^Talk 20:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete It's not currently notable by itself. Perhaps WP:TOOSOON, but this isn't the place for a crystal ball. -Kj cheetham (talk) 12:36, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The experiment seems worth a mention at Tobacco mosaic virus, but the term "tobacco mosaic virus memory" itself appears to be a neologism without sufficient uptake. Hence no call for a redirect. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 23:31, 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. Consensus is for this article to remain, and to remain in place with its present name. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 12:30, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Liskov substitution principle[edit]

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

I propose to replace this article with a redirect to Behavioral subtyping because substitution terminology, while popular and widespread, is a technically flawed way to discuss behavioral subtyping. As Liskov herself confirms, "technically, it's called behavioral subtyping". Unfortunately, the article uses substitution terminology throughout, so salvaging existing content is nontrivial. There is a section on the Behavioral subtyping page that discusses the problems with substitution terminology. Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 11:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose. The article Behavioral subtyping looks like a fork of Liskov substitution principle, which was created recently by the OP, Bart Jacobs (Leuven). Before that it was just a redirect from Behavioral subtyping to Liskov substitution principle. And now Bart wants to delete LSP altogether and redirect it to their new article. The thing is, though, the term "Liskov substitution principle" is in widespread use in the IT industry, as one of the five SOLID principles. And the notion that it is incorrect doesn't seem to be supported by sources, other than a throwaway comment by Liskov herself, but rather an attempt to WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS. (The nominator has stated as a goal that they wish to "erase all traces of the terms "Liskov Substitution Principle" and "substitutability" from the Internet, starting with this article" despite numerous sources using the term). So really, I think the content of Behavioral subtyping should be merged into Liskov substitution principle to leave just one article on the subject, and it should remain at Liskov substitution principle for the reasons above, and because that name is more widely used in book sources than "behavioral subtyping". Thanks — Amakuru (talk) 11:59, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just want to point out that, besides Liskov's comment, there is an article in the top scientific journal on programming languages^[1] (see page 5 in that article), which I cite in Behavioral subtyping. Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 12:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

By the way: I would be interested in any opposers' opinion on the argument that substitution terminology does not support the case where the supertype is an abstract class: in that case, what does it mean to substitute a subclass object for "a superclass object"? By definition, if the superclass is abstract there can be no objects whose class is the superclass? Anyone with some object-oriented programming background should be able to form an opinion on that argument. Thanks in advance, Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 13:40, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Also: I contest the characterization of Liskov's comment as "throwaway". In the same interview, she points out that the substitution-based rule she mentioned in her keynote address was meant as "an informal rule", and that Jeannette Wing later proposed that they "try to figure out precisely what this means", which led to their joint publication on behavioral subtyping in which they do not use the substitution-based characterization. Also, in the interview itself Liskov does not use substitution-based language to discuss the concepts. I think it's fair to conclude that she believes that the substitution-based characterization is not, in the end, the best possible characterization of behavioral subtyping, to say the least. And I propose that the Wikipedia article on behavioral subtyping (there should be only one) should use the best possible characterization of behavioral subtyping, which is: behavioral subtyping, not LSP. Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I also want to point that the primary source for the LSP article is a keynote address, which is not peer-reviewed, and is written with the goal of pointing out new research directions and sparking discussion, not reporting results. Since it's a speech, there's a different trade-off between concision and precision. The behavioral subtyping article, in contrast, appeared in the top, most thoroughly reviewed scientific journal on programming languages. Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 07:29, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Leavens, Gary T.; Naumann, David A. (August 2015). "Behavioral subtyping, specification inheritance, and modular reasoning". ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems. 37 (4). doi:10.1145/2766446.

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Mathematics-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Computing-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 14:09, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Amakuru's investigation and arguments. LSP is widely discussed in OO circles and is obviously a notable topic with much independent referencing--more than enough for a standalone article. That it fits into another OO conceptual hierarchy is fine, but doesn't change the notability of LSP. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 19:05, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify: LSP and BS are not separate topics; they are different terms for exactly the same topic. It's just that the term "LSP" is not quite technically accurate. Wouldn't the best approach for dealing with a widely used, but non-optimal term for an important topic be to have it be a redirect to the correct term for this topic? Note, BTW, that I'm not trying to memory-hole the LSP term: there's a section on it on the BS page. Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 19:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at for instance, Dhara's thesis page 6, LSP is more closely identified with strong behavioral subtyping. There is also weak behavioral subtyping. Regarding advocating for a better term, WP is meant to be descriptive of reliable sources, not prescriptive, hence the warning against trying to right great wrongs. I think it is reasonable to discuss BS in the LSP article, with due weight. But LSP is a concept taught in OO textbooks; it is not going anywhere and its impact on OO has been strong and lasting. I don't think BS is as widely taught and discussed, at least in non-academic circles. A standalone article makes sense for LSP. --{{u|Mark viking}} {Talk} 20:13, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Dhara's thesis page 6 does not say anything about LSP; it refers to Liskov and Wing's 1994 article "A behavioral notion of subtyping", where indeed the notion of behavioral subtyping they propose is the strong variant. But I think the weak versus strong behavioral subtyping distinction is besides the point. The point is that thinking about any flavor of behavioral subtyping in terms of being able to substitute subtype objects for supertype objects is flawed, mainly because 1) it does not support the extremely common case where the supertype is an abstract class that has no objects of its own, and 2) more generally, it suggests comparing the implementation of the supertype with the implementation of the subtype, which is not what you want. It is the specification of the supertype, not its implementation, that matters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk • contribs) 21:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep the SOLID acronym is extremely widely used in the IT industry, with the L standing for the article subject, and I suspect the vast majority of software developers have at least heard of it. Wikipedia article titles are supposed to be "a name or description of the subject that someone familiar with, although not necessarily an expert in, the subject area will recognize". If there is overlap between the concepts (and there does seem to be) then we should write the article at the title with the more widely used name. Hut 8.5 20:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Does it matter if the more widely used name is technically flawed, and damaging generations of OO students' brains? The flaw is not even subtle or deep. Anyone, please: what does substitutability mean if the superclass is abstract and has no objects of its own? If someone cannot answer that question, are they fit to judge this proposal? Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 20:54, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep LSP is a well known and commonly accepted term of art in OO software engineering. If you have an argument with LSP, Bart Jacobs (Leuven), Wikipedia is not the right place to prosecute it. "Does it matter if the more widely used name is technically flawed, and damaging generations of OO students' brains?" That would be your opinion. WP:RGW Tailor-tinker (talk) 09:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mine, as well as Barbara Liskov's, as well as those of the authors of the article I cite, and presumably the scholars that reviewed that article before accepting it into the top journal on programming. And really, I would expect, the opinion of anyone who actually takes a moment to think about it. Still no-one engaging the basic OO question I'm asking about the meaning of substitutability if the superclass is an abstract class? Bart Jacobs (Leuven) (talk) 09:05, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No one is engaging your OO question because it is not germane. Have that debate on r/programming. Once again, you're trying to WP:RGW, i.e. you're trying to fix something you see as a problem in the OO software development community by deleting a widely accepted Wikipedia page. Put another way, I agree that your general point is worth considering, (there are problems with the entire SOLID concept) but Wikipedia is not the right venue for discussing it. Tailor-tinker (talk) 04:48, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep - per WP:NAME, this is the most well-known term for the concept. Wikipedia style normally reflects usage, not which is the 'best' terminology. — Charles Stewart (talk) 19:38, 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) 22:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Leinster Senior College[edit]

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

Promotional article created by a WP:SPA Does not satisfy WP:NSCHOOL. A WP:BEFORE does not reveal reliable sources which would help the article satisfy notability criteria. AugusteBlanqui (talk) 09:42, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ireland-related deletion discussions. Megan Barris (Lets talk📧) 09:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom. I previously removed the WP:VANITY cruft, and my own WP:BEFORE indicated a dearthof independent, third-party reliable sources, but having filleted the article, the optics don't look too good to then send to AfD. So thanks to the nominator for being on the ball with this one. ——Serial^# 10:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. When this was created, secondary schools were typically considered notable. However, since the 2017 RFC, secondary schools are typically expected to meet WP:ORG/WP:GNG. I don't see that this subject meets those criteria. While there has been some coverage of the subject or its activities in otherwise reliable sources (like this kind of thing in the Irish Independent or this in the Irish Times), there isn't sufficient coverage to meet the expectation of "significant coverage". (In that, for example, the above examples are among the only example of the subject being covered in any depth by the two Irish newspapers of record. Any other examples I can find being trivial passing mentions.) I'm just not seeing it. Guliolopez (talk) 13:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - as above. The rules are stricter now, and even before, this final exam school article was dubious. No evidence that passes GNG. At best, given some (weak) refs, Move to Draft.SeoR (talk) 13:08, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom. Not notable. Spleodrach (talk) 07:57, 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) 22:23, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

DESelect[edit]

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

Borderline A7, but does have some claim of significance. The described company, founded in 2018, does not have the required sourcing for WP:NCORP. Coverage that is out there is mainly rehashes of their PR on product releases. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 08:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Belgium-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nom, fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. (t · c) buidhe 10:14, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Move to Draft per nom. Article also got previously deleted (and was presumably created by the same user) and seems to be using it as a draft (see diff). dibbydib 11:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think a draft is warranted here, as the company is unlikely to become notable in 6 months.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 11:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete non notable company. lack of independent reliable secondary resources. fails WP:GNG and WP:NCORP. DMySon 12:56, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom - doesn't meet WP:GNG. --DannyS712 (talk) 16:50, 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) 22:24, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Magé incident[edit]

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

Short internet frenzy over nighttime lights in the sky, with UFO speculation. Some media from night of event. Minor coverage afterwards in tabloids such as [58]. Nothing happened, no continuing significance. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 08:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Paranormal-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Brazil-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete not notable per nom. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 08:13, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per nom as non-notable, also not verifiable. UFOs. Section heading: Conspiracy theories. Section heading: Possible explanations. The pt version is no better. Ugh. --Lockley (talk) 03:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. –Darkwind (talk) 23:39, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RMB Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor[edit]

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

The text seems like fringe plus some references point to the ones directly above. DarklitShadow (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Finance-related deletion discussions. DarklitShadow (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Economics-related deletion discussions. DarklitShadow (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of China-related deletion discussions. DarklitShadow (talk) 00:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Bait30 ^{Talk 2 me pls?} 08:23, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: Has received a fair amount of scholarly coverage. See, e.g., here, at pages 272–82, this report to the US Congress. The program seems broadly important as an aspect of Chinese economic policy. AleatoryPonderings (talk) 17:10, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. 18 days of discussion hasn't yielded much other than approximately equal numbers of editors who say "he's notable" and editors who say "he's not", plus a list of sources that haven't been discussed in detail and may or may not contribute to notability. –Darkwind (talk) 23:48, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kev Brown[edit]

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

Fails WP:MUSICBIO and WP:GNG. Despite being associated with some notable artists, the "Low Budget Crew" doesn't appear notable enough to confer notability upon Brown. KidAd (talk) 23:41, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Maryland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 23:42, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak-ish keep. I'm a big fan of Kev Brown (anyone who loves that vintage, raw original hiphop sound should check out his albums I Do What I Do or Fill in the Blank for some true greatness, but that's beside the point), so I'm surprised to find he hasn't garnered a little more coverage. There's a short biography and a couple of reviews at AllMusic, a decent feature at Bandcamp Daily, a micro-review at Tiny Mix Tapes, a substantial review at someting called HHV and another from Exclaim! and... not a whole lot else. There's just about enough there to meet the notability requirements IMHO, though it looks like the article needs a bit of work. Totally understand why this made it to AfD. Thanks, — sparklism ^hey! 09:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep as he passes WP:GNG with a staff written bio and two reviews at AllMusic, coverage at Clash, Tiny Mix Tapes and others so deletion is unnecessary in my view, Atlantic306 (talk) 21:24, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @Atlantic306: could you share the Clash coverage you found please? Thanks :) — sparklism ^hey! 23:09, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Sorry, I meant Exclaim as linked earlier - Im always muddling those two up,thanks Atlantic306 (talk) 23:18, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I could not find a page for Low Budget Crew. Maybe that page should be developed with info about the former members, which would include Kev Brown. (I found this music website archive for Low Budget Crew info that discusses the group, the former members pre- and post- affiliation, including Kev Brown. I did find more info about Kev Brown that should be reviewed before deciding on a deletion. For example, his press release for the Homework album comes with a long bio seen in this press release and expanded on the album blog post from official website; the official Twitter has recent activity, including updates about recent projects; Kev Brown Drops Some Rugged Rooftop Philosophy With J Scienide; Kev Brown’s Take On Jay Z’s Black Album Was An Unauthorized Remix That Surely Is Official; Kev Brown & Hassaan Mackey Got That Grit: Headnodding Beats & Smart Rhymes and related about album music video Here’s a new video from Kev Brown and Kaimbr. Check out Go Green; Kev Brown is one of those producers who has never gotten the proper level of recognition. He just dropped a new mixtape called Classic Joints that should help change that; a Wayback Machine lead toward Q&A audio; Roxanne-snowden (talk) 10:46, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if "Ambrosia For Heads" is a reliable source. KidAd (talk) 18:52, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither am I, though this article discusses the site in some detail. It certainly looks impartial. — sparklism ^hey! 09:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete since subject fails WP:NMUSICIAN and even WP:GNG. Niche sources such as "Ambrosia for Heads" are not worth much, especially since the subject is on “Ready Or Not”, a page that will list practically anything. (As they state, "[Ready or Not is] showcasing new videos and having you, the people, decide whether they are ready for primetime.") The artist might be ready for primetime ("nobody knows anything" in show business, anyway) but for Wikipedia, he's not. Not yet, anyway. -The Gnome (talk) 12:36, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Black Kite (talk) 08:17, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Still maintain that he passes WP:GNG and criteria 1 of WP:NMUSIC with significant coverage in WikiProject Music reliable sources such as Exclaim!, AllMusic (bios and reviews), Tiny Mix Tapes and others, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:40, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The AfD was extended in order to receive new input. Do you suppose repeating our previously stated positions adds any value to the discussion? If you have something new to say, go ahead, but repeating ourselves only adds clutter. -The Gnome (talk) 08:35, 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. As per Rorshacma (t c)'s comment in the discussion, there's no point keeping the article around pending a merge just for the one line that got inserted during this deletion discussion. The line in question can just as easily be added to that list article directly. –Darkwind (talk) 23:54, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iceberg (G.I. Joe)[edit]

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

This is a minor character, and there does not appear to be any significant critical coverage on him specifically. The sources in this article are trivial coverage (minor appearances in story arcs, lists of all characters). Fails both WP:GNG and WP:NCOMIC. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Comics and animation-related deletion discussions. The Squirrel Conspiracy (talk) 02:17, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: This one may have something more going for it that the typical character. Iceberg is the title character in the G.I. Joe cartoon episode "Iceberg Goes South", in which Cobra scientist Doctor Mindbender uses DNA to transform the character into a killer whale, whom the Joes must then safely capture and restore to being human. The episode has been described as one of the most bizarre G.I. Joe episodes. See Cronin, Brian (February 20, 2018). "The 15 Most Twisted Episodes Of G.I. Joe, No. 7: Iceberg Goes South". cbr.com. That by itself probably won't get it over the hump for individual notability, but finding an additional reference along these lines should do so. BD2412 T 02:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep if sources can be found per above comments, or Merge to List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters per WP:PRESERVE and WP:ATD. BOZ (talk) 03:08, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agree with BOZ User:Davidstewartharvey

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Products-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - There is no information in this article referenced to reliable, secondary sources, thus nothing to preserve or merge. The source brought up by BD2412 above is, alone, nowhere near close enough to allow this to pass the WP:GNG on its own, and no other reliable sources have been found. If someone wants to use that source to add to his entry at the main List of G.I. Joe: A Real American Hero characters, that is fine, but as that information is not currently in this article, keeping it around to merge is not necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 14:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - supporting character in fictional universe - as shown by lack of significant coverage in reliable sources. Bearian (talk) 20:48, 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. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:23, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nightcore[edit]

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

Fails notability, poor/weak sources, heavy dependence on weak primary sources, unusable primaries cited for key information, all in all, not worth keeping. Acousmana (talk) 09:42, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 09:59, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Granted the article needs some work, but IMO there are reliable sources which can be added to support the topic. For instance, see mentions in NME and The Guardian. -- S.Hinakawa (talk) 21:20, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:02, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Plenty of reliable sources can be found surrounding this topic; see the Template:Find sources AFD at the top. You need to dig a fair bit to get past the nonsense, but here are some examples: ^[1]^[2]^[3]

References

^ Paper written on the nightcore community by a MPhil/PhD Music graduate — Winston, Emma (2017). "Nightcore and the Virtues of Virtuality". Brief Encounters. 1 (1). Goldsmiths, University of London. doi:10.24134/be.v1i1.20.
^ Book on new technology [chiefly internet] and music, with Nightcore being a central topic of chapter 5 — Frankel, Emile (2019-10-25). "Chapter 5: Chimeric Flesh and the Hyper-Child". Hearing the Cloud: Can Music Help Reimagine The Future?. John Hunt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78-535839-5.
^ Romanian paper on Nightcore (may need proper translator though) — Popa, Dan (2017). "NIGHTCORE: VARIAȚIA ELEMENTELOR SUPRASEGMENTALE ȘI IMPLICAȚIILE EI COMUNICAȚIONALE" [NIGHTCORE: VARIATION OF SUPRASEGMENTAL ELEMENTS AND ITS COMMUNICATIVE IMPLICATIONS] (PDF). Studii şi cercetări ştiinţifice. Seria filologie [Scientific Studies and Research. Philological Series] (in Romanian) (37). Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacău: 193.

Orcaguy (talk) 00:04, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment How does it fail to meet notability? There are specific criteria, if the nominator or potential supporters could point to which criteria or even a single criterion they feel it fails, then discussion could be much better focused than it currently is. AquitaneHungerForce (talk) 00:58, 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. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:19, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Now That We're Human[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:NALBUM. It is not eligible for CSD A9 as while the DJ is probably non-notable (rejected at AfC) some of the vocals in the album are by notable artists. This album lacks significant coverage or any other importance beyond being Badal's first album. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 07:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Albums and songs-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 08:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete: fails WP:NALBUM. This might have got reviewed in dance music magazines, but as of now there's no way of knowing, and once you strip out the sources from the artist's social media and record company, all that's left are three fake Grrammy nominations, a primary source interview in a non-RS publicising the album, and a "review" in another source of dubious quality (the author is a freelance blogger and musician) which is less of a review and more an introduction to the website hosting a stream of the album. Even if this were a reliable source, it's still the only one. Richard3120 (talk) 21:50, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bob Reitemeier[edit]

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

Successful, but doesn't meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Orphaned page, no obvious WP:ATD, I think it would be misleading to redirect to the Children's Society or another company he worked for in the past, with no info on him in the article. Boleyn (talk) 07:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Businesspeople-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Minnesota-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete being a charity leader at this level is not enough to show notability, and the sources are not enough to pass GNG.John Pack Lambert (talk) 16:38, 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 keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:51, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Anne Pride[edit]

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

I really hope I'm proved wrong on this one, as she seems an interesting character. It's borderline, hence it sitting in CAT:NN for 11 years. There is local (Pittsburgh) coverage, I'm just not convinced that is enough to meet WP:GNG or WP:BIO. Boleyn (talk) 07:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep The nomination just seems to be some vague musing. See WP:ATD; WP:BEFORE and WP:NOTCLEANUP. Andrew🐉(talk) 09:58, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Notable activist who coined the phrase "Take back the night." Plenty of press coverage. Presumably even more in paper archives. pburka (talk) 11:28, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Coining "Take back the night" meets WP:ANYBIO criteria 2. Samsmachado (talk) 17:08, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep In addition to the "Take Back the Night," she was responsible for legislation passed in Pennsylvania to protect the privacy of rape victims. I added info to the article and cleaned it up. Megalibrarygirl (talk) 17:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Adding my tuppence worth. Article has been updated sufficiently to prove notability. scope_creep^Talk 11:58, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. Now clearly notable and well-sourced. --Lockley (talk) 15:05, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Keep~~ (voted twice! duplicate vote removed) Instantly recognisable phrase. Now I know who coined it. scope_creep^Talk 09:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Per WP:ANYBIO #2. Best, GPL93 (talk) 16:41, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep seems to be plenty of sources for an article. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 17:56, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kyoko (film)[edit]

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

I couldn't establish that this meets WP:NFILM or WP:GNG. Doesn't have extensive coverage or significance, no awards etc. that I could find. Korean article in a similar state. Could potentially redirect to author or novel as an WP:ATD, although I don't think the novel is notable either. Taking to AfD rather than unilaterally making a decision to redirect to another target or prod, as I am very aware that I may be missing something as information mainly in Korean. Boleyn (talk) 07:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Japan-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. No claim of notability, and no evidence of notability. ···日本穣 · 投稿 · Talk to Nihonjoe · Join WP Japan! 15:13, 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 delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:56, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Milpitas Christian School[edit]

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

Non-notable school which fails WP:NORG. As the article is very old, I use this instead of WP:PROD. Psiĥedelisto (talk • contribs) ^{please always ping!} 07:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not notable. The article seems to be dead as well. Ashishkafle (talk) 07:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Education-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Schools-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:52, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep this article. Updated with substantial, independent news coverage: major SF Bay area newspaper (SJ Mercury News), major SF Bay area TV news (NBC) in April 2020. Students have won significant science fair awards (1st and 2nd) in the past few months (May 2020). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gymxia (talk • contribs)
- Comment - the acomplishments of the individual students do not speak to the notability of the school, and those accomplishments took place at a level of competition we wouldn't cover if it were high school. None of these additions were encyclopedic and they have been removed. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete The coverage is not at the level to show true notability. We require lots of coverage to justify keeping an article on a sub-high school level school.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:54, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - most elementary schools are not notable, and there's nothing in the article or BEFORE to indicate this one is any different. John from Idegon (talk) 22:54, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. Malcolmxl5 (talk) 22:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

George Steuart Travels[edit]

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

Article is promotional. The company itself is a travel agency (part of the better known and older George Steuart Group), and sourcing on the travel agency does not rise up to the level required by WP:NCORP. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 06:36, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sri Lanka-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:49, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article has most of references from single source. Would be better to merge with George Steuart Group. Ashishkafle (talk) 07:39, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable travel agency.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete, fails WP:NCOMPANY, lacks independent secondary sources. Dan arndt (talk) 03:18, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 18:46, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

2 Days to Vegas[edit]

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

Does not appear to meet notability guidelines. The creeper2007^Talk! 06:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Video games-related deletion discussions. The creeper2007^Talk! 06:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is not notable. The game hasn't been released and seems to be in hiatus. Ashishkafle (talk) 07:44, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - Never having heard of this game before, let's make a case for it by bringing some actually reliable sources into the fold. While cancelled video games don't commonly make for notable articles, a few exceptions happen from time to time, such as Sonic X-treme or Lego Bionicle: The Legend of Mata Nui. So, I did some research and I found this:
- Here's an initial exposition from IGN
- On their licensing of motion capture hardware, there's this from Businesswire
- A news story in 2007 from Gamesindustry.biz talked about Steel Monkeys acquiring advertising in-game for 2 Days to Vegas here
- Here's an interview about the game from 2009 from German website pcgamer.de
- German website Factornews talks about the game in 2009 here, calls it "vaporware"
- IGN says it's still in development in 2009 here
- GameInformer has this article from 2013, calling the game effectively cancelled.

I stopped there, but that's a fair bit already. It seems like the coverage is there to call this a notable subject, and that's from a normally deletion-minded editor. Red Phoenix ^talk 00:57, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I have taken a couple more looks for more sources and came up dry. It's unfortunate because this seems to have a little more coverage than games that suffer the same fate, but being unable to find more, I have struck my keep !vote. And on a side note, I did NOT compare this to Sonic X-treme - I wrote that article and I know what kind of coverage it has. I was only bringing it up as an example that cancelled games can be notable and being cancelled alone does not mean a game is not notable. Red Phoenix ^talk 23:01, 6 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I am not impressed that the sources posted by Red Phoenix, and I don't think they make it a WP:GNG pass here. Will try to look for the sources later, but leaning delete for now.
1) Just a quotation of what the developer said about the game, and a short commentary of the released screenshots. A trivial coverage.
2) A press release, WP:PRIMARY source
3) The only coverage related to 2 Days to Vegas directly is from the Steel Monkeys' deputy director, making it WP:PRIMARY
4) While great for expanding the development section, it is a WP:PRIMARY interview citing what had the team member said.
5) The source is of ambiguous reliability, and it's calling back to PC Games' interview (source 4)
6) Short bit that it's still in development, not a WP:SIGCOV
7) "This game began development in 2003" and "lists the game as being in development" is not a significant coverage. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Searched around and I've found other WP:ROUTINE trivial mentions on GameStar and a Gematsu article that relies on what Steel Monkeys' Tim Dvoskin said. This game was here compared to likes of Sonic X-treme, which is an extremely notable game with lots of in-depth post cancellation coverage by reliable sources, and Mata Nui that at least had an in-depth coverage of its remake by IGN. The subject doesn't have any significant coverage in multiple reliable sources beyond the expected things for an upcoming release, and so it fails WP:GNG. Jovanmilic97 (talk) 06:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:24, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Huckleberry House[edit]

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

fails WP:NORG/WP:NONPROFIT. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of California-related deletion discussions. Graywalls (talk) 22:06, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Staller, Karen M. (2006). Runaways: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped Today's Practices and Policies. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12410-4. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Talbot, David (2012). Season of the Witch: Enchantment, Terror, and Deliverance in the City of Love. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-1-4391-0821-5. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Stix, Harriet (1979-02-11). "Huckleberry House shelters children on the run and provides a new starting point for families". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Newspapers.com.
Rubin, Arnold P. (1976). "From Huckleberry Finn to Huckleberry House". The Youngest Outlaws: Runaways in America. New York: Julian Messner. ISBN 0-671-32780-1. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
Ray, Peggy (1968-01-16). "Teeners Take Refuge At Huckleberry House". The Press Democrat. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Newspapers.com.

Sources with quotes

Staller, Karen M. (2006). Runaways: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped Today's Practices and Policies. New York: Columbia University Press. ISBN 0-231-12410-4. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes on page 95:
Huckleberry House was an alternative shelter arrangement—not a crash pad exactly, but not an agency that fit comfortably within the preexisting framework of California's child welfare and juvenile justice services. It was a new, alternative model that rested on a commitment to autonomy and respected youths' ability to make their own decisions. The runaway shelter operated outside law enforcement, juvenile justice, and child welfare systems, and staff involved parents only with the explicit permission of the youth themselves.
The book notes on page 97:
Huckleberry House is generally credited with being the first runaway shelter among a small group of sibling agencies having roots in geographic areas where adolescents congregated in the late 1960s and early 1970s.
The book notes on page 101:
On June 1, 1967, Beggs was named codirector of the project, and just three weeks later, on June 23, 1967, Huckleberry House hastily opened its doors in all its experimental glory. Although Huckleberry House ostensibly was developed at a time of crisis to meet the short-term needs of the community in 1967, staffers discovered quickly that the need for services persisted.
The book notes on page 109:
In spite of Huckleberry House's apparent roots in the Digger model, some blue-blooded counter-culturalists, such as Emmett Grogan, dismissed it as a place for "some runaway kids" who "became disillusioned with the Haight-Ashbury" to get "room and board for a couple of days, until their family made the necessary arrangements for their return home." It was, in his view, a place for less-than-serious counter-culturists. To some extent, Grogan's assessment was correct.
The book notes on page 111:
Digger Emmett Grogan complained that "Huckleberry House ... was as lame as its name" and characterized it as a "nice, mild, safe, responsible way for the church to become involved in 'hippiedom.'"
The book notes on on pages 111–112:
Beggs recalled discussing bail money at the first very organizational meeting of Huckleberry House. The planners were anxious about their legal vulnerability, and they were right to worry. On October 19, 1967, several months after opening its doors, the police raided Huckleberry House, arresting all the youth (for being without parental supervision) and their adult caretakers (for contributing to the delinquency of minors). At issue was Hucklevberry House's failure to obtain parental consent for sheltering a 15-year-old boy.
[two more paragraphs about Huckleberry House]
Talbot, David (2012). Season of the Witch: Enchantment, Terror, and Deliverance in the City of Love. New York: Free Press. ISBN 978-1-4391-0821-5. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes:
But Huckleberry House was something new. It was founded on the idea that runaways were family problems, not police problems. And if the kids refused to let Huckleberry House contact their parents, the shelter would not hand them over to the cops. They had the right to keep running. Grogan might sneer at Huckleberry's fresh-scrubbed piety, but in the end, Beggs and company had more guts and staying power than the Diggers. At the very first Huckleberry House meeting, Beggs and his staff discussed how to raise bail money in case they were dragged off to jail. They were right to be concerned. The police were constantly hovering around the Huckleberry House shelter, which was housed in a two-story brown Victorian at One Broderick Street, a few blocks from the tumult of Haight-Ashbury.
The book notes:
The desperation of America's families was fully displayed on the Huckleberry House bulletin board, which was papered with pleading letters and photos of missing teens. "Dad promises to ease up. You can trust Aunt Lou," read one. "Until there is some contact with my daughter, my life will be miserable," read another. Some seemed certain to drive the runaways even deeper into their new world: "Rich Hoyfeld—you have received your draft notice. You've been reclassified 1-A. Contact your mother.
The book notes:
The chief antagonist of Huckleberry House was Juvenile Court Judge Raymond J. O'Connor, who ran San Francisco's youth justice system with an iron and hand and saw the upstart shelter as a challenge to his authority. ... The police raid took place on the night of October 19, 1967, several months after Huckleberry House opened its doors. An inexperienced night manager gave the cops their opening when she failed to make the obligatory phone call to the parents of a fifteen-year-old runaway, to get permission to shelter their son for the night. Suddenly there was a crying mother on the Huckleberry House doorsteps and a swarm of cops. The SFPD arrested everyone on the premises, including the runaways, for being without parental supervision; and the adult caretakers, for contributing to the delinquency of minors.
...
The raid on Huckleberry House was traumatic for its young staff. But it had a galvanizing effect on the community surrounding the shelter.
Stix, Harriet (1979-02-11). "Huckleberry House shelters children on the run and provides a new starting point for families". Los Angeles Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Since 1967 and the blossoming of San Francisco's flower children, Huckleberry House and its occupants have learned a lot about limits and lists, young people on the loose and their parents, talk and temper.
...
Since its founding Huckleberry House has changed as the demands of young people have changed, as the street scene in San Francisco itself has changed.
More of the urban poor come to Huckleberry House now. In the early days, the clientele was overwhelmingly white, from suburban or rural communities. But with a network of runaway facilities across the country, many of those youngsters find a haven closer to home.
...
There is, however, no shortage of youngsters to fill Huck's six beds. This year, it is projected that about half the 400 or so youngsters who will be served by Huckleberry House will come from the Bay Area. About 25 percent will be black, 25 peercent Hispanic and Asian, 2½ percent other minorities, the rest white.
Rubin, Arnold P. (1976). "From Huckleberry Finn to Huckleberry House". The Youngest Outlaws: Runaways in America. New York: Julian Messner. ISBN 0-671-32780-1. Retrieved 2020-06-28.
The book notes:
My research for this book took me from New York's Covenant House to San Francisco's Huckleberry House to Washington, D.C.'s Runaway House and, finally, to the Teaneck Home for Girls in Teaneck, New Jersey. ... Huckleberry House's origins can be traced back to 1967.
Ray, Peggy (1968-01-16). "Teeners Take Refuge At Huckleberry House". The Press Democrat. Archived from the original on 2020-06-28. Retrieved 2020-06-28 – via Newspapers.com.
The article notes:
Huckleberry House places no blame on child or parents, but stays on neutral ground. A youth must have the legal consent of the parents before he can stay over night. About one-third of the youngsters come from the Bay Area, one-third from other parts of California, and the others from 34 states and Canada.
...
To promote understanding between the youths and their parents is the purpose of Huckleberry House, which is supported by the Northern California Conference of the United Church of Christ, Glide Foundation of the Methodist Church and the San Francisco Council of Churches. One purpose of family sessions is to allow more freedom and demand the responsibility that goes with it. When rules are laid down, explain why, not "just because I said so."

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

Cunard (talk) 04:51, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hello @Cunard:, What is "sufficient" and "significant" and have you personally inspected the contents beyond checking for keyword match? I wonder, specifically, because while you provide titles and ISBNs, but don't include the range of page #s. Graywalls (talk) 06:55, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Notability#General notability guideline says:
"Significant coverage" 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.
I have personally inspected every source I have listed here. I included quotes in the collapse box titled "Sources with quotes". For the books from Google Books and Internet Archive sources, I manually typed the text included the quotes of what I think helps establish notability so this is "beyond checking for keyword match". I included page numbers for Runaways: How the Sixties Counterculture Shaped Today's Practices and Policies in the collapse box.
Cunard (talk) 08:06, 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 06:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Article needs further improvements but satisfies general criteria. Ashishkafle (talk) 07:47, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. (non-admin closure) ~ Amkgp 💬 01:56, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Boss of All Bosses (film)[edit]

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

Granted that it's more tricky to find good in-depth coverage for Nigerian productions than for WB blockbusters, but three times the same press release plus one listing just doesn't cut it. The best I could find is this, which is nothing but a plot summary. Sufficient notability not demonstrable at this point. -- Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Elmidae (talk · contribs) 22:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. Lightburst (talk) 00:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks like a very negatively received movie.HandsomeBoy (talk) 22:16, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 01:12, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:NEXIST and WP:GNG - This appears to be a legit review from a WP:NEWSORG. So does this. FOARP (talk) 08:36, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nice find, I knew it likely passes NFILMS, but I wasn't ready to invest time into finding sources. HandsomeBoy (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oy, didn't notice the above. I agree that these seem sufficient for review requirements; thanks for digging. --Elmidae (talk · contribs) 18:13, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as reliable sources reviews have been found for criteria 1 of WP:NFILM (only one criteria needed), imv Atlantic306 (talk) 22:49, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:38, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Bayside Community Emergency Relief[edit]

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

Non-notable local organisation; fails WP:ORGDEPTH with only insignificant, local coverage. St Anselm (talk) 05:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. I could only find one additional article (which I've added to the page) but I don't think that is sufficient to satisfy WP:ORGDEPTH. Cabrils (talk) 05:42, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Organizations-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:22, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Tom Ferrall[edit]

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

Political position does not meet NPOL and does not meet GNG. Known for a single event, [59], in which an e-mail was sent out in his name in 2019 while he was a senior. Ferrall denies sending the e-mail. In any event, not notable. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 05:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 05:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New York-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Washington, D.C.-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 08:06, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete nowhere close to notable. SportingFlyer T·C 16:29, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete the sourcing is not enough to support a stand alone article.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Being vice-chair of a political party's youth wing is not grounds for a Wikipedia article in and of itself, and the sourcing is not sufficient to get him over the bar: two of the five footnotes are primary sources] that are not support for notability, and the other three are all covering him in the context of a single incident that just makes him a WP:BLP1E. Bearcat (talk) 06:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete. Does not meet WP:GNG. Known for one event. LefcentrerightDiscuss 22:17, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete fails WP:NPOL and WP:GNG.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 05:24, 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 no consensus. Black Kite (talk) 08:33, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

List of Great Old Ones[edit]

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

Fails WP:LISTN. Of the sources in the article, Lovecraft and Long are fictional novels. The two websites look unreliable, the Book of Eibon looks primary, and the Encyclopedia Cthulhiana appears to be a supplement for a role-playing game. A WP:BEFORE search turns up a lot of unreliable coverage, although some reliable, secondary coverage is found for Great Old Ones. However, this list fails WP:LISTN - 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 - I've found nothing that indicates that Great Old Ones are discussed as a group or set. Without coverage of this as a group or set, I don't see support for a stand-alone list. Hog Farm (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Fictional elements-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Science fiction and fantasy-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Literature-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Lists-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 16:07, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep So what if two of the sources are fiction? There is a significant amount of data on fiction in all forms, including lists of fictional whatevers all over Wikipedia, that have passed notability. And this article has been in force for over a decade, updated regularly, and never had a problem before this. Timmccloud (talk) 16:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: I disagree with Hog Farm's assessment of sources for discussion of the Great Old Ones as a group or set. The Great Old Ones are a major part of Lovecraft's fictional universe, and are discussed in many books. For example:
- H. P. Lovecraft's Dark Arcadia: The Satire, Symbology and Contradiction by Gavin Callaghan, McFarland & Co (2013): Chapter 3, "Secrets Behind the Locked Door" - pp 98 & following
- "Lovecraft's Artificial Mythology" by Robert M. Price in An Epicure in the Terrible: A Centennial Anthology of Essays in Honor of H.P. Lovecraft, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press (1991) - pp 249 & following
- Discovering H.P. Lovecraft by Darrell Schweitzer, Wildside Press (2012)

So the list is a valid, notable topic for a page. I expect that some of the content on the current page is there because of previous deletion discussions or prods that moved the content to a list page, and I dislike the tendency to merge pages into a list and then nominate the list for deletion. That being said, there is currently a "Table of Great Old Ones" section on the Cthulhu Mythos deities article which overlaps somewhat with this List of Great Old Ones. I think it would be helpful to have a merge discussion on the talk pages, to see how to best consolidate the existing content. — Toughpigs (talk) 17:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment The term "Old Ones" is also used in discussions of the Elder Things. In The Shadow Out of Time, Nathaniel Wingate Peaslee calls the Elder Things "winged, star-headed Old Ones who centred in the Antarctic".^[1] ―Susmuffin ^Talk 18:26, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

References

^ Lovecraft, H. P. (August 20, 2009) [written 1934–1935]. The Shadow Out of Time. Donovan K. Loucks. Archived from the original on May 11, 2020.

Redirect to Cthulhu Mythos deities, where they are already covered. This is an entirely unnecessary WP:CFORK from that main article, and the information here is pretty bare bones compared to the main article. A merge discussion is not needed since, as pointed out by the nom, none of the information currently in this article is actually based on reliable, secondary sources. A Redirect to the main topic is all that is actually necessary. Rorshacma (talk) 21:23, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep or merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities. As shown by the sources of Toughpigs, this is a notable topic. In addition, a search at Google Scholar for e.g. "Great Old Ones" Lovecraft gives numerous other sources. Have these been looked at and discounted as should have been done WP:BEFORE? That said, I am not opposed to a merge to Cthulhu Mythos deities if putting this together is not seen as producing to cumbersome a list. I think, however, that this should not be simply redirected, as for some entities here more information is present than at the proposed target. The fact that it is content mostly based on primary sources does not make it valueless. Daranios (talk) 10:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Regardless of what you think of the sources, Keeping is inappropriate as this list is a completely redundant WP:CFORK. The majority of the entries at Cthulhu Mythos deities are the Great Old Ones. There is absolutely no reason to have a second list that just reiterates the same entries as half of the primary list. Rorshacma (talk) 14:38, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, we don't want duplication, and merging the content here to Cthulhu Mythos deities is one obvious solution. Given the fact that Great Old Ones simply links to Cthulhu Mythos deities despite the subject's potential also makes splitting the content out and moving it here, or putting everything into a Great Old Ones article seem possible alternatives. None of these points towards deletion, so I wonder if this is even the right place to discuss it. Daranios (talk) 10:45, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to Cthulhu_Mythos_deities#Great_Old_Ones. I don't see why we need two listicles on the some topic, and the proposed target already has an extensive list of those functional beings. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 01:54, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete not only are there no independent reliable sources to explain this collection, but there are only two deities that have any sources at all, and they're all primary sources. This overall concept hasn't generated enough third party coverage to support a stand-alone article. I suppose there's a redirect argument to be made as this is a WP:CONTENTFORK from other, more notable characters from Lovecraft's work. Shooterwalker (talk) 18:34, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is wide-spread agreement that the list as it is now has too little in-line citation references. But that's not the basis for deletion according to Wikipedia guidelines. Did you actually look for third party coverage according to WP:BEFORE? Did you read through the above where people have already found such sources? Did you look at the References section of the article? Daranios (talk) 20:31, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. It's possible that some of the "lesser" deities with shaky sourcing could be trimmed, but there's well-sourced articles here too (Cthulhu and Nyarlathotep for the most obvious ones), so this is a perfectly valid list. Additionally, disagree with nom's assertion that the Great Old Ones aren't discussed as a set; if anything, they might mostly be discussed as a set, as often the more obscure ones are discussed in relation to the others. SnowFire (talk) 23:55, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:31, 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. No prejudice against re-creation with appropriate additional sources. I'm happy to undelete into draft space for anyone who wants to provide and cite those sources. –Darkwind (talk) 00:09, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kimberley Clague[edit]

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

Fails WP:NBADMINTON. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:11, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 02:53, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 12:40, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep secondary sources writing about her. 2 examples: 1, 2 SportsOlympic (talk) 19:16, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Those are all trivial mentions of the subject and do not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 19:35, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh, sorry added them to quickly. But you would have find sources if you would have done WP:BEFORE. Sources without trivial mentions: her for example with a full paragraph about her. Not only her results but also about her work. See also a video of a short Manx Radio article and interview here. Here an article she was leading during the opening ceremony. I can add more, but this it enough meeting GNG. SportsOlympic (talk) 20:13, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a few trivial mentions do not notability make.John Pack Lambert (talk) 19:33, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Three times participant of the Commonwealth Games CGF profile, 2018. Independent sources and mentions are available, too (see above) as well as: "HISTORY MAKER!! Badminton player Kim Clague wins a fourth successive doubles title at the Island Games." Google: 400 hits for "Kim Clague" badminton, 500 hits for "Kimberley Clague" badminton Florentyna (talk) 19:41, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again all of that fails WP:NBADMINTON and all sources provided do not meet GNG. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 22:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, I showed examples of articles meeting GNG like this one, this one and this one. More of those examples available. SportsOlympic (talk) 06:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, does a participant in multiple Commonwealth Games meet WP:SPORTBASIC ie. "if they have, for example, participated in a major international amateur or professional competition at the highest level", although the Olympics is given as an example, the CG are also major. Coolabahapple (talk) 13:31, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think so. The Commonwealth Games has no qualification criteria. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 14:34, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I lived in GB during the 2014 Games and it had massive media attention every day. You think it because you say the CG doesn't have qualification critera, but there are, see for instance Weightlifting at the 2018 Commonwealth Games – Qualification. SportsOlympic (talk) 16:57, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have a few comments on some of the above statements. The Commonwealth Games are not considered the highest level of any sport, so just appearing there grants no WP notability. In previous AfD discussions, depending upon the sport, some have argued that winning a medal at the CG shows notability but that is not a factor in this case. Most Commonwealth sports do not require qualifying although weightlifting did for the first time in 2018. TV coverage doesn't provide notability (WP:NOTNEWS) or tens of thousands of college football players would earn notability every year. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Fails to meet WP:NBAD. Currently unranked and highest world rankings ever were 1039 in singles and 928 in women's doubles with the BWF website showing zero match victories in any of their competitions. Success at the Island Games doesn't provide WP notability and the coverage can be considered routine sports reporting. Papaursa (talk) 20:32, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Notability is not about achievements, but about coverage. SportsOlympic (talk) 21:05, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, but the two are not unrelated. That's why the SNGs exist. I think the coverage is routine sports reporting, passing mentions, and WP:NOTNEWS so that WP:GNG is not met. Papaursa (talk) 23:10, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep per WP:SPORTBASIC. Stvbastian (talk) 23:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

WP:SPORTBASIC talks about competing at the highest level. The Commonwealth Games are not that level and there's been no case made that every competitor at those Games is automatically notable. Her coverage is typical of any athlete at the CG and the Island Games are too minor an event for success to show notability, especially with coverage being dominated by routine sports reporting. Since she clearly fails WP:NBAD, can you show she meets WP:GNG by linking the significant independent coverage of her that is above the reporting expected of any athlete at the CG? Papaursa (talk) 22:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as per User:SportsOlympic. Florentyna (talk) 06:53, 5 July 2020 (UTC) — Duplicate vote: Florentyna (talk • contribs) has already cast a vote above. –Darkwind (talk) 23:59, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

None of those sources meet GNG as pointed above, and the article fails WP:NBADMINTON. Clear deletion. Sportsfan 1234 (talk) 15:28, 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) 22:26, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Evergreen Group Station[edit]

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

Not close to meeting WP:NCORP. Not eligible for A7 due to [60]. Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 05:21, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 05:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I would say this is a speedy candidate as I cannot locate anything but a Facebook page as a reference.--CNMall41 (talk) 05:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I would've speedy tagged it, but since an IP removed the previous speedy deletion tag it is not eligible.--Eostrix (^{🦉 hoot} _hoot🦉]) 05:48, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - No references cited, and no indication that this group meets WP:NCORP or WP:GNG. Much of the "content", such as it is, appears to be based on personal phone calls, so there may be COI issues involved. PohranicniStraze (talk) 06:04, 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 keep. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:31, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Judith M. LeBlanc[edit]

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

Borderline, but I don't see that she passes WP:PROF or WP:GNG. Boleyn (talk) 15:54, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Not sure if she meets wp:prof 5.The person has held a named chair appointment or distinguished professor appointment at a major institution of higher education and research, or an equivalent position in countries where named chairs are uncommon. "LeBlanc is Professor Emeritus of the University of Kansas Departments of Applied Behavioral Science and Special Education" meet this? Also won an "Outstanding Contribution Award for International Development by the Association for Behavior Analysis" which meets wp:prof "The person has received a highly prestigious academic award or honor at a national or international level"?User:Davidstewartharvey
- "Professor emeritus" just means she's retired; it does not count for #C5. As for the award, with no Wikipedia article about the award and nothing about her winning it on the web site abainternational.org, it's difficult to say, but if it's anything like the one described at [61] then definitely not: that's a small grant, not a recognition of distinguished scholarship. —David Eppstein (talk) 21:48, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Academics and educators-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Behavioral science-related deletion discussions. XOR'easter (talk) 19:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

CommentProfessor Emiterus might be a title given to someone who is retired, but at most uni's this is not automatically bestowed, it is voted on by the academia at the uni. Secondly, the award does exist as another bestowed with the award is Dr. Joe morrow as per Behavior Analysis and Learning: A Biobehavioral Approach, Sixth Edition By W. David Pierce, Carl D. Chesney ^[1] This award is the later named version which started in 96. It is not a grant award, and is voted on by a select group of members. In addition found that on her employers website ^[2] it says she the creator of the Functional - National Curriculum, which her employer is credited to in Health Care for People with Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities across the Lifespan South America p. 517-528 A Service Example from Lima, Peru on research gate.^[3]User:Davidstewartharvey

References

^ https://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vwEoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA461&lpg=PA461&dq=association+of+behavior+analysis+Outstanding+Contribution+Award+for+International+Development+by+the+Association+for+Behavior+Analysis&source=bl&ots=bvDa8Pwanr&sig=ACfU3U3G6FBd6fDj9qnOHJz0U3-lgZ5vjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHmrC_3pTqAhUTURUIHfgODUsQ6AEwAXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=association%20of%20behavior%20analysis%20Outstanding%20Contribution%20Award%20for%20International%20Development%20by%20the%20Association%20for%20Behavior%20Analysis&f=false. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://www.en.annsullivanperu.org/our-team/judith-leblanc/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)
^ https://www.researchgate.net/publication/301641497_South_America_A_Service_Example_from_Lima_Peru. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

Comment Professor Emeritus doesn't meet WP:NPROF C5. But her top-cited publications seem to have 190, 159, 135, 110; she's last author on 3 of them. I'm a little unsure of the conventions in her field, and whether that's sufficient for WP:NPROF C1, but it's plausible. The NYTimes piece cited in the article also covers her nontrivially. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 13:40, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. The citation record would be enough for a weak keep for me, based on WP:PROF#C1, but the media coverage and Peruvian honorary distinguished professorships tip it higher than that. —David Eppstein (talk) 05:04, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 05:00, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak keep, belatedly, per WP:NPROF C1 and my earlier comment. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 07:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep based on WP:PROF#C1 Lightburst (talk) 16:55, 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. –Darkwind (talk) 00:13, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sala Polivalentă (Blaj)[edit]

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

Clear Case of WP:TOOSOON, not yet build CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. CommanderWaterford (talk) 07:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Romania-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 07:19, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Architecture-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:21, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: Certainly you want to prove yourself, you could have clicked on the provided links, how to be too soon when the arena is at 20%? Photos & Videos You should have checked! Plus don't forget nowadays we even have this category https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Proposed_indoor_arenas but this arena is UNDER CONSTRUCTION and goes to https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indoor_arenas_under_construction_in_Romania. The admininstrators should have already removed your template instead of listing it! It is a mistake. Rostadia2012 (talk) 13:32, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rostadia2012, that category was made by you and as far as I can tell, all of the pages within it? Ed6767 talk! 16:56, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ed6767, DO YOU LISTEN YOURSELF? It belongs to the https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Indoor_arenas_under_construction I created sub-category, not the category. Rostadia2012 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rostadia2012, calm down, your lack of civility isn't particularly inclining me to listen to your points. You should realise that an admin will only delete if an article meets speedy deletion criteria. An AfD is a standard process to reach consensus on the deletion of a page. Ed6767 talk! 17:57, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - very much a case of WP:TOOSOON, maybe fails WP:GNG. The place doesn't even exist yet, so sources are rare and often from first parties (i.e. builders, architects, press releases ext..). With some time, it may become worthwhile to undelete, but for now, too soon. Ed6767 talk! 16:58, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's under construction, I only published 2 sources, what's wrong with it? You are breaking the rules. Stop lying, Adevărul is like Romanian Washington Post! Something is fishy here if you say that. Most of the sources are not first parties, but national and regional newspapers. The architect/builders are Italian, they did not even publish anything. And a mayor interview is a press release? Rostadia2012 (talk) 18:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comparable arenas, should we also delete them? Risenga Ishall and Steppe Arena. And even Nye Jordal Amfi. Should we also delete the Moody Center? An admin should have intervened already, shouldn't have allowed this to be listed as proposed for deletion. Rostadia2012 (talk) 18:46, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:49, 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. In addition to the fairly clear consensus, the article has been quite dramatically changed since the nomination, to the extent that the original nomination reason is no longer valid; the article now follows policy per MOS:DABNAME. (non-admin closure) Naypta ☺ | ✉ talk page | 19:06, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mahajan[edit]

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

No one is working on the article. The user who created this article is inactive for a decade. Can't find any source on the google. The talk page messages are serious issues, and there is no way to find out what's true about the subject. Hence, it cannot be improved for now. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 11:49, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 16. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 12:08, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 12:28, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ethnic groups-related deletion discussions. Coolabahapple (talk) 05:50, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 03:01, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:34, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Delete~~ Appears to be a surname. No reliable sources. pburka (talk) 11:32, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Keep the new dab version of the article. pburka (talk) 12:25, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete - original research Spiderone 17:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep - the last section only, as a surname dab (I've converted it thusly in [62] this revision]. If this kind of page must be at "Foo (surname)" (doubt it), Mahajan (surname) is available for a move. Best, Usedtobecool ☎️ 07:21, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Usedtobecool:, I liked your edit. It now looks better. But, Mahajan is not only a surname. There are some people also who are called Mahajans as also told at the talk page in this thread. I think this should also be addressed. What's your opinion on this? Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 09:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lightbluerain, as you said there are no sources to write a proper article, we can only address that problem when we have the sources. For now, what we have is a number of notable people with Wikipedia articles who share the term as their surname, which is enough for a index page, but no more. We build Wikipedia one step at a time with what sources we do have, IMO. Regards! Usedtobecool ☎️ 09:31, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Usedtobecool, right. I agree. Lightbluerain❄ (Talk | contribs) 09:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Sufficient standalone surname list per MOS:DABNAME and WP:APO/S.—Bagumba (talk) 08:30, 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 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) 18:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ruf 3400S[edit]

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

The article does not cite any sources and is better suited as a section in the Ruf Automobile page. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Germany-related deletion discussions. U¹ _quattro TALK 03:15, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Does this (The Truth About Cars) qualify as an usable source? Someone with access to car magazines might also need to look up for articles pertaining to the car. FMecha (to talk|to see log) 01:23, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment: Seems good to me. But I don't think that's enough to keep the article as I only found this single review and unreliable sources with a web search which doesn't make it that much notable. Wiki needs less stub quality articles in the name space. I think this source can be used in the main Ruf page in the section of the 3400S.U¹ _quattro TALK 02:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 10:10, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 04:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 13:58, 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) 15:21, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Central subway (Boston)[edit]

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

This stub was created by Dicklyon as a POV fork during a capitalization disagreement. It does not and will never contain any information not found in Green Line (MBTA) (as the Central Subway is the set of tunnels used by the Green Line, two of which already have separate articles), and should be redirected to it. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:06, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep – The MBTA Green Line article only says "The Green Line is based around the central subway, a group of tunnels which run through the urban core of Boston." with reference to an MIT master's thesis that has only a narrow throwaway definition "There are a total of 28 active AVI sites located throughout the 22.9 miles of the Green Line. The Central Subway, defined as Kenmore Station to North Station, has the highest coverage while the surface portions have fewer, and thus lower granularity." I've been finding a bit more, though it's still pretty stubby; there doesn't seem to be much of a real definition or consensus on exactly what it is, so different POVs on that are worth mentioning. The Green Line is a service. The subway is infrastructure. Dicklyon (talk) 22:03, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Obvious POV fork is Obvious. There should almost never be two separate articles about subjects so interconnected. Qwirkle (talk) 00:54, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- There is no other article on these tunnels. The central subway is barely mentioned at Green Line (MBTA)#Route description, and not defined. Dicklyon (talk) 04:04, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - It is extensively covered in the articles on the Tremont Street Subway and its extensions; the only thing this ads is POV slant and bad grammar. (took nearly 200 cars per hour off the congested Tremont Street.) Qwirkle (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - That article is mostly focused on the first tunnel; barely mentions the Boylston Street subway, which has its own article, and doesn't mention "central subway" at all. No article covers the system of tunnels known as the central subway. Dicklyon (talk) 21:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - That article is mostly focused on the first tunnel; barely mentions the Boylston Street subway Hence the explicit mention of “and its extensions” above. Answered before asked. Qwirkle (talk) 22:19, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        OK, so you're saying that the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles. I agree. Dicklyon (talk) 23:12, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Labeling this as a POV fork (which would, in most cases, give reasonable grounds for deletion) is a misrepresentation by the nom. This is a content fork in which the nom disagrees with the capitalisation used for the article title. There is a process for dealing with that issue. Capitalisation of the title is guided by MOS:CAPS and WP:NCCAPS and is determined on the basis of objective evidence of capitalisation in sources. While not explicitly an RM discussion atm, there is such a discussion occurring at the article TP at the present. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 00:58, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- And we can make it an RM discussion if someone proposes to cap it. Dicklyon (talk) 01:23, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - The obsession with shrinkage aside, that would still be an article which directly parallels other articles. If it differed at all in viewpoint, it would be a POV fork by definition. If it covered the same ground from the same POV it would be a waste of the reader’s time.Qwirkle (talk) 14:59, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Unless it can be shown that Central subway is the same as Green Line (MBTA) or Tremont Street Subway, then it warrants its own article. Hzh (talk) 14:47, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- That’s already been largely conceded by the article’s creator, just a few lines up on the page. Qwirkle (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Certainly not. The central subway includes the Tremont Street subway and is used by the Green Line. It's not the same as either. Dicklyon (talk) 18:27, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - Hence the “largely’. Again, already answered. Qwirkle (talk) 19:15, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If you have evidence, then provide it yourself, don't try to put words into other people's mouth. Hzh (talk) 13:16, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn’t need to. OK, so you're saying that the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles. I agree. says it all. All of the components of the Central Subway are covered in existing articles. The creator of this fork conceded that already. Qwirkle (talk) 13:39, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Which is not saying that they are the same. Provide evidence yourself if you can, whatever anyone else said is irrelevant. Otherwise I would just assume you don't have any evidence. Hzh (talk) 13:48, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 07:19, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the hecka ton of sources present in the article. I have read all of the above arguments that this is a POV fork, and I do not find them compelling. When Dicklyon said that "the pieces of the central subway are covered in a couple of articles on one piece each, and a couple of other articles," the point that they were making is that this article is not a fork of a single article. If some pieces of a subject are covered in one place, and other pieces in another, then an article on that subject is not a fork. I also want to draw Qwirkle's attention to WP:BLUDGEON, which says: "Bludgeoning is when a user dominates the conversation in order to persuade others to their point of view... Typically, the person replies to almost every "!vote" or comment, arguing against that particular person's point of view." Qwirkle has taken up too much room in this discussion, and I suggest that they take a step back, and allow other editors to look at the article and the sources, and make their own assessment. — Toughpigs (talk) 16:34, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Three or so points. First, it is not only possible to have a POV fork well sourced, it is indeed possible to have a POV fork which is sourced to exactly the same sources as the parallel article. This is an irrelevancy; if this is your only justification for keeping it, you ought to strike your vote.
  Next, whether this is a fork of one article, or several doesn’t seem to change whether it is a POV fork or not, how do you you see it as doing so?
  Next, each response I’ve posted here is to a separate point, or a direct reply. Are you suggesting inaccuracies, real or perceived, should be left to stand based on how many previous problems have been noted? Qwirkle (talk) 01:45, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete/Merge into green line. No need for separate article. Tremont Street has separate article but this is because it is notable as being US oldest underground railway.User:Davidstewartharvey

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Jack Frost (talk) 04:29, 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) 18:37, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Patth[edit]

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

Per WP:NFO. - Harsh 16:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 16:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. - Harsh 16:04, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 04:12, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - no assertion of notability, fails WP:NFILM Spiderone 19:11, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:28, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Manan Trivedi[edit]

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

Being a political candidate is not notable itself. Anyone can run for Congress, but that's not a sign of notability. He needs to win a race to become notable. Fails WP:NPOL as a political candidate and does not pass WP:GNG as Trivedi is not notable outside of his campaign. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:44, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politicians-related deletion discussions. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:50, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Pennsylvania-related deletion discussions. Pennsylvania2 (talk) 14:53, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Automated comment: This AfD was not correctly transcluded to the log (step 3). I have transcluded it to Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Log/2020 June 15. —^{cyberbot I}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:55, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak delete per NPOL, failed candidates are generally not notable. The only coverage that isn't particularly 'routine' is an article in the Times of India which is still of his campaign and isn't enough to satisfy GNG alone. Perennial candidates need far more coverage than that to merit an article. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:57, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete a non-notable unelected political candidate.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:34, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Meets GNG with sufficient coverage such as [63] [64] [65] [66] [67]. ~EDDY ^{(talk/contribs)}~ 19:19, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Unelected candidate. Running three times doesn't really get you into the perennial candidate range, I don't think. SportingFlyer T·C 16:32, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 18:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 04:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per Editorofthewiki; passes GNG. −−− Cactus Jack 🌵 19:27, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was merge to Killing Time (TV series). (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 08:28, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Andrew Fraser (lawyer)[edit]

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

I believe Fraser fails WP:CRIME and should either be redirected to Killing Time (TV series) or merged into it. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Crime-related deletion discussions. HickoryOughtShirt?4 (talk) 20:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Merge to the TV show, anything can be covered in that context.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Merge Agree with John Pack Lambert. Cabrils (talk) 05:48, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Australia-related deletion discussions. Grahame (talk) 01:45, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 03:58, 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 (WP:NPASR). King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:54, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Samuel So[edit]

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

Non-notable screenwriter. Apparently an autobiography. Article was AfD-tagged without followup by another editor--upon inspection, I decided to complete the nomination myself. A search for sources only revealed Wikipedia mirrors, IMDb-type sites, and passing mentions. Note: @Singlebird: For future AfD nominations, please fully follow the procedures at WP:AFDHOWTO. Thanks. --Finngall ^talk 15:33, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

I'm torn. On the one hand, the fact that Samuel So has produced so many notable films means that we'll create dozens of redlinks if we delete this article. But on the other hand, I literally cannot find enough coverage about him - as opposed to his many works - in reliable sources to build an article with a minimally acceptable amount of biographical detail. I don't know. In the meantime I've ensured that the Wikidata items of all his notable works link to the item about him, so that even if we delete this article that info won't be lost to future reusers. Deryck C. 20:16, 15 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, ~ Amkgp 💬 16:04, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:56, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:36, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Etinosa Idemudia[edit]

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

I can't see enough major roles in NOTABLE FILMS (I need at least 3 (WP:NFILMS)) HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: The awards listed, aren't notable except AMAA Awards. But I can't seem to find a source that says she got the nomination. Besides, AMAA does not have a category for best online content. She isn't listed here 12th Africa Movie Academy Awards.HandsomeBoy (talk) 17:52, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Actors and filmmakers-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Nigeria-related deletion discussions. ProcrasinatingReader (talk) 18:13, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete — I’m not sure I understand how this page has remained on mainspace for this long. Anyway just like the nom, I too can’t see subject of the article satisfying WP:NACTOR. Celestina007 (talk) 18:15, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Internet-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 13:45, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete a non-notable actress.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:06, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep: The article needs a little clean-up. In the article, I'd consider References 2, 5, 6 and 7 as reliable. I also found a couple of reliable sources where she was interviewed: [68] and [69]. She was also met with controversy a couple of times, including a video scandal. She recently launched her own talent show. With these, the article is good enough to pass WP:NACTOR. My vote stands. I won't reply any further. ASTIG😎 _{(ICE T • ICE CUBE)} 02:56, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Superastig, You may not reply but I’d analyze the sources for you. A portion of the comment you made above reads I'd consider References 2, 5, 6 and 7 as reliable. Okay now let’s commence from ascending order. Now the source number 2 is user generated hence not considered reliable per our policy. The source number 5 has no editorial oversight hence unreliable also. The source number 6 doesn’t even discuss her per se it discusses a movie & not she so this has no value to WP:GNG. The source number 7 does not even discuss her at all or am I missing something? Furthermore the award is not even considered relatively notable. You mentioned that the other two are interviews, okay that means they aren’t independent of her hence doesn’t do much for WP:GNG Generally speaking if a combination of all this ~~unreliable~~ shaky sources confer notability is something I’d have to ask Barkeep49 later to explain to me but I think not! Celestina007 (talk) 22:47, 20 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have not looked at any of these sources. But generically speaking each source is evaluated on its own merits as to whether it goes towards meeting GNG or not and the sum of all the sources decides if the topic is notable under GNG (or not). Best, Barkeep49 (talk) 16:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 10:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment — none of the sources are what is required by WP:GNG, neither does subject of our discussion fulfill WP:NACTOR & since beginning of this AFD till now, no new sources have been added to the article to prove notability. Celestina007 (talk) 09:57, 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 no consensus. Frankly, I see neither any policy-based argument for deletion, nor for keeping. Therefore closing as no consensus. 78.26 _{(spin me / revolutions)} 15:13, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Odi Pop[edit]

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

Gengetone isn't Odi Pop, the term Gengetone was first coined by Dmore from Ochungulo Family, a gengetone group in Kenya in 2017. Odi Pop is coined by a Benga artist, and not a Genge/ Gengetone artist. Gengetone's origins are Genge, Kapuka. RazorTheDJ (talk) 20:40, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Kenya-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 20:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note to closer for soft deletion: While this discussion appears to have no quorum, it is NOT eligible for soft deletion because it has been previously PROD'd (via summary). --Cewbot (talk) 00:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, b uidhe 01:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. KBC profiled Odi pop. If there are errors in the article they should be fixed, deletion is a radical solution.--Chuka Chief (talk) 16:20, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Reply@@Chuka Chief: there's only a single source that shows 'Odi Pop'. Btw, Odi Pop is more of a genre that preceded Gengetone, people like Bruz Newton, Timeless Noel, Jabidii etc sang it and it was later dissolved into Gengetone too after a proper name was found for it.--RazorTheDJ (talk) 15:16, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:53, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Miss Polo International 2021[edit]

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

Failed to meet WP:GNG. A non-notable pageant without significant reliable sources. Richie Campbell (talk) 00:30, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak delete - Very little coverage besides a couple of trivial mentions in Indian news sites that may or may not be reliable. Ealuscerwen (talk) 02:33, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Robert McClenon (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Events-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:16, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Indonesia-related deletion discussions. North America¹⁰⁰⁰ 09:17, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weal delete/draftify. This may be notable in few months, could restore it then, if the creator cares to stick around and add more sources when they appear and then submit it to the draft review. --_{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here} 06:09, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:50, 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. 18 days of discussion has not yet yielded any discussion about the Persian sources and their reliability. The clear consensus at this time is for deletion. –Darkwind (talk) 00:19, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Saleh Sokhandan[edit]

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

Subject is not notable per WP:CREATIVE. The article is riddled with primary sources; his own websites; his own youtube channel. His only claim to notability is his participation in a TV show, where he didn't do particularly well. Vexations (talk) 19:22, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Iran-related deletion discussions. ~ Amkgp 💬 19:26, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Visual arts-related deletion discussions. Vexations (talk) 20:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete – Clear-cut case of a promotional article about a non-notable artist. It's basically an autobiographical article by proxy, as the userpage of the person who wrote the entire article states, in a rare display of honesty: "This user, in accordance with the Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use, discloses that he has been paid by Saleh Sokhandan for his contributions to Saleh Sokhandan." Ealuscerwen (talk) 20:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Speaking of, it might be a good idea to take a good look at Seyed Ali Jaberi, the other article mentioned on the userpage, which apparently was also written in exchange for a payment by the article's subject. Ealuscerwen (talk) 20:08, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — Per reason provided by Vexations & rationale by Ealuscerwen. It’s a promotional article for an individual seeking Wikipedia presence. Celestina007 (talk) 22:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I must admit I missed the non-reliable sources in the references due to the whole load of Persian sources, not being able to read Persian, I took it at face value. I think I'm not going to touch anything not having English references... - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 00:03, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Wise decision - so why vote delete now? Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good point - Rich^T|C|E-Mail 02:52, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm guessing none of us can read the Persian references. Really they need to be checked out by someone who speaks the language. That he doesn't have any sources in English isn't very conclusive. Johnbod (talk) 00:37, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Johnbod Thank you. Can you ask a trusted person who can read Persian to review these resources? for example Gharouni. WPooya (talk) 03:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps an uninvolved editor from Category:User_fa-N? Vexations (talk) 11:02, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Vexations Yes, exactly. WPooya (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Artists-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:09, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been removed from the list of People-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 17:11, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:47, 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. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:30, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nina Mirembe[edit]

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

A non-notable model with no significant coverage in reliable sources and current sources are either passing mentions, interviews or unreliable. Fails WP:NMODEL GSS ^💬 12:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

~~Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. GSS ^💬 12:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)~~[reply]

@GSS: Why India? 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:17, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ahh thanks for pointing out this looks like an silly mistake. GSS ^💬 16:25, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Not a notable personality. Not much different sources available as well. Ashishkafle (talk) 13:09, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Beauty pageants-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 21:05, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete if you do not win the national beauty contest you are almost never notable, even if you win the national contest that is not a default sign of notability.John Pack Lambert (talk) 17:43, 23 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Africa-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:18, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per WP:GNG. There are sufficient sources which cover her in detail. See [70], [71], [72]. We should be mindful that there is a systematic bias against non-western biographies. This appears to be a notable figure in her own society with a sufficient amount of in-depth sources to demonstrate it.--User:Namiba 17:40, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The first source you mentioned above is an interview, the second one is pr piece and I'm not even sure if the source is even reliable under WP:RS and the third one again looks like a pr piece and none of them satisfy WP:GNG. GSS ^💬 17:51, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete per nomination.--Surv1v4l1st ^{▌Talk|Contribs▌} 23:51, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep Notable personality in her society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sidedeans (talk • contribs) — Sidedeans (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic.

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sri Chinmoy Giant Statue Controversy[edit]

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

There is no controversy, other than that several proposals from followers of Sri Chimoy to build statues have encountered setbacks due to local building codes. Vexations (talk) 11:25, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Article is poorly written without any proper references. Ashishkafle (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. I will elaborate on the controversies SriSriSriPatrick (talk) 15:52, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

SriSriSriPatrick, are you going to return and (a) improve the sourcing, and (b) re-write the article (i.e. and identify the "controversy")? thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 09:46, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete. Fail of GNG with only references being ELs to blogs and tiny papers; can't understand what the "controversy" is?. Britishfinance (talk) 15:27, 29 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:43, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment. Per WP: CSECTION, there shouldn't be an article devoted solely to criticism or controversy. Also, the photo in the article appears to be a photoshopped image. The statue image may likely fall under copyright of the original owner. Finarfin77 (talk) 11:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was delete. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:51, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Princess Loko[edit]

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

Fails WP:BASIC, WP:ANYBIO and WP:MUSICBIO. No charted songs or awards. The article lists the usual promos and track listings, and except for this source listed on a non-notable music site, I was unable to locate any significant biographic details except for the handful of obituaries listed in the article. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Bands and musicians-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Tennessee-related deletion discussions. Magnolia677 (talk) 22:37, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - I am sorry to hear of her recent untimely death, but this article runs afoul of WP:NOTMEMORIAL. There are some fairly reliable news sources announcing her death, but otherwise the nominator is correct about her lack of notability as a musician. For her actual music, only the routine streaming and social media listings can be found. ---DOOMSDAYER520 (Talk|Contribs) 15:08, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - Note on the first criterion for WP:MUSICBIO:

"Has been the subject of multiple, non-trivial, published works appearing in sources that are reliable, not self-published, and are independent of the musician or ensemble itself."

Princess Loko was part of an underground music scene with relatively little coverage, though Tommy Wright III mentions in a YouTube video that they were in magazines when they were younger,^[1] and later states that they appeared on TV (uncertain: I assume "tele show" refers to TV?).^[2] This is in no way solid proof that any such coverage did exist, but it's something worth looking into. Even if they did exist, they've probably been lost to the aether at this point. If someone from the Memphis area could find archives of them, then I'd wager they'd function as sources, though I have no way of verifying any of this, as I live on the other side of the world.

References

^ Tommy Wright III (2020-05-25). Princess Loko Dies at age 40 and Remembered by Tommy Wright III (Motion picture). Event occurs at 16:50. I think about the magazines, the stuff that we was in when we was young [sic]
^ Tommy Wright III (2020-05-25). Princess Loko Dies at age 40 and Remembered by Tommy Wright III (Motion picture). Event occurs at 17:30. It's a lot of things we did; being on some of these—know what I'm saying—tele shows... [sic]

Additional note on the nts link: it references last.fm, which doesn't cite anything aside from Apple Music, and a now-defunct MySpace page (archive from 2012 with bio). I'll allow you to ascertain the verifiability of that.

Some bios I found (albeit poor in quality as sources)

Here's an archive of Loko's page (with bio) on her record label from 2005 (not an independent source).
Here's a bio from jango.com (not verifiable)

As a final comment: I'm uncertain about whether to delete or keep (mostly personal bias as the article creator, I suppose), but I'm leaning towards delete until further sources are uncovered.

Orcaguy (talk) 15:41, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:46, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Women-related deletion discussions. 1234qwer1234qwer4 (talk) 16:30, 24 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:41, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete There is really not much in the way of coverage. I think it was very early in her career and not had a chance to built up a sufficient fanbase to make waves. The links above confirm that. The video has barely been seen.scope_creep^Talk 09:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Luis F. Emilio[edit]

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

Seems to fail WP:NSOLDIER and WP:GNG. Was only a captain, which is not a high enough rank to get a NSOLDIER pass. He appears to have performed valiant actions during an assault on Battery Wagner (the battle in Glory (1989 film)), but probably not enough to pass the NSOLDIER requirement. He was brave, but didn't turn the tide in the battle. The two refs in the book are to the Official Records, which is a 19th-century collection of unedited official military reports (primary source) and to a book the subject wrote (not independent). A WP:BEFORE search turns up coverage not contributing to GNG: the text of his book (public domain), that a historical group has 11 boxes of his personal papers [73], a scan of a 1860s image of the subject [74] A NYT piece is the only thing I've found that I would consider to be substantial. Mentioned at 54th Massachusetts Volunteer Infantry Regiment#Organization and early service, probably best to redirect there. Taking this to AFD because it is a potentially controversial redirection. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of People-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Massachusetts-related deletion discussions. Hog Farm (talk) 04:31, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete fails WP:SOLDIER and WP:GNG. Mztourist (talk) 07:45, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weak keep In addition to Hog Farm's coverage, he's also listed as a notable new yorker in the past, gets two (ish) pages in Conflagration: How the Transcendentalists Sparked the American Struggle for Racial, Gender, and Social Justice and had a button collection that was apparently well regarded, a one-paragraph obituary in the NYT, and (modern) Boston globe article. His main work appears to be held in 331 libraries, and the reprint in 484 which is decent, and it seems to be rather widely cited on top of that. I think that's enough to scrape by NPERSON or maybe NSOLDIER #8, as his book and collections are well regarded. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 14:56, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment Also, coverage in A Companion to the U.S. Civil War and African American Women During the Civil War and Civil War Times Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep

 (1) One expects consistency in notability.  There are plenty of entries of lesser notability. Here are three Wikipedia entries associated with the 54th which are of same or lesser notability (First sergeants or Corporals):  [George E. Stephens]  [Robert John Simmons]  [James Henry Gooding]  
 (2) Emilio intermittently commanded the 54th after the assault on Fort Wagner, so he was intermittently the regimental commander and effectively a colonel: From Robert Gould Shaw:  "The command [the 54th] came with a colonelcy, the rank commensurate with the position of regimental commander." 
 (3) More external entries: Wikia.org Written in Glory All Biographies Alchetron.com WikiVisually.com
 (4) Worldcat Identity Entry Works:	34 works in 110 publications in 3 languages and 1,607 library holdings.  
 (5) The catalog of the button collection, "The Emilio Collection Of Military Buttons: American, British, French And Spanish, With Some Of Other Countries, And Non-military, In The Museum Of The ... Catalog With Historical Notes And Ten Plates", is in print; shows as being reprinted at August 8, 2015, on Emilio Collection...
 Combined with Hog Farm and Eddie891's coverage, this gets him by NPERSON or NSOLDIER #8, or both.--Kab42edit --Kab42edit (talk) 00:39, 16 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) 04:15, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, MBisanz ^talk 03:40, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was keep. After apportioning appropriate weight to the relative strength of each argument, it is apparent that there is a clear consensus that the article meets the guidelines on notability and hence that it should be kept.
I will also take this opportunity to note that the conduct of a number of editors in this discussion appears to fall short of Wikipedia’s policies on casting aspersions and assuming good faith, so this may be a timely reminder to review and understand those policies, and to make the discussion about notability and policies, not the motivations of others. Now, let us all go forth and build an encyclopedia. (non-admin closure) Jack Frost (talk) 04:10, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Jim Browning (YouTuber)[edit]

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

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

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

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

Fails WP:GNG and WP:ENTERTAINER. While he has been featured in a BBC television episode, this does not confer automatic notability per WP:ONEEVENT. Unfortunately, in 2020, being a YouTube creator with one million subscribers does not make the creator especially notable. KidAd (talk) 02:59, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep Can't say I agree with you. Over 24 videos with 1M+ viewcounts, over half of those with 2M+, and peaking at 8M+ views. Separate articles on him by BBC, CBS, The Times, and The AV Club. Meets point 3: "unique, prolific or innovative contributions to a field of entertainment". 70.79.244.121 (talk) 05:15, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Social media numbers show popularity, but not notability, which is not the same thing. Naleksuh (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Northern Ireland-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 03:10, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: There are at least some news articles covering Jim prior to the Amit Chauhan affair, namely this Engadget article, this one from CBS News, another BBC item, this one from Boing Boing, and this one from A.V. Club. I think I made the mistake of over-emphasizing the BBC coverage when there's plenty more to it than just the ONEEVENT issue you brought up. Whether the sources I linked to is enough to establish notability or not is all entirely up to your consensus. Blake Gripling (talk) 05:19, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Weak Keep In comparison to articles such as Kitboga (streamer) and such, Jim Browning can easily be perceived as more notable due to around the same coverage and of course the BBC documentary. Disclosure of conflict of interest, that I am semi-involved in scam-baiting community myself, but is my personal encylopedic opinion (also note that social media numbers are popularity, not notability). Naleksuh (talk) 05:45, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep I feel that subscribers shouldn't be the only basis of merit. Yes he has over a Million, which even YouTube itself classifies as a large milestone, but that isn't what he is about. Jim Browning represents the potential good in this world, he is a symbol that we can fight scammers and that with enough pressure, law enforcement and corporations around the world will listen to the people and help stop these scams. Jim has earned his status as Notable with his efforts. The BBC along with hundreds of other media outlets worldwide released articles on his actions, including new podcasts coming out soon. There are plenty who have articles on Wikipedia or deserve it much less than the great Jim Browning and anyone who stumbles upon his article is hopefully another who can be made aware of what is happening and be one less person at risk of being scammed.SpitefulBatman (talk) 05:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC) — SpitefulBatman (talk • contribs) has made few or no other edits outside this topic. [reply]
Keep, first of all, the keep votes above do nothing but ramble on in the vein of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS and WP:ILIKEIT and make no claim to notability, but I do think this guy passes GNG. He has received significant coverage in numerous sources, such as: YouTuber Breaks The Law To Protect People From Scammers, Robocall revenge: Meet the techies turning the tables on scammers, and Tech scammers try to rip off hacker, get their CCTV cameras and computers hacked in response, in addition to the sources brought up by Blake Gripling which easily assuage any BLP1E problems. These sources are enough to pass GNG. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep. While a lot of the more recent coverage relates to the BBC Panorama program of Mar 2020 (and that is not insignificant spanning UK national outlets like the BBC, Belfast Telegraph, The Times, etc), there are also examples of broad coverage before then (eg: in the US in Jun 2019 on CBS and CBS affiliates, etc). In the majority of coverage, either the subject is the focus of the title or the focus of the piece. As such, I'm not sure that BLP1E or "passing mentions" can be taken to apply. Mine is a "keep" recommendation. Guliolopez (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment This was likely flagged for deletion by the scammers Jim Browning tries to take down. No violation or reason for deletion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bornunderamerrystar (talk • contribs)
- Comment: The user you're referring to is from California and has been doing contributions for the past few years. Judging from his userspace I doubt he has any, if at all, connections to the scammers Jim has been butting heads with. Blake Gripling (talk) 03:19, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Thank you. I can confirm that I am neither Indian nor a phone scammer. KidAd (talk) 06:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    - What prompted you to target this specific article? 137.82.233.57 (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - I have the same query. Stopped editing Wiki for almost ten years. Have to come in today just to ask, what is so wrong with this article that prompted you to specifically nominate a deletion flag? Please refer to Wikipedia:Notability, reliable sources are there, with 11 references from various media, i don't see any point for article deletion. Cocoma (talk) 18:40, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        User:Cocoma and many other editors who have defaced this discussion with baseless accusations, I will remind you that Casting aspersions is a violation of policy. KidAd was well within his rights to nominate this article for deletion, and I can personally attest I have far more confidence in his editing acumen and good intentions than that of the people throwing around accusations. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:41, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - To unregistered users, IPs, and individuals who have been away from Wikipedia for a significant amount of time: please remember to WP:AGF. If you consider this deletion discussion to be a personal attack on a youtube person you like, then I'm sorry you feel that way. I would suggest that individuals cease casting WP:ASPERSIONS and continue discussing the notability of the page's subject with neutrality and civility. KidAd (talk) 18:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        KidAd, you are getting defensive here and not answering a legitimate query on the ground for article deletion. The initial reason provided "in 2020, being a YouTube creator with one million subscribers does not make the creator especially notable" is not in line with Wikipedia:Neutral point of view (Read Words to watch, which shows your inference of the lack of credibility because of the assumption you made). This is what prompted several users here asking on the rationale. Cocoma (talk) 07:58, 3 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
      - You were asked a valid question, what prompted it. People want to understand your point of view. SpitefulBatman (talk) 22:51, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep The references in the article show a number of articles about him and his hacking of call centres. I dont see any reason the article should be deleted UnseenSteve (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Strong Keep Pretty sure KidAd is new to White hack industry. This guy is notable enough in the community, and deserve the strong keep. Cocoma (talk) 18:24, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep in agreement with the coverage cited as fulfilling the GNG Qwaiiplayer (talk) 19:01, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep for all the reasons above. Some of the coverage is passing or short descriptions of videos but much of it, e.g. the Belfast Telegraph article, are more significant and establish notability. Procyonidae (talk) 01:37, 4 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Speedy Keep significant coverage from BBC and CBS (one year before). Trout for the nom and anyone not assuming good faith. An important proverb; always open Pandora's box with extreme care. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PainProf (talk • contribs) 23:14, 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 withdrawn by nominator (non-admin closure). Raymie (t • c) 06:30, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:Goat curry[edit]

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

This has been an article for 15 years and there is only one reference and a few edits. It should be deleted. Ghinga7 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Food and drink-related deletion discussions. Ghinga7 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of India-related deletion discussions. Ghinga7 (talk) 02:51, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose Way premature. You made no comment on the article and jumped straight to deletion. Tagging for needing citations would be the first move. MartinezMD (talk) 02:57, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I considered doing that, @User:MartinezMD, but I ultimately decided that there was no way it could be improved. It was my understanding that you did not need to say on the talk page that the article failed general notability guidelines before you nominated it. Therefore, I do not believe this is premature and am keeping it up for discussion.

Did you even try to search for sources? I found 5 in the past few minutes. MartinezMD (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep: The deletion rationale is incorrect. "Goat curry" was created as a redirect to "Curry" in 2005. An editor turned the redirect into an article less than a day ago, so it has not "been an article for 15 years". There are two references currently on the page that look legitimate to me: an NPR report and a book called Farming Meat Goats. I also see coverage in Food Anxiety in Globalising Vietnam, plus lots of recipe and travel books. I don't understand the rationale for delete. — Toughpigs (talk) 03:31, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I added that one a little bit ago, as well as an additional 4 more. MartinezMD (talk) 03:37, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

About the redirect: Oops. Guess I missed that. It should probably have an {{Under construction}} tag, though. It looks better, but still has work to do. I am going to withdraw this for now, though. Ghinga7 (talk) 04:05, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was no consensus. It's been ten days, and sources found by Cunard have not been challenged. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 18:35, 9 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Guild of Music Supervisors Awards[edit]

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

Niche awards show with no assertion of notability. All references are churnalistic re-reporting on press releases. Yes it exists and has nominal coverage in reliable sources, but it's not significant coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Additional info uncovered since relist: The sources in the article are literally copy and pasted press releases distributed by the organization itself. For example, this Billboard source in the article is completely identical to this Hollywood Reporter article. Another source in the article has language directly copied from the GOMS website, suggesting that it's also copied from a press release. Press releases are self-published sources per WP:SPS and do not confer notability. Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Film-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Music-related deletion discussions. Axem Titanium (talk) 20:16, 23 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep as it is significant enough to be covered in reliable sources such as Billboard, Variety and Hollywood Reporter as shown in the article, in my view Atlantic306 (talk) 21:10, 24 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- I don't see lightly edited duplicates of press releases as "significant coverage" as defined at WP:GNG. Per WP:NEWSORG, re-reporting of press releases is "churnalism" and does not count as a reliable source. Axem Titanium (talk) 00:06, 25 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete per Axem Titanium—I am not seeing significant coverage. Churnalism should not count for notability. b uidhe 21:44, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Natg 19 (talk) 22:58, 30 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No evidence at all presented that the coverage is from press releases, they look to be bylined pieces and the Hollywood Reporter piece is from a correspondent at the awards so its not churnalism at all while the Variety piece focuses on the racial aspect that the other sources do not mention. If the awards are notable enough to be covered in reliable sources then we should include them, imv Atlantic306 (talk) 21:35, 31 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- From WP:NEWSORG, "Press releases from the organizations or journals are often used by newspapers with minimal change; such sources are churnalism and should not be treated differently than the underlying press release." The presence of a byline does not automatically grant immunity to charges of churnalism. The main deletion rationale is lack of notability. Merely reporting on nominees and winners establishes that it exists but confers no claim of notability, nor is it significant coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 16:16, 1 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Relisted per Wikipedia:Deletion review/Log/2020 June 13.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Sandstein 06:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep and pretty easily, gets significant coverage from Billboard, Variety, Hollywood Reporter, and the coverage is by staff writers. The article just needs improvement, but clearly passes WP:GNG. (Came here after the DRV, but still wanted to comment.) SportingFlyer T·C 07:10, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- @SportingFlyer: Can you comment on the fact that most of the coverage from those sources you listed are copy and pasted from each other or press releases (see my new AFD rationale above)? Axem Titanium (talk) 07:51, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  - Just because a couple sources you've found appear to be reprints doesn't mean that all of the coverage received by the event was reprinted. For instance, [75] brought up only the Billboard article, [76] appears to be original reporting as well, and there's a few other articles quite like that. Easily passes WP:GNG. SportingFlyer T·C 17:01, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete — it’s as Buidhe said, churnalism shouldn’t indeed count for notability. Celestina007 (talk) 14:04, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment for now: The "Billboard" article singled out as copy/paste is actually listed as a piece written by THR. They are the "Billboard-Hollywood Reporter Media Group" after all. So it's definitiely not an additional independent source, but it's not necessarily from a press release. It could be from someone in attendence, though I dont know why they weren't credited. Just wanted to point that out. -2pou (talk) 14:12, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article as it stands isn't great, and the sources in aren't great, but you also have sources that aren't in the article that clearly show notability. SportingFlyer T·C 04:26, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Where? If material exists we can use to put together a well-sourced, balanced, informative article, I will reverse my !vote. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've linked two above which are clearly staff-written articles from major magazines which cover the event. There are more articles like those, even though the sources in the Wikipedia article aren't great. SportingFlyer T·C 20:03, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This is progress, but it falls short of what I want. Yes, this does not look like copy-paste reporting. The first link does contain relevant material about the award, namely the 3 sentences "The Guild of Music Supervisors was founded in 2010. Its first awards were presented in a restaurant on the morning of the Grammy Awards. In 10 years, it has moved up to this venerable theater." but this falls well short of what is generally regarded as significant coverage on AfD. The second contains significant coverage, and the quote "This award means the world to me because it’s recognition from the people who know all the behind-the-scenes details of what a music supervisor does" is suggestive that the award is held in regard, but given that this is said by a recipient I rather discount it. It helps answer none of the specific example questions I asked in my delete rationale. I'm softening, but I'm still in the delete camp. — Charles Stewart (talk) 04:46, 26 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete - Regardless of where the information in the press articles came from, they do not provide a basis for reliably sourcing the key information such an article should provide: who organises the award, how the jury is selected, the history of the award, etc. (FWIW, the award page has a broken link to a page on the https://www.guildofmusicsupervisors.com/ site, but we have no article on this organisation). What is claimed to be verifiable in this article is not encyclopediac; cf. WP:INDISCRIMINATE. — Charles Stewart (talk) 16:30, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Comment - This is a case where I think a pass/fail reading of the GNG tends to obscure the wood for the trees. Yes, the news venues the sources appear are ones that we will have reason to use. No, the content of those sources does not help us write a Wikipedia article worth having. I think it is churnalism, but quite right, no one here is privy to how these sausages got made so this hasn't been proven. But the whole article as it stands rings big verifiability alarm bells for me. We do not even have an article on the organisation behind the award: how do we know the whole enterprise is not a PR exercise? Until we have a different kind of well-sourced content, I think we are better off without this article. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Question - Should I advertise this AfD on Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard? It seems to me that the issue at hand is relevant. — Charles Stewart (talk) 06:50, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
- Be my guest. This discussion was trying to put together a guideline for proper sourcing (particularly defining "significant coverage") for awards but it died on the vine. I certainly don't believe WP:ROUTINE coverage of award winners/nominees qualifies as significant coverage. Axem Titanium (talk) 17:55, 25 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep per the significant coverage in multiple independent reliable sources.

Chagollan, Steve (2013-03-03). "Add a Song, Make a Movie". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
Amter, Charlie; Herman, James Patrick (2020-02-04). "Music Supervisors to Watch: 10 Tastemakers Soundtracking Today's Top Shows and Films". Variety. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
Herman, James Patrick (2020-02-07). "Guild of Music Supervisors Awards: Regina Spektor, 'Euphoria' Among Winners (Full List)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
Grein, Paul (2020-02-07). "'Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood' Honored at Guild of Music Supervisors Awards". Billboard. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
Gallo, Phil (2011-12-17). "Sound Factories". Billboard. Retrieved 2020-06-27.

Sources with quotes

Chagollan, Steve (2013-03-03). "Add a Song, Make a Movie". The New York Times. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
The article notes:
WEST HOLLYWOOD, Calif. — The Guild of Music Supervisors gathered here a few weeks ago for its third annual awards. And judging by the turnout, it will need a much bigger venue for next year’s event.
Jammed into a tent atop the London hotel on a blustery evening, the affair had ballooned to three times the size of the Guild’s first ceremony, in 2011, when 150 people showed up for brunch. The event’s increasing popularity served as a reminder that these professionals often act as gatekeepers in the all-important business of placing songs in movies and television shows.
Many nonsupervisors in the room — publishers, label executives and assorted catalog holders, even Oscar-nominated songwriters — were looking to curry favor with notable music supervisors like Alexandra Patsavas (the “Twilight” movies). Others simply wanted to show solidarity with members of the three-year-old organization, many of whom feel underappreciated by a Hollywood establishment that might not understand what they do.
Amter, Charlie; Herman, James Patrick (2020-02-04). "Music Supervisors to Watch: 10 Tastemakers Soundtracking Today's Top Shows and Films". Variety. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
The article notes:
In the ten years since the Guild of Music Supervisors was formed, the organization has come a long way. Granted, the job still involves low pay, long hours and little respect, but at least the craft has been validated with Grammy and Emmy categories introduced by the Recording Academy and the Television Academy, respectively. The GMS has its own presence during awards season, as it hosts its own annual awards ceremony on Feb. 6 at the Wiltern Theatre in Los Angeles. (Quite the upgrade for an event that initially consisted of brunch and four trophies held on Grammy morning.)
In addition to celebrating excellence in sonic storytelling across 16 categories — from film and TV to games and advertising to trailers and emerging media — the organization will honor prolific composer and songwriter Burt Bacharach with the Icon Award. Bob Hunka, a veteran music executive and soundtrack pioneer for Sony Pictures Television who also ran publishing companies for Dolly Parton and Emmylou Harris, will receive the Legacy Award.
Herman, James Patrick (2020-02-07). "Guild of Music Supervisors Awards: Regina Spektor, 'Euphoria' Among Winners (Full List)". Variety. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
The article notes:
The entertainment industry’s “unsung heroes” — as Quentin Tarantino has described Mary Ramos for her significant contribution to his entire filmography — celebrated the outstanding achievements of their peers at the 10th annual Guild of Music Supervisors Awards on Thursday night at the Wiltern. And who can blame these hardworking but vastly underpaid professionals for tooting their own horns since the Motion Picture Academy refuses to validate their work with an Oscar category? Coincidentally, the winners also helped to shine a light on critically acclaimed films featuring black casts (“Queen & Slim,” “Waves,” “The Last Black Man in San Francisco”) that were snubbed by the Academy, much like music supervisors themselves.
The big news of the night: Women rock! Unlike every other Hollywood award show, the majority of winners — 12 out of 16 categories, in fact — were female. (But then this may be the only guild that has nearly achieved gender parity among members and women outnumber men as board members.) ...
... Emmylou Harris made a surprise appearance to serenade veteran music exec Bob Hunka, the guild’s Legacy Award recipient. But just a few lyrics in, Harris had to stop and start again after realizing that her guitar was unplugged. “I’m a star and I never plug in my own guitar,” she joked.
Grein, Paul (2020-02-07). "'Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood' Honored at Guild of Music Supervisors Awards". Billboard. Archived from the original on 2020-06-27. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
The article notes:
Quentin Tarantino's Once Upon a Time… in Hollywood was among the top winners at the 10th Annual Guild of Music Supervisors Awards at The Wiltern in Los Angeles on Thursday night (Feb. 6). The event celebrates achievements in the craft of music supervision in film, television, games, advertising and trailers.
...
"One Little Soldier" from Bombshell was voted best song written and/or recorded for a film. Regina Spektor wrote and performed the song in the highly topical film about sexual harassment at Fox News.
...
Bacharach performed what many consider to be his finest song, "Alfie," which he and Hal David co-wrote for the 1966 film of the same name.
...
Presenters included Kristen Chenoweth, Michael Bolton, Peter Gallagher and director Jay Roach, the director of Bombshell and three Austin Powers films in which Bacharach had cameos.
...
The Guild of Music Supervisors was founded in 2010. Its first awards were presented in a restaurant on the morning of the Grammy Awards. In 10 years, it has moved up to this venerable theater.
Gallo, Phil (2011-12-17). "Sound Factories". Billboard. Retrieved 2020-06-27.
The article notes:
In 2010 the new Guild of Music Supervisors made a high-profile debut. There was an awards ceremony, a party to celebrate supervisors on TV shows and a lobbying campaign to create an Emmy Award for music supervision.
Now entering its second year, guild president Maureen Crowe says the organization, which hopes to have 125 members by year's end, is planning a second awards event—most likely during Grammy Week—and working to establish a presence at the upcoming Film Independent Spirit Awards.
...
The group also continues to expand its educational outreach. Its primary aim is to place music supervisors on par with other behind-the-scenes jobs in film and TV while elevating the quality of music in numerous visual mediums. ...
The article contains an interview with Guild of Music Supervisors president Maureen Crowe.

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

Cunard (talk) 10:07, 27 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Relisting comment: Given the DRV and extensive discussion of sources after the second relist, further discussion might help determine consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 02:00, 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. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:50, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kami (app)[edit]

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

Clearly non-notable Notable PDF :) Light2021 (talk) 06:36, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Companies-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of New Zealand-related deletion discussions. Shellwood (talk) 06:44, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Does not need a Wikipedia article. Seems to be a promo. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashishkafle (talk • contribs) 14:33, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Why do you think the subject is non-notable? The article cites many reliable, independent sources that provide substantial coverage. HenryCrun15 (talk) 21:06, 21 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It lacks Corporate Depth, coverage are usual press and nothing substantial. Article has mentioned Angel.co, Crunchbase as a source which is like having Facebook profile for any company. At this time, it is not enough notable, in future it might become notable and at that time it should be part of wikipedia for sure. Currently it does not hold that value. Light2021 (talk) 09:27, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Typical startup. Fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND. scope_creep^Talk 10:43, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep But make draft. Anecdotally, I'd be inclined to say Keep, as being local to NZ I have heard about this company. However but can't find any examples of deep, non-trivial tertiary coverage that goes beyond press releases, routine announcements and things like non-notable award nominations. I would say they are very nearly notable and AfD is a bit extreme. I vote to keep the the article with the proviso that it is DRAFT, giving time to establish notability.Kieran21 (talk)

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Barkeep49 (talk) 01:46, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Keep. Another independent article has been published in the last few days and cited. TBH, I don't have strong feelings about it, but it's notability is increasing so I'm leaning to keep. Nurg (talk) 10:46, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Keep per additional sources added by Nurg.-gadfium 19:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete Not a single reference meets the criteria for establishing notability and the article suffers from WP:CITEKILL. Just about all of the references are based on PR and company announcements. There are 21 references in the article. Note that references must contain Independent Content and therefore must include original and independent opinion, analysis, investigation, and fact checking that are clearly attributable to a source unaffiliated to the subject. Excluding Primary sources and blogs (which fail WP:RS) and articles explicitly marked as Press Releases which obviously fail the criteria for establishing notability:
- This is a listing in angel.co based on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- Tech Republic interview with company founders fails WP:ORGIND
- Life Hacker review of the product doesn't mention the company (the topic of this article) and fails WP:CORPDEPTH
- ComputerWorld (archived copy) reference is based on a company announcement. Exact same quotes from Wang can be also seen in this reference. Fails WP:ORGIND
- This TechInAsia reference only contains information on the company which was provided by a founder, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- This from NBR is based on a company announcement and information from their website and interview, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from NZ Herald is based on an interview/announcement, fails WP:ORGIND
- Stuff reference is more PR based on an interview with the Chairman, fails WP:ORGIND
- This from Tech (archived copy) is based on a company announcement of funding and has almost no information on the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:ORGIND
- This from NZ Herald is based on a company announcement of funding (also covered in this story) and relies entirely on information provided by the company, fails WP:ORGIND
- This is NZ Herald is an interview with the CEO, fails WP:ORGIND
- This review of the product has no information about the company, fails WP:CORPDEPTH
Wikipedia is not a platform for promotion or a Yellow Pages. While the references show that the company has engaged with press and has a functioning marketing department, there are no references that meet the criteria for establishing notability as per WP:NCORP. Topic fails GNG/NCORP. HighKing⁺⁺ 13:32, 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) 22:29, 7 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Life and liberty party[edit]

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

Does not meet WP:GNG - no significant coverage by reliable sources DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Politics-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United States of America-related deletion discussions. DannyS712 (talk) 01:04, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's also no sources other than their own website and another wiki. We have lots of little political parties, the fact that they exist doesn't necessarily mean they merit an article, at least right now. - Sumanuil (talk) 04:35, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete no indepdent 3rd party sourcing at all. Wikipedia is not meant to be a ballotopedia mirror.John Pack Lambert (talk) 20:07, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Delete as non-notable. No significant third-party sources found. --Lockley (talk) 04:36, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

The result was 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 ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AIW Absolute Championship[edit]

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

Fails WP:PWCHAMP. Non-notable title for a non-notable promotion. See Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIW Intense Championship and Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/AIW Tag Team Championship. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Sports-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Wrestling-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Ohio-related deletion discussions. JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 00:50, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete Same case of Intense and Tag Team titles. The promotion isn't notable, the title isn't notable. --HHH Pedrigree (talk) 10:50, 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 redirect to Optare#Buses. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 00:48, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Optare Rapta[edit]

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

Non notable bus that was never actually produced. No sources found to establish notability. SK2242 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Transportation-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Note: This discussion has been included in the list of United Kingdom-related deletion discussions. SK2242 (talk) 21:55, 22 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relisted to generate a more thorough discussion and clearer consensus.
Please add new comments below this notice. Thanks, Eternal Shadow Talk 00:38, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delete the sources cited don't demonstrate that the subject meets the notability guidelines. Other sources on the internet (e.g. [77], [78]) aren't reliable, aren't independent or don't provide significant coverage. Might be worth redirecting to Optare#Buses. Hut 8.5 19:30, 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.

[leavens2015-1] Leavens, Gary T.; Naumann, David A. (August 2015). "Behavioral subtyping, specification inheritance, and modular reasoning". ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems. 37 (4). doi:10.1145/2766446.

[2] Paper written on the nightcore community by a MPhil/PhD Music graduate — Winston, Emma (2017). "Nightcore and the Virtues of Virtuality". Brief Encounters. 1 (1). Goldsmiths, University of London. doi:10.24134/be.v1i1.20.

[3] Book on new technology [chiefly internet] and music, with Nightcore being a central topic of chapter 5 — Frankel, Emile (2019-10-25). "Chapter 5: Chimeric Flesh and the Hyper-Child". Hearing the Cloud: Can Music Help Reimagine The Future?. John Hunt Publishing. ISBN 978-1-78-535839-5.

[4] Romanian paper on Nightcore (may need proper translator though) — Popa, Dan (2017). "NIGHTCORE: VARIAȚIA ELEMENTELOR SUPRASEGMENTALE ȘI IMPLICAȚIILE EI COMUNICAȚIONALE" [NIGHTCORE: VARIATION OF SUPRASEGMENTAL ELEMENTS AND ITS COMMUNICATIVE IMPLICATIONS] (PDF). Studii şi cercetări ştiinţifice. Seria filologie [Scientific Studies and Research. Philological Series] (in Romanian) (37). Vasile Alecsandri University of Bacău: 193.

[5] Lovecraft, H. P. (August 20, 2009) [written 1934–1935]. The Shadow Out of Time. Donovan K. Loucks. Archived from the original on May 11, 2020.

[6] ttps://books.google.co.uk/books?id=vwEoDwAAQBAJ&pg=PA461&lpg=PA461&dq=association+of+behavior+analysis+Outstanding+Contribution+Award+for+International+Development+by+the+Association+for+Behavior+Analysis&source=bl&ots=bvDa8Pwanr&sig=ACfU3U3G6FBd6fDj9qnOHJz0U3-lgZ5vjQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiHmrC_3pTqAhUTURUIHfgODUsQ6AEwAXoECAMQAQ#v=onepage&q=association%20of%20behavior%20analysis%20Outstanding%20Contribution%20Award%20for%20International%20Development%20by%20the%20Association%20for%20Behavior%20Analysis&f=false. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[7] ttps://www.en.annsullivanperu.org/our-team/judith-leblanc/. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[8] ttps://www.researchgate.net/publication/301641497_South_America_A_Service_Example_from_Lima_Peru. {{cite web}}: Missing or empty |title= (help)

[9] Tommy Wright III (2020-05-25). Princess Loko Dies at age 40 and Remembered by Tommy Wright III (Motion picture). Event occurs at 16:50. I think about the magazines, the stuff that we was in when we was young [sic]

[10] Tommy Wright III (2020-05-25). Princess Loko Dies at age 40 and Remembered by Tommy Wright III (Motion picture). Event occurs at 17:30. It's a lot of things we did; being on some of these—know what I'm saying—tele shows... [sic]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[1]

[2]

[3]

[1]

[2]